Loading...
1991/10/22 City Council MinutesCall to Order Roll Call Rohnert Park city Council Minutes October 22, 1991 The Council of the City of Rohnert Park met this date in regular session comwncinq at 6:00 p.m. in the City Offices, 6750 Commerce Boulevard, Rohnert Park, with Mayor Eck presidinq. Mayor Eck called the regular session to order at approximately 6:24 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance. Mayor Eck advised that a closed session comrenced this evening at 6:00 p.m. to discuss several litigation matters. He said no action was taken and there was nothing to report at this time. Present: (5) Councilmembers Hollingsworth, Hopkins, Reilly, Spiro and Mayor Eck Absent: (0) None Staff present for all or part of the meeting: City Manager Netter, City Attorney Flitner, Assistant to the City Manager Leivo, Director of Public Works /City Enqineer Brust, and Planning Director Skanchy. Approval of Minutes Upon motion by Councilman Hopkins, seconded by Councilman Hollingsworth, the minutes of October 8, 1991 were unanimously approved as submitted. Approval of Bills Upon motion by Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilman Hopkins, and unanimously approved, the bills presented per the attached list in the amount of $996,268.53 were approved. CDA bills presented per the attached list in the amount of $631,644.57 were approved. Non- agendaed Mayor Eck queried if any Councilmember had any non- agendaed Matters items to add to the agenda. Councilman Reilly stated he had to leave at 8:30 p.m. to catch a plane and had two miscellaneous items. Mayor Eck indicated he would allow Councilman Reilly to discuss the items after Scheduled Public Appearances. Councilman Hollingsworth stated he had two miscellaneous items, one was a suggestion to observe a minute of silence of respect for those w}ZO lost their lives in the Oakland/Berkeley fire. Mayor Eck requested everyone present to observe a minute of silence in memory of the losses incurred in the fire in Oakland. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (2) October 22, 1991 Lbscheduled Public Mayor Eck stated that in compliance with State Law (Ihe Brown Appearances Act), anyone in the audience who wished to make a comment may do so at this time. In most cases under legislation of the new Brown A=t, the Council cannot handle an item without agendizing. To ensure accurate recording, "Speaker Cards" are provided at the entrance of the Chamber and unscheduled public appearances are requested to fill out the cards and present to recording clerk after speaking. R.P. --itizen A citizen who was acknowledged from his seat stated he came to speak on the Arlen Drive stop sign. Mayor Eck asked the citizen if he was against the stop sign. The citizen replied he was in favor of it and Mayor Eck suggested that, since the item is on the Consent Calendar, the citizen wait for the outcome of the voting on the Consent Calendar, because no Councilmemi>er has indicated to him to remove this item from the Consent Calendar. George Horwedel George c�pn.cl� 760069 Camino Colegio, was recognized and suggested other names for "R" Park: "Reilly Park" for Councilman Reilly, "Rasmussen Park" for Ann Rasaussen for her work for the community, or "Redwood Park" and suggested further to plant redwood trees around the perimeter and make a "U" shape with picnic tables and a barbecue at the center and name each area after a former City Councilmember. He added that a group of citizens can qo out in the comm pity and solicit from companies for materials for the tables, etc. and have a plaque acknowledging the company's donation. Jake McKenzie Jake McKenzie, who was scheduled under Scheduled Public Appearances, requested to appear instead during staff presentation on the General Plan Mitigation Monitorinq Program. Mayor Eck concurred. C O N S E N T C A L E N D A R Mayor Eck queried if anyone had any questions regarding the matters on the Consent Calendar which were explained in the City Manager's Council Meeting Irmo. Councilman Hopkins made the motion to approve the Consent Calendar as outlined on the meeting's agenda. Said motion was seconded by Councilman Hollingsworth. City Manager Netter requested that Resolution No. 91 -217 be Pulled out of the Consent Calendar because the deed has not been received but the paperwork should be ready for the next Council meeting. Councilman Hopkins made the motion to approve the Consent Calendar as amended. Said motion was seconded by Council- member Spiro and unanimously approved. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (3) October 22, 1991 The Rohnert Park citizen asked how long it will take for the stop siqn to be installed. City Engineer Brust replied it will be installed soon. Acknowledging the City Manager /Clerk's report on the posting of the agenda. Resolution No. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK 91 -210 REJECTING CLAIMS OF ELIZABETH VICTOR AGAINST ERWIN G. BAL,OG, COTATI- ROHNERT PARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, CITY OF ROHNERT PARK and CLAIM FOR DANAGES, DARRELL PAUL VICTOR II AGAINST ERWIN G. BALOG, COTATI-ROHNERT PARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Resolution No. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK 91 -211 REJECTING CLAIM OF DIANA NUNN (c /o John Timothy Doyle, Esq., Jacobv & Mayers law offices) Resolution No. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR NEW SEALED PROPOSALS, ROHNERT PARK 91 -212 PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING SECURITY SYSTEM, PROJECT NO. 1988 -18 Resolution No. A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING, AUTHORIZING, AND APPROVING THE 91 -213 INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS (on Arlen Drive at the Santa Alicia Drive Intersection) Resolution No. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING COWLETION AND DIRECTING CITY ENGINEER 91 -214 TO FILE NOTICE OF CONPLETION, TRAFFIC SIGNAL; ROHNERT PARK EXPRESSWAY /LABATH AVE., PROJECT NO. 1989 -13 Resolution No. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK 91 -215 APPROVING A LEASE PURCHASE AGREEM MVT BETWEEN BANC ONE LEASING CORPORATION AND THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Resolution No. A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK 91 -216 APPROVING AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SONOMA COUNTY PEOPLE FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY (Re Use of Burton Avenue Recreation Center) Ordinance No. 548 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK AMENDING CHAPTER 6.12 OF THE ROHNERT PARK "ICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DOG LICENSES Parcel Nap No. 134 Approval of Parcel Nap No. 134 and accepting dedication of Public Utility Easement on a two (2) lot subdivision of a 1.60 acre lot in Laguna Verde Industrial Subdivision Ordinance No. 549 AN ORDINANCE INCREASING CC"BENSATION OF NBNBERS OF THE ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL (By 5% In Accordance with State Law) Upon motion of Councilman Hopkins, seconded by Councilman Hollingsworth, reading of Ordinance No. 549 was waived and said ordinance was adopted by the following vote: Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (4) October 22, 1991 AYES: (3) NOES: (2) Scheduled Public Appearances: Councilmembers Hollingsworth, Hopkins, and Spiro Councilman Reilly and Mayor Eck AAA Pedestrian Safety Citation Mark Sick, Sales Manager for the California State Automobile Association, Award was recognized and commended the City Council and the City Rohnert of Park for not having a pedestrian fatality for nine (9) consecutive years and sated it wa is pleasure to "Pedestrian present the Safety Citation Award for 1990 and 1991" and handed the plaque to Nayor Eck. Non- agendaed items Nayor Eck asked Councilmembers Reilly and Hollingworth to present their non- agendaed items at this time. Hazardous Councilman Reilly encnu?-Arr� the other ,-o. ___,__ Waste Naeting ZY- ��y ��ull�1ILnembers to attend the next Hazardous Waste Commision meeting on November 14, 1991. Library Comnission Councilman Reilly reported that the Library Commission met and talked about finding a location for book storage for Friends of the Library. City Manager Netter informed the Council that he was working with the School District on obtaining space for "Friends the of the Library" and suggested the City pay the Utility cost for the electric bills if a separate meter can be obtained. Discussion followed on providing space for a historian, and if the High School has any more portable buildings to be released for auction or dismantling for other City and private use and the cost to Trove them. Cotati's Police Dept.'s Letter Councilman Reilly referred to the City of Cotati's Police Department's of Appreciation letter of appreciation to Chief Dennett for the help extended by his department and his officers who responded to the fighting at the Cotati Cabaret and suggested that Nayor Eck send a letter, on behalf of the City Council, explaining how ironic it was that Rohnert Park is commended on its mutual aid response to Cotati and Cotati City Council is concerned about public safety response to possible problems at the Proposed affordable housing East project on Cotati Avenue. Mayor Eck agreed and stated a copy of his letter will be provided to Cotati's City Council. Sports Complex, Councilman Hollingsworth stated he wanted to make sure that annexation, and all five Councilmembers are present for him to bring up the open space item on the Sports Complex, annexation and o Burin the � pen space because g update of the General Plan, he recommended that the City pull in its sphere of influence and also during the last election, he campaigned on being in favor of the Sports Complex. However, he wants to make sure that the Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (5) October 22, 1991 Councilmembers, as a Council, make it clear that we want open space within our community. Councilman Hollingsworth took a map and stated that one of his proposals was that if anyone comes in to propose annexation, the Council should have a policy that for every acre that is annexed, an acre will be donated to the City for open space that is within the core and kept within the City's boundaries and should be contiguous to the City, plus an annexation fee per acre of $20,000 for residential or $50,000 for commercial. He further suggested that the City keep the buffer of open space west of Petaluma Hill Road, south of Horn and Nbuntain View, and east of Stony Point Road. Mayor Eck stated this recommendation be put on the agenda. City Manager Netter suggested that a Council committee of two be assigned to research this matter and that we should look at the General Plan and procedures to its update to meet the conditions of the Council. Nbyor Eck queried if there was anyone objecting to creating this committee. No one objected. Councilman Reilly volunteered to be on the Council committee with Councilman Hollingsworth. Councilman Hollingworth stated he would like the message to get out to the public that in concept the Council is not interested in building around the City. Mayor Eck stated that he would like to be on the Council committee with Councilman Hollingsworth since he is on the Open Space committee and directed staff to agendize this item as soon as possible. It was decided that Mayor Eck and Councilman Hollingsworth will comprise this committee. Surplus Computer City Manager Netter referred to his Council Meeting Nbmo dated Equipment October 18, 1991 for explanation of this item. Discussion followed during which Mayor Eck suggested that the sale be restricted to Rohnert Park residents and Councilmember Spiro stated that the price offered should be the same for the residents and the employees. Discussion followed on computer use at the Senior Center and COYF Center. City Manager Netter stated that these models are dinosaurs to the computer industry and the City will be very lucky to sell any of them. Mayor Eck reiterated Councilmember Spiro's suggestion to make sure that the price offered will be the same for residents and employees. City Council concurred to Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (6) October 22, 1991 allow the sale if other City use is not found. Animal Shelter City Manager Netter referred to his Council Meeting Nbmo dated October 18. 1991 and a map on display for explanation of this item. Discussion followed after which Councilman Hollinqworth made the motion to have staff authorize Ken Coker to complete the construction drawings calling for bids in late December or January 1992. Said motion was seconded by Councilman. Hopkins and unanimously approved. Dog Park City Manager Netter referred to his Council Meeting Memo dated October 18, 1991 and Administrative Intern Keri Scheer's report dated October 21, 1991 for explanation of this matter. Councilman Hopkins and Mayor Eck suggested to look for a location in the west side if we are going to build a dog park. Councilman Hollingsworth stated that only one person in this conuunity is asking for this and made the motion to table this matter. Said motion was seconded by Councilman Hopkins but failed on the following vote: AYES: (2) Councilmembers Hollingsworth and Hopkins NOES: (2) Councilmembers Reilly and Spiro ABSTAIN: (1) Mayor Eck Mayor Eck explained he has to abstain due to possible conflict of interest because his wife has a dog. Councilman Hollingsworth made the motion to and not build one because there is no great it is not in the budget at this time and tl would be to build the animal shelter. seconded by Councilman Hopkins and passed vote: deny the dog park outcry for it and ae City's priority Said motion was on the following AYES: (3) Councilmembers Hollingsworth, Hopkins, and Reilly NOES: (2) Councilmember Spiro and Mayor Eck Councilman Reilly stated he would like to see more requests for a dog park and get a lot more input from residents wanting it before proceeding. Housing for City Manager Netter referred to his Council Meeting Memo dated individuals October 18, 1991 for explanation of this matter and reported with special that Mrs. Payne called to reiterate that she does not want needs Kathleen Burnham's RV parked on her driveway, and she does not want any rules changed that would mandate that Ms. Burnham's RV remain on her property. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (7) October 22, 1991 Mayor Eck stated he did not meet with David Benson, President of Sonoma State University, because Dr. Benson had already talked to Ms. Burnham who indicated that it was not suitable for her to live at the SSU canpus. City Manager Netter stated that because of the neighbors' petition, the City now has to be active and enforce its own laws and have Ms. Burnham find another location since Mrs. Payne is adamant that she should like Ms. Burnham to vacate from her site. Councilman Hopkins suggested that there should be a meeting with the neighbors and explain what the situation is. Councilman Reilly stated he knows the Quinns and Mayor Eck stated he would be willing to meet with the neighbors with Councilman Reilly. Councilman Hollingsworth stated it is always difficult to work with a situation where there is no give and take and while he sympathizes with Ms. Burnham's situation, he also sympathizes with the residents who signed the petition. Councilman Reilly queried what is the Council's position if a similar situation comes back to the Council. City Attorney Flitner referred to his memo to City Manager Netter dated October 17, 1991 and reported that he has written the League of California Cities but has received no guidance. He also contacted the City of Santa Rosa which has not encountered such a problem and HUD. W. Flitner stated the only way to resolve this problem is by use permit or a variance. If the Council chooses to use the use permit to alter zoning for a special purpose for one time only, it should consider the criteria listed in his memo. Mr. Flitner stated the appropriate way to do this would be to refer this to the Planning Commission to hold hearings and for the Council to receive recommendation from the Commission. Mr. Flitner stated he does not recomrend this because it would not solve many problems and in fact may create more problem instead. Councilman Reilly stated his concern after hearing both sides is whether the Council is being discriminating or acconr*cdatinq. We are being accommodating when we build ramps for the physically handicapped. He likes the idea of finding the neighborhood so Ms. Burnham's RV can be set up as a "granny unit" but our role should be to actively search such a spot for her, so this way we would be accom cdating and not not being discriminating. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (8) October 22, 1991 Councilmember Spiro stated her initial reaction was that if the Council does this for one person, it will have to do the same for the next one that comes along, and where will this end? Ms. Burnham's needs are more clear to her than to staff or the Councilmembers, so it should be Ms. Burnham who should be more active in looking for a suitable location. Councilman Hollingsworth asked how many types of special needs can there be because it would be very difficult to the Council to accommdate all those needs and there are social service organizations that can cork with Ms. Burnham and he does not know if the Council should make use of a special use permit since Ms. Burnham is very specific where she has to be even if she can fit in the "granny unit" ordinance. Councilman Reilly stated the Council should find what role it will take and maybe find sites for Ms. Burnham and let her turn down the sites. Mayor Eck stated that the Council look into what City Attorney Flitner has suggested to draft an ordinance for environmental health and special need. Councilman Hollingsworth reminded the Council that whatever it decides, Ms. Burnham needs to be off the property by October 31st. Mayor Eck stated he and Councilman Reilly will meet with the neighbors and explain to them the situation. City Attorney Flitner stated he wrote the landlady that she will be kept advised of the City's action on which she can base her decisions and /or action. Councilmember Spiro was concerned that if an ordinance is passed for this, what would be the basis to deny anyone else in the future? Councilman Reilly made the motion for staff to prepare an ordinance and pass it down to the Planning Commission with necessary public hearing for public input for recommendation to the City Council. Said Wtion was seconded by Councilman Hopkins and unanimously approved. Councilman Reilly suggested that a letter be sent to Ms. Burnham stating what is being done and to spell out consequences if she does not rmve. Councilmember Spiro reminded the Council that Ms. Burnham has been put on notice by her landlord. Mayor Eck stated he will draft a letter to Ms. Burnham that the ordinance may not be a remedy but the Council is trying to Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (9) October 22, 1991 accommodate her needs. Councilman Hollingsworth queried why the Council is frightened to act in the capacity it was elected to act and stated "Let's do our jobs" and that Ms. Burnham needs to be told that the neighbors do not want her there. Mayor Eck stated the Council's thinking will be incorporated in the letter. RECESS Mayor Eck declared a recess at approximately 7:32 p.m. RECONVENE Mayor Eck reconvened the Council meeting at approximately 7:38 p.m. with all Councilmembers present. AB 939 City Manager Netter referred to Assistant to the City Manager Leivo's memo and his Council Meeting Memo dated October 18, 1991 and stated that a public hearing has been scheduled for public comments on the elements. Assistant to the City Manager Leivo made additional comments on his memo and stated what the City can do to meet State requirements to reduce solid waste and explained the composting program. Mr. Leivo also acknowledged written comments from Mr. Jack Olmsted of 7415 Circle Drive, Rohnert Park, and Sonoma Green. Mayor Eck asked if staff has done any studies what the monthly increase would be if the plan is implemented. Mr. Leivo replied that staff has not done any calculations but it would be expected that there will be increases in cost for solid waste disposition but which will be offset by the sale of recycled products and Mr. Leivo remarked that we are fortunate that we have a ready market in farmers and wineries and other agricultural uses. City Manager Netter suggested that we go back to the consultants to have more realistic numbers in the budget. Discussion followed regarding the cost figures for capital expenditures and cost and funding of the study. W. Leivo reported that the County Board of Supervisors voted 3 -2 supporting the concept in developing a joint powers agreement with the cities and County together to address hazardous materials storage facility at the landfill site and gave some suggestions what to ask the consultants, to make changes which fall in four categories: correcting the budget, typographical errors, extend deadlines that they have listed by one year to give us greater leeway, and to recommend use of more general language - taking out direct reference to the County and make a multi- jurisdictional approach. Public hearing Mayor Eck opened the public hearing at approximately 8:04 p.m. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (10) October 22, 1991 Mayor Eck entered into the record a letter received from Sonoma Green" regarding AB 939 and certain recommendations. Linda Christopher Linda Christopher, 1010 Copeland Creek Drive, was recognized and stated she works for the SOnoma County Recycling Center and that the plan is a good plan but she has suggestions for specific wordings and would appreciate consideration of her written report. She stated that she also talked at the Cotati Public hearing and they seem to be very confused about AB 939 and they do not seem to know what counts and What does not count for AB 939 and getting extensions for these deadlines. Miss Christopher made copies of the synopsis of the current legislation from the periodical "Inside Wastes" and the Sierra Club's letter to Sonoma County Department of Public Works John Sciborski and gave the Councilmembers copies thereof along with her written statement. Mayor Eck thanked her for her thoroughness. There being no one further desiring to speak, Mayor Eck closed the public hearing at approximately 8:12 p.m. Councilman Hopkins made the motion to refer AB 939 to staff to incorporate comments and changes and forward the revised draft to the consultants. Said motion was seconded by Councilman Reilly and unanimously approved. W. Leivo stated there will be a final draft presented for another public hearing. Mayor Eck stated the Council would like to know what it is really going to cost. He also wished to compliment staff and the committee for the committee hearings which were very good and very productive. Planning & Zoning City %Mger Netter stated that a public hearing has been File No. 1432 - noticed for tonight's meeting but staff is researching Sonoma County additional information on this project and he would recom- Wine Visitor mend to open the public hearing and continue it to the next Center Council meeting. Mayor Eck opened the public hearing at approximately 8:15 p.m. Dave Nbchel, Rohnert Park resident, was recognized and read a written statement which is attached to the original set of these minutes. Jake McKenzie, 1536 Gladstone Way, was recognized and gave comments with regard to use of land and quoted from the Open Space element in the General Plan: "Develop a passive recreation park and open area surrounding Roberts Lake on the south and west sides of the lake." Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (11) October 22, 1991 There being no one further wishing to speak, Mayor Eck continued the public hearing to November 12, 1991. General Plan City Manager Netter referred to his Council Meeting Memo dated Mitigation October 18, 1991 and stated that additional staff will be Monitoring hired to work on the Mitigation Monitoring annual report. W. Program Netter also stated that staff is trying to streamline the process and make the input of monthly data more workable and that the City, to his knowledge, is the first city to use this approach. Councilman Hopkins remarked that this is another item to be included when we write to our legislators how much their mandates without a funding source are costing the City. He also asked for clarification what position is being filled to do this work. City Manager replied that staff is considering a part -time Office Assistant for two weeks to get the annual report finalized. Jake McKenzie was recognized and stated there are some other states dealing with registry for people who are environmentally disabled. He acknowledged the work on the mitigation monitor reports that has been going on and commended Planning Director Skanchy and his Secretary for giving him access to the reports. He also stated that mitigation monitoring is an excellent tool for tracking what is going on and this evening there are two items being discussed that are not contained in the General Plan: (1) Roberts Lake land use is a conflict of the inplemention under Open space Implementation Measure #6: "A citizens' General Plan committee will prepare a plan to create an open space border around the city within the context of a thorough General Plan update process." (2) Councilman Hollingsworth's discussion of various land swaps and proposed annexation of the Sports Complex is not contained in the General Plan. Under the principle of the General Plan, if the City does any annexation, the City has to have "another thorough General Plan review and update...." which "is defined as a process which provides opportunities for the involvement of the public, including, but not limited to, a citizens' committee duly appointed by the City Council, public rreetings, citizen workshops, hearings, surveys, town meetings, and written commnts." W. McKenzie stated the annual report will give guidance and refresh our memories to what the Council wishes to undertake to follow, especially the efforts of the Cotati- Rohnert Park Unified School District going ahead in drafting an EIR for a proposed middle school on the east of Snyder Lane to annex 67 acres which Draft EIR mentions for comriercial and residential development. He advised that he personally plans to follow the process of mitigation monitoring extremely closely. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (12) October 22, 1991 Councilman Councilman Reilly left the Council chambers at approximately Reilly leaves 8:30 p.m. dCity Manager Netter clarified that the City Council has made a ecision that the land for the middle school will not be annexed but that only a service agreement has been discussed to provide water, sewer, police, and fire protection. Councilman Hollingsworth also stated there are no 67 acres to be annexed. W. McKenzie got up from his seat and stated he "stands corrected." Regional Government City Manager Netter reported that he and the Council committee met at 5:30 p.m. tonight and discussed regionalism and it was the consensus of the committee that a letter should go out not supporting the new level of government but that they would support a consolidation of agencies, (i.e. ABAG, MTC and BAAQND) if consolidation would create a streamlining of methods and procedures and be more efficient and save resources. It is hoped that by consolidation, better coordination of existing regional services would result. Discussion followed regarding the tun letters received from Valerie Brown, representing the Mayors and Councilmen Association of Sonoma County. It was the consensus of the Council that it agrees that legislation be instituted creating a self - contained region consisting of the Counties and Cities of the North Bay Region which share mutual resources and similar philosophies regarding the preservation of agriculture and open space. The Council agrees that local governments should remain the primary planning agencies with primary control over local land use decisions, The Council directed staff to draft a letter over the Mayor's signature outlining the City Council's position. Burbank Housing Mayor Eck reported that he and Councilmember Spiro met with Cotati Mayor Miller and Counci.lmember Shorey on the Burbank Housing Corporation project and that most of Cotati's concerns have been taken care of with Cotati staff prior to the meeting and that Cotati proposed that the small parcel of land adjacent to the project be annexed by Rohnert Park and Rohnert Park ask Burbank Housing to use Cotati's density in its development. Mayor Eck also stated that Councilmember Shorey made some points on traffic and the possibility of a land swap that would accommodate the move of this project. City Manager Netter contacted Burbank Housing and asked them to respond to suggestions made by City of Cotati regarding a joint project including the one acre of land adjacent to the existing project. Arnold Steinber, Executive Director for Burbank Housing, was recognized and stated he had no positive responses to give. He stated that he met with the Cotati Planning Department Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (13) October 22, 1991 about doing a joint project - 1 acre from Cotati and 1.75 acres from Rohnert Park - and they said no, so it was decided not to pursue the idea. It is now too late in the ballgame because Burbank is facing two deadlines. If the project was redesigned, they could lose approval of Proposition 84 funds. Burbank also applied for City allocation for low income housing tax credits which has yet to ripen and they could lose this funding if they redesigned the project. The financing of $4.5 million will disappear if they were to accept this belated offer from Cotati. Mr. Steinber stated they are sympathetic to Cotati's plight and if anything happens that the financing will not go through, Burbank will certainly consider Cotati's proposal. Mayor Eck stated he has no action to recommend but asked staff to inquire who the owner of the small parcel is and if purchase is possible. City Manager Netter stated he will write Cotati Mayor Muller to inform him that a joint project, at this late stage, would virtually kill the project. Comninity City Manager Netter asked if the Council has any reaction to Separators the letter from Ben Collins, Councilman from Healdsburg, regarding community separators. Discussion followed on who is going to decide Gloat these community separators are, their purpose, if the County is going to get together with the cities to look at potential community separators and for everyone to agree on them, and what would be LAFCO's involvement. Also discussed was the proposal of affordable housing in community separators putting low - income housing along Hwy. 101 Corridor, which was recently written in a Press Democrat article. Council decided to direct this letter to the Council committee of Mayor Eck and Councilman Hollingsworth for comment and recommendation. Santa Rosa Dave Richardson and Miles Ferris were recognized and talked Subregional about the four alternatives - West County Reclamation System Alternative, Ocean Alternative, South County Reclamation Alternative, 'and Enhanced Treatment Alternative - the reasons for the alternatives, advantages and disadvantages. Miles Ferris gave a slide presentation on the list of objectives to be studied by the consultant for the system, cost of alternatives, residential user rates /fees, and recommended alternatives. Discussion followed on financial numbers of West County and Ocean alternatives and if any can be expanded, if South County alternative is politically feasible, whether Federal funds will be available. Mayor Eck stated the goal is to maximize reuse of reclamation dealing with our own discharge point, non - economic analysis Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (14) October 22, 1991 should be where we can reclaim or use and recycle, but he was nervous about Federal funding on the Esteros, and he agrees that ocean outfall is politically not feasible. He also remarked that the public would be more likely to support preserving open space and agriculture. Councilman Hopkins stated those who will not use the system will oppose the pipeline. The pipeline is the least expensive and no matter which alternative is selected, it will be challenged legally — so the cheapest alternative should be selected. Mayor Eck stated that the point that enhanced treatment is necessary to discharge into the Russian River should be challenged. It is a false premise that enhanced treatment is necessary to increase discharge into the Russian River. Councilmember Spiro made the motion to accept the West County Altar -n = *i— c_t� --- �--VV . oalu motion was seconded by Councilman Hollingsworth and passed on the following vote: AYES: (3) Councilmembers Hollingsworth, Spiro and Mayor Eck NOES: (1) Councilman Hopkins ABSENT: (1) Councilman Reilly Councilman Hopkins stated he voted no because West County Alternative is the second best alternative and when this gets done, the numbers in 1989 dollars will not be the same, the cost will be greater so he would rather go with the cheapest wey since we are going to get sued no matter what alternative is selected. Transportation City Engineer Brust was recognized and stated that the Council matters - has to respond to some SCTA questions and referred to his October 1, 1991 memo to City Manager Netter that the Sonoma County Transportation Authority is jooking for an at large member for its Citizen Advisory Committee and for anyone interested to contact him. Linda Branscomb who was in the audience raised her hand and was asked to see W. Brust. MTC Draft Congestion Program - City Engineer Brust asked the Council if it had any conments on the program. Mr. Brust stated he reviewed the documents which contain basically what we are looking for, a less restrictive type of program that me the State allows at present and recomnded that the Council approve the document to be sent on to MTC. Councilman Hollingsworth made the motion to accept City Engineer Brust's recommendation. Said motion was seconded by Councilmember Spiro and passed on the following vote: AYES: (4) Councilmembers Hollingsworth, Hopkins, Spiro, and Mayor Eck Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (15) October 22, 1991 NOES: (0) None ABSENT: (1) Councilman Reilly Hwy. 101 City Engineer Brust reported that the City of Rohnert Park Corridor agreed to pay its share with four other cities for the Hwy. funding 101 Corridor $55,000 funding. The Transportation Authority will not put money in because it won't get funding from the other cities. City Engineer Brust recommended that Rohnert Park withdraw its funding from the committee. Councilman Hollingsworth made the motion to accept City Engineer Brust's recommendation. Said motion was seconded by Councilman Hopkins and passed on the following vote: AYES: (4) Councilmembers Hollingsworth, Hopkins, Spiro, and Mayor Eck NOES: (0) None ABSENT: (1) Councilman Reilly Priority City Engineer Brust referred to the Priority List to be List submitted to Caltrans and MTC and recommended that the list be approved and sent to Caltrans and MTC. Councilman Hollingsworth made the motion to accept City Engineer Brust's recommendation. Said motion was seconded by Councilman Hopkins and passed on the following vote: AYES: (4) Councilmembers Hollingsworth, Hopkins, Spiro, and Mayor Eck NOES: (0) None ABSENT: (1) Councilmen Reilly SCTA City Engineer Brust reminded the Council that the Sonoma meeting County Transportation Authority's next meeting will be on Nbnday, October 28, 1991 at 3:00 P.M. Councilman Hopkins stated he cannot attend the meeting. Mayor Eck stated he may be able to attend it. Caltrans City Engineer Brust referred to maps of Caltrans Study Report Study Report on display and recommended that the Council reiterate that it wants to keep the on- and off- ramps on Santa Rosa Avenue and this be included in the Project Study Report. Mayor Eck directed staff to write the letter to Caltrans with copies to our legislators. "R" Park Councilman Hollingsworth suggested to ask the Recreation Department to ask the neighborhood to name "R" Park. The Council concurred. Abatement - City Engineer Brust stated the abatement is not moving very 7512 Blair Avenue fast and he is through being nice with them and will be Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (16) October 22, 1991 Comnznications Con nInications per the attached outline were brought to the attention of the City Council. No action was taken unless specifically noted in these minutes. City Manager Netter referred to the letter from G.E. Bloeser requiring stricter street sweeping ordinance and stated there is a letter in reply to be signed by the Mayor, City Manager Netter referred to the letter from Ron Harris of the Rohnert Park Tennis Club for storage facility,request and stated that the letter has been referred to Recreation Director Pekkain, City Manager's 1) Cultural Arts Corporation restructure - Cultural Arts Report did not apply for the 501C3 status so it is not certified and it would be simpler to create a new 501C3 corporation for the Umbrella Arts Corporation /Foundation. 2)'" '' -s responsible for- release of prisoners at County Jail - this is a multi- faceted procedure that will change once the new jail is operational. The existing jail procedures are under a court mandate. In any event, no major crime offenders are released due to overcrowding. 3) Letter re golf ball property damage - letter has been referred to American Golf and their legal staff for handling. 4) Green Mill Inn sign and letter from 3M - City tanager Netter and City Attorney Flitner talked to the advertisers and the City is not opposed to have the sign moved back to its original location. On the new site north of the City, the sign is not historical and the County has noticed the property owner of an illegal sign. 5) Emergency override capability - MAltiVision Cable TV - Council agreed and approved this item as outlined in the staff report. 6) Presentation of Young Woman of the Year on November 1st at 10:00 a.m.at the Performing Arts Center - if the Mayor and any of the Councilmembers wish to attend. Mayor Eck stated he has classes and cannot attend. 7) M,itual aid - the City sent one truck and four individuals. The first 12 hours will be paid by the City and after 12 hours, the City will be reimbursed by the State and Federal government. City Attorney's 1 Mobile Home Rent Control litigation g update - will have Report: damage figure by next meting, Mr. Flitner will need to write to submit damage figures and will not pay interest retroactively if they take time in submitting the figures, Councilman Hopkins made the motion to send the letter. Said notion was seconded by Councilmember Spiro and passed on the Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (17) October 22, 1991 following vote: AYES: (4) Councilmembers Hollingsworth, Hopkins, Spiro, and Mayor Eck NOES: (0) None ABSENT: (1) Councilman Reilly 2) Publication of juvenile offender names - there is no impediment in publishing juvenile's names. 3) Information on mobile home relocation law - sent for copy of the bill which he reviewed and the law requires public agency to project cost of relocation. 4) Supreme Court took up discussion of the Yee case which may result in changes of position on the Nbbile Home Park litigation. City Attorney Flitner will continue to follow the progress of this and keep the City Council informed. Matters from 1) Setting date for change of Council officers - generally Council: this is done towards the first part of December. Discussion followed after which it was determined to have it on December 3rd at 6:00 p.m. 2) Copeland Creek Bike Bath - City /SSU Ribbon Cutting - City Engineer Brust asked if the Mayor or any of the Council- members wished to cut the ribbon and to set the date and time. Mayor Eck stated he will not cut the ribbon but will instead ride his bike through it. It was scheduled for November 4th at noon at SSU. 3) Use of Rohnert Park creeks for treated wastewater storage - Councilmember Spiro stated, because of time constraints, she would discuss this matter with City Manager Netter and Director of Public Works Brust. 4) League of California Cities Legislative Implementation Briefing, Oakland, Wednesday, November 20, 1991 - for information to the Councilmembers only for those who wish to attend. Unscheduled Public Mayor Eck asked if anyone in the audience wished to make an Appearances appearance at this time. Adjournment NYayor Eck adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:00 p.m. 4ty Clerk Mayor Oct. 22, 1 991 Trie Mayor and members uf Rohnert Park City Council Let me say first of all that l am not opposed in concept to a Wine Center located in Rohnert Park. It would certainly help to offset the image we are beginning to project of being "Discount City". However, there are several good reasons to question approval of the Wine Center project as currently proposed' Over a year ` o when City CounciL approved the N.W. Rohnert Park ElR' ~ it'agreed to stage development of new proJects in the area to allow ongoing review Of LUMUlative impacts. Since then City Council ha . . � approved major projects incluUinq Wal -Mart and Home Uepot, neither of ' which is vet open, but both are expected to generate large traffic volumes. In addition, there are a variety of smaller projects including a couple of gas stations and several fast food restaurants also approved or already built in the area. Other smaller projects are planned and moving towards approval. For example, an item on this Thursday night's Planning Commission agenda is an application by Jimmy Rogers to build a 138 seat pizza restaurant in a building at the same site being proposed for the Wine Center. All these smaller projects will cumulatively add to the traffic problem. _I_ �� / /�y���/f�/ As traffic increases, severe congestion and air�potlution is likely to occur- at the Wilfred Ave./Golf Course Dr. intersections at Hy.101. Traffic will back up on 101 and other city roadways in the vicinity. These intersections and roadways are expected to become the worst congested in the city despite supposed mitigation measures. A major question here is when will the City Council begin to live up to its commitlment for staging approval of new projects to allow for on- going re- evacuation of impacts How can meaningful re- evaluation take place if all the projects are approved before monitoring can even begin? We haven t even seen an outline of the mitigation monitoring program yet. L These questions have not been adequately addressed by the EIR, but the City Council is responsible for providing_ the answers. With respect to the Wine Center project in particular, it poses some special traffic impacts that haven't been discussed. Many or,perhaps most visitors to the Center won't be familiar with the confusing and congested roadways they'll confront when approaching or leaving the Wine Center.A Also, it seems a fair guess that most of the drivers of all these out -of -town vehicles will have been drinking wine by the time they leave. C ",n ( I In view of the inherently dangerous roadways, it seems highly irres- ponsible to create a situation that throws in drivers whose judgement and reactions have been impaired by alcohol. As a resident who must -2- negotiate these poorly planned roadways regu\ar.1y, l in alarmed at the hazard your actions coutU create for me and my family and the faml\zes of my neighbors. In addition to the questions of ki) staged development, (2) mitigation monitoring, and (3) traffic safety is how city residents will benefit by the Wine Center in its proposed location. We as residents are being asked to give up a portion of a city park, then pay to construct a building for the main purpose of a commercial enterprise. Lately this site has been referred to publicly as simply "city-owned land". But City Counci[`shoulu face this honestly; this is not just excess city ~ property--it is a ciiy park. . . x If City Council has come to the point where it is looking at conversion ' of public parks for private enterprise, we the residents have a right to question your moral obligation to protecting public land for the enjoyment of residents. If pub\ic parks are not protected frum commercial development, are there any limits to invasions on.the public welfare? You have the power and obligation to answer that question and some of you may be glad these meetings are not yet televised! The only justifications l'veheard for entertaining approval of this project are that (1) it wilt enhance the image of Rohnert Park as a destination city, and (2) the inflow of free-spending out-of-towners will bring in more sales tax revenue. If these are the best reasons for giving up public park land and raiding an already straineci czty.budget to the tune of over $1.5 -S- million, then its a sad day for residents and taxpayers. The rent and added sales tax revenue we'll get from this project won't come close to compensating us for the loss of public park use and unwarranted misappropriation of scarce public tax dollars. There are a multitude of higher priority uses for public funds to serve the needs of the general public. As just one example, think of what a1.5 million would do for enlarging and improving the city library. This public facility is used by triousands of city residents every year. But it was built years ago to serve a population only half as large as it is today. `How many residents will ever make use of a Wine Center as - co�pared to a \ibrary? x If we're ready to spend whatever excess funds we have for a more humanistic purpose that would also benefit the wine industry, we could do something to help house the hundreds of migrant farm workers who arrive to harvest the vineyards, but have no decent place in which to live while they're here. l believe we are fortunate to have a thriving wine industry in Sonoma County, but the plight of migrant workers is the shame of this industry and a shame on all of us for ignoring it. (See Press Democrat Sunday edition). What does this say about our spending priorities? On the other hand, CIty Counc/i may be inclined to see this expenditure of city resources as an investment that must produce income. lf so. the Wine Center project provides such a risky and poor return on investment that any first-year accounting student could come up with -4- better alternatives. lf you really believe the public park land is expendable, it could be sold on the open market for fair value, which is considerab\e. Proceeds from the sale, along with any other excess city funds, couiU then be invested in high grade bonds with minimal risk and a quaranteeU return that would easily exceed any possible monetary benefit the city would gain from sponsoring the Wine Center project. What this proJect comes down to is a scheme--pure and simple-- to ` promote przva�e par t y interests i t ests at the expense of city residents and _ ta)kpayers. City Council should have more integrity than to allow such � public deception. We the citizens of this city expect you to make decisions that will be in our best interests first, and this project ' clearly will not do that. City Council should reject this Project as It is currently proposed and ask its promoters to come back with another plan tna1: (l) would use an alternative site, preferably on the west side, that has better traffic access and does not require use of public park land. �2, relies more on private sources of funds as opposed to scarce taxpayer funding. ' I hope you wi take the l\ � k time to took at the Wine Center proposal e closely and not feel rushed into making a hasty decision. Please -5- examine the issues l've raised here+ which are not oniy my own, but f echo the concerns of others who fee� ` even more uncomfortable than l do to stand up in front of council chambers and speak pubizcLy. I've provided a copy of this letter to be included in the official minutes of the meeting, and l'i\ be happy to make additional copies for anyone who wants it. Respectfully submitted, ` Dave Mochei / resident of Rohnert Park ` ^ -6- �1B C�� SIERRA CLUB -s SONOMA COUNTY GROUP P.O. Box 466, Santa Rosa, CA 95402 (707) 544 -7651 Mr. John Sciborski Sonoma County Department of Public Works 575 Administration Drive, 117 A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 October 15, 1941 Re: Preliminary Drafts of SRRES L HHWEs. Advance Recycling Fees. This draft does not seriously propose Advance Recycling Fees and we believe it should. This is a feasible, and necessary, source of economic incentives for dealing with especially significant problems. Some contend that such fees can most readily be assessed at state or federal level. This may true for some items and should be among the LTF's recommendations to the state Waste Management Board. However, to deal with particularly acute local problems -- and to provide local jurisdictions with a needed source of revenue directly derived from the users of problem disposal products -- surely such fees can be implemented locally (possibly as a special tar, on retail sales). Items like motor oil, batteries, and brown goods which are particularly hard to deal with should be added to white goods and tires now included for study. This idea is discussed in the draft but the analysis in vol 1, Section 3.3.3 is too negative. Cost Calculations. The cost calculations in this document are difficult to understand and interpret, for several reasons. Some were difficult to estimate and many depend on allocations that will derive from the yet -to -be agreed upon JPA. Yet general "planning level" data and forecasts are provided that indicate gross total costs of proposed programs. These calculations are flawed in several ways: 1) as some others have pointed out, the revenue offset data are erroneous; 2) the accounting assumptions include capital costs for large capital expenditures which have not even been recommended but rather are included as items for further study; 3) some program costs are simply ignored -- as for example some operating costs of buy -back centers -- while other program costs are included. It is clear that the cost forecasts should be cleaned up, removing capital expenditures that were not recommended, allocating joint costs explicitly and explaining what the basis is for those allocations. It would help immensely if the costs were displayed in the form of costs per diverted ton for each program. I urge that this sort of display be prepared so elected officials and the public can understand the costs of proposed programs and their relative values. To explore, enjoy and protect the earth Public Information and Education. 11,e fundamental problem addressed in this effort is how to reform the ways we as consumers and as producers use and dispose of material goods and the associated trappings of packaging, toxic compounds and the like. The fundamental strategy chosen in this document is right for that kind of problems it emphasizes public education and information as a major vehicle. But we do have two serious concerns about this programs 1. The shared activities of the JPA: how exactly are tasks to be divided between the county and other jurisdictions; how will they manage the joint work. Still unclear, but crucial to be sorted out. 2. Related to those pointss Public education and information underlies many parts of this plan: e.g. increase use of cloth rather than throwaway diapers, increase yard debris composting, increase use of donation centers (Goodwill), buyback or repair facilities rather than disposing in landfill. All these, and many more examples are in the document, demand public education and information. Put information that is just one -way -- e.g. flyers or utility bill stuffers -- simply will not be enough. Ecodesk, Hat -Line. A Hot Lime is absolutely necessary to provide two -way communication between solid waste managers and the public (consumers and business people). What is needed is a hot line that provides access to an informed person who can react and reply intelligently to people's questions. There are three main reasons why: 1. Recovery, reuse, recycling is complicated and different rules apply to different products and materials. Further, markets for recycled goods are very changable and volatile. Citizens, and businesses, must have access to current and accurate information. A hotline will provide it. 2. People are inhibited in recycling because they do not know whether. this kind of plastic or that sort of can can be recycled. If they have enough interest in recycling to ask that question, and if they get it answered promptly and correctly, they are much more likely to recycle. Moreover, keeping track of what questions people call in to the hot line will qive solid waste managers better information on what is going on out there than any follow up questionaire can do. 3. Ecobabble and marketing claims, and sometimes misleading advertising, leave people confused and frustrated. Worse, they do not have a source that provides accurate and valid information about disposal, reuse and recycling. We need a recognized, easily reached, authentic source of sound information. That requires some impartial agency with integrity that can acquire and assemble and make good information available. Surely that is a responsibility of a public agency -- It should be supported and well - funded in the JPA. 4. Staffing of the Public Education and Information component is very thin. The JPA will bear responsibility for leading this component but it will require support from personnel in each jurisdiction. The allocation of responsibilities and the amount of staff time to be made available for all the work involved in composting, source reduction, recycling, special waste and public education and information is both unclear and apparently low. 4. . Evaluation scares and we are difficult to read, perhaps in hecarse of the format. It would help to list the criteria in rank order each element. Further, in Vol II, Table 4 -1, pp 4-15 ff, many fc �' thf, Materials Reklse /itecovery Operations at Transfer Stations and Landfill are too Ic,w. We believe these changes are justified: Criterion v -- M should be H p M should be H q -- L shoo 1 d be t1 1h M should be H 13 M should be 1{ 14 -- M should be H 1 hope these comments will be useful. If you have any questions, please call me. Sin erely, Don anders, Chairman Solid Waste Committee Vol. 2, No, 9 Inside This Issue News Briefs Deadline Extension Bill Stalls Dances with Dumps Recycling Fund Bailout Package sent to the Governor Attorneys General Announce Settlement with Drink Box Manufacturers Trading Trash: California Materials Exchange "Agenda for the '90s: 50% Reduction and Beyond" i CIWMB Update Board to Establish Markets Development Committee 5 Public Hearing on Proposed Regulationsfor Recycled-Content Newsprint 5 r �! Landfill Capacity Study 6 �f When does a Recycling Facility Need a Solid Waste Facilities Permit? 6 Board Meeting Report for August 28 7 Federal Developments r., September 1991 NEWS BRIEFS DEADLINE EXTENSION BILL STALLS 1 Nothing, it seems, is simple when the California Legislature is involved. The League of California Cities had a simple propo- 2 sition: extend the deadlines for submittal of plans and ele- ments being prepared pursuant to AB 939. Assemblyman Sher agreed and introduced AB 2092 to provide for such 3 extensions. The California Integrated Waste Management Board voted unanimously in February of 1991 to support that effort. There was no public opposition to the bill. 4 4 4 EPA Sets Standards for Municipal Landfills California Bill Report With the original July 1, 1991 (and currently still applicable) deadline for submittal of the city and county elements already passed, that legislation remains on the Senate Floor, having been caught up in the controversial debate on "what counts, or should count" towards the 25% and 50% diversion require- ments of AB 939. Some insight into how this happened was provided by com- ments from Mr. Kip Lipper, Chief Consultant to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee Chaired by Assemblyman Sher, to a recent meeting of the Legislation and Public Affairs Committee of the California Integrated Waste Management Board. As he explained to the Committee, his boss (Sher) thought that since the Board had supported this measure it would be appropriate for them to hear from the "staff of the horses mouth" what happened, It seems that discussions had begun as early as March and April over concerns that some local jurisdiction's plans were counting things towards their diversion requirements that didn't make a lot of sense or were contrary to the intent of AB 939 that the diversions be real. Mr. Lipper indicated that by counting existing market driven private sector activities, some local jurisdiction would, in effect, just be ratifying the existing status quo. He cited as one example of this type concern, the use of telephone surveys to determine the extent of repair of small 10 appliances or use of cloth diapers, which were then included in the diversion credits of a particular local jurisdiction._. i California Regulations Report 17 Calendar 19 rie tuRMrmatc KeO that they had come close to agreeing on language on at least three different occasions, which would require that diversion activities be directly related to govern- ment actions in order to be counted, but that some individual cities and counties had objected and that at the request of the League of California Cities, the bill was'made a two -year bill, Printed on recvcled nanor September 1991 INSIDE WASTE Page 2 He indicated that it was their intent to work with the Board and other interested parties this fall to "get the ground rules straight" and then to move this legislation quickly in January and provide as much additional time as neces- sary for completion of the plans. In response to a question from Board Chairperson Michael Frost as to whether he understood correctly that our staff has made the finding that -pTaL i� r o I!ances would count, Mr. Lipper responded that they had made a legitimate interpretation of the statute that such diver- sions would count. Mr. Lipper commented that it was not their intent to hold up the deadline extension to extract a lot of concessions from cities and counties, but they felt that it didn't make sense to change the deadlines and then come back and change the rules. Mr. Frost, while stating his agreement with that rationale, indicated that he assumed the Board had the latitude as a matter of policy, to reject those things that we think are contrary to the intent of AB 939 and that he assumed that the Board would exercise that discretion in the review of plans. Mr. Chesbro commented that if the Board is going to do that, "we should do an early policy review so that they (local governments) will know what the ground rules are." As amended on September 11 th, AB 2092 would ex- clude, for purposes of measuring the diversion require- ments, from the definition of solid waste, specified cat- egories of waste, unless the local jurisdiction demon- strates and the Board concurs, based upon substantial LInside Waste ) INSIDE WASTE is published monthly by Brian E. Stur- tevant, d.b.a. Capitol Reports, and John A. Cupps Associates. Basic subscription rate: $275 a year. INSIDE WASTE provides coverage of integrated waste management policy issues with an emphasis on the State of California, including legislation and regulations. INSIDE WASTE articles and other contents, are intended to convey information and are not to be construed as advice. Reproduction in any form is Prohibited without the express permission of the Publishers. Send all communications or subscription requests to INSIDE WASTE c/o Capitol Reports 921 -11th Street, Suite 701 Sacramento, California 95814 = - (916) 441 -4427 Fax: (916) 441 -4560 Publishers CAPITOL John A. Cupps REPORTS 4 Brian E. Sturtevant evidence, that the materials were diverted as a direct result of an action taken by ;he jurisdiction. The five categories of waste subject to this limitation include: 1, any solid waste diverted as a result of source reduction activities identified by a city or county; 2. agricultural waste; 3. inert solids, including those used as structural fill; 4. scrap metals; 5. discarded white - coated major appliances. It further defines "an action taken by the jurisdiction" to include franchise or contract conditions, rate or fee schedules, ordinances, ordinances, zoning and other land use decisions, solid waste facility permits, or other actions acceptable to the board which clearly result in source reduction, recycling, or composting within the jurisdiction. In a March 21, 1991 letter to all "Local Integrated Waste Management Task Forces," the Board stated that it "does not intend to initiate any enforcement actions related to the submittal of eler^en*° ° ^A nlono prior ±o the �� Al 1W tiles � t dates when the individual plans are required to be presented to the Board." For the first -tier plans, that deadline under existing law is Januar)(1,1991. While the Board has not given any indication of what, if any, action it might take, some representatives of local government have indicated that they may seek to have the deadline extension question separated from the "what counts" issue, so that it can be enacted quickly when the Legis- lature returns in January. In the meantime, many local officials have privately expressed considerable frustration at the prospect that the rules of the game would be changed at this point in time, when many draft or final plans are nearing or have been completed. DANCES WITH DUMPS It took an eighteen hour marathon negotiating session to finally do it, but in the end, agreement was reached on legislation which establishes a framework for dealing with solid waste and hazardous facilities on NativeAmeri- can lands. AB 240, by Assemblyman Steve Peace, authorizes the State to enter into cooperative agree- ments with Native American Tribes to provide what has been characterized as a "functionally equivalent" permit- ting and regulatory process for solid and hazardous waste facilities on "Indian Country". Such agreements are, however, not mandatory on either party. That would presumably violate the doctrine prescribed in federal law which treats tribes and their lands as sovereign nations. Last year, reflecting the concerns of his constituents y O O ct7 (JD � CA Ul " W to — CO Co w -4 m ul " W to 0- O to 00 -4 m Cn 04. W to ►•• O Co W -4 m Vt " W � ►- ro I C)' --� n 6Q it, cl. r-J b b ro •� a. Q, o_ n' ro Cb 4, o ro 1� ry• " '%t Q a� `t O to y O T n CL O b C C 5 b rz (b O C05 a. CD tr (b CL CL '1 Co CL cD C y. ro R �CD . syo'p�j ro ro .. In"T. Q CL (b CL OO—b o O I)qq q T ti y � T sv oaoQTA� U o� 5 � �r ►y 30 � -•� C b ... T c-D CTD z �. o Wtv.y W O W. ti o �� ro V )4. W W W w W W W W W Co. to to " to to tom. to to �O�� na . (�,• D o�c -�Ea4+ . m�Cn . 1n�a 41.•W►`- ' � to 0To .c' c oDW ►N-• m(• ' pCro D A �a-. W ,Ca ^ Tq i C CLcn CDcn �n n,0 �� � ar. r rt CD 0 SD tit ul 0 CD CD CD to o 0 (a Cn Cn CD CD oq D�cD CDo pCDC0 C0� C CD 000 C4 � C D o a n CL cn O O . � wa CV, Cc 0ZQC ►'' n O y n 'ts y CD 0" � �, CAD CO �. p, 0, (D cn .1 n CL W CD o p CD CL 0 CD CD �d rt CJL ,.,..... P� a+ O CD rt O (D 0 ( N &q �' CD ^ � H D (D O O CD CD O' (D Q, (D CD O O cr (D rb -1 ��A.O" f, OH (D �"� (D 0 , �O " � ►�i CID rt a (�D CD C O 0 °1 O O :71 O r (D (D (D O O co00- 4rncnA-wto" ✓oaq y ��GQ- QOcD nom•^ Cb tt CD :� cD D ''� a H n o CO a+ Z CD rt O Cp b n O OQ CD CD ° ^. cD CD �.- °, CD rt p, ortCD O5(yD 0 CD rt rt e�•P' N � CD y < CD CD !/� ►.. rt p n 0 O p Z O n y CL CD rz CA 0N•(D o O' (D r7r OH (DD vHi CDD `<� IMb ro n o n CT• OH O.� p H C R., �• @ ro C a0i ►"A.. Ord �. C;' CL • Cb o �, oo� CD ro Q„ ;C :3 O �- CD Ems-,, �. CD 'O o Cb yc a ro a� Fr V O � F� �• co00- 4rncnA-wto" ✓oaq y ��GQ- QOcD nom•^ Cb tt CD :� cD D ''� a H n o CO a+ Z CD rt O Cp b n O OQ CD CD ° ^. cD CD �.- °, CD rt p, ortCD O5(yD 0 CD rt rt e�•P' N � CD y < CD CD !/� ►.. rt p n 0 O p Z O n y CL CD rz CA 0N•(D o O' (D r7r OH (DD vHi CDD `<� Vallejo City Unified School District �� �� Proposed School Calendar YRS ��' ================================(Baze=Io121-S9ct!9 1 ior|=D Only) JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER S b T W T F 3 S M T W T F 3 3 M T W T F S l 6 7 M T 7 I 2 3 4 3 I 8 I5 13 I9 Z8 14 7l 5 lZ II l8 2 9 8 IS 22 2��~�4 25 26 27 28 19 2S 16 22 29 30 31 26 23 29 9 lQ 16 17 ll 18 lZ 19 13 20 (l4) 30 S m ~---~-- Zl ]2 28 29 7 W 23 24 lQ 31 T F S ]� Z& 25 26 27 '----------- JANUARY ���T6W. S y1 T W T F S I 2 3 4 10 II IS 116 17 18 <J�V O3) 24 25 2�t 28 (l7) FEBRUARY 3 _ 2 9 16 23 38 _ DECEHBER M T W T F S 8 24 I 8 S M T W T F S S M T R T F 3 3 M T 7 F 3 S ----------------------�����' M T W 'T F S 6 - - - 4 7 14 O 15 9 lQ 16 17 ll 18 lZ 19 13 20 5 lZ 13 lI 18 2 9 l 14 1 -- 23 17 2 25 26 27 19 �� 25 16 28 29 39 (7) APRIL MAY JOt �'E S M T W 7 F 3 S M T N T ---------- F 3 S ----------------------�����' M T W 'T F S 6 - - - 4 7 14 O 15 9 lQ 16 17 ll 18 lZ 19 13 20 5 lZ 13 lI 18 2 9 l 14 1 -- 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 19 �� 25 16 28 29 39 (7) 26 �� �Y 2� Z2 29 -(22) -----------------___-----------______-___ ______________________________________ 3O ) JULY AUGUST S M T W T F S S M T R I F S /\ Beginning Day -_-_----_-_-_ __--------- \�� 5 6 ---------------------------- Ending Day l 2 3 8oliday 7 8 9 l0 li 12 13 5 6 7 8 q I0 0 Non-Student Day 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ll 12 12 14 15 lS 17 Non-Student Dvy 2i 22 23 24 25 26 27 ln Io 2o 21 22 23 24 �gStaff 0evcInomeut 28 29 30 }I 25 26 27 18 29 30 ]l Non-Student Day (2) 'Daroot Conferences nb 6/6/00,7/9/90,7/26/90 (Revised) 175 176 Student Teacher Days Days o-� WMI'S PROPOSED MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY SONOMA GREENS' POSITION We, the Sonoma Greens, support the Stony Point Neighborhood Alliance in attempting to prevent construction of the MRF proposed by WMI (Empire Waste). We have doubled our number of voters registered for the California Green Party since last April, and we plan to keep this issue at the forefront of our discussions. According to Neil Seldman's article in Resource Recycling, "In California, Florida and Tennessee, vendors of mixed waste processing systems are selling their systems as MRF's. City councilors, mayors and citizens are confused by the rhetoric and the sales pitches. One vendor claims that his mixed waste processing system is cheaper than recycling - -it is not." This MRF would be a "quick fix," which would discourage source reduction and separation. It is designed to handle materials in their least valuable form; the resulting 10 -30 percent residue is incinerated or sent to the landfill. Is it any surprise that WMI is acquiring property for a huge landfill in Sonoma County, intending to import waste from surrounding Counties to feed its MRF? We Greens operate from a series of values, among which are Future Focus, Community -based Economics, Personal and Social Responsibility, Grassroots Democracy and Ecological Wisdom. Regarding ecological wisdom, we ask, "How can we live within the resource limits of the planet ?" One major step is the commitment to reduce sources of waste. Once a dangerous waste of any kind is produced, it cannot be "managed" safely. Disposal equals dispersal, and sooner or later all wastes will return to impact on our children's health and quality of life. Ecological wisdom calls for government and 'industry to address the fundamental sources of pollution in the form. of unsafe raw materials and poor manufacturing processes. The myths of "waste management" and "safe disposal" have allowed government and industry to avoid banning toxic materials and unsafe manufacturing. The ecologically wise recognize that pollution is an incurable disease that cannot be treated; it can only be prevented. WMI and its many subsidiaries have not shown themselves to be either ecologically wise or socially responsible. Indeed, at least forty -five WMI waste sites have been found out of compliance with federal or state regulations; five WMI sites have been closed, and at least ten dumpsites have contaminated groundwater. By the end of 1989 WMI was listed as a Potentially Res.ponsible Party at ninety -six sites on the U.S. Superfund National Priority List, while its subsidiary, Chemical Waste Management, was listed for twenty -five. (Greenpeace USA, "Trash Into Cash: Waste Management Inc.'s Environmental Crimes and Misdeeds, May, 1991.) 1 WMI's disposal methods include incineration, landfilling and deep well injection. These methods have one thing in common - they contaminate the Earth's life support system of air, water and soil. To allow WMI to take over Sonoma County's waste disposal system would be a mistake every citizen will regret for decades. The Green value of Personal and Social Responsibility asks, "How can we take responsibility for reducing the production of waste? How can we encourage the habits of simplicity, moderation and environmental respect ?" As individuals we must commit ourselves to avoiding single -use disposables and instead purchase durable, environmentally safe products. Our companies must be responsible, corporate citizens and use only non -toxic materials and environmentally safe manufacturing processes to produce long - lasting, quality materials. They must commit research and development dollars to that end! Our government must, if industry does not exercise its responsibility, develop and fully enforce comprehensive, strict standards to prevent the production of waste, and reward truly environmentally committed companies. Community -based Economics asks us to consider to what degree technologies are ecological, accountable and responsive to communities. Research reveals hundreds of examples calling into question Waste Management Inc.'s accountability to communities in which it operates. WMI is known to play hardball with communities and small businesses, using high - pressure, strong -arm tactics to defeat the opposition. For example, in October of 1988, the New Orleans supervisor of garbage and a colleague were told by WMI officials they would "wear cement boots" and "meet their maker" if they didn't call off their investigation of garbage disposal overcharges, according to Greenpeace documents. Greenpeace also stated that WMI holds the U.S. record for environmentally - related penalties, having paid over $43,000,000 since 1980 in fines, penalties and out of court settlements for violations of environmental laws at its dumpsites. Furthermore, according to newspaper reports, 632 citations have been issued against WMI from 1984 -1987 for pollution violations. A U.S EPA official has estimated that WMI contaminations could cost over 2.4 billion dollars to clean up. Can we afford to allow WMI to expand its operations in our county? Even WMI workers have criticized lack of concern with protective regulations. One worker at WMI's Chicago incinerator has stated that "breaking regulations was more the routine than the exception." A former employee at Emelle, Alabama stated that he resigned because the company's dumping practices were exposing workers and area residents to health hazards. PA At its dumpsite in Vickery, Ohio, the company is said to have destroyed test results showing high levels of toxic chemicals. Also at Vickery, the company has been fined for unplugging pollution monitoring devices and for disposing of six million gallons of poisonous wastes (PCBs) by mixing them with oil. These six million gallons were sold to customers as heating oil! (Wall Street Journal, May 1, 1991.) Another newspaper article quoted an employee as saying he was told by superiors never to talk to government inspectors or Vickery residents about WMI's dumping practices. And according to the Pacific Coast News, April 5, 1991, evidence has materialized that at least some of the "plastic, paper and metals that people separate into cans" to be recycled is not. WMI "insists that, like the people who begin the recycling process in front of their homes, they too do not know where it all goes." Is this accountability to residents who carefully sort their recyclables, participating as good citizens in what they believe to be an environmentally sound proposition? It appears that WMI would prefer to circumvent environmental regulations wherever possible. For that reason, Indian reservations, which often do not have strict regulations, and whose residents are usually abysmally poor and needy, are often targeted as toxic waste dumps. The contract with the Sioux in South Dakota states, "In no event shall any environmental regulation or standards of South Dakota be applied to this project." It is terrifying to think that WMI has free reign in South Dakota. Furthermore, the Sonoma Greens oppose the privatization of solid waste facilities because it would impede even further WMI's accountability to our community. WMI has a history of devouring its competition through price- fixing, bid - rigging, and even alleged physical threats, resulting in criminal and civil suits. (Greenpeace, Trash Into Cash: Waste Management, Inc.'s Environmental Crimes and Misdeeds) We believe it would be unconscionable to allow a company as disreputable as WMI to expand its activities in our county. What does WMI's abominable environmental - history say about its concern for the Earth? What does it say about accountability to communities? The U.S. Greens' tenth Key Value is called "Future Focus." It asks, "How can we induce people and institutions to think in terms of the long -range future, and not just in terms of their short - range selfish interests ?" We are aware of AB939, and we realize efforts must be made to divert 25 percent of our solid waste by 1995, and 50 percent by 2000. However, Sonoma County residents have demonstrated that they are very environmentally conscious already, and would be quite 3 responsive to an educational campaign. This method would encourage the attitudinal shift necessary to help us extricate ourselves from our garbage crisis. Through increased public awareness of avoidance of single -use items, making recycling convenience - oriented, composting and collecting of yard waste (which would account for a 15 percent reduction in the waste stream alone!), cutting -back, reusing, etc., we are convinced we can meet the goals of AB939. We support community -based organizations (which WMI is not) and their capability of dealing in an environmentally sound manner toward implementation of AB939. The Green vision for Sonoma County includes full participation of the community and local businesses in solving our garbage crisis. We strongly urge you to give our local recyclers and residents themselves a chance. Lastly, our value of Grassroots Democracy asks, "How can we encourage civic vitality and community activism ?" This issue is a true example of diverse citizens uniting - homeowners, real estate professionals, environmentalists and business people have joined to stop this project. We applaud the success of the people of Chickasaw, Alabama and Spencerville, Ohio, who denied WMI access to their land, air and water. We also applaud other local groups. In our community, grassroots efforts questioning WMI's presence have been met with criticism by elected officials. Petaluma groups and individuals have repeatedly requested a public forum to discuss the 15.5 million dollar "Memo of Understanding" between WMI subsidiary Envirotech and the city of Petaluma. This MOU to build, own and operate the city's wastewater treatment plant raises deep concerns, including technical and economic issues. Like many projects across the nation that involve WMI, there has been no public forum to addresses these concerns. Community residents need to feel hopeful about impacting the decisions affecting the quality of our lives; public participation, education and dialogue are essential to this hope. In summary, we Greens envision Sonoma County as a leading example of a SUSTAINABLE, ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS COMMUNITY, and this mixed waste processing plant has no place in our vision. 4 eSonoma County Community Recycling Center (Garbage Reincomation, Inc.) Education, Research, Recycling Post Office Box 1375 + Santa Rosa, CA 95402 (707) 584 -8666 To: Rohnert Park City Council From: Linda Christoph(,:r, i�arbage Reincarnation Inc. RE: Comments - -AB 939 SRRE Pr ority Wastes� T,ar.get;ed_ rte. Source Reduction Volume I, Section 3.1.21 page 3 -4 * * * ** These priority waste types are very limited. Why target disposable diapers and disregard packaging? (Containers and packaging are 29.6% of our waste stream by volume) It is also logical to address commercial and industrial source reduction as well. (e.g. disposable food and beverage containers in restau- rants.) This section is inconsistent with 3.2.2 on page 3-12 which outlines a more comprehensive range of targets for source reduc- tion. ** Note: Reusable items are given priority over disposable products, but not addressed when the single use product is recyclable, (such as glass). Reuse should be given priority over both disposal and recycling. uan .ify —" Source Reduction Volume I, Section 3.2, page 3 -5 and 3 -10 * * * ** In paragraph 2 the assertion is made that "source reduction is difficult to quantify" and that "no concrete data regarding either actual or anticipated diversion rates" were identified. Page 3 -10 outlines the quantification of Itasca County's Waste Reduction Pilot Project. Furthermore, items like retreaded tires, sales from thrift, used book, appliance, bicycle, and engine repair shops and diaper services are easy to track and quantify. Also changes in market sharp due to Advanced Recycling Fees or other economic incentives are possible to monitor as well. There- fore, the first statement should be deleted and the paragraph modified to reflect these methods of monitoring. 1 Vallejo City Unified School District. 11 , Propose1d School .Calendar (Mare Island - Section D Only) S M 7 O 14 +9- 21 22 28 _(9 OCTOBER T W 23 24 30 31 T F S � ® 6 13 20 25 2G 27 JANUARY NOVEMBER S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 10 11 lv^2 13 4 4 1 S 4:-e 17 18 20 2-1-- 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --------- - -(17) FEBRUARY DECEMBER S M T W T F 2 16 n n Ira_ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 L 2` 30 31 (14) MARCH S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T -- °----------------- ----- --- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ® z- -3- -4— 5 1 2 1 .. 6 z --9 „ 12 3 4 5- -6 7 8 9 3 4 13 14 15 16 17 [4 19 10 (1-b 12 13 4 4 16 10 20 2 22 23 24 26 17 1 23 17 z G--�- 2-;- 2-1- --� - 2 27 � 29 30 31 24 24 - 2E- � - -2 / , -); ---------- -n -(8) 31(20)._______u_ -._ APRIL MAY ll 'aUNtti t .J LY S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M 1 A' F S ._____ _________ ___ - _-� 6 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 - f r --7-8 -� - "- 11 2 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 13 14- 15 16 -1� 18 9 n 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 19 20 21 22 23—x- 1 25 l 1 Is -1 - z - _ a Y_. 22 28 ' 26 -28 9 30 3.1 23 s -_ __ ______ ____- 30 (20)_ � ? 29 JULY AUGUST S M T W T F S S M T W T F S Beginning Day ---------------------5 -- - - -6- ---------------------- - - - - -- Q Ending Day 1 2 3 o Holiday i 7 8 9 11 12 13 [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 Non-Student Day 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 15 1.7 'don- Student Day 2i 22 23 24 25 26 27 IR lA 2n 91 22 23 ?4 Staff lleve.l.omnent_ 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Non- Student Day (3) parent Conferences ph 175 Student Days 6/6/90,7/9/90,7 /26/90 (Revised) 176 Teacher Days JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER S _______ M T W T F _______________ ______ S S ---------------------------- M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 6 7 1 2 3 4 ---------- ..._---------------- 1 8 15 9 1 ® 13 1 9 20 14 21 5 12 6 13 7 8 9 10 11 18 2 9 3 -- - -- -- 8 4 }1 'x---1-3- .. -4:.r - 15 6-� 22 2 4 25 26 27 28 19 25 16 ' .2.3 22 29 30 31 26 2:� 28 2.9 - 23 2.4 -- 2 5 -- 6 a - 29 -------------------------------------------- (14)-____________ __- 3- _________iin________ -. -_. S M 7 O 14 +9- 21 22 28 _(9 OCTOBER T W 23 24 30 31 T F S � ® 6 13 20 25 2G 27 JANUARY NOVEMBER S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 10 11 lv^2 13 4 4 1 S 4:-e 17 18 20 2-1-- 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --------- - -(17) FEBRUARY DECEMBER S M T W T F 2 16 n n Ira_ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 L 2` 30 31 (14) MARCH S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T -- °----------------- ----- --- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ® z- -3- -4— 5 1 2 1 .. 6 z --9 „ 12 3 4 5- -6 7 8 9 3 4 13 14 15 16 17 [4 19 10 (1-b 12 13 4 4 16 10 20 2 22 23 24 26 17 1 23 17 z G--�- 2-;- 2-1- --� - 2 27 � 29 30 31 24 24 - 2E- � - -2 / , -); ---------- -n -(8) 31(20)._______u_ -._ APRIL MAY ll 'aUNtti t .J LY S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M 1 A' F S ._____ _________ ___ - _-� 6 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 - f r --7-8 -� - "- 11 2 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 13 14- 15 16 -1� 18 9 n 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 19 20 21 22 23—x- 1 25 l 1 Is -1 - z - _ a Y_. 22 28 ' 26 -28 9 30 3.1 23 s -_ __ ______ ____- 30 (20)_ � ? 29 JULY AUGUST S M T W T F S S M T W T F S Beginning Day ---------------------5 -- - - -6- ---------------------- - - - - -- Q Ending Day 1 2 3 o Holiday i 7 8 9 11 12 13 [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 Non-Student Day 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 15 1.7 'don- Student Day 2i 22 23 24 25 26 27 IR lA 2n 91 22 23 ?4 Staff lleve.l.omnent_ 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Non- Student Day (3) parent Conferences ph 175 Student Days 6/6/90,7/9/90,7 /26/90 (Revised) 176 Teacher Days Adv9nc_ed.. Volume _Re eye I inc lees. page 3- 13.andd 3 -34: I, Section 3.3.3, * * * ** Note: Advanced Recycling Fees are a mechanism for reflect- ing the true cost of a product in its purchase price. There are many materials which can be purchased relatively inexpensively, but are a costly nightmare for disposal or recycling (e.g. disposable diapers and telephone books, appliances with CFCs.) * * ** The analysis on page 3 -13 is entirely negative instead of an impartial analysis of possible benefits and potential prob- lems. This portion needs to be rewritten. * * * ** Page 3 -14, paragraph one states "Additionally consumers may choose to buy their goods in counties which don't have advanced recycling fees." This is not true in rural counties which do not have contiguous cities at the county line. (Reference: Telephone conversation between Roger Bassett and Christy Porter, Source Reduction Specialist for the California Integrated Waste Board - -916- 327 -9363) * * * ** Advanced Recycling Fees are properly classified under Economic Incentives, not Rate Structure Modifications. This error should be corrected. * * * ** Table 3 -7 on page 3 -40 does not include ARFs. Education &rd Public Information Component Volume I * * * ** An extremely well written and thorough component. The Eco- Desk /Hotline will be a vital aspect of this component. Funding Component Volume I, Section 9.1, page 9 -2 and 9 -3. * * * ** Page 9 -2 shows that a material reuse /recovery facility is 100% revenue offset. In our experience this is not true. The current facilities at the Central Landfill and the Healdsburg Transfer Station are currently 60% revenue offset. Using the "fudge factor" employed in this funding component it could be listed as 40% revenue offset. * * * ** Also the assumptions for determining accountable costs are fundamentally flawed and by definition conclude that only garbage haulers have accountable costs. Please see attached insert draft- ed by BVA attempts to correct this error. F Vallejo City Unified School District . YRS "D Proposed School Calendar (bare Is and- Section D Only) JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER S M T W T F 1 2 3 4 6 8 9 1 ® 13 15 1 9 20 22 2 4 25 26 27 29 30 31 S M 7 �8 14 .+9_ 21 22 28 _ 29 R"0 � T W -mfr 23 24 30 31 S 7 14 21 28 T F S 6 13 lq tq 20 25 26 27 JANUARY S 5 12 19 26 M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 -+6 --11 18 -a 3-24 25 -- - - -- -- 14)------ - - - --- S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 -6 — ;' 10 11 i 34 - --- 17 18 �:' 20 22 23 24 25 ----------- (17)-- ®__ - - - - -- S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 ---5 -- 7- 8 9 1-2--13--4-4- 15 16 1 � 19 2 - =a1- 22 23 -2 - s-_- 2� --2:7 2 8-- 29 ----------------- . - - - - -1 `� Z ®.___ -__. ---- S M T W T F S S M T W T F S -------------------- �1 -� -- - - --� - - -- - 5 ----------------------------- 1 2 --11 12 3 -4-- -5 - 7 - 8- 9 13 14 15 16 17 4 19 10 1 1 _2 13 14- 16 20 2 22 23 24 26 17 1 -9-- 23 27 8 29 30 31 24 - --------- (8) - -------- -- ---- ----- -- - - - ---- x..17) ........... APRIL MAY S ---------------------------- M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 ? -3 6 ---------------------------- 3 - 4 4 -r 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 6 11 9 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 13 14 15- 16-x- 18 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 19 �� 2 23_- - -24-- 25 28 19� 26 2 7 2 8 2 ' 1 -- ______ _ _____ __ ______________ _________ __ _____ (22) _ ®_- ®— ______ - -m JULY AUGUST S M T W T F S S M T W T F S ----------------------------- O4 5 6 ---------------------------- 1 2 3 7 8 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1R 19 20 21 22 23 24 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 (3) Ph 175 Student Days 6/6/90,7/9/90,7 /26/90 (Revised) 176 Teacher Days DECEMBER S M T W T F 2 8 23 24 25 2 � 27 r: 30 31 (14) W_jRCH S M T W T E' 3 4 5 10 17 1-8 2 ; 24 -245--'Z1U 2' 2&1. 31 JUNIL S M T 6°d T F S i 2 16 -- f3- -1 �3-- 2 _ L 1 .. 2 , 23 29 30 (20) Beginning Day Q Ending Day O Holiday ® Non-Student Day ®Non- -- Student Day Staft Develor>ment (fit Non-Student Day t�l parent t %onferences tik1, -•�g� "nrrrr.p .,.�e�9rrr.t i nn -L, .Pr t Al t rsrbr1,83 -nr�t_ iyeA Volume II, Section 3.3.6 .Table 3 -1 Regulatory Programs, Criteria 13, page 3 -12 * * * ** Table 3 -1 states "Bans must be carefully analyzed to pre- vent change in material type and LU3e What 13 the purpose of a ban if not to change material types and use? The language should reflect that the purpose of a ban is to result in waste reduction at the source and a net environmental benefit. * * * ** Suggested language: Change waste types to more durable, reusable and recyclable. * * * ** (See page 3 -16 in Volume I for regulations on product/mate- rial bans.) Source Heduct_ion Alternatives Scored Volume 1I, Table 3 -2; Table 3 -i6 * * * ** This table is extremely difficult because the criteria are not listed in ranked order. This table should be reformatted, (as. well as combining Volumes I and II). Evaluation g_. Recy lc inz Alternatives Volume II, Section 4.3, Table 4 -1 Note: Mobile buybacks conform to the criteria differently than mobile drop -offs. Page4 -8, ' Cri -teria 2 mobile buyback/drop-offs. It incorrectly gives mobile operations a lower environmental rating than non - mobile centers. The purpose of mobile operations is to provide service to low- density /sparsely populated areas because it takes too much energy /natural resources (and money) to put a buyback or drop -off center in these areas. It is also more efficient than requiring residents to travel long distances to recycle at established buyback /drop -off centers. rwWwaxammEm Twaw ► � Table 4 -1 Incorrectly notes there is little proven experience operating mobile buybacks and drop -offs. Garbage Reincarnation has operated four mobile buyback /drop -off programs in Sonoma County. The longest running program is our Forestville mobile drop -off established 17 years ago. The Sonoma Valley Mobile Buyback operated for 16 years . * * * ** Change ranking to from low to medium. Page 4 -18, Table 4 -1, Criteria I LQx Material Re s ./ Rcovery Transfer Stations & Landfills. 3 Vallejo City Unified School District YRS "D Proposed School Calendar (Mare I AdPk t loon' D Only) JULY S M T W T F S AUGUST S M T W T F S SEPTEMBER S M T W T F S ------------------------- S m 7 21 22 28 29 T W 23 24 30 31 T F S 6 Lq [N 20 25 2G 27 ----------- JANUARY S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 10 A I C_ 'I r 17 8 P 0 - Ll- 22 (23) 24 25 2- 2-i -2-8- (17) FEBRUARY DECEMBER S M T W T F ---------------------- 2 8 9 16 -1�T4-4 2�4- 22 2 2-3 24 30 3 (1 +) MARCH S Im T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T N' T E., ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------- -3� 5 1 2 -- 6 -0 11 12 3 4 5 6 . . ..... 7 R- 9 3 -4--- S, 16 13 14 15 16 17 4 19 10 (1 --1 2. 12 14 - 16 10 4 17 .20 (2-� 22 23 24 26 17 -14--2-0- --" - 23 2 27 2-8 29 30 31 24 91 P6 �71 28 24 - ---------- (8) ----------------------------- �L7 � .......... 31 (20) 209 1 - --------- ------------------------- APRIL S ---------------------------- M T W T F S M T W T F S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 27 28 29 30 31 (7) JULY S M T W T F S ---------------- --5---6- 7 8 9 1 1.1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 (3) ph 6/6/90,7/9/90,7/26/90 (Revised) MAY S M T W T F S 4 5 12 13 14 15 16 � 18 19 20 max -22 23 -24 25 26 @ 28 24-3-0 31- (22) 175 Student Days 176 Teacher Days JUNE S m T W F S ---------------------------- 9 16 22 23 29 30 (2o) Beginning Day Ending Day 0 Holiday Non-Studi--it Day Non-Student Day Staff Development: Non-Student Day .0 arent 'onf erences (, AUGUST S ---------------------------- M T W T F S 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 1.7 IS 1; 2n 91 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 175 Student Days 176 Teacher Days JUNE S m T W F S ---------------------------- 9 16 22 23 29 30 (2o) Beginning Day Ending Day 0 Holiday Non-Studi--it Day Non-Student Day Staff Development: Non-Student Day .0 arent 'onf erences (,