Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20080219 - Transfer Station 1 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 on 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) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ALL RECORDINGS OF THE MEETING WILL BE KEPT FOR 5 YEARS. 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. Review and Discussion of Preliminary Exclusionary Criteria based upon Comments and Feedback from February 11th Meeting (Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3 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 18th. 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, or cultural significance. 2 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, US 70, NC 57, 1-40, or 1-85).' H. Site cannot be located in a critical watershed.2 Ed Schuffler 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 18th 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 Gordon 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 and 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 'Recommend that location of site with respect to rail access be included in the consideration of Technical Criteria. 2 Recommendation that protected watersheds also be included in the criteria being reviewed by County staff. 3 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 located 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 15-17 miles one way. He would like to propose a ten- 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 Carrboro 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 Gordon 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 map. Ed Schuffler said that is why they identified that and it would be brought back by the next meeting. 2. Public Comment on Preliminary 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. Neloa 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 8th meeting approved three recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the siting of a transfer 4 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 for 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 specific 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 more 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 • 5 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 Schuffler 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. Chair Jacobs 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 Schuffler 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 Schuffler continued reviewing each criterion. • 6 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 concerned that if this is done, then it just gives a three-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 first 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 (amended per Feb 11th) 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 Board 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 and 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 7 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 marry 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 for 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 8 be here at 5:30 p.m. so that the meetings can begin on time. If this is not a 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