Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> eliminate the need for an enclosed building. <br /> 7. Consistency With Local Plans, Policies, and ordinances: <br /> MRFs located at the North County Recycling Center <br /> and Sanitary Landfill and at the Lovelace Transfer <br /> Station would be consistent with County plans, policies <br /> and ordinances. A South County facility would have to <br /> be located and developed in accordance with the same <br /> County plans, policies and ordinances. <br /> Salvaging at disposal sites may not be consistent <br /> with disposal site permits and County ordinances. The <br /> site prmits and current County ordinances should be <br /> reviewed and changed, if necessary, to allow controlled <br /> salvaging. <br /> 8. Institutional Barriers to Implementation: <br /> The State would require permit changes to recycle <br /> at disposal facilities. <br /> Regional use of MRFs would require interagency <br /> agreements that may be difficult to develop. Also, <br /> current interpretation by the Integrated Waste <br /> Management Board staff concerning jurisdictional <br /> responsibilities toward meeting diversion goals may make <br /> it difficult to attribute waste diversion at regional <br /> facilities to individual jurisdictional goals. <br /> Ownership of the salvaged material would have to be <br /> clarified. Public reaction to a salvaging program would <br /> be hard to predict. <br /> 9. Cost Estimates for Implementation: <br /> Costs for a MRF include site acquisition, design, <br /> CEQA review, permitting, developing, operating, and <br /> Chapter 4 - Recycling 37 <br />