Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-20-2008-e2f~-~a~~.~,~ a~~ APPROVED 4/15/2008 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TRANSFER STATION SITING WORK SESSION February 19, 2008 5:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Transfer Station Siting Work Session an Tuesday, February 19, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel. Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., Valerie P, Foushee and Alice M. Gordon COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:.Mike Nelson COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geof Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey and Willie Best, and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below} Chair Jacobs said that Commissioner Nelson was ill this evening. PURPOSE: The purpose of the meeting will be to receive public comment regarding preliminary exclusionary criteria. Information regarding exclusionary criteria, technical criteria, and community specific criteria will be presented for discussion, feedback, direction and public comment. 1. and Exhibit 4) Ed Schuffler said that he would review what was discussed at the last work session. He said that he took the County Commissioners' comments regarding the website and the consultants are writing up the synopsis this week for the launching of the transfer station siting website. He recommended that the exclusionary criteria be approved on March 18'}'. The Board will spend some time at this meeting discussing the exclusionary data and then there will be public comment. The preliminary list of exclusionary siting criteria is shown below: PRELIMINARY EXCLUSIONARY SITING CRITERIA A. Wetlands and floodplains. B. Endangered and protected flora and fauna habitats. C. Protected sites of historical, archeological, ar cultural significance. D. Park preserves. E. Sites (single parcel or combination of parcels) must be at least 25 acres. F. Site must be located within Orange County. G. Site must be located within 3 miles of US 15-501, NC 54, NC 86, U5 70, NC 57, 1-40, or I-85).~ H. Site cannot be located in a critical watershed? Ed Schufi1er said that the list has changed a little based on the discussions at the last meeting. He made reference to items A, B, C, and D and said that the consultants have been working with Planning staff on setting these definitions. These items are all under what is considered the Primary Conservation Area, and they are defined under the land use element. These definitions will be brought back on March 18t" and reviewed. Regarding the floodplains, the FEMA flood insurance rate maps will be used. There was some discussion of eliminating areas within city limits, but Commissioner Gordon said that some towns may have property they want to offer up, so it was left as an option. Commissioner Gordon made reference to eliminating areas with steep slopes and asked what was decided about this. Ed Schuffler said that this would have to be added as a separate category. Commissioner Foushee said that she thought this was discussed in the context of the technical siting criteria and not preliminary exclusionary criteria. She made reference to Exhibit 5, item 1. Ed Schuffler said that if there were too steep of an area, it would have to be excluded: He said that just because something is on the technical criteria list does not mean that it cannot also be used as exclusionary criteria. Commissioner Gordan said that steep slopes were brought up under technical criteria, but she thinks that it belongs in exclusionary criteria. . Ed Schuffler said that he would like to add steep slopes 15 percent or greater into the exclusionary criteria. He asked the Board of County Commissioners about this. Commissioner Gordon made reference to excluding towns and Geof Gledhill had said that the cleanest thing to do was to not go into the towns or the extraterritorial jurisdictions. She thinks that if there were a town or University site that was offered, that it should not be excluded. Otherwise, she thinks that if there'is any conflict that the towns arid ETJ should be left out. Commissioner Carey said that he does not have a problem with including steep slopes above a certain percentage in the exclusionary criteria. He asked for more discussion about park preserves. Ed Schuffler said that the Planning staff is looking at this now and pulling together the definition. Chair Jacobs asked why NC 57 was on the highway list. Also, he wants to know what part of NC 86 is being considered. He does not think that large trucks should have to travel from the source of most of the solid waste through Hillsborough and to the north. Ed Schuffler said that the Planning staff pulled the map together that showed the major roadways. This was discussed at a previous meeting about setting up a distance off of i Recommend that location of site with respect to rail access be included in the consideration of Technical Criteria. z Recommendation that protected watersheds also be included in the criteria being reviewed by County staff. the roads. He wants to discuss this in more detail. He thinks~that the distance from major roadways should be dropped back to one mile. Chair Jacobs said that if something were lacatetl north of Hillsborough, trucks would have to travel from Chapel Hill through Hillsborough, and since trucks cannot go through downtown, they will have to bypass Hillsborough. He does not see the point in including anything north of Hillsborough, unless it is right off the interstate. Ed Schuffler said that one of the other criteria he wanted to discuss is the distance from the waste centroid as a means of excluding some areas. This can be an exclusionary criterion. He said that the general rule of thumb is that transfer stations work whenever you get to the site from 15-'f 7 miles one way. He would like to propose aten- mile distance from the waste centroid. Chair Jacobs said to actually use realistic traffic routes when this comes back• and have staff do the actual mileage. He said that he is• comfortable with the ten miles from the waste centroid. Commissioner Gordon asked that it be brought back for further discussion. Commissioner Gordon said that Chapel Hill and Carrbaro are not going to want this traffic going through their towns either, and that the sites causing traffic to go through Chapel Hill and Carrboro should also be excluded. Commissioner Carey suggested including this ten-mile radius in the exclusionary criteria because there is no reason to keep sites on a map that are clearly not going to be selected because they are too far out. Ed Schuffler said that this would be brought back for discussion and public comment too. Ed Schuffler said that there was discussion about excluding the County protected watersheds. It was decided to use the critical watershed as exclusionary criteria, and also consider some protected watershed criteria that could be brought back in March. Commissioner Gordon said that she did ask that protected watersheds be in these exclusionary criteria as well. Ed Schuffler said that Planning staff wanted to look at that and it will be .brought back. Commissioner Gordan clarified that she wanted to add protected watersheds to the exclusionary criteria except for those areas that were designated as non-residential on the land use rnap. Ed Schuffler said that is why they identified that and it would be brought back by the next meeting. 2. Public Comment on Prelimiriary Exclusionary Criteria Chair Jacobs said that this phase of the public comment is directed to the preliminary exclusionary criteria only. General comments will be heard near the end of the meeting. • Nelda Jones said that she is very concerned that she has not heard anyone talk about having done a "professional" analysis that identifies the center of waste and that really takes into account the population boom and the future developments. Secondly, she is very disturbed that this consultant is talking about excluding sites before developing all of the criteria. She said that this already sets up a bias, and this is not acceptable. Thirdly, she made reference to the 25 acres that are needed and said that she does not understand why the Eubanks Road site is still on the table, because there are only 3-4 acres that are available there. She said that this is why the EPA recommends an advisory panel so that the neighborhood does not have these kinds of issues to worry about. Yonnie Chapman said that he would like to add criteria based on the impact of solid waste disposal on human beings. He wants to suggest adding an environmental justice criterion. He said that the Orange County HRC at its October 8'~ meeting approved three recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the siting of a transfer station. The first one is already being done, which is doing a countywide site search. He read recommendation #2: "Prior to locating the waste transfer station in the Rogers Road community, give serious consideration to whether prior commitments proposed by local governmental entities far the Rogers Road community have been kept." He said that he would like to know whether this issue has been considered by the Board or the staff and what the discussion has been. He then read recommendation #3: "Prior to locating the waste transfer station in the Rogers Road community, contemplate whether elements of racial and/or environmental discrimination exist in either the process and/or the decision to locate a waste transfer station in the Rogers Road community." This calls for an investigation and evaluation of these processes with regard to environmental justice. He said that it is his understanding that this has not been done, and it seems unforgivable. Susanna Haff lives off of Eubanks Road. She said that when you look at the "waste central", she assumes that it is probably UNC. She would like to know if the County Commissioners have met with members of the University. She made reference to a new development on NC 54 and a new mall going in (she did not say where), and said that these things should be considered as a site is planned. She suggested that the Board speak with UNC Trustees about this issue and the possibility of purchasing land from the University. 3. Discussion, Feedback and Comment on Technical Criteria (Exhibit 5) Ed Schuffler said that he wanted to discuss public meeting dates. He asked for input on this from the County Commissioners -where, when, and what time for the public participation process. These meetings will not be.site speck and the consultants will talk with the public in a forum setting. There will be a detailed presentation on what a transfer station is, etc. The suggestion is a two-hour timeframe on either a Tuesday or Thursday from 7:00-9:00 p.m. He said that a central location would be better. Chair Jacobs said that the Board usually meets in two different places (Hillsborough and Chapel Hill) and there could be one meeting at each place. He said to work with the Clerk. Commissioner Carey asked if the County Commissioners would have to be present and Ed Schuffler said no. The consultants would be talking with the citizens. The County Commissioners would be welcome to attend. Commissioner Carey suggested doing one in each location and 7:00 p.m. is reasonable. Commissioner Foushee agreed with this and also avoiding Wednesday evenings. Chair Jacobs said that he hopes these meetings could be more intimate than a work session. Ed Schuffler said that he generally likes it mare intimate and he will do a PowerPoint presentation. Chair Jacobs asked if the meetings would be recorded. Ed Schuffler said that they could record it, but that the questions would be transcribed and put on the website. The consultants will work with the Clerk on setting up the public meetings. Ed Schuffler reviewed the technical criteria. TYPICAL TECHNICAL SITING CRITERIA A. Central location to collection routes B. Access to major transportation routes C. Site size requirements D. Sufficient space for on-site roadways, queuing, and parking E. Truck and traffic compatibility F. Ability for expansion G. Space for recycling, composting, and public education H. Buffer space I. Gently sloping topography J. Access to utilities K. Zoning designations and requirements L. Carbon footprint He made reference to item A, central location to collection routes, and said that this will help pick the sites, and once the sites are picked, they can be narrowed down to the sites that are closest to the waste centroid area. The next meeting will be focused more on the weighting of criteria. Commissioner Foushee made reference to item A and'asked about the criteria used to determine the waste centroid. Ed Schuffler said that the Planning staff has all residents identified throughout the County, and with that, there is a population grid of residential and businesses. Commissioner Foushee asked if this includes planned developments and Ed Schuffler said that they could do it all -present and planned for the future. Commissioner Carey asked if these criteria would be weighted based on traffic compatibility, etc. Ed SchufFler said that they have not done a spectrum yet. He said that, once the process goes through the exclusionary criteria and 10-15 sites are identified, there will be a layout for each site that shows access, parking, grading, etc. With that, the technical criteria will be applied. The technical criteria will be ranked or weighted. Commissioner Gordon made reference to items C and D and asked if the University brought something up that was a partnership, if it would show up or if it would be separate and if the County could ask the University about possible sites. Ed 5chuffler said that he was not thinking of asking entities for sites. He is thinking that this is a very public process and those that have sites will bring them to attention. ChairJacobs said that it might be good to be proactive in approaching OWASA, the University, Duke, and municipalities that are large landholders. Chair Jacobs said that the University has a secret animal testing facility on NC 54 and Ed Schuffler said that they will ask the University about this. Ed Schuffier made reference to item E, truck and traffic compatibility, and said that as sites are identified, the roadways will be known and the goal will be to see if a site is in an area where there is already heavy truck or traffic congestion and the timing. if there were a site near roads that were heavily traveled at certain periods of time in conflict with the transfer station, then that site would be ranked lower. Ed Schuffier continued reviewing each criterion. Commissioner Gordon said that Commissioner Nelson brought up rail access as a criteria last time and it is included as a footnote in the technical criteria. Ed Schuffler said that Commissioner Nelson had mentioned adding railway as exclusionary criteria, and the consultants were concemed that if this is done, then it just gives athree-mile radius on either side of the railroad and excludes a lot of the space. He thinks that the intentions of Commissioner Nelson were to rank sites higher that had rail access nearby. He asked if the Board wanted to leave this in technical criteria, or make it an exclusionary criterion. Chair Jacobs said to flag rail access along with item B, access to major transportation routes on the technical criteria. 4. Public Comment Period Neloa Jones distributed a handout. She said that she finds it fascinating that there was any discussion of excluding any sites very early in~the process before developing all of the criteria, such as community-specific criteria. She said.that every manual suggests developing all criteria fast and then applying it. She said that she read the resolution and it suggests that the public will participate. in a meaningful manner in this process. She wants to know how the resolution will ensure that Orange County residents and representatives from civic groups will indeed meaningfully participate in this arduous process that is already going very badly. 5. Adoption of Proposed Resolution on Public Participation tamended per Feb ,) ,~ th A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adopt the Orange County Transfer Station Siting Process Resolution Commitment to Public Participation. Chair Jacobs read the resolution. Orange County Transfer Station Siting Process Resolution Commitment to Public Participation WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners authorized County management to begin planning a solid waste transfer station for the Eubanks Road site in March 2007; and WHEREAS, the hoard agreed in November 2007, to activate a process for identifying and evaluating alternate sites for locating a solid waste transfer station; and WHEREAS, the services of Olver, Inc., an independent engineering consulting firm, were engaged in December 2007 to guide grid assist the Board -serving as a "committee of the whole"- through the technical phases of a search process -from defining site criteria to the ranking of candidate sites -leading ultimately to a site selection; and WHEREAS, the Board is aware and appreciates the sense of urgency and magnitude of effort required by this undertaking -given the existing landfill is projected to be at capacity by 2011; and WHEREAS, the Board is keenly concerned and committed to conducting a process that provides for a high level of public information and abundant opportunity for meaningful public participation throughout; and WHEREAS, the Board has been in consultation with its Human Relations Commission on the definition and development of a Social Justice Goal to include a vision of a-society that is equitable, whose members are physically and psychologically safe and secure, and where the marginalized, disenfranchised and oppressed are included in developing solutions to the issues that concern them; and WHEREAS, the Board charged Olver, Inc., with advice and assistance from County management, to propose a schedule of special (and public) meetings that many aggressive timelines for deliberations and decision-making on siting criteria and site options, along with comprehensive outreach and notification, information/feedback sessions, and special presentations within and among impacted individuals, neighborhoods and the community at large; and WHEREAS, the Board on February 5, 2008 amended its regular meeting schedule to incorporate additional dates consistent with the philosophy of public education and engagement, and providing that such meetings be televised, with the understanding that further meeting dates will be added and advertised widely~as the siting process proceeds; and WHEREAS, the Board recognizes that the vision of Social Justice can only be developed synergistically, as both process and goal; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners has set forth these actions and this statement as strong indicators of the Board's desire to ensure a fair, open, and fundamentally sound siting process for a transfer station; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board invites and encourages local media, municipalities, civic organizations, and residents from everywhere in Orange County to engage and participate fully in this siting process as all are equal stewards for the environment of Orange County; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board will reserve far public comment the last fifteen (15) minutes of each of the meetings that are part of the Board's schedule of meetings which meetings are committed to identifying and evaluating alternative sites for locating a solid waste transfer station. This Resolution takes effect immediately. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Jacobs said that the Board of County Commissioners continues to be in consultation with the attorney, and what the County Commissioners are hearing from the public is resonating and has for a long time. He said that the Board of County Commissioners was the entity that initiated the social justice goal and not the Human Relations Commission. He said that the County Commissioners represent the interests of Orange County, which includes any kind of legal vulnerabilities based on what is said. Commissioner Foushee said that when these meetings were added it was so the public could be invited for participation and education. The meetings have been scheduled to begin at 5:30, and in order for the County Commissioners to maximize the amount of business that can get done, it is incumbent upon all to be here at 5:30 p.m. so that the meetings can begin on time. If this is nova good time for the public, then it would be good for the County Commissioners to know. Several members in the audience said that 5:30 p.m. was not a good time. Commissioner Gordon said that, especially if this is not a good time for the public, then it should be considered. She also has some longstanding commitments and is sometimes unable to get here at 5:30 p.m. . Chair Jacobs suggested starting later at 6:00 p.m. and then adjusting the regular County Commissioners' meetings later. Commissioner Carey suggested having the Chair and Vice Chair work with the staff on an alternative. The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 pm. Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board APPROVED 4/15/2008 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TRANSFER STATION SITING WORK SESSION . ~ March 18, 2008 5:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Transfer Station Siting Work Session on Tuesday, March 1 S, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Serutces Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Mike Nelson • COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geof Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager, baura Blackmon, Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey and Willie Best, and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: AI..L DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE W THE_GLERK'S OFFICE. PURPOSE: The stated •purpose of the meeting is to finalize and adopt the exclusionary criteria. The general format and schedule for upcoming transfer station siting information sessions will be presented for discussion, feedback, and direction. Information regarding technical criteria, community-specific criteria, and weighting factors will also be presented for discussion, feedback, direction, and public comments. AGENDA: Commissioner Gordon asked if public comment would be allowed on the exclusionary criteria at the April public participation meetings. Ed Schuffler explained that on the flow schematic it states that there is supposed to be a decision on the exclusionary criteria tonight. Commissioner Gordon expressed concern that the Board had not had sufficient discussion about this at the last work session. Commissioner Foushee said that since everyone is not on the same page, then public comment should be allowed tonight on the exclusionary criteria at the beginning, and then on the technical criteria at the end. Commissioner Carey asked when the Board would make a decision on the exclusionary criteria. Chair Jacobs said that the public participation meetings are April 3`~ and April 10~', and the Board has a regular meeting on April 15~'. He suggested making a final decision on exclusionary criteria on April 15`f'. Commissioner Carey agreed. The Clerk said that no one had signed up to speak yet. Chair Jacobs said that the Board would then entertain comment at the end of the meeting. • 1) Review and Discussion of Finalizing Exclusionary Criteria (Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2, and Exhibit 3) Ed Schuffler said that he went through these details last time. Exhibit 1 is shown below: PRELIMINARY EXCLUSIONARY SITING CRITERIA A. Site must be located within Orange County. B. Wetlands and floodplains C. Endangered and protected flora and fauna habitats D. Protected sites of historical, archeological, or cultural significance E. Sites with majority of area~having steep topographic slopes (>15%) F. Park preserves G. Site cannot be located in a critical watershed H. Site must be located within 3 miles of US 15-501, NC 54, NC 86, US 70, NC 57, I-40, or I-85 and within 10 miles of the projected waste generation centroid. I. Sites (single parcel or combination of parcels) must be at least 25 acres unless transportation access, existing buffers, and preliminary transfer station site layout demonstrate the adequacy of a smaller site area. Commissioner Gordon asked what was meant by item F, "park preserves". It used to be "parks and preserves:' Ed Schuffler said that these are areas that are preserved as natural areas. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that these are areas that will have no development and these can be further defined. Any of these items should have a clear source, a definition, and a reference map. Chair Jacobs asked if this was protected open space and Craig Benedict said yes, if it has a conservation easement on it. Chair Jacobs said that the term "park preserves" does not seem as inclusive or as clear as "areas of open space in the County." Craig Benedict said that staff could work with consultants to have a more definitive description for parks, open' space, greenways, etc., and which should be part of the exclusionary criteria. This could also be switched to technical criteria. Commissioner Carey said that it should go into the exclusionary criteria and the definition of park preserves could be tweaked. Commissioner Gordon said that we previously discussed the possibility of protected watersheds being included here and said that she does not see it. Ed Schuffler said that there was discussion about putting this in the technical criteria. Chair Jacobs said that it could be under item K in the technical criteria. Commissioner Gordon respectfully requested that when the County Commissioners asked the consultants to include something as a criterion, then the consultants should include it subsequently in the written materials. Otherwise it is lost. Ed Schuffler said that he thought it would go in as part of the zoning designation. Geof Gledhill said that there is no term, "critical watershed," in any of the County's planning documents. The language is "critical area of watersheds ° Commissioner Gordon said #hat watersheds deserve their own separate category. Chair Jacobs said that, since this is a working document, then he would suggest on the bottom of Exhibit 5, #hat there be a space with a list of additional concerns raised by the Board of County Commissioners so tha# they can be tracked. Commissioner Gordon said that she remembered early on talking about other things, such as sites that are freely offered, and she is concerned about things being brought up by Commissioners and not being included in the documents. Ed SchufFler made reference to item H, which was discussed last time regarding sites being within three miles of major roadways. This was where the discussion about the railroad came. in. This is being considered for the technical criteria. Chair Jacobs said that the Board had asked for a map that showed the actual 10-mile distances from the waste centroid. Ed Schuffler made reference to Exhibi# 2, which shows the centroid of population and employment together. Chair Jacobs said that the Board talked about how the trucks cannot go #hrough the Town of Hillsborough, so what may be 10 miles on a map is not 10 miles iri reality.' He thought that the Board wanted a map that showed the actual ten miles that a truck would Piave to travel to get north of the Town of Hillsborough. He needs to see this on a map. Ed Schuffler said that the furthest site would be right up to Hillsborough, so it would not run. into the north of Hillsborough. Chair Jacobs said that since this is exclusionary criteria, then that would exclude NC 86 and NC 57 north of Hillsborough, but it is not indicated on the list. He would recommend taking NC 57 off-the list, as well as NC 86 north of Hillsborough. Commissioner Gordon said that she would argue against the ten-mile cen#roid as an exclusionary criterion, because it would take out sites that are on I-85 east and west, which could be possible good sites. She stated that this should be included in the technical criteria and not in exclusionary criteria.. She said that same of the si#es on I-85 would be 16 miles away. Chair Jacobs said that one of the issues that the County dealt with about a year ago is that both Chapel Hill and Carrboro expressed reservations about having to drive their vehicles very far. He thinks that there must be some road mile cutoff point that is optimal for trucks that are designed for carrying garbage. Ed Schuffler said that, based on the way it is setup, if the mileage is more than about 15 miles, then there will have to be a transfer station . to get to the transfer station. If there are no si#es at 10 miles, then it can jump to 12 miles. Commissioner Carey said that 10 miles may seem stric#, but it can go up to about 12 miles. Chapel Hill and Carrboro should have a chance to comment on this again. He wants to be clear about allowing the extra two miles. Ed Schuffler said that there was discussion about, as the consul#ants go out and look for sites, that if they do not find sites a# 10 miles, then they would come back and ask for a higher radius. Chair Jacobs suggested listing it as up to 12 miles and then giving. a weighted factor to distance from waste generation. Ed Schuffler said that the technical criteria does look at this again. Commissioner Gordon suggested setting the maximum distance from the centroid at 15 miles, since that is what Ed Schuffler referenced as the maximum dis#ance. Commissioner Foushee said that she would like to come to some conclusion on this criterion. A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to change the exclusionary criteria (item H above) to say "wi#hin 12 miles of the projected waste generation centroid." VOTE: Ayes, 4; Nay, 1 (Commissioner Gordon) Commissioner Gordon asked for maps with the radius from the centroid marked. Ed.SchufFler asked which centroid to use -the population and employment or just the population. He recommended using both the population and the employment as shown on Exhibit 2. Chair Jacobs suggested that if maps are used that some of the roads be labeled. He said that it looks like the mean center is on Eubanks Road. The Board agreed to using Exhibit 2, which was a map of Orange County depicting the center of solid waste generation. Ed SchufFler made reference to item I and the size of the parcel. There was some concern about acreage and allowing sites that were freely offered that might be less than 25 acres. Chair Jacobs suggested making the grammar consistent all the way through on the list of exclusionary criteria. Commissioner Gordon asked Ed Schuffler to look up the maximum allowable distance for garbage trucks to travel one way, and report back to the Board, and he agreed. PUBLIC COMMENT: Neloa Jones asked about the buffer for the 25 acres. She asked if the 25 acres allowed for a large enough buffer. She urged the Board to be as clear as possible about all of the criteria before identifying sites. She would like the Board to start big and work backward. Ed Schuffler said that the 25 acres is the base and they will look at these properties that are at least 25 acres. Chair Jacobs asked about the minimum buffer and Ed Schuffler said 50 feet is all that is required by the State, but he would look at a 100 to 200-foot buffer. Chair Jacobs asked that this information be made available at the public participation meetings. 2) Adoption of Final Exclusionary Criteria Delayed to a subsequent meeting. 3) Discussion and Approval of Transfer Station Siting Information Session Format and Schedule (Exhibit 4) Exhibit 4 is shown below: TRANSFER STATION SITING PROCESS Transfer station siting public information sessions are scheduled for Thursday, April 3, 2008 at 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. in the F Gordon Battle Courtroom, 106 E. Margaret Lane, in Hillsborough and on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. in the Southern Human Services Center, 2501 Homestead Rd., in Chapel Hill. The public information sessions will include a presentation describing the function and operation of a solid waste transfer station. The transfer station siting process will also be discussed in detail focusing on the purpose and use of technical and community-specific criteria and weighting factors in the evaluation and final selection of a recommended site. Exclusionary Criteria include the stipulation of areas where development is .prohibited by federal, state, or local laws or regulations. ~ Exclusionary criteria also include consideration of transportation distance, land use, zoning requirements, .watershed protection, and other factors that may significantly impact the environment, facility costs, or project implementation. Technical Criteria include specific engineering, operation, and transportation parameters that should be considered to assure that sites are feasible from a technical design, environmental, and economic prospective. Community-Specific Criteria consider the impacts that the facility will have on the surrounding community. The primary objective of these public information sessions will be for Olver, Inc. to provide the public at large with information regarding the operation of a transfer station; to provide the public at large with information regarding the site selection process; and to receive broad public input and comment on the preliminary set of site selection criteria and weighting factors, so that the needs and concerns of the residents of Orange County can be integrated into the final decision- making process. These public information sessions are being conducted by Olver, Inc. on behalf of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. A summary of session proceedings will be provided to the Board and posted to the website being maintained by Olver, Inc. as part of the Orange County Transfer Station siting project. Chair Jacobs asked the consultants to provide contact information for the Olver firm for the public so that people can ask questions later. Ed Schuffler said that he would cover this with the public and what is presented at these public meetings will be put on the website. Chair Jacobs asked how the room would be set up and Ed Schuffler said that they would do a PowerPoint presentation with handouts and then answer questions. Commissioner Gordon said to make sure that the exclusionary criteria are also addressed at the public participation meetings along with the other two criteria. 4) Discussion, Feedback and Comment on Technical Criteria, Community-Specific Criteria, and Weighting Factors (Exhibit 5, Exhibit 6, Exhibit 7, and Exhibit 8) Ed Schuffler said that the Board has not gotten into the weighting criteria and the way things are ranked. Bob Sallach went through Exhibit 5, as shown below: PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL CRITERIA A. Central Location to Collection Routes B. _ Access to Major Transportation Routes C. Site Size Requirements D. Sufficient Space for Onsite Roadways, Queuing, and Parking E. Truck and Traffic Compatibility F. ,Ability for Expansion G. Space for Recycling, Composting, and Public Education H. Buffer Space Gently Sloping Topography J. Access to Utilities K. Zoning Designations and Requirements L. Carbon Footprint Impact Bob Sallach said that each site that has been selected from the exclusionary process would be ranked with respect to each other as they are related to the technical criteria from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most desirable. Once this process is completed, then the weighting factors would be applied to specific evaluating criteria. Commissioner Nelson said that he is thoroughly confused and he asked the consultants to bring something back to the Board with suggestions about how fio weight the criteria. Bob Sallach said that as they go through these public participation meetings, they will receive feedback from the public and then they will bring back to the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation on how the criteria should be weighted. Commissioner Gordon said that it is hard to know how to measure these criteria, such as truck and traffic compatibility. She asked the consultants to describe what the various criteria mean and how to measure them. She said that the criteria need to be quant~ed because they seem to have different scales. Some criteria are more than just "yes" and "no" and descriptions are needed. Also, there was discussion about not putting the transfer station on a priority bicycle transportation route. The County has an adopted bicycle plan that identifies priority bicycle routes. , Bob Sallach said that, after a site has been identified, the consultants will lay the facility out on a site, idenf~fy buffers, etc. Chair Jacobs said that he thinks that Commissioner Gordon is asking that, for the public, that each criterion have a definition to go with it for the exhibits. The consultants agreed to this. Bob Sallach said that the Board of County Commissioners had asked about weighting factor points to a particular site. If a site is ranked most desirable with a particular criterion, the way you compute the points would be to multiply the points (1-10) by the weighting factor assigned to that criterion. The total points would then equal 100. Chair Jacobs said that Exhibit 7 states that the Board would be discussing the weighting factors on April 15~'. He thinks that it is sufficient at this point to note that the consultants would be coming back with their professional recommendation about how weighting factors would be applied to these criteria. Commissioner Nelson said that the one criterion that he is most interested in seeing a definition far is the one about environmental justice. Bob Sallach said that the consultants would like to present the community-specific criteria to the public in a general manner, and then receive feedback. Based on that feedback, a definition would 6e created to bring back to the Board of County Commissioners. Chair Jacobs suggested having the Human Rights and Relations Director work on a draft statement an what Orange County means by environmental justice. Shoshannah Smith. said that she has the statement from the EPA about environmental justice, but not from the Human Relations Commission, as it is in the ~rocess~of being drafted. Chair Jacobs said that if the . feedback came back to the Board by April 15 ,then the HRG could develop its'definition. Shoshannah said that the HRC is going to be meeting with the consultants on April 14~', and there will be more clarity. Commissioner Nelson said that he thinks the public participation meetings will be much more productive if there is a draft definition for.discussion. Shoshannah said that the HRC does have a draft and she can circulate it and have it at the public meetings in April. Chair Jacobs made reference to the community-specific criteria and asked for questions or comments from the Board. Exhibit 6 is shown below: PRELIMINARY GOMMUNITY-SPECIFIC CRITERIA A. Environmental Justice Considerations B: Impact on air Quality C. Impact on the Local Infrastructure D. Adjacent Land Uses E. Proximity to Schools, Churches, Recreation Sites, and Residences F. Prevailing Winds G. Number of Residences Impacted H. Presence of Natural Buffers 1. Impacts on Existing Businesses J. Buffer Zones and Screening. Measures K. Traffic Compatibility L. Impact on Historic or Cultural Features M. Impact on Non-protected Neighborhood Character Commissioner Gordon said to give people some description of what these mean, as will be done with other criteria. Bob Sallach said that he would expand or at least put in a preliminary definitior- for each criterion. He asked if the Board had other items that it wished to include in this list. Commissioner Gordon said that she asked earlier to put freely offered 'parcels as preferred sites. Commissioner Carey said that this should go under technical criteria so that it can be given some weight. Bob Sallach agreed. Commissioner Gordon said that under (and use, a site should be preferred if the land use is non-residential. Bob Sallach said that he would like to leave land use open at this point. He said that it could be made too exclusionary. Commissioner Gordon said that her suggestion should at least be written down and recorded. • Chair Jacobs said that this should be listed under the items that were raised by County Commissioners for future consideration. Commissioner Gordon said that the site should not be in a residential area, and preferably in an industrial or commercial area. . Bob Sallach then reviewed Exhibit 7, Meeting Timeline. The only change is that the decision for the exclusionary criteria is being moved to April 15'}'. Chair Jacobs noted that the meeting listed on June 30~' is an additional meeting for the Board of County Commissioners and not before a regular meeting. 5) Public Comment Period Yonni Chapman made reference to the public information sessions and said that it has been fairly evident that Olver has not always been able to present what they have to say even to the County Commissioners without confusing them: He said that he has attended public information sessions in the past related to the landfill, and he was extremely disappointed in the process, because the biggest majority of the time was taken up by trivial presentations and the discussion was minimal. He said that the presentation should be kept to a minimum and the discussion to a maximum. He said that what really bothered him was when Commissioner Nelson asked about the definition of environmental justice and the consultant responded that it would depend on the public information sessions. Fle said that this comes far too late in the process and the public needs to know about this particular criterion and exactly what the Board of County Commissioners is thinking about in terms of environmental justice. It needs to be up in the front at the forums so that there can be some substantive discussion. He said that this demonstrates a lack of understanding as to how to define environmental justice. He thinks that this should be asked of the experts (i.e., HRC, EPA, etc.). He finds this approach to be too little too late. Bob Nutter said that the waste will be taken from the transfer station out of Orange County. He hopes that a transfer station would be near a railroad, because he believes that this is the cheapest way to move large volumes of things. He said that the site where the landfll is now is near a railroad and this would be an ideal situa#ian for a transfer station, and it would be cheaper to move the solid waste out of the County. Barry Katz said that, between all of the criteria, there are 25 areas and the Board is t "tying to optimize among 25 variables and then weight them. He said that this is almost impossible. He said that Planning Director Craig Benedict used to have maps of Orange County with different variables and colors and you could see what was happening around the County with these maps. He suggested looking at all •of the technical criteria and almost all of the community-specific criteria, then the sites could be mapped out using the Planning Department's expertise. He said that this would be a quick way to see what is in and what is out. Regarding prevailing winds, he said that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources has all of the data about prevailing winds. 6) FurEher Comment and Feedback as desired by the Board to Olver, Inc. and/or Gounty Management Chair Jacobs suggested that it would be advantageous to weigh the balance of the time of presentations to give as much opportunity as possible to the public to speak. Bob Sallach said that they would follow that format. Commissioner Gordan suggested that Bob Sallach share.mate~ials with the Board of County Commissioners before the public participation meetings. Chair Jacobs said, that this could be done through the Manager. The meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m. Bany Jacobs, Chair. Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board 1 DRAFT 2 MINUTES • 3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4 TRANSFER STATION SITING WORK SESSION ~5 April 15, 2008 6 5:30• p.m. 7 8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Transfer Station Siting Work 9 Session on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in 10 Chapel Hill, N.C. 11 12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Moses 13 Carey, Jr., Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon and Mike Nelson 14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: 15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geof Gledhill 16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County 17 Manager Gwen Harvey and Willie Best, and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff 18 members will be identified appropriately below). 19 • 20 .NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT 21 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. 22 23 24 PURPOSE: 25 The stated purpose of the meeting is to finalize and adopt the exclusionary criteria, with 26 further detail and illustrative maps being presented at that time. 27 28 Additionally, the consultants are scheduled to present for discussion, feedback and direction 29 a summary of public camments from the transfer station siting information sessions. The 30 Chair of the Human Relations Commission and Director of the Human Rights and Relations 31 Office will brief the BOCC on their draft definition of "Environmental Justice". Further 32 information regarding the preliminary technical criteria and community-specific criteria will 33 also be presented for discussion, feedback, and direction as time permits. 34 35 Chair Jacobs asked if any Board of County Commissioners wanted to make comments 36 about the process or materials. 37 Commissioner Gordon said that she did attend the most recent public information . 38 session. At that session the citizens indicated They wanted more opportunity to speak than 39 had been allotted on tonight's printed agenda. In terms of agenda materials for this and other 40 transfer station siting meetings, she urged Olver and the staff to provide complete agenda 41 materials. That has not been done. She also said that in previous meetings, Commissioners 42 have requested that, when they make a comment or ask for information, it should be 43 recorded and then presented at the following meetings. If comments or suggestions are 44 made with respect to an exhibit, the comments should •be noted at the bottom of the exhibit. 45 Commissioner Gordon said that the public asked good questions about the definitions. 46 She would like to know how the consultants planned to score the criteria, such as the technical 47 criteria. She knows that the criteria will be ranked, but they also have to be weighted. She said 48 • they were told that when Olver gets the top sites based on technical criteria, there will be a 49 fairly detailed analysis of those sites. She thinks that the County Commissioners need more 50 information from Olver in response to the questions that have been asked. They particularly 51 need to know how Olver plans to score and weight criteria. 2 1 Commissioner Foushee said that she went through the minutes of the last two 2 meetings sa that she could get an idea how this agenda fit into the process. She said that 3 she clearly remembers the Board asking that the comments that the Board of County 4 Commissioners makes be included in the information packet for the agenda, and again they 5 are not included. She also thinks that it would be helpful for those Commissioners that could 6 not attend the public information session to get written information on what was covered. 7 Commissioner Carey said that the last few comments of Commissioner Foushee 8 • summed up his concerns. He~ said that he was expecting to get a summary of these public 9 sessions as well as responses from Olver. 10 Bob Sallach said that two public meetings have been conducted, as well as one 11 meeting with the Human Relations Commission, and they are in the process of compiling 12 information to bring back to the Board of County Commissioners. He wil( provide the 13 summary of the questions and answers from the public sessions. He said that a lot of goad 14 feedback was received. 15 He said that he would like to go through an interactive presentation of how these 16 criteria are applied. He said that he is still in the process of assembling data and it may be 17 premature to adopt the exclusionary criteria tonight. He said that the public would like the 18 ability to speak on the criteria at the end of this meeting. 19 20 1) Presentation and Discussion of Public Comments~from Transfer Station 21 Siting Information Sessions 22 2) Review and Discussion to Finalize Exclusionary Criteria (Exhibit 1) 23 • 24 Bob Sallach read the definitions as follows: 25 26 EXHIBIT 1 27 2& ORANGE COUNTY TRANSFER STATION SITING 29 Preliminary Exclusionary Criteria 30 31 FOOTNOTES PAGE 32 33 34 A. This background map shows the four planning jurisdictions within the entire county. 35 Development regulations and processes are likely different in each. 36 37 38 B.1. Protected Watershed/Overlay Districts are defined in Article 22 of the Orange County 39 Zoning Ordinance as, "Land that drains to existing reservoirs which are public water 40 supplies ar potential reservoir sites or stream intakes which have been designated for 41 protection. All such lands have been classified by the [North Carolina] Environmental 42 Management Commission as WS-II, WS-111 or WS-1V watersheds and require protection 43 in accordance with the State Mandate." 44 45 Bob Sallach showed this area on a map and said that the dark green areas would be 46 excluded. 47 ~48 49 B.2. `Critical Areas Overlay District' (within Protected Watershed) is defined in Section 50 4.2.27 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance as, "The land area within one-half mile of 3 1 the normal pool of an existing or proposed water supply impoundment, or the ridgeline of 2 the watershed, whichever is less." 3 4 5 C. The roads Hated are major transportation routes where a 3-mile buffer is created on 6 either side of the centerline. The road miles for the 12-mile distance do• not use back 7 roads in this version. 8 9 Bob Sallach said that the transportation corridors have been recently defined as US 15- 10 501, NC 54, NC 86 (excluding the area north of Hillsborough), US 70, I-40, and I-85. 11 Commissioner Gordon said that this criterion should be broken into two parts, (1) what is 12 the area that is within three miles from the major transportation corridors and, (2) how to 13 measure the centroid. She made reference to the map of the major transportation corridors. 14 She asked for an explanation of. the red marks for the centroid calculations. 15 Bob Sallach said that the centroid calculations were going from the centroid out, a 16 distance of 12 miles out from these major truck routes that have been referenced. 17 Commissioner Gordon reiterated that there should be two different criteria -the major 18 transportation corridors and the way the distance from the centroid is calculated. She would like 19 a map to distinguish between these two things. 20 Bob Sallach said that the transportation arterials that were previously identified were used 21 to establish the 3-mile corridor. There has to be some sort of methodology to establish what is 22 12 miles from the centroid. He asked for clarification on what Commissioner Gordon wanted. 23 Commissioner Gordon said that she wanted clarity on the differences between the areas that 24 are three miles from the major transportatior corridors and the areas that are 12 miles from the 25 centroid, along the major truck routes. She. thinks that the major truck routes should be . 26 specified. Bob Sallach said that he would break those elements into two criteria, as well as 27 specify the truck routes. 28 Commissioner Carey said that he remembered the discussion about the 12-mile radius, 29 but he does not remember how the Board arrived at the three-mile limit from major 30 transportation corridors. 31 Bob Sallach said that, according to the public comment, there were requests to expand 32 the corridor further than 12 miles and not to look just in the 3-mile corridor, but beyond it. 33 Commissioner Carey asked about Olver's recommendation and Bob Sallach said that 34 they would recommend to still look at the 12-mile radius and the 3-mile corridor. • 35 Chair Jacobs said that he recalls asking for information from the Chapel Hill and Carrboro 36 Public Works and Orange County's Solid Waste staff as to the reasonableness of the 12 miles, 37 and he thought that this information was coming back. Ultimately, the Board decided on this as 38 a compromised number, but there needs to be some basis related to the vehicles that the 39 municipalities are using. He asked that this information be available at the next meeting. 40 Commissioner Gordon said that the Board did ask for that information and for the 41 maximum number of miles that collection trucks can travel. She said that she looked back in 42 the minutes, and there was a point in the minutes where Mr. Schuffler said collection trucks 43 could travel 15-17 mites. • 44 Bob Sallach said that they did not pursue this because he misunderstood and thought that 45 there was a vote to proceed with the 12 miles. He will get this information. 46 Chair Jacobs said that the Board listened to the range and compromised on 12 miles, but 47 Board wanted it to be tested out to be sure that the vehicle was designed for that. Bob Sallach 48 said that he would follow up on this. 49 50 Bob Sallach continued with the criteria. 51 4 1 2 3 4 D.1. .Wetlands - As defined in the Open Space Standards of the Orange County Subdivision 5 Regulations (Section JV-C.3 b.) in the following manner: "Including, but not limited to, 6 streams, creeks, ponds, reservoirs, stormwater management facilities for watershed 7 protection purposes, and adjoining land.areas identified as part of: 8 0 The National Wetlands Inventory Maps for the county, prepared by the U.S. Fish 9 and Wildlife Service (see LUE page 2.2.15, 1981); 10 0 The "Orange County, N.C. Soil Survey," prepared by the U.S.D.A. Soil it Conservation Service (1977); 12 0 The "Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats," as prepared by the 13 Triangle Land Conservancy; 14 0 LANDSAT satellite data collected and analyzed under the Albemarle-Pamlico 15 Estuarine Study; 16 0 A required environmental assessment or environmental impact statement; andlor 17 0 A site analysis conducted by a registered engineer, land surveyor, landscape 18 .architect, architect or land planner using data from the U.S. Army Corps of 19 ~ Erigineers." 20 Wetlands are further defined in Article 22 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance as, 21 Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency 22 and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 23 prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands 24 generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." (Definition taken from 25 EPA regulations at 40 CFR Section 230.3(t) and COE Regulations at 33 CFR Section 26 328.3(b), as of July 2"d, 2002_) 27 28 D.2. Floodplain - As defined in the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention 29 Ordinance, "Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source:' 30 Floodplains in Orange County are delineated on an official map of Orange County, issued by 31 FEMA, on which FEMA has delineated the Special Flood Hazard. Areas and the fioodways. 32 This official map is a supplement to and shall be used in conjunction with the Flood Insurance 33 Rate Map, effective February 2, 2007, and as amended from time to time by Letters of Map 34 Amendment and Letters of Map Revision. 35 36 E. Steep Slopes - As defined in the Open Space Standards of the Orange County 37 Subdivision Regulations (Section IV-C.3 b.) in the following manner: Those [slopes- 38 topographic gradient] greater than 15 percent, identified as part of: 39 0 The "Orange County, N.C. Soil Survey," prepared by the U.S.D.A. Soil 40 Conservation Service (1977); 41 42 Commissioner Gordon verified that Olver was using 15 percent slopes. 43 44 F. Natural Areas, and Wildlife Habitats [PKA Endangered and Protected F & F 45 Habitants] -- As defined in the Open Space Standards of the Orange County 46 Subdivision Regulations (Section IV-C.3 b.) in the following manner: [Those areas] 47 "identified as part of: S 1 0 The "Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County," as 2 prepared by the Triangle Land Conservancy in coordination with. the NC Natural 3 Heritage Program (see LUE Map page 2.2.36 and Table 2-2.38-40)[1988]; . 4 0 The habitats are rated significant integrity and threat. 5 0 These areas are lands designated as... containing sensitive environmental 6 ~ resources...(part of LUE RPA definitions page 3.3.3). 7 8 :9 G. Historic and Archaeological Sites [includes cultural] -- As defined in the Open 10 Space Standards of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations (Section IV-C.3 b.) in 11 the following manner: [Those properties] "listed on the National Register of Historic 12 Places or included on the state's national register study list, designated as a local 13 historic landmark, designated as a local historic district, and/or identified as having a 14 high potential for.archaealogical remains as part of: 15 0 The "Chapel Hill Township Architectural Survey: Final Report" (1992); 16 0 The "Orange County Multiple Properly Documentation Form: Historic Resources 17 of Orange County" (1993); lg 0 "An Archaeological Survey of Portions of Orange County, N.C.' ; . 19 0 [2.2.49] 20 ' 21 22 Commissioner Gordon asked if the historical districts were designated on maps. Planning 23 Director Craig Benedict said that the local historic districts on the Land Use Element are marked ~24 by small circles representing possible historic houses or cemeteries. Other historic districts 25 could include crossroads communities, such as Cedar Grove or White Cross, and are. ~26 designated by larger circles. 27 Commissioner Gordan asked if these were local land use designations as opposed to 28 National Register of Historic Places. Craig Benedict said that they could be on a study list as 29 potential sites for the registry. Commissioner Gordon asked that these criteria be further 30 clarified before we decided whether or not to include them. 31 32 N. Bob Sailach said that this refers to County-owned land designated as park preserves. 33 This definition is ongoing and information will be brought back to the Board. 34 35 This definition may be modified based on input from the BOCC and the status of future 36 park or county properly master plans 37 38 The Board asked several questions about this criterion. '39 ' 40 1. This exclusion is explained in two different ways: (1) exclude residential areas within 41 protected watershed overlay districts; and (2) include non-residential activity nodes within 42 Protected Watershed Overlay District. 43 44 Bob Sallach noted that the Buckhorn EDD area was beyond the 12-mile distance from the 45 centroid of waste generation. 46 47 J. 25-acre parcels may be unencumbered in some manner by these exclusions. , 48 49 Craig Benedict said that properties less than 25 acres have a dark outline on the map, 50 and properties aver 25 acres do not have a dark outline. 6 1 Bob Saliach made reference to the 25-acre parcels and said that, as they look at the 2 criteria, they are saying that the majority of the parcels should be unencumbered by one of 3 these exclusionary criteria. There should be a significant buffer of about 12.5 acres. 4 Commissioner Gordon said that there were citizens at the information session that wanted 5 to go farther than the 3 miles from the major transportation corridors and more than 12 miles 6 from the centroid, along the truck collection routes because they wanted more territory 7 included. Also, people wanted land to be zoned correctly in commercial or industrial areas. 8 'There are not very many commercial or industrial areas in Orange County's planning 9 jurisdiction, and not ail of them are within the 12-mile distance from the centroid of waste 10 generation. 11 Commissioner Nelson asked when the County Commissioners would be getting the public 12 comments and Bob Saliach said that they are not prepared to provide these comments tonight 13 in writing. The comments will be received before the next Transfer Station Siting Work Session. 14 Commissioner Gordon said that the public also said that they wanted maps and figures 15 large enough that they could read them. 16 Chair Jacobs suggested that if people want to comment on the exclusionary criteria, then 17 they can comment at the end of this meeting since nothing is being adopted tonight. 18 A citizen asked how the public would be able to see the comments from the public 19 information session before the next meeting and it was answered that the comments would be 20 available on the website and at the next meeting, where there will be discussion and the 21 opportunity for public comment before the vote. 22 Commissioner Carey said that, in view of the fact that this meeting was advertised as a 23 meeting where the Board would hear at least a summary of comments from the public meeting, 24 and then he thinks that these should be heard and then followed up with the written public 25 documents from those meetings along with the consultant's recommendations in response. He 26 requested a brief summary. 27 Bob Saliach summarized his notes from the public information sessions. The public 28 expressed that some of the criteria were overlapping, particularly the ones dealing with future 29 space and additions. Another aspect was the relative importance of the criteria. Regarding the 30 community-specific criteria, the comments were that there needs to be more ability to assign 31 different levels of importance to those criteria. Three levels of importance were suggested at 32 the sessions- important, very important, and extremely important. Another important factor in 33 the discussions was, once the technical criteria evaluation is completed and candidate sites are 34 selected, this is not carried into the community-specific evaluation. The community-specific 35 starts all over again. There was also significant feedback on environmental justice and how that 36 would be defined. 37 38 3) Adoption of Final Exclusionary Criteria- DEFERRED 39 40 4) HRC Presentation re: Environmental Justice 41 42 Human Relations Commission Chair Bill Hendrickson said that the commission was asked 43 by several members of the community of the Eubanks Road site to become involved in this 44 because of the justice part of the issue. The County Commissioners asked the HRC to come up 45 with a definition of environmental justice. He thanked Shoshannah Smith for all of the hard work 46 on this. 47 Human Rights and Relations Director Shoshannah Smith made this presentation. She 48 introduced members of the HRC. Margot Lester read the definition as shown below, and 49 Shoshannah Smith went over the remainder of the handout. 50 51 To: Orange County Board of Commissioners (BoCC) 7 1 From: Orange County Human Relations Commission (HRC) 2 Re: Environmental Justice in the Transfer Station Siting Process 3 Meeting: Work Session, 4/15/2008, 5:30 PM, Southern Human Services Center 4 5 The following items were unanimously adopted by the HRC at the April 14, 2008 monthly 6 meeting. 7 8 Definition of Environmental Justice: 9 The fair treatrnent and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes and 10 educational levels with respect to the development and enforcement of environmental laws, 1l regulations, policies, and decisions. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a 12 disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, i3 governmental and.commercial operations or policies. 14 15 Making EnvironmentallyDust Decisions: 16 The BOCC should ask the following questions about each decision it makes: 17 1. What are the environmental justice implications of this decision? 18 2. If this decision has environmental justice implications, have all Orange County residents 19, been given adequate notice of the issue, relevant information, and opportunities to give 20 meaningful input before the final decision is made? 21 3. Does a proposed solution have a potentially cumulative environmental impact on a 22 specific community or neighborhood? 23 4. If a proposed solution may be environmentally unjust, is there an alternative resolution 24 that would have a less disparate impact while still accomplishing our core purpose? 25 26 Sitina Criteria: Due to social justice considerations, the HRC voted to support the highest 27 possible weighting against the following siting criteria: 28 29 Technical Criteria: 30 Zoning Designations and Requirements -Overburdening or clustering of industrial 31 facilities adjacent to low income or minority areas. 32 33 Community-Specific Criteria: 34 • Environmental Justice Considerations . 35 • Proximity to Schools, Churches, Recreation Sites, and Residences 36 • Adjacent Land Uses 37 • Impact on Non-Protected Neighborhood Character 38 39 40 Commissioner Nelson asked what was meant by "impact on non-protected neighborhood 41 character." Bob Sallach said that they want to make sure that the character of existing 42 neighborhoods is not significantly impacted. 43 Commissioner Nelson asked how this would be applied in a justice sense, since anyone 44 can say that their neighborhood has a specific character, and anyone will be able to argue that 45 siting any facility next to their neighborhood is going to harm the character of their 46 neighborhood. He does not understand how this gets applied. 47 Shoshannah Smith said that an example would be a historically Latino and Hispanic 48 community, and putting this facility in the middle of that neighborhood would ghettoize or 49 disperse the population. 50 Commissioner Nelson said that this item is too abstract for it to be of real use. 8 1 Chair Jacobs suggested taking out "non-protected". Every neighborhood has character, 2 but there should be more sensitivity to some neighborhoods because of the character. 3 Shoshannah Smith said that the 4-step process above already encompasses the impact 4 on non-protected neighborhoods, so it may be redundant. Commissioner Foushee agreed. S 6 5) Discussion, Feedback, and Comment on Preliminary Technical Criteria and 7 Preliminary Community-Specific Criteria (Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3) 8 Commissioner Gordon said that the Board could not get too far on this since there is no 9 information from the public information session: She said that at the Commissioners' places 10 there is a letter from the OUTBoard suggesting that the technical criteria include language 11 pertaining to bicycle corridors and rail lines. Memo below. 12 13 April 8, 2008 14 1S Chair Barry Jacobs and 16 Orange County Board of County Commissioners 17 200 Cameron Street 18 Hillsborough, North Carolina 19 20 Dear Commissioners: 21 22 The Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard), at its meeting on March 19, 2008, 23 ~ discussed the solid waste transfer station site process, and voted to forward the following 24 comments regarding station siting technical criteria to the Orange County Board of County 2S Commissioners. 26 27 The OUTBoard requests that technical criteria for locating the solid waste transfer 28 station should take Orange County's Bicycle Transportation Plan into consideration, and 29 not place a transfer station on a priority bicycle route. Additionally, the route to the 3o transfer station should minimize proximity to any bicycle route and avoid travel over a 31 priority bicycle route. 32 33 The OUTBoard also requests that technical criteria include preference for station sites that 34 would allow transfer of solid waste out of the County via rail. 3S 36 Please submit these comments to Olver, Inc. for the public information session Olver is 37 conducting on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners at the Southern Human Services 38 Genter in Chapel Hill on April 10, 2008. 39 40 Thank you for your consideration of these comments when developing the final site selection 41 criteria and weighting factors for technical issues. 42 43 Sincerely, 44 4S Sam Lasris, Chair 46 Orange Unified Transportation Board 47 48 49 1 Commissioner Cordon's said that it is her understanding that Olver wants to end up with a 2 ranking of sites. She asked how this would be done. 3 Bob Sallach said that they are proposing that the sites would be ranked with respect to 4 each other and the criteria. 5 Commissioner Gordon suggested a ranking based on some measurable points for each 6 criterion. Bab Sallach said that he would look at this, and that he was trying to make this as 7 objective as possible. 8 Commissioner Carey said that.he thought the technical criteria and attached values would 9 determine which sites are the highest, and then the top 10 would be laid out physically. Bob 10 Sallach said that Olver's intent was that 10 sites would be taken from the exclusionary criteria 11 and 4 sites would be carried forward to the community-specific evaluation. The Commissioners 12 had some further questions. 13 Chair Jacobs suggested taking a hypothetical site and showing the County 14 Commissioners how the criteria would work. 15 16 6) Public Comment Period 17 Sean Anderson said that he is anon-traditional senior at UNC-Chapel Hill, and he brings 18 a perspective of someone from a very diverse university, and he thinks the staff, the faculty, the 19 • undergraduate body, and all of the employees on his campus believe what has transpired 20 historically is that dumps and sewers were placed on impoverished, minority communities that 21 do not have the power to unseat the elected officials. He knows the County Commissioners are 22 in a tough dilemma, but in his opinion Orange County is in violation'of the 1948 Human Rights 23 that were signed and ratified by the United States and the United Nations. He recommended 24 adoption of the criteria. Regarding the impact on existing neighborhoods, he said that primarily 25 in this country the biggest investment people make is their home, especially with impoverished, 26 minority communities. He said that he read the Government Office of Accountability Report, 27 and it states that traditionally, our country as a whole has done this -counties dumping on 28 minority communities. He said that this is wrong. It is the County Cammissioners' responsibility 29 to make sure that this does not happen. If it does impact an existing neighborhood, then it 30 should impact a white, affluent neighborhood or a neighborhood of people other than minority 31 and impoverished. He said that UNC-Chapel Hill does not stand up for discrimination -existing 32 or past. He begged the County Cammissioners to be a beacon of light and not put a transfer 33 station in a minority, impoverished community. 34 Barry Katz thanked the Board for its consideration of this issue. He sees that the Board 35 is about to take the time necessary to make the right decision and not be rushed into any kind of 36 action. He is grateful far how the Board has handled this meeting tonight.. He said that he was 37 very disappointed at the presentation that Olver made regarding the materials that they were 38 expected to prepare tonight. He read a prepared statement. 39 "The Board is acting on behalf of the public and has a duty to let us know what you know 40 as soon as you know it. I think the Board aught to decide whether any current activities would 41 continue at the present landfill site and let the public know as early in this process as possible. 42 Otherwise, the Board might appear disingenuous during a process that demands clarity. Once 43 you decide exactly what you intend to do on the new WTS site, the BOCC can decide how large 44 a tract it is seeking within narrower limits. This would help tremendously in choosing serious site 45 candidates and it would minimize distracting public anxiety. 46 I have a few comments on a potential exclusionary criterion and other specific criteria. 47 Absent from the Technical Criteria list is any concern for water. At a minimum, the WTS 48 site will have the transfer station which will require frequent washing for obvious sanitary and 49 public health reasons. Substantial quantities of water would be used to wash this facility and 50 washing might well occur every day. I don't know. 10 1 -After particulate filtration and de-greasing, this wash water will contain various dissolved 2 organic matter, metal salts, toxins, and microorganisms. Each day's garbage haul would 3 potentially be different in the range and concentration of such matter. However, it would always 4 contain both animal and human fecal material and microbes. It would always contain a 5 substantial nutrient pool of rotting food, dissolved medicinals, leaked batteries, etc. The 6 microbial concentration, including coliform bacteria would be extremely high. These microbes 7 are aggressively digesting all this great stuff. That is why it smells. 8 So, the water used to wash down the Transfer Facility would need to be disposed of 9 safely and surely. The alternatives are either via a municipal sewer system or by collection and 10 cartage from the site. Olver has suggested that carting tanker trucks of wash water is a viable 1l option and would leave non-sewered sites available for consideration. However, trucking this 12 water has several problems: The water has to be stored, it has to be transferred into a tanker 13 truck and it has to be driven to a release or dumping site. Storage and transfer offer significant 14 leakage risk, and tanker transfer is both a risk and an additional diesel fuel expense. Carting 15 .wash water adds to the site upkeep costs as long as the site is in operation. Remember, the 16 very first leak of sewer-quality water will cause a huge uproar, with a likely cry for a sewer line in 17 order to avoid a repeat mishap. This kind of secondary fix would really be expensive and call 18 into question the credibility of the BOCC. 19 1 suggest you seriously consider adding among your criteria: `Access to Municipal Sewer 20 and Water', and weigh this as a `Ten."' 21 22 Fred Stang said that he was speaking on behalf of Neighborhoods for Responsible 23 Growth, a group based in Orange County. He said that last Thursday's public information 24 session was very informative on the siting process. He said that the consultants indicated that 25 the criteria were not set in stone and that they were actively soliciting constructive suggestions 26 from citizens about how the process might be tailored to reflect the~will of the public. The 27 attendees were unanimous that, some site other than the Eubanks Road site be bound to the 28 transfer station and made several worthy suggestions. The first suggestion was that the 29 environmental justice component of the community-specific criteria be more heavily weighted 30 . and move to a position where it will be considered earlier in the process. Secondly, that a 31 criterion be included that weights past history of association with the landfill as a factor that 32 lowers the ranking of a potential site. Thirdly, that heavier consideration be given to the fact that 33 continued heavy truck traffic along Eubanks Road, iri light of the new schools being sited in the 34 area, is undesirable. Lastly, that among the exclusionary criteria, the potential site location 35 distances be increased to within 5 miles of major highways and within 15 miles of the projected 36 waste generation centroid. The goal of these suggestions is to eliminate the Eubanks Road site 37 from consideration and increase the chance that an alternative site would be chosen. He said 38 that Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth stands in support of the Rogers/Eubanks Coalition 39 to End Environmental Racism and the Rogers/Eubanks Neighborhood Association, as well as 40 many Orange County citizens in calling for the Board of County Commissioners to site the 41 transfer station elsewhere. 42 Reverend Robert Campbell read a letter. 43 "Dear Chairman Jacobs and County Commissioners; 44 45 On June 6, 2007, residents of the Rogers-Eubanks community began working with the 46 Historic Rogers Road Community Enhancement Plan and Development and Monitoring Task 47 Force. The Task Force was established by the Board of County Commissioners to address 48 concerns related to the long-term presence of solid waste facilities in the community.. Members 49 of the community worked in good faith through the summer and fail of 2007 with representatives 50 of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County to reach agreement on the priorities for the 51 community. 11 1 Since the last Task Force meeting on November 12, 2007, there has been no action by 2 the BOCC. As a matter of fact, Chair Moses Carey indicated that the Board's decision to 3 .reopen the site search for the transfer station might negatively impact the County's willingness 4 to provide basic public services. (See attached meeting notes.) Has Orange County not 5 worked in good faith on behalf of the community by~now tying long-promised basic public 6 services to the siting of a new transfer station? Is the Task Farce. to be yet another failed effort 7 in the long history of promises made, expectations raised, and resolution denied? 8 The BOCC has now also made it clear that the Title VI civil rights, administrative 9 complaint filed by the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association with the Coordination and 10 Review Section in the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice precludes any 11 further work toward reaching a settlement. The commun'~ty challenges such reasoning. The 12 administrative complaint asserts that discrimination occurred and that necessary procedures 13 were not followed in the past to the detriment of the Rogers-Eubanks Road community. To 14 follow proper procedures now and to continue the work of the Task Force going forward does 15 not reflect on the past or the disposition of that administrative complaint. To use the Title VI 16 administrative complaint as an excuse not to address the concerns of the community appears to 17 be just another evasive tactic. 18 The Rogers-Eubanks Road community stands ready to continue working with the BOCC 19 and specifically wants to focus at this time on the most pressing and most easily remedied issue 20 before the BOCC, the issue of the siting of the Waste Transfer Station. 21 Specifically, we seek the immediate removal of the Rogers-Eubanks Road vicinity from 22 consideration as a site for the Waste Transfer Station. This matter can be resolved quickly with 23 the prompt passage of a BOCC resolution that takes a determined stand for environmental 24 justice. We have attached a recommended resolution for your consideration. 25 The Task Force and the good faith efforts of the Rogers-Eubanks community should not 26 become another sad milestone in the fang history of expectations raised and hopes denied. We 27 stand ready to continue the work and look forward to your prompt and unanimous passage of 28 the proposed resolution. 29 30 Thank You. 31 ' 32 Robert Campbell and Neloa Jones 33 Go-Chairs of the Rogers-Eubanks Coalition ~to End Environmental Racism" 34 35 36 7) Further Comment and Feedback as desired by the Board to Olver, Inc. 37 and/or County Management 38 39 Chair Jacobs clarified that the Board has asked for further information including a written 40 summary of the public session comments, a hypothetical site with criteria applied, and further 41 testing based an comments from Public Works staffs of Chapel Hill and Carrboro of the 12-mile 42 limit. He also suggested that there be a modified environmental justice Baal without the points. 43 Commissioner Gordon said Olver also agreed to divide orie of the exclusionary.criteria 44 into two parts, thereby making two exclusionary criteria: (1) the area twelve miles from the 45 centroid along major truck routes and (2) the area three miles from the major transportation 46 corridors. There were also other points concerning the community specific criteria that are to be 47 addressed by the consultants. 48 The Board also asked for a definitions for all technical criteria, community specific criteria, 49 and exclusionary criteria, with some indication for how these would be measured. lz 1 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Gwen Harvey reviewed her notes: Finalize the definition of parks and preserves, amend the footnote pages regarding the wetlands and steep slopes, and write down the rule of thumb regarding the majority of the site when it comes to.evaluating the exclusionary criteria. Chair Jacobs suggested that the staff and consultants review the minutes of the previous meetings to find all of the points the Commissioners had discussed. Commissioner Gordon said that comments from the County Commissioners should be written on the criteria pages (including all the exhibits) so that they are not lost. The meeting was adjourned at 7:29 pm. Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board