CC MIIN 1976 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

,, 28� v � determine whether the evidence supports it, since the appellant contests it It was noted that no specific pro�ect is before Council at this time and that at such time as consideration of a pro�ect is before the Planning Cortumssion, the Co�m ssion may approve or disapprove it, depending upon circumstances which � exist at the time. Paul F Kelly, 181 Second Avenue, San Mateo, attorney for the appellant, referred to the letters distributed to Council (see above) and to the Appeal contained in the letter from the Scavenger Company dated January 13, 1976. Mr. Kelly stated that the Company ob�ects to the Conclusion, stating that the City staff report was incor- porated into the Conclusion, although staff did not agree with the experts selected to prepare the EIR (Metcalf & Eddy/Engineers) Mr Kelly suggested that they differ with regard to matters related to traffic as well as other impacts which might be anticipated from a solid waste transfer station constructed on the Redwood Peninsula site. Mr Kelly also advised that the structure is expected to be 42 feet or less above ground, acknowledging that the total height of the structure is expected to be 60 feet. Mr. Kelly discussed the m ne points made in the Appeal and urged Council to reverse the Conclusion of the Plam m �g Cormm ssion. Norman Hansen, Civil Engineer, 819 Banbury Lane, Milibrae, engineer for t� San Mateo County Scavenger Company, advised that the City staff report was considered by the Plamm �g Comm�ssion follow�ng the close of the public hearing on EIR 75-07, and he was not permitted to give additional testimony at the time the Cortom sston incorpor- ated the staff report into the Conclusion Mr. Hansen referred to his letter of February 25, and suggested the staff report is in � opposition to the EIR prepared by the experts employed to do so Mr Hansen advised that Metcalf & Eddy employed a traffic consultant to make the study regarding traffic impact, and the finding was that it would be "negligible", contrary to what the staff report stated. Mr. Hansen also ob�ected to the staff report with re9ard to odors, weekend truck use, and compatibility of land use, and replied to questions from Council. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Hansen replied to Council questions and described the anticipated truck routes with regard to the proposed transfer station. Lengthy discussion followed and Mr. Kelly, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Fales and Mr. Schricker cortrtnented and replied to questions con- cerning any provisions anticipated for recycling or resource re- covery; the visual impact of the proposed structure; whether or not a structure is necessary, the truck routes; the reasons prompt- 9ng establishment of solid waste transfer stations, the hours of collection, the possibility of locating the transfer station at the Port; and the fact that the Company owns the site on Redwood Peninsula and the Port is public property. Vice Mayor Williams, the City's representative to the Solid Waste Management Board, referred to the Plan approved by Council pre- viously. He advised that the intention is to reduce the number of landfill facilities and that such reduction will require es- tablishment of general public rubbish collectton points for public � use for dumping. Cities will be required to construct "mini transfer stations" for such dumping, but if a solid waste trans- . fer station is constructed in Redwood City, then no funds will have to be provided for establishment of the "mim stations." -3- Reg Mtg 3/1/76