BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Countywide Siting Element Addendum (Santa Maria Integrated Waste Management Facility)

• Staff presented an addendum to the countywide siting element to include the proposed Santa Maria Integrated Waste Management Facility.
• The City of Santa Maria detailed the project's necessity, noting the current landfill will reach capacity in three to five years.
• Supervisors raised concerns regarding traffic impacts, out-of-county waste, and the process for submitting the County's comment letter on the draft EIR.
• The Board approved the addendum and attached resolution with a 3-2 vote.

Agenda Item: Public Comment

• One member of the public addressed the Board regarding allegations of government corruption, whistleblower retaliation, and specific financial issues involving ADMHSA and Santa Barbara City housing loans. The speaker mentioned upcoming legal proceedings and expressed opposition to the Pledge of Allegiance. No action was taken on this item.

Agenda Item 1: Countywide Siting Element Addendum (Santa Maria Integrated Waste Management Facility)

Discussion and Presentation

• Staff from the Public Works Department presented a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an addendum to the countywide siting element. The addendum was requested by the City of Santa Maria to include the proposed Santa Maria Integrated Waste Management Facility at Los Flores Ranch. Staff outlined two options for the Board: approve the addendum and attached resolution, or continue the item for further discussion. Staff noted that continuing the item would require the Board to identify at least one significant adverse impact beyond those contained in the certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
• County staff provided an overview of the Multi-Jurisdictional Solid Waste Task Group, which was created in 2002 and approved a Long-Range Solid Waste Management Plan in 2004 identifying the need for a new landfill in the Santa Maria waste shed. Staff explained that the state requires counties to demonstrate 15 years of waste disposal capacity; the county currently has 18 years. The proposed facility is on a 1,774-acre property, with 617 acres designated for site disturbance and 286 acres for landfill use, providing a projected 90-year capacity.
• Supervisors raised questions regarding the process by which the County’s comment letter on the draft EIR was submitted without a Board briefing. County staff and the CEO’s office acknowledged that the process for major projects has been modified to ensure wider distribution of such comments to the Board in the future.
• City of Santa Maria staff, including the Mayor and the Director of Utilities, presented the project details. They stated that the current landfill will reach capacity in three to five years and that the new facility is necessary. The City presented data on waste streams, noting that approximately 92,000 tons of municipal solid waste are currently accepted annually, with a small percentage coming from outside the county. The City explained that Non-Hazardous Impacted Soils (NHIS) are used as alternative daily cover for closure purposes and are handled separately from municipal waste. The City’s EIR consultant discussed the environmental review process, mitigation measures, and the certification of the EIR by the City Council in April 2010.
• Supervisors questioned the analysis of out-of-county waste, the volume of NHIS, traffic impacts from truck trips, and the issue of host fees. County counsel explained that disapproval of the addendum requires evidence of significant adverse impacts in the record and that any person or public entity could file a writ of mandate to challenge a disapproval. The City stated it was not intending to accept significant out-of-county waste and that the site was designed to accommodate the county’s waste stream if needed.
• Public commenters expressed concerns regarding biological resources, the annexation of non-contiguous property, the lack of specific NHIS impact analysis in the EIR, and the potential for the facility to accept waste from outside the county. One commenter supported the project, arguing it was an improvement over current conditions and that the County had already weighed in via staff comments.

Motion and Vote

• A motion was made to adopt the staff recommendation, approve the attached resolution, and approve the proposed addendum to the countywide siting element. The motion was seconded.
• Supervisors discussed their positions, with some expressing concerns about unanswered questions regarding traffic, hazardous materials, and out-of-county waste, while others noted the necessity of the facility for the region and the County’s prior participation in the process. One Supervisor initially indicated an intention to abstain but later changed their vote to "no" to allow for further investigation into significant adverse impacts.
• The Board voted on the motion. The motion passed with a 3-2 vote.