1 / 20

Board Meeting August 12-13, 2003 Agenda Item 19

Board Meeting August 12-13, 2003 Agenda Item 19. Discussion And Request For Direction Regarding “Location Indentification” For The Purpose Of Public Resources Code Section 50001. PRC 50001(a).

gwylan
Télécharger la présentation

Board Meeting August 12-13, 2003 Agenda Item 19

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Board MeetingAugust 12-13, 2003Agenda Item 19 Discussion And Request For Direction Regarding “Location Indentification” For The Purpose Of Public Resources Code Section 50001

  2. PRC 50001(a) “… no person shall establish or expand a solid waste facility, as defined in Section 40194, in the county unless the solid waste facility meets one of the following criteria:   (1) The solid waste facility is a disposal facility or a transformation facility, the location of which is identified in the countywide siting element or amendment thereto, which has been approved pursuant to Section 41721.” (emphasis added)

  3. September 2000 Resolution “…the Board shall interpret PRC 50001 to only require a finding that the facility’s location be identified in the CSE or NDFE, either by the facility address or general location on a map, and shall not review the facility’s conformance to the description set forth in those documents …”

  4. 5 Year Review Cycle • Maintain 15 years of disposal capacity • Jurisdictions seeking guidance: • Must CSE be amended? • Prefer not to if not necessary • Process can be lengthy and resource intensive

  5. CSE Amendment ·Local Task Force (LTF) comment and review ·Public Hearing with 30 days Notice ·Approval of the county and a majority of the cities with a majority of the population of the incorporated area of the county (in some counties [Stanislaus and San Diego] one city has the majority of the population of the incorporated area)

  6. NDFE Amendment • ·LTF comment and review • · Public Hearing with 3 days notice • · Approval of the jurisdiction wishing to amend the NDFE

  7. CSE Map Requirements “The Siting Element shall include a description of each proposed new solid waste disposal facility and a description of each proposed expansion of an existing solid waste disposal facility ...  (1) Each Siting Element shall include one or more maps indicating the location of each proposed solid waste disposal facility and adjacent and contiguous parcels. The map(s) shall be drawn to scale and include the scale on the map sheet. The type of map(s) may be a 7.5 or 15 minute USGS quadrangle….” (emphasis added)

  8. CSE Description Requirements “…The description shall include the type of facility, location, size, volumetric capacity of the facility expressed in cubic yards and in tons, life expectancy (years), expansion options of the existing or proposed facility, and post-closure uses…”

  9. NDFE Description Requirements “(a) (1) type of facility; (2) facility capacity; (3) anticipated diversion rate or expected diversion rate from the total amount of the waste that the facility receives; and, (4) participating jurisdictions. (b) (1) address of the facility; or, (2) description of the general area, (include a land use map, zoning map, or other type of planning map).”

  10. Key Issues • New questions not explicitly addressed in Board’s previous decision • Staff have identified potential additional determinations based upon Board’s later pronouncements, and • Underlying purpose of statute: public notice/opportunity for public input

  11. Staff Recommendations • a. Affirm that an expansion beyond the boundaries indicated in a CSE or NDFE not be in conformance and would require a revision of the document. • b. In determining the boundaries indicated in a CSE or NDFE, the Board will use either a map or a detailed description that uses landmarks, parcel boundaries or other sources of information that provide a specific description which would ensure that the public was fully informed about the potential expansion.

  12. Staff Recommendations (con’t) • c. If for some reason, the description and/or map in the CSE or NDFE were in conflict, the issue of whether a revision was necessary would be brought before the Board on a case-by-case basis. • d. Any other unusual circumstance would be brought before the Board for a case- by-case determination.

  13. Possible Expansion Scenarios

  14. 1(a). “Insignificant” expansion beyond boundaries indicated on Siting Element Map/Description 200 Acres (Existing) Proposed

  15. 1(b). “Significant” expansion beyond boundaries indicated on Siting Element Map/Description 200 Acres (Existing) Proposed

  16. 2(a). Expansion outside of the boundaries indicated on Siting Element Map/Description with connection to existing site Existing Road Proposed

  17. 2(b). Expansion outside of the boundaries indicated on Siting Element Map/Description with no connection to existing site Existing Proposed

  18. 3(a). Expansion within area described in Siting Element, but not included in a Map Existing Proposed

  19. 3(b). Expansion within area described in Siting Element, but outside boundaries indicated on Siting Element Map Existingas described on map Proposed as indicated in description

  20. Conclusion

More Related