HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20080616 - Transfer Station 1 APPROVED 9/2/2008
2
3 MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 TRANSFER STATION SITING WORK SESSION
6 June 16, 2008
7 7:30 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Transfer Station Siting Work
10 Session on Monday, June 16, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in
11 Chapel Hill, N.C.
12
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Moses
14 Carey, Jr., Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Mike Nelson
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
16 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geof Gledhill
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County
18 Manager Gwen Harvey and Willie Best, and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff
19 members will be identified appropriately below)
20
21 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
22 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
23
24 Chair Jacobs pointed out the items at the County Commissioners' places—the adopted
25 exclusionary criteria; comments from a citizen, Tracy Kuhlman, regarding items on the agenda
26 (pink); and Commissioner Gordon distributed two hand outs: one was for Transfer Station
27 Siting Criteria for Technical Criteria and one was Transfer Station Siting Criteria for Community
28 Specific Criteria. Commissioner Gordon's hand outs are given below.
29
30 Transfer Station Siting Criteria for Technical Criteria
31
32 Technical Criteria
33 (Note criteria that are related to each other) Weight Proposed Change
34
35 1. Central Location to Collection Routes 10
36
37 2. Access to Major Transportation Routes 10
38
39 3. Parcel Size and Availability 10
40 (overall site size -#3, 6, 7)
41 4. Sufficient Space for On-site Roadways, 5
42 Queuing, and Parking
43 (sufficient site size -#4, 8)
44 5. Truck and Traffic Compatibility 10 For the safety of bicyclists, include
45 the priority bicycle routes in the
46 technical criteria, as
47 recommended
48 by the OUTBoard. The plan for
49 Priority Bicycle Transportation
50 Routes
51 was adopted by the BOCC, and it
1
1 identified primary
2 priority bicycle
3 routes for safety
4 improvements.
5
6 6. Ability for Expansion 5 Combine#6 and#7 and give a
7 (overall site size - #3, 6, 7) weight of 5 for the combination
8
9 7. Space for Recycling, Cmm000tOg. 5 Same change as for#6 -
10 and Public Education Both #6 and #7 equate to Space for
11 (overall site size -#3, 6, 7) Additional Facilities
12 (related to overall site size)
13
14 8. Buffer Space 5
15 (sufficient site size -#4, 8)
16
17 S. Gently Sloping Topography 5
18
19 10. Access to Utilities 5 Change weight to 10-
20 Access to public water and sewer is
21 very important with a large volume of
22 water and effluent
23 11. Zoning Designations and 5
24 Requirements
25
26 12. Carbon Footprint 5
27 (environment: air quality -#12, 13)
28
29 13. Sites Outside of Protected Watershed 5 Add this criterion - It is important
30 Overlay Districts to consider this environmental
31 (environment: water quality -#12, 13) criterion which was discussed as a
32 potential exclusionary criterion
33
34
35
36 Transfer Station Siting Criteria for Community Specific Criteria
37
38 Community Specific Criteria
39 Weight Proposed
40 Change
41
42 1. Environmental Justice Considerations 15
43
44 2. Impact on Air Quality 10
45
46 3. Impact on the Local Infrastructure 5 Change weight to 10
47 and rank using the
48 two factors that are
49 proposed:
50
51 Impact on Utilities (weight 5)
1 and
2 Impact on Roads (weight 5)
3
4 4. Adjacent Land Uses 15
5
6 5. Proximity to Schools, Churches, 15
7 and Recreation Sites
8
9 6. Number of Residents Impacted 15
10
11 7. Presence of Natural Buffers 10
12
13 8. Impacts on Existing Businesses 10
14
15 9. Buffer Zones and Screening 5
16 Measures
17
18 10. Traffic Compatibility 10
19
20 11. Impact on Historical or Cultural 10
.21 Features
22
23 12. Cost Consideration 5
24
25
26
27
28
29 Chair Jacobs said that the Board made it clear that it wanted to get this done,tonight
30 instead of having a Transfer Station meeting on June 24th at 5:30 p.m. Unless anyone objects,
31 he is going to make sure that this meeting keeps moving.
32 Commissioner Gordon said that the Board needs to see the final exclusionary criteria
33 before it meets.
34
35 1. Call to Order/Introductions/Opening Comments
36 Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey said that the agenda has the next two building
37 blocks in the scenario for evaluating potential transfer station sites. The last meeting was the
38 adoption of the exclusionary criteria, and the intention of tonight's meeting is to walk through the
39 technical criteria and community-specific criteria. There will still be public comment and public
40 information submitted. She recognized Ed Schuffler and Bob Sallach from Olver, Inc.
41
42
43 2. Review Preliminary Technical Criteria: Olver, Inc. Professional Recommendation,
44 Preliminary Technical Criteria—Working Document, and Technical Criteria Evaluation
45 Example
46 (See Attachment# 1 —A, B, and C)
47
48 Ed Shuffler made reference to Attachment 1-a and said that he would go through the
49 definitions. The purpose of his presentation was to explain the material and get comments from
50 the commissioners and the public.
51
3
1 1. CENTRAL LOCATION TO COLLECTION ROUTES
2 Consideration: To maximize waste collection efficiency, transfer stations should be located
3 centrally to waste collection routes. As a rule of thumb in urban and suburban
4 areas, transfer stations should be no more than 12 miles away from the end of all
5 collection routes. Beyond that distance, collection routes might need to be altered
6 to enable refuse to be collected and deposited at the transfer station within one
7 operating shift.
8
9 Definition: Road mile distance measured from proposed site to waste generation centroid
10 —2025 Mean Center(weighted by population and employment).
11
12 Application:
13
14 Site with shortest road mile distance from the centroid will be ranked highest. Distance will be
15 measured using most direct route to proposed site. Route may be comprised of interstates,
16 highways, major arterials, and street or roadway connectors.
17
18 Weighting Factors:
19
20 Importance:
21
22 0 Very Important
23
24 Value:
25 • 10
26
27 Commissioner Gordon pointed out that in "consideration" it should say 12 miles instead of
28 10 miles. The change was made.
29
30 2. ACCESS TO MAJOR TRANSPORTATION ROUTES
31 Consideration: The transfer station should have direct and convenient access to truck routes,
32 major arterials, and highways. Access to rail would also afford additional transfer
33 and disposal flexibility in the future. It is preferable to avoid routing collection and
34 transfer vehicle traffic through residential subdivision areas because traffic
35 generated by transfer stations contributes to congestion; increases risk to
36 pedestrians; increases air emissions, noise, and wear on roads; and might
37 contribute to litter problems.
38
39 Definition: Direct or convenient access to truck routes, major arterials, highways, and/or
40 potential rail or intermodel access. Major truck routes, arterials, and highways will be defined as
41 15-501, NC 54, NC 86 (excluding NC 86 north of Hillsborough), US 70, 1-40, or 1-85.
42
43 Application:
44
45 Site with most direct or convenient access to truck routes, major arterials, and highways will be
46 ranked highest. Street or roadway connectors must accommodate through traffic with the
47 following functional requirements: Parking — restricted (no parking on road); Major Intersections
48 —traffic signals & cross street stops; Posted Speed Limit—35-45 MPH; and Truck Traffic
49 unrestricted. Potential rail access will be used to further differentiate site rankings (e.g., sites
4
1 with a lower truck access ranking that have rail access will be reevaluated in terms of final
2 technical ranking.)
3
4 Weighting Factors:
5 Importance:
6 • Very Important
7
8 Value:
9 • 10
10
11
12 Commissioner Gordon said that she had the Clerk email Ed Schuffler and Bob Sallach a
13 question. Bob Sallach said that they wanted to discuss this further first and they are proposing
14 with this criteria, that if an alternative has a ranking of 5 or 6 and it also has rail access, the
15 ranking should be bumped up to the next order, because there should be some importance to
16 having rail access.
17 Discussion ensued about how a site with rail access would be rated higher.
18 Chair Jacobs suggested that the wording in #2 should be "increases."
19
20
21 3. PARCEL SIZE AND AVAILABILITY
22
23 Consideration: The area required for specific transfer stations varies significantly, depending
24 on the volume of waste to be transferred, rates at which waste will be delivered,
25 the functions to be carried out at the site, and the types of customers the facility is
26 intended to serve. Locating a site of sufficient size is critical to operating
27 efficiencies and minimizing impacts on the surrounding community.
28
29 Definition: The minimum site size to be initially considered will be 25 acres as
30 established under the Exclusionary Criteria. Co-location sites with other municipal facilities or
31 operations of less than 25 acres will be considered provided that transportation access, buffers,
32 and preliminary transfer station layout and roadway configurations demonstrate the adequacy of
33 a smaller site.
34
35 Ed Shuffler said that they are now looking at the number of parcels and if a site was freely
36 offered, it would be ranked higher. This suggestion was taken from public comment and County
37 Commissioners' comments.
38
39 Application:
40
41 Single parcel, freely offered, sites will be ranked highest.
42
43 Weighting Factors:
44
45 Importance:
46 • Very Important
47
48 Value:
49 10
50
5
1 4. SUFFICIENT SPACE FOR ON-SITE ROADWAYS, QUEUING, AND PARKING
2 Consideration: Transfer stations typically have on-site roadways to move vehicles around
3 various parts of the transfer site. Waste collection trucks can be up to 40 feet long.
4 Transfer trailers that move waste to a disposal facility are typically 50 to 70 feet
5 long. These vehicles need wide roadways with gradual slopes and curves to
6 maneuver efficiently and safely. Also, the site will need space for parking transfer
7 vehicles and to allow incoming and outgoing traffic to form lines without backing up
8 onto public roads.
9
10 Definition: On-site roadways and maneuvering areas will meet the following minimum
11 requirements: down slope vehicle ramps must be less than 10%; upward sloped ramps must be
12 less than 6%; roadway widths for collection vehicle and transfer vehicle traffic must be 24 feet;
13 inbound and outbound collection vehicle queuing (in front of scale) must accommodate 4
14 vehicles with provisions for a double stack using bypass or outbound lanes (i.e., stage 8
15 inbound collection vehicles); queuing for 4 transfer vehicles including trailers positioned under
16 load-out hoppers; staff parking for 5 vehicles plus 2 visitors; and trailer storage for 4 to 6 units.
17
18 Application:
19.
20 The site that lends itself to the most efficient design in terms of roadway geometry and layout
21 will be ranked highest. Roadway widths, maximum slopes, number of lanes, turning radius, and
22 traffic flow pattern will be considered.
23
24 Weighting Factors:
25
26 Importance:
27
28 • Important
29
30 Value:
31 • 5
32
33
34 5. TRUCK AND TRAFFIC COMPATIBILITY
35
36 Consideration: Transfer stations often receive surges of traffic when collection vehicles have
37 finished their routes. Transfer station traffic varies locally but tends to peak twice a
38 day. The first peak is often near the middle of the day or shift, and the second at
39 the end of the day or shift. Therefore, the best sites for transfer stations are
40 located away from areas that have midday traffic peaks and/or school bus and
41 pedestrian traffic.
42
43 Definition: Compatibility of projected transfer station traffic volume and vehicle types with
44 existing traffic mix and flow patterns in the immediate area of the site.
45
46 Application:
47
48 Sites with street or roadway connector access that do not currently or are not projected in the
49 future to exhibit significant midday traffic peaks and school bus or pedestrian traffic shall be
6
1 ranked highest. Land use and development within one half mile radius of proposed site will be
2 used to assess potential compatibility issues related to connector streets and roads.
3
4 Weighting Factors:
5
6 Importance:
7 • Very Important
8
9 Value:
10 • 10
11
12 Chair Jacobs made reference to Commissioner Gordon's handout and said that she has
13 some concerns about bicycle routes. Bob Sallach said that they included considering of bicycle
14 routes under community—specific criteria.
15 Commissioner Gordon said that the Orange Unified Transportation Board recommended
16 bicycle routes for technical criteria for the safety issue. She made reference to the map and
17 said that there are basically eight primary routes. She said that two of the routes—three and
18 eight—are part of DOT Mountains to the Sea Trail. She said that the idea is that bicycles
19 should not be mixed with truck traffic. She suggested putting in primary bicycle routes into the
20 technical criteria in criterion#5.
21 Commissioner Carey asked for an explanation why this should be in community-specific
22 rather than technical. Bob Sallach said that they put it in community-specific because they
23 would be looking at a smaller number of sites and more detail with regard to the sites in terms of
24 off-site development: The technical criteria will be confined more to the site itself.
25
26
27 6. ABILITY FOR EXPANSION
28 Consideration: When selecting a site, consider the potential for subsequent increase in the
29 daily tonnage of waste that the facility will be required to manage, or added
30 processing capabilities for recycling and diversion. It is often less expensive to
31 expand an existing transfer station than to develop a new site clue to the ability to
32 use existing operations staff, utility connection, traffic control systems, office
33 space, and buildings.
34
35 Definition: Adaptability of proposed transfer station site layout (transfer building and on-
36 site roadways) to accommodate future expansion or changes in waste transfer and processing.
37
38 Application:
39
40 A site that is the most adaptable with respect to expansion of the transfer building with
41 concurrent use of buffers, roadways, parking areas, scale facilities, and other required site
42 improvements will be ranked the highest.
43
44 Weighting Factors:
45 Importance:
46
47 • Important
48
49 Value
50 • 5
7
1
2
3 Commissioner Gordon said that her point is that a lot of these criteria boil down to site size,
4 and she believes that there should not be as much emphasis just on site size. She said that
5 she has looked at these criteria and they are really just space for additional facilities. She said
6 that there should not be so much weight on the size of the site.
7
8 7. SPACE FOR RECYCLING, COMPOSTING, AND PUBLIC EDUCATION
9
10 Consideration: A transfer station could be sited in areas also conducive to recycling or
11 composting activities. Many transfer stations are designed to enable residents and
12 businesses to drop off recyclables and yard waste in addition to trash. Some
13 transfer stations incorporate education centers or interpretive trails focusing on
14 waste prevention. These types of facilities offer increased utility to the community.
15
16 Definition: Availability of undeveloped on-site area to accommodate future expansion or
17 changes including additional waste handling, transfer, processing, and/or administrative support
18 functions.
19
20 Application:
21
22 A site with the largest available undeveloped footprint (acres) not including a minimum 100-foot
23 buffer around the perimeter of the site and dedicated transfer station area (station, roadways,
24 parking areas, scale facilities, and other required site improvements for transfer operations) will
25 be ranked the highest.
26
27 Weighting Factors:
28
29 Importance:
30
31 ® Important
32
33 Value:
34 • 5
35
36 Chair Jacobs asked if anyone else wanted to combine these two criteria besides
37 Commissioner Gordon.
38 Commissioner Carey said that they should be separate because if they were one then it
39 would minimize the focus on the potential for other compatible uses. The first one focuses on
40 expansion of the building itself and the space needed for a transfer station itself. He said that
41 separating the two functions communicates what the two different criteria are supposed to
42 accomplish.
43 Commissioner Gordon said that it is fine to keep them separate.
44
45 8. BUFFER SPACE
46
47 Consideration: To mitigate the impact on the surrounding community, a transfer station
48 should be located in an area that provides separation from sensitive adjoining land
49 uses and/or residences. Buffers can be natural or constructed and can take many
50 forms, including open spaces, fences, sound walls, trees, berms, and landscaping.
8
1
2 Definition: Presence of natural areas, trees, topographic relief, or other features that
3 provide separation from adjoining land use or residences.
4
5 Application:
6 A site that provides the most buffer width in terms of wooded area or other natural screening
7 feature(s) (i.e., streams, hills, etc.) around the perimeter of the property will be ranked the
8 highest.
9
10 Weighting Factors:
11 Importance:
12 • Very Important
13 Value:
14 • 10
15
16
17 Chair Jacobs asked if a buffer was assumed to be a vegetative buffer or a setback.
18 Ed Shuffler said that they are looking at a vegetative buffer here. The better the layout and
19 the buffer, the higher the ranking would be.
20
21 9. GENTLY SLOPING TOPOGRAPHY
22
23 Consideration: Transfer stations often are multi-level buildings that need to have vehicle
24 access at several levels. Completely flat sites need ramps or bridges constructed
25 to allow vehicle access to upper levels (or areas excavated to allow access to
26 lower levels). Sites with moderately sloping terrain can use topography to their
27 advantage, allowing access to the upper levels from the higher parts of the natural
28 terrain and access to lower levels from the lower parts. Sites with steep slopes
29 might require extra costs associated with earthmoving and retaining walls.
30
31 Definition: Moderately sloping terrain for access to the upper level of the transfer station
32 (tipping floor) from higher natural elevations and access to lower level of the transfer station
33 (transfer drive-through) from lower natural elevations.
34
35 Application:
36 A site that has a moderate naturally sloping topography in the range of 4% to 6% (from the back
37 of transfer building) will be ranked the highest.
38
39 Weighting Factors:
40
41 Importance:
42 • Important
43
44 Value:
45 • 5
46
47 10. ACCESS TO UTILITIES
48
49 Consideration: Transfer stations generally require electricity to operate equipment, such as
50 ventilation fans; lighting; water for facility cleaning, restrooms, and drinking; and
9
1 sanitary sewer systems for wastewater disposal. Some transfer stations use wells
2 for water supply, and some, especially in more rural settings, use septic systems
3 or truck their wastewater for off-site treatment.
4
5 Definition: Availability of electrical, water, and sewer service at the site.
6
7 Application:
8 A site that has electrical, water and sewer service of sufficient capacity for transfer operations
9 within the immediate vicinity (1000 feet of the site) will be ranked the highest.
10
11 Weighting Factors:
12
13 Importance:
14 • Important
15
16 Value:
17 • 5
18
19 Commissioner Foushee asked for a discussion of the concerns regarding the disposal of
20 wash down water. Ed Shuffler said that this would go into the sanitary sewer system, if there
21 were water and sewer. If not, there would be a tank system that the wash down water would go
22 into and it would be pumped and hauled. That is why a site with a sewer system gets a higher
23 ranking.
24 Commissioner Gordon said that she thought this criterion was critical and it is important to
25 have access to utilities. She would like to change the weighting to a 10.
26 Commissioner Nelson said that Commissioner Gordon made a good point in her memo
27 about weighting this higher than 5. It is important to have easy access to water and sewer
28 because there are environmental issues and it would be expensive to haul the wash down
29 water.
30 Ed Shuffler said that it sounds as if the Board would like to rank this higher to a 10, and
31 the Board agreed.
32
33 11. ZONING DESIGNATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
34 Consideration: The County has adopted a Zoning Ordinance in order to protect and promote
35 the health, safety, and general welfare of the County and its residents. The Zoning
36 Ordinance regulates and restricts uses of land within the County, including such
37 things as the height, size of buildings, and other structures; the percentage of a lot
38 that may be occupied; the size of yards, courts, and other open spaces; the
39 density of populations; and the location of Governmental Facilities such as a
40 County-owned Transfer Station. If the selected transfer station site is not located
41 within an area that is within the County's exclusive planning jurisdiction then other
42 units of government may be involved in the permitting and approval of the
43 proposed transfer station site.
44
45 Definition: A Transfer station can be located in all Zoning Districts in the exclusive
46 planning jurisdiction of the County where Governmental Facilities and Office Buildings are
47 permitted pursuant to Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table (Line P24) of the County's Zoning
48 Ordinance, including those areas of the Rural Buffer not located in protected watershed critical
49 areas and including anywhere in any of the EDDs where Governmental Facilities and Office
50 Buildings are permitted pursuant to the Permitted Use Tables contained within the EDD
10
1 Manuals, subject to all Site Plan requirements contained within Article 14 of the Zoning
2 Ordinance, EDD Manual requirements, permits and approval processes as applicable.
3
4 Application:
5 Sites will be ranked in accordance with the following hierarchy: A site that is located within the
6 Orange County Planning jurisdiction, excluding the Rural Buffer portion of the Joint Planning
7 Area and excluding the Transition area, will be ranked the highest followed respectively by sites
8 located in the Rural Buffer, Transition, ETJ, with those sites located within a municipality ranked
9 the lowest.
10
11 Weighting Factors:
12
13 Importance:
14 G Important
15
16 Value:
17 • 5
18
19 Commissioner Carey made reference to increasing the value of the previous criterion to 10
20 and said that he shares the same feelings about managing the wash down waste, but
21 increasing the value to 10 means that the sites with the highest scores are going to have to be
22 somewhere either in or close to the transition areas or areas that are likely to have a lot of
23 development because of public utilities. This seems to be incompatible with some of the other
24 things that.the County is trying to accomplish such as taking the use away from people.
25 Commissioner Foushee asked if this criterion could be considered the same way as the rail
26 access. When the overlay is being done, if a site is closer to public utilities, then it could be
27 considered after the final tally has been done.
28 Chair Jacobs agreed.
29 Commissioner Gordon suggested seeing what the public has to say about this.
30
31 12. CARBON FOOTPRINT
32
33 Consideration: Refuse trucks provide an invaluable service, improving the quality of life as
34 they haul away thousands of pounds of garbage every day. However, the refuse
35 trucks also contribute to air and noise pollution. Nearly 99 percent of these
36 vehicles run on diesel fuel, and the emissions from these diesel engines contain
37 particulate matter, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides.
38
39 Definition: Impact of waste hauling activities on the environment measured in terms of
40 the greenhouse gas (measured in units of carbon dioxide) emissions.
41
42 Application:
43
44 The site with the lowest environmental impact will be ranked the highest. Environmental impact
45 will be assessed on the basis of carbon dioxide emissions (megagrams per year) from collection
11
1 vehicles for the increased travel distance from the centroid of waste generation to the proposed
2 transfer station site.
3
4 Weighting Factors:
5 Importance:
6 • Important
7
8 Value:
9 5
10
11 Commissioner Nelson said that he had thought about suggesting bumping this value up to
12 10, but he thinks that some of the other environmental concerns are addressed in other places.
13 For future reference, this is the first time the County has included carbon footprint in an analysis
14 of a decision. His hope is that it be included in most future decisions where it is appropriate.
15 Commissioner Gordon said that there was one criterion that she would like to suggest in the
16 exclusionary criteria—sites that are outside of protected watersheds.
17 Bob Sallach said that the protected watershed criterion was maintained as an alternate
18 criterion to be used as an exclusionary criterion if the number of sites conies back from the
19 initial screening to be significant. He said that the watershed could be incorporated if that is the
20 desire.
21 Chair Jacobs said that in Adopted Exclusionary Criteria#2, it removes land and protected
22 watershed and overlay districts. He does not think it should be said anywhere else. Bob
23 Sallach said that this is just in the critical overlay.
24
25 Ed Shuffler went through Attachment 1-C, which shows how the ranking will be set up for
26 each criterion.
27
28 \
29
30 3. Receive Public Comment on Preliminary Technical Criteria and Olver, Inc.
31 Recommendation
32
33 PUBLIC COMMENT:
34
35 Loren Hintz said that he appreciated comments incorporated into criteria and said that he
36 wanted to clarify again that the range was 12 miles and not 10 miles. He verified that this was
37 the case throughout the document. He made reference to the carbon footprint and suggested
38 adding carbon dioxide under the consideration comment. Also, he agreed with Commissioner
39 Gordon about incorporating bike routes as a technical consideration as well as the watershed
40 issue.
41 Robert Campbell said that it should be made clear how much acreage is the minimum for
42 placing a transfer station including the buffer. He would also like to know when the ERCD will
43 come into play in the siting of this transfer station. He said that an environmental document
44 should be part of the technical criteria.
45 Stan Cheren said that he wanted clarification on the parcel size. He asked how much
46 space was available on the existing Eubanks site. Bob Sallach said that they have not looked at
47 Eubanks with respect to the criteria.
48 Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson said that the area, should the transfer station be
49 considered here, the area available is about 4-5 acres for the structure and facility. It is part of a
50 large 200-acre piece of property, so the buffers are not included in that 4-5 acres. There would
51 probably be 200-300 foot buffers and also room for parking.
12
1 Stan Cheren said that he would like to support the email on the pink sheet about
2 greenways. He said that this should be in both the technical and community-specific criteria. He
3 said that he would like for the public to see the final information on June 24`h
4 Camelia Lee said that there should be something in the criteria about safety to
5 pedestrians and bikes, especially for sites that are in residential or school areas.
6
7
8 4. Approve Manager's Recommendation to Adopt Technical Criteria, incorporating
9 any additional changes as the BOCC may desire
10 (See Attachment# 1-A)
11 Chair Jacobs said that the Board has decided to defer until later in the meeting on the
12 issue of where to put consideration of the bike routes. The issue of access to utilities and
13 outside protected watershed overlay will also be revisited later. Someone made the point on
14 #12 to add "carbon dioxide." Camelia Lee suggested adding safety to#4. Bob Sallach said that
15 this could be added.
16 Chair Jacobs said that Commissioner Carey had suggested a substitute motion regarding
17 how to deal with access to utilities stating that access to rail would receive an extra ranking
18 point.
19 Discussion ensued on adding the extra point for rail access.
20 Chair Jacobs said that this could be worked out in writing so that it is clear in the future.
21 Commissioner Gordon made reference to water quality issues and said that it seems that
22 sites outside of protected watershed overlay districts should get some weight. Bob Sallach said
23 that they could add another criterion.
24 Chair Jacobs said that the Board needs to think about what kind of environmental
25 assessment would be done and Bob Sallach said that the State has a process in place.
26 Commissioner Gordon asked if any other County Commissioners had problems with
27 putting weight on sites outside of protected watersheds and the critical overlay district. No one
28 objected.
29
30
31 5. Review Preliminary Community-Specific Criteria: Olver, Inc. Professional
32 Recommendations and Preliminary Community-Specific Criteria—Working Document
33 (Including Comments from the Human Relations Commission (See Attachment# 2—A,
34 B�
35 This was Attachment 2-A and 2-B.
36
37 The purposed of the consultants' presentation was to explain the material and obtain
38 comments.
39 1. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONSIDERATIONS
40 Consideration: The following questions should be asked with respect to each site:
41 1. What are the environmental justice implications if this site is selected for the
42 proposed transfer station?
43 2. If a potential site has environmental justice implications, have all Orange
44 County residents been given adequate notice of the issue, relevant
45 information, and opportunities to give meaningful input before the final decision
46 (site selection) is made?
47 3. Does siting of the proposed transfer station have a potentially cumulative
48 environmental impact on a specific community or neighborhood?
13
1 4. If a proposed site may be environmentally u just, is there an alternative
2 resolution that would have a less disparate impact while still accomplishing our
3 core purpose?
4
5 Definition: The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures,
6 incomes, and educational levels with respect to the development and enforcement of
7 environmental |axvs, regulations, po|icies. and decisions. Fair treatment means that no group of
8 people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences
9 resulting from iOdUst[ig|, goverDrnentel, and commercial operations or policies.
10
11 Application
12 •
13 Candidate sites will be respectively ranked considering inequitable sharing of negative
14 environmental consequences and potential cumulative environmental impacts on adjacent
15 communities or neighborhoods.
16
17 Weighting Factors
18
19 Importance
20 • Extremely Important
21
22 Value
23
24 p 15
25
26 2. IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY
27 Consideration: Increased air pollution is a concern for p jects with transportation
28 components. The various vehicular emissions that are regulated include nitrogen
29 oxides, particu|ates. non-methane hydrocarbons, carbon nnonoxide, and carbon
30 dioxide. TherefV[e, potential changes in emissions that could affect these pollutant
31 levels are the primary focus of this criterion.
32
33 Definition: Overall percentage increase in nitrogen oxides, particulates, non-methane
34 hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide emissions resulting from collection vehicle
35 hauling and operation.
36
37 Application
38
39 Candidate sites will be ranked with respect to potential percentage increase in exhaust
40 emissions (nitrogen oxides, pmrticu|mtee, non-methane hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and
41 carbon dioxide emissions) from collection vehicles as computed using the additional haul
42 distance measured from the waste generation centroid to the proposed site. The site with the
43 lowest percentage increase will be ranked highest. Greening Garbage Trucks: New
44 Technologies for Cleaner Air, 2003, will be used to establish emission rates for the various
45 pollutants.
46
47 Weighting
48
49 Importance
14
1 • Very Important
2
3 Value
4 • 10
5
6 3. IMPACT ON THE LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE
7 Consideration: Within a community, the residents have needs that must be met to maintain a
8 certain minimum standard of living and quality of life. From an infrastructure
9 standpoint, these needs typically include homes, transportation (streets, roads,
•
10 sidewalks, and drainage), energy (gas and/or electricity), telecommunications,-and
11 water and sewer service.
12
13 Definition: Potential impact upon connector streets and roads from the standpoint of
14 increased collection and transfer traffic volume and suitability of roadway designs for heavy
15 truck traffic. Electric, water, and sewer service will be assessed with respect to availability,
16 capacity, and impact of transfer station usage on existing systems.
17
18 Application
19
20 Sites with available electric, water, and sewer service (within 1000 feet of the transfer station
21 site) and suitable roadway connector design will be ranked the highest. Existing roadway
22 features will be compared to minimum standards for industrial access roads.
23
24 Importance
25
26 • Important
27
28 Value
29 • 5
30
31
32 Commissioner Gordon said that she thought this should be weighted a 10 for impact on
33 utilities and impact on roads.
34
35 4. ADJACENT LAND USES
36
37 Consideration: Official land use provides information on the actual or customary use of the
38 community. However, zoned or planned land uses may not show how different
39 parcels of land are actually used. The zoning/planning use and actual use, and
40 existing customary uses associated with a candidate site should be examined.
41
42 Definition: Potential impact upon a community's existing use of space (e.g., restriction of
43 open space or outdoor uses, traffic volumes, or patterns that create barriers to crossing of
44 streets and/or neighborhood connectivity) resulting from transfer station or infrastructure
45 development.
46
47 Application:
15
1
2 The candidate site with the least potential impact in terms of change in actual or customary uses
3 on adjacent properties (within 500 feet of transfer station property boundary) will be ranked
4 highest.
5
6 Weighting
7
8 Importance:
9
10 • Extremely Important
11
12 Value:
13
14 • 15 •
15
16
17 Commissioner Gordon said that this was a point that Tracy Kuhlman made in her email
18 (pink) about not just counting the number of adjacent properties abutting the transfer station
19 property line. Ed Shuffler said that this is set up as 500 feet from the transfer station property
20 boundary, but not abutting it.
21
22
23 5. PROXIMITY TO SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, AND RECREATION SITES
24
25
26 Consideration: How near a facility is to parks, schools, churches, retirement centers,
27 hospitals, or other public areas where people congregate can be a concern from
28 the standpoint of both physical and environmental safety (vehicle exhausts, liquid,
29 fugitive emissions, and odor)from facility-related operations or traffic.
30
31 Definition: Potential impact of facility-related traffic through "sensitive" community areas
32 (e.g., schools and/or other public areas) including pedestrian safety, collection or transfer
33 vehicle exhausts, fugitive emissions, and odor.
34
35 Application:
36
37 Candidate sites with street or roadway connector access that least impact sensitive community
38 areas will be ranked highest.
39
40 Weighting:
41
42 Importance:
43 • Extremely Important
44
45 Value:
46
47 • 15
16
1
2 6. NUMBER OF RESIDENTS IMPACTED
3 Consideration: Residents adjacent to the site may be impacted in some manner by collection
4 and transfer vehicle traffic and from operation of the proposed fransfer station.
5 Potential impacts would largely occur in the form of nuisance impacts (noise and
6 odor), traffic, air emissions, and visibility of the facility.
7
8 Definition: Number of residents living in dwelling units adjacent to the site.
9
10 Application:
11 The site with the fewest number of adjacent residents will be ranked the highest. Residents
12 living within 500 feet of the proposed site property boundary and within 501 feet to 1000 feet of
13 the proposed site property boundary will be considered. The number of potentially impacted
14 residents used in this evaluation will be computed by adding 50 percent of the total number of
15 residents living within the 501 feet to 1000 feet zone to the total number of residents living within
16 the 500 feet zone. The most current census data will be used. Refer to Environmental Justice
17 considerations for further application guidance (Community-Specific Criteria No. 1).
18
19 Weighting Factors
20
21 Importance
22 • Extremely Important
23
24 Value
25 • 15
26
27 7. PRESENCE OF NATURAL BUFFERS
28 Consideration: To mitigate the impact on the surrounding community, a transfer station
29 should be located in an area that provides separation from sensitive adjoining land
30 uses and/or residences. Natural buffers should be maintained to reduce the
31 visibility of the facility and to provide noise abatement and air quality filtering.
32
33 Definition: Presence of on-site open space, natural wooded areas, trees, topographic
34 relief, or other features that provide separation from adjoining land use or residences.
35
36 Application:
37
38 A site that provides the most buffer width in terms of wooded area or other natural screening
39 feature(s) (i.e., streams, hills, etc.) around the perimeter of the property will be ranked the
40 highest.
41
42 Weighting Factors
43
44 Importance:
17
1 • Very Important
2
3 Value:
4 10
5
6 8. IMPACTS ON EXISTING BUSINESSES
7 Consideration: Negative impacts can range from the acquisition of a business or businesses,
8 subsequent demolition, to a change in vehicular or pedestrian access, and
9 permanent losses in business volume. Any of these conditions can exist alone or
10 in combination with one or more of the others.
11
12 Definition: Business impacts will include acquisition of a business or businesses and
13 impacts on adjacent businesses, if any. Adjacent businesses will be classified in one of four
14 ways: destination-oriented, non-destination-oriented, highway-oriented, and interchangeable.
15
16 Application:
17
18 A site that does not require the acquisition of a business or businesses and/or that impacts the
19 least number of destination-oriented businesses will be ranked the highest. Adjacent
20 businesses will be defined as those businesses located within 1000 feet of the proposed site
21 that would share connector road or street access with the transfer station.
22
23 Weighting Factors:
24
25 Importance:
26
27 • Very Important
28
29 Value:
30
31 • 10
32
33 9. BUFFER ZONES AND SCREENING MEASURES
34
35 Consideration: Sufficient buffer zones and screening measures are important considerations
36 in the development of a transfer station. In terms of visual amenity, the ability of
37 the topography and landscape of an area to provide natural screening should be
38 taken into account. If there is no natural screening, it might be necessary to
39 increase the buffer zone. The wider cumulative impact that proposed development
40 can have on the off-site landscape, in particular, on environmentally-sensitive
41 areas adjacent to the site, should also be taken into consideration. Development
42 needs to be sensitively sited so as not to impact adversely on landscapes or by
43 spoiling views and natural beauty.
44
45 Definition: Ability of off-site topography and landscape in the immediate area including
46 open spaces, greenways, natural or wooded areas, and streams to provide natural screening of
47 the site.
48
18
1 Application:
2 The site that has the best adjacent natural screening will be ranked the highest.
3
4 Weighting Factors:
5
6 Importance:
7 • Important
8
9 Value:
10 • 5
11
12
13 10. TRAFFIC COMPATIBILITY
14
15 Consideration: Transfer stations often receive surges of traffic when collection vehicles have
16 finished their routes. Transfer station traffic varies locally but tends to peak twice a
17 day. The first peak is often near the middle of the day or shift, and the second at
18 the end of the day or shift. Therefore, the best sites for transfer stations are
19 located away from areas that have midday traffic peaks and/or school bus and
20 pedestrian traffic. Other considerations include: restrictions on vehicle traffic
21 routes, bike lanes and pathways (priority bicycle routes), and congested areas with
22 dangerous intersections.
23
24 Definition: Compatibility of projected transfer station traffic volume and vehicle types with
25 existing traffic mix and flow patterns in the immediate area of the site.
26
27 Application:
28 Sites with street or roadway connector access that do not currently or are not projected in the
29 future to exhibit significant midday traffic peaks and school bus or pedestrian traffic shall be
30 ranked highest, while sites with bike lanes (priority bicycle routes) will not be preferred. Land
31 use and development within a one-half mile radius of proposed site will be used to assess
32 potential compatibility issues related to connector streets and roads.
33
34 Weighting Factors:
35
36 Importance:
37 • Very Important
38
39 Value:
40 • 10
41 Chair Jacobs said that#10 Traffic Compatibility was the place where Olver was considering
42 referring to bicycle lanes.
43 Commissioner Gordon referred to Tracy Kuhlman's email again and said that she does not
44 know her, but that Ms. Kuhlman had rated this as extremely important. Commissioner Gordon
45 said that she has thought about this, and this criterion reads almost exactly the same as the
46 technical criterion. She thinks that bicycle routes should be in both technical and community
47 criteria.
48 Commissioner Carey said that he does not have a problem with this.
19
•
•
l Bob Sallach said that he would put bike routes in the technical criteria (criterion #5) as well
2 as community specific criteria (criterion #10) and the Board agreed.
3
4
5
6
7 11. IMPACT ON HISTORICAL OR CULTURAL FEATURES
8
9 Consideration: Communities develop where they do for any number of reasons. It is likely the
10 location had easy access to water. Oftentimee, communities sprouted up as
11 railroad whistle stops or at the intersection of two main roads. For others, the
12 location was of military or political interest or was otherwise defendable. Perhaps,
19 a certain natural resource gave rise to industry in the a[ea, or the farmland was
14 fertile, or the scenery was picturesque. Such natural features shape the histories
15 and cultures of any coDlDluOity, influencing who decides to live thBne, the bonds
16 and traditions of those peop|e, the organizations they oreate, and the values they
17 collectively embrace. In turn, these cultural values greatly influence how the
18 community interacts with and makes use of its natural assets.
19
20 Understanding the community's history, va|UeG, g0o|o, and aspirations
21 provides an important starting point for preserving the area's natural resources and
22 assets. CoDsequeOt|y, this criterion's main goal is to explore the community's
23 history and culture in an effort to identify those things the community feels are
24 most important.
25
26 Definition: Natural or manmade features that shape the histories and cultures of the
27 CD0munity, influencing who decides to live theFe, the bonds and traditions of those people, the
28 organizations they creaba, and the values they collectively embrace.
29
30 Application:
31
32 Identify the most important cultural or historic features in the immediate area of the proposed
33 candidate transfer station site including sites that host cultural traditions and events, historic
34 land uses, and local institutions. The site that has the least number of historical and cultural
35 features located on properties that abut the site will be ranked the highest. Cultural and historic
36 features shall be defined as indicated in Criteria 8 (Sites with Protected Sites of Historical,
37 Archeological, or Cultural Significance) of the Exclusionary Criteria.
38
39 Refer to Environmental Justice considerations in Community-Specific Criteria No. 1.
40
41 Weighting Factors:
42
43 Importance:
44 • Very Im
45
46 Value:
47 • 10
48
49
20
1
2 12. COST CONSIDERATION
3
4 Consideration: The characteristics of a site can significantly impact transfer station
5 construction costs (e.g., sites with steep slopes may require extra costs associated
6 with earthmoving and retaining walls; site access may require construction of
7 turning lanes; off-site improvement of utilities may be required to provide adequate
8 capacity).
9
10 Definition: Preliminary site development costs including site acquisition, roadway access,
11 utility extension, on-site roadways, retaining walls, and drainage structures.
12
13
14 Application:
15 The candidate site with the lowest preliminary site development cost estimate will be ranked
16 highest.
17
18 Weighting Factors:
19
20 Importance:
21 • Important
•
22
23 Value:
24 • 5
25 Geof Gledhill made reference to#6 and asked if the intent was to count residents or homes
26 and Bob Sallach said that they would use the census data to count the residents. Geof Gledhill
27 said that this variable could change year to year. He is just raising a point. He asked Bob
28 Sallach if they had used this in other jurisdictions and Bob Sallach said yes.
29
30
31 6. Receive Public Comment on Preliminary Community-Specific Criteria and Olver,
32 Inc. Recommendation
•
33
34 PUBLIC COMMENT:
35
36 Nancy McDermott made reference to#10 and the traffic compatibility. She said that using
37 the %-mile area for consideration is inappropriate because it suggests that the transfer station
38 would be in close proximity to Morris Grove Elementary. The 1/2 mile suggests that there would
39 just be a bubble. She made reference to#11 and the impact on historical and cultural features
40 and said that, previously in #6, the consideration was the impact on residents whose property
41 was 500-1,000 feet away from the site, but in #11, the consideration is features located on
42 properties that abut the site. She thinks that limiting it to properties that are abutting the site
43 leaves out historical significance. She thinks that 500-1,000 feet would be appropriate in #11
44 just as it is used in #6. She also commended Commissioner Gordon for looking at not only the
45 site, but where it is and everything that is around it.
46 Barbara Chapman was with the Orange County Human Rights and Relations
47 Commission. She distributed a handout. She said that after the discussion with Olver, the
48 Commission asked their HRRC Chair to summarize the comments in the handout in relation to
21
1 community—specific criteria. The HRRC said that fairness to people is at the heart of the siting
2 decisions. The Commission believes that criterion #1, Environmental Justice Consideration,
3 should be the umbrella for all of the community-specific criteria, and that the criteria should be
4 viewed in relation to environmental justice considerations. The Commission requests that the
5 County Commissioners please consider increasing the number of points for environmental
6 justice considerations to even 25 or 30. She said that she has been told that there are no bike
7 paths in the Rogers Road neighborhood, so some of the criteria do tend to skew things toward
8 more affluent neighborhoods if environmental justice considerations are not viewed as over-
9 arching. A|go, historical and cultural features often skew considerations toward more affluent
10 neighborhoods. She made reference to Franklin Street in downtown Chapel Hill and said that
11 this is not high on the list of where a transfer station might'be sited.
12 Chris Heney made reference to#5 and the definition for Proximity to Schools, Churches,
19 and Recreation Sites, "potential impact of facility-related traffic through 'sensitive' community
14 areas" and said that it is not clear to him how this would be computed. He asked how it would
15 be determined what the least impact is for sensitive community areas. This seems vague to
16 him. He made reference to#7, which also relates to#9. He said that sites with streams in the
17 buffers should not be ranked higher.
18 Loren Hintz said that Environmental Justice Consideration should be the most important
19 criterion. He suggested including 1,000 feet instead of 500 feet and making the measurement
20 consistent throughout the document.
21 Chuck Rosnowick made reference to#6, Residents Impacted, and said that this is for
22 existing development only and not planned development. He said that there should be some
23 consideration for what will happen in the future.
24 Rev. Robert Campbell made reference to item #S. Buffer Zones and Screening Measures,
25 and said that there should be a 9-a and a 9-b. He said that this area was impacted by the
26 smoke from the east and if the is a natural buffer with trees, there should be a higher ranking
27 than an area that does not have the natural buffer zone of trees. There are two separate
28 issues. If there are trees, then the impact could be slowed down if there is a problem with the
29 transfer station. He suggested eliminating the 500-foot buffer and moving it to 1,000 feet.
30 Chris Heney made reference to#11, Impact on Historical or Cultural Features, and read,
31 "The site that has the least number of historical and cultural features located on properties that
32 abut the site will be ranked the highest." He asked why it is abutting the site versus the
33 distance.
34
35 Chair Jacobs made reference to Environmental Justice Considerations and said that,
36 instead of saying, "on adjacent communities or neighborhoods,"the better word might be
37 "proximate communities or neighborhoods." Adjacent is a different meaning than proximate.
38 The public also asked that this criterion be the most important one and have a greater weight.
39 He asked for feedback from the Board on this.
40 Commissioner Carey agreed that this is the most important criterion. He suggested
41 increasing the weight to at least 20 and the Board agreed.
42 Chair Jacobs made reference to the comment about taking planned development into
43 consideration and he pointed out#4, which takes this into consideration.
44 Chair Jacobs made reference to the comment about#5 and Proximity to Schools,
45 ChUrcheG. endRecroation8ites. gOdhnsp[teDti8| impaotSxvOu|dbeoompWted. Bob Sallach
46 said that they would look at the number of receptors (public areas) along a route and what is
47 actually on a route. Chair Jacobs asked how emissions and odor would be quantified. Bob
48 Sallach said that it is simply a matter of the number of receptors.
49 Chair Jacobs said that the consultant could address the issue of the 5OO-1.00O-foot
50 distance. Bob Sallach said that first there are on-site buffers, and then the impact on
51 residences is ranked.
22
1 Chair Jacobs asked about why streams are being considered as a buffer. Bob Sallach
2 said that streams probably have wooded areas adjacent to them. As the site is developed,
3 there would be water quality considerations incorporated into the design from the standpoint of
4 erosion control and water quality.
5 Chair Jacobs asked that buffer areas with trees be given a higher ranking. Bob Sallach
6 said that it is built in, but they can adjust the ranking to reflect trees with a higher ranking.
7 Chair Jacobs made reference to#11 and Impact on Historical or Cultural Features and
8 several people made the point of relating it back to#6 and using a measurement instead of
9 saying, "abut."
10 Nancy McDermott made reference to#5 and the proximity to schools, churches, and
11 recreational sites. She wants to make sure that the potential of the St. Paul AME Church that is
12 being built on Rogers Road is being considered.
13 Chair Jacobs said that these things will be considered, as long as they have been
14 proposed.
15
16 Chris Heney made reference to#1, Environmental Justice, and asked why it does not
17 include age or disability. Also, on #2 and the air quality, he said that if this criterion is used,
18 which rates the increased road miles translated into increased emissions, he wonders about
19 those areas that already have a high base rate of heavy traffic. He said that the reduction of
20 road miles traveled can be weighted highly in terms of low emissions, but the number of trucks
21 going to a certain area could lead to high emissions.
22 Chair Jacobs made reference to the last line of the definition of Environmental Justice and
23 suggested adding "industrial traffic and governmental and commercial operations."
24 Commissioner Gordon said that she wanted to address the weighting of#3. The rest of
25 Board wants to keep#3 and #10 at a weight of 5.
26
27 Chair Jacobs said that, with the understanding that the Board will see these changes
28 come back for the meeting on June 24th, he would suggest adopting the Technical Criteria with
29 amendments based on public comment and Board comment.
30
31 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Carey
32 to approve the Technical Criteria as amended based on public comment and Board
33 comment
34
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 '7. Approve Manager's Recommendation to Adopt Community-Specific Criteria,
38 incorporating any additional changes as the BOCC may desire
39 Chair Jacobs said that this motion should have the same caveat.
40 A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Carey to
41 approve the Manager's recommendation to adopt Community-Specific Criteria, as amended.
42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
43
44 8. Review Transfer Station Siting Process Timeline
45 Chair Jacobs suggested that Olver send this timeline to the Board of County
46 Commissioners.
47
48 9. Open Public Comment Period
49 Stan Cheron said to incorporate the comments and changes and that there is only a week
50 to post this on web. He asked that this be done as soon as possible.
51
23
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to
2 adjourn the meeting at 9:54 PM.
3
4 Barry Jacobs, Chair
5
6 Donna S. Baker, CMC
7 Clerk to the Board
24