Agenda - 09-01-2009 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

ti State Cleadoghouse 1 ; arch 16, 2009 Page 3 f The most important omission is discussion of the private, vendor option. Members of the public. hove presented evidence to 1he County that private vendors stand ready to handle the county's garbage, production at a lower cost to -the County than •the ' cost of building and operating this facility* - see Exhibit D for 0 Chart showing this. No waste transfer station irk Orange Counter would he• r f required (the' vendors operate -existing transfer stations in neN hhdrin counties).' This' option would not readire ,siting any facilit , and is• therefore essentially the 'no ,action{ alternative that the applicant Js r ouired'to discuss In, the environmental, do cument., In addition, it has been demonstrated to he a practicable + al rnative, an'd1t5 omission, is theref6re absolutiAy unjustified. t ' I is •wofth noting that the consultant that prepared the EA is' the sane ' consult nt that will he involved in design of the waste, transfer Station* This Is a r • r consultant with a vested ted i Merest in d scob nting other alternatives. ' '• • 1 This alternative wasp Ilea rl f known to the County'and,its consultant prior ,. 1 .. + r 7 to preparation of the E.A. This• failure to, di va s -or even acknowledge this alternative makes the EA inadequate - t Y Plisrel2resentatiothe sitina 12rocess The EA describes a site selection process that sounds thorough and thoug htfu L The EA describes "collaboration" between the Counter Commissioners and the public{ and describes a process with three sets of criteria that narrowed 242 sites down to this one and one other.. Significantl'y', the EA was prepared by the sane consultant that conducted the site selection proeesrsP v `• The proof of this -process, however, is in the puddrn 4 This vaunted process has resulted in the same poor decisio n is rcally reached, in local government processes without such elaborate trapl ins.` loctiorr was ehe r l that ,was as far from the concentration of voters • as possible and that , mal es 4 sense in no other way. + This can he seen from the comments' here'lnL -It can also he seen from cQm ments by the orange County Solid waste Director to the , press F recently: "At far s Brn'harn sites, 4 think I'll k�aep m opinion to m�{ elf ors how YS prise it is for Ah se to be the final sites,` said Orange County 60d waste management Director Gayle Wilson # ' "However the Board of om.m issioners' criteria Y that they developed is ghat led us to those 'N sites, It wasn't a staff recommendation. t , was their own se4r of 'priorities that re lted 'in. those rr properties ,bein' identified* Are they open -to reconsideration? J don't know+ , Maybe. I en hope so. But that's where we are now, and we'll see . where it' PI ys out.' tndepetid nt wdekly,, March 11, 2009d Y ' V