HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08291989 - T.1 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this order on Auqust 29, 1989 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder and Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisors Powers and McPeak
ABSTAIN: None
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SUBJECT: A Resolution of the Board RESOLUTION NO. 89/587
of Supervisors, County of
Contra Costa, State of
California, Approving the
1989 Contra Costa County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan
WHEREAS, Assembly 2948 (Statutes of 1986) authorized
counties to prepared hazardous waste management plans;
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors in conjunction with the
County Hazardous Materials Commission, which was designated as
the Advisory Committee, has prepared the Contra Costa County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan;
WHEREAS, the Plan was prepared with the cooperation of
affected local jurisdictions, and with the involvement of the
public to the fullest extent possible, in accordance with State
law;
WHEREAS, State law requires that the Plan be approved by a
majority of the cities containing a majority of the incorporated
population, the Board of Supervisors and the State Department of
Health Services; and
WHEREAS, the Plan has been approved by a majority of the
cities containing a majority of the incorporated population;
WHEREAS, the County Hazardous Materials Commission has
recommended approval of the Plan;
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director".- recommends,
approval of the Contra Costa County Hazardous Waste Management
Plan;
WHEREAS, Contra Costa County, as the Lead Agency, has
prepared an Environmental Impact Report on the Plan;
WHEREAS, the County Zoning Administrator has recommended
certification of the Environmental Impact Report;
NOW, THEREFORE the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Contra Costa resolves that:
1. This Board, on August 29, 1989 , after due notice, held
a public hearing at which time the Board heard comments
from the public and County staff on the Contra Costa
County Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
2. The Board hereby certifies that: 1) The Final
Environmental Impact Report has been completed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act, as recommended by the County Zoning Administrator;
and bj The Final Environmental Impact Report was
presented to the Board and the Board considered the
information contained in the Final Environmental Impact
Report prior to approving the Hazardous Waste
Management Plan.
Resolution No. 89/587
1
3 . The Board hereby adopts the findings on the Final
Environmental Impact Report attached hereto as Exhibit
A and incorporated herein by reference.
4. The Contra Costa County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
is hereby APPROVED AND ADOPTED.
5. The Community Development Director is directed to
submit the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan to
the State Department of Health Services for their
approval.
1,f mby ce"that this Is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
8owd of 8"on►lsofa on the data shown.
ATT99M I IP1iff?__
j l l 5 :hwmp.res PHIL SATOMMS Clerk of the Board
st8upwisomodGwAVAdministralor
Orig. Dept. : Community Development By .Deputy
cc: Hazardous Materials Commission (via CDD)
California Department of Health Services (via CDD)
RESOLUTION NO. 89/ 587
EXHIBIT "A"
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FINDINGS AND MONITORING PROGRAM
PROCEDURES
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, California finds that:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , as amended, together with the
State CEQA Guidelines require the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports
for certain public and private sector projects requiring discretionary actions
by California' s governments.
The discretionary approval powers over the proposed project known as the Contra
Costa County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (Plan) resides with the County,
with the 18 cities within the County, and with the State Department of Health
Services.
The County, as the Lead Agency, determined that a Program Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) was required for this project (Section 15168, CEQA Guidelines) .
The County issued a Notice of Preparation on July 29, 1987, to the State
Clearinghouse and to various public agencies, organizations and individuals.
The County determined that this EIR should be prepared in accordance with AB
2948 (Statutes of 1986) and with the guidelines prepared by the State Department
of Health Services pursuant to this statute.
The County determined that the EIR should address the general environmental
impacts associated with implementation of the Plan. The Plan itself would have
no direct impact on the environment, but would allow certain projects to
proceed, upon a finding of consistency, that could have an impact on the
environment.
The County has determined that a written finding, accompanied by an explanation
of the rationale for the finding, be prepared for each significant impact
identified in the EIR. In addition, as required by recent State legislation (AB
3180, Statutes of 1988) , the Lead Agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring
program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition
of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant impacts to the
environment. The County shall make the results of this monitoring program
available to the public.
On August 9, 1988, a Draft EIR for the Plan was published. Due to substantial
revisions of the Plan required by the State Department of Health Services, a
Subsequent EIR was prepared and published on April 21, 1989.
On May 22, 1989, the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator held a public
hearing on the Draft Subsequent EIR. The notified review period ended on June
5, 1989.
The Final Subsequent EIR consists of the Draft Subsequent EIR (May, 1989) and
the Response Document (June, 1989) .
RV:jal
jll8:sub.eir(8/25/89)
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS FULLY MITIGATED
The Board of Supervisors finds that the following significant impacts could
result from implementation of the Plan's policies and programs. The Board of
Supervisors finds that the associated mitigation measures reduce these impacts
to 'less than significant levels. The Board of Supervisors adopts these
mitigation measures, including corresponding monitoring programs, and declares
its intent to incorporate them into the Plan.
I. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
IMPACT: The siting of individual hazardous waste facilities could create
localized impacts on public health and safety through releases of hazardous
substances to the air, land and water.
Finding: The following mitigation measures have been required in or
incorporated into the Plan, and/or are within the jurisdiction of another public
agency which has or can and should adopt such measures. These mitigation
measures reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
1. The following mitigation measures have been required in or
incorporated into the Plan:
a. Mitigation Measure: The Plan promotes hazardous waste reduction
and improvements in waste management methods consistent with the
hazardous waste management hierarchy.
Supporting Rationale: The improvement of waste management
methods and the reduction in the volume and toxicity of the waste
generated in the County will reduce the number and/or size of
facilities needed to handle hazardous waste. This will reduce
the potential for releases of these substances, thereby
minimizing potential impacts to public health and safety and to
the environment.
Monitoring Program: The Plan' s Waste Minimization Program shall
be administered by the County Health Services Department (HSD) .
The HSD shall report every two years to the Board of Supervisors
(Board) on the progress toward achieving the hazardous waste
reduction goal and improvements in waste management methods
utilized.
b. Mitigation Measure: Health risk screenings/assessments and EIR's
will be used to determine the need for buffering residential
areas, immobile populations, and public facilities from proposed
off-site hazardous waste management facilities. A 2,000-foot
buffer zone for proposed residual repository facilities is
required by State law.
Supporting Rationale: The need for, and size of, a buffer zone
necessary to further protect public health and safety, is
dependent upon the physical and chemical characteristics of the
specific types of waste to be handled and the design features of
the facility. Therefore, health risk screenings/assessments and
EIRs developed on specific projects which will consider these
variables, should be utilized to determine the need for, and size
of, buffering.
Monitoring Program: For proposed projects within the
unincorporated area, the Community"Development Department (CDD)
shall be responsible for utilizing health risk assessments and
EIRs to determine the need for, and size of, buffer zones. The
CDD shall submit an annual monitoring report to the Board on the
status of this buffer zone criteria as it applies to proposed and
newly-sited facilities. This report, based on Plan Check,
Construction and Post-Construction Monitoring Reports when
applicable, will include the monitoring of all criteria to be
used as mitigation measures for the siting of new or
significantly expanded facilities. The annual monitoring report
will include information which may be submitted by cities
regarding projects within their jurisdiction.
C. Mitigation Measure: No facility shall be located within the
watersheds of existing or proposed drinking water reservoirs.
Residuals repository facilities shall not be sited within areas
known or suspected to be supplying principal recharge to a
regional aquifer.
Supporting Rationale: The Plan's siting criteria for facilities
include this prohibition in order to prevent and/or reduce the
potential infiltration of released hazardous substances to
drinking water supplies. This serves as an additional safety
measure for public health and safety by physically separating
hazardous waste facilities from sources of potable water.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing this siting criterion as project-specific proposals for
unincorporated areas are reviewed. The CDD shall submit an
annual report to the Board on the status of this requirement as
it applies to proposed and newly-sited facilities within
unincorporated areas. The annual report to the Board will also
include any information provided by cities with the County
regarding projects located within their jurisdiction.
2.
d. Mitigation Measure: The Plan's siting criteria requires that
emergency services, including police, fire, medical, and spill
response, shall be available to all facilities. State law
requires all facilities to have emergency response plans.
Supporting Rationale: The availability of adequate emergency
services and a predetermined response plan will help reduce the
impact of releases of hazardous substances to air, land, and
water, the impact of fire and explosion hazard due to accumula-
tion of large quantities of flammable or incompatible wastes, and
the impact of risk of accidental -hazardous substances released
during transport. "Adequate Emergency Services" is defined by
the emergency responder's own performance standards.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing this siting criteria as project-specific proposals for
unincorporated areas are reviewed. The CDD shall submit to the
Board an annual report on the status of this requirement as it
applies to proposed and newly-sited facilities within
unincorporated areas. The annual monitoring report will include
information that may be submitted by cities regarding projects
within their jurisdiction.
The CDD shall obtain from the HSD reports on the status of
facilities' emergency response plans and adequacy of emergency
services, and include this information in its annual monitoring
report to the Board.
2. The following mitigation measures are within the jurisdiction and
responsibility of another public agency:
a. Mitigation Measure: State law requires, as of May 8, 1990, that
all wastes disposed at residuals repositories must be treated
prior to disposal.
Supporting Rationale: A residuals repository is a hazardous
waste disposal facility for the collection of residuals from
hazardous waste treatment facilities and other irreducible,
stabilized or de-toxified hazardous waste. This law has the
effect of substantially diminishing the toxicity of the wastes so
that short and long-term threats to public health and safety from
disposal are reduced.
b. Mitigation Measure: All facilities must meet Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) air quality permit require-
ments for stationary sources. Facilities with air emissions of
criteria pollutants in excess of threshold limits, set forth in
Regulation 2-2-301, must comply with the New Source Review and
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements of the
BAAQMD and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) .
3.
Supporting Rationale: Contra Costa County does not meet the
federal primary standards for the criteria pollutants ozone (03)
and carbon monoxide (CO) . Therefore, all potential new sources
of criteria pollutants must be found consistent with the 1982
BAAQMD Bay Area Quality Plan to ensure compliance with 03 and CO
standards. The BAAQMD requires all new facilities to meet permit
requirements for stationary sources of air pollutants. To
accomplish this, the Best Available Control Technology is
required, thereby reducing to less than significant levels the
potential impact of emissions. to the public health and safety.
C. Mitigation Measure: The BAAQMD requires process equipment on
solvent and oil recovery facilities to be fitted with seals and
storage tanks, and transfer lines to have vapor recovery systems
to prevent emissions of hazardous vapors and gases.
Supporting Rationale: The Plan allows for certain projects to
proceed including different types of hazardous waste management
facilities. A solvent and oil recovery facility, one type of
recycling/recovery operation, includes processes and equipment
that can emit harmful vapors and gases. These emissions can be
controlled by fitting equipment with proper seals and adding
vapor recovery systems, thus reducing impacts to the general
public and workers at the facility to less than significant
levels.
d. Mitigation Measure: Hazardous waste incineration facilities
shall meet federal and State requirements for air emissions.
Supporting Rationale: The incineration of hazardous waste could
result in emissions of particulate matter and gases containing
hazardous substances. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
requires that these units destroy 99.990 of the hazardous con-
stituents being burned. The BAAQMD requires these facilities to
comply with discharge criteria set forth in its Authority to
Construct and Operate permit. These requirements include the
monitoring of temperature and residence time to ensure that
destruction/removal of wastes is adequate to meet emission
standards. In addition, incinerators would be required to be
equipped with scrubbers or electro-static precipitators to
further reduce emissions to less than significant levels.
IMPACT: The transportation of hazardous waste to and from facilities could
cause public health and safety impacts due to the potential for spills of
hazardous substances.
Finding: The following mitigation measures have been required in, or
incorporated into the Plan, and/or are within the jurisdiction of another public
agency which has or can and should adopt such measures. These mitigation
measures reduce this impact to a level of less than significant.
4.
R �
a. Mitigation Measure: The Plan states that treatment facilities
shall only be sited in areas designated for industrial (heavy and
light) planned use in the General Plan of the agency with local
land use jurisdiction (the County or a city) . This siting
criteria will minimize the transport distances of waste, thereby
reducing potential impacts to the public health and safety.
Supporting Rationale: Most of the hazardous waste generators in
the County are located in industrially zoned areas. The siting
of treatment/transfer%storage. facilities in these same areas will
minimize the distance needed to - transport hazardous waste.
Moreover, the industrial areas in the County are generally near
major freeways and most sites have adequate access from the
freeways. These factors will serve to minimize the exposure of
residential neighborhoods to accidental spills of hazardous
substances.
Monitoring Program: For projects proposed within unincorporated
areas of the County, the CDD shall be responsible for
implementing this criterion by recommending the denial of land
use permit applications for projects which would not be within
industrial designated areas. The CDD shall submit an annual
monitoring report to the Board on the status of this .requirement
as it applies to proposed and newly-sited facilities.
The annual report to the Board will also include any information
provided by cities within the County regarding projects located
within their jurisdiction.
b. Mitigation Measure: The Plan' s criteria provides that access to
hazardous waste facilities shall be prohibited through
residential areas.
Supporting Rationale: By prohibiting hazardous waste hauler
traffic from routes going through residential areas, this siting
criterion will reduce the potential adverse impacts to the public
health and safety from hazardous substance spills.
Monitoring Program: For projects proposed within unincorporated
areas of the County, the CDD shall be responsible for
implementing this criterion by making it a condition of the land
use permit. The CDD shall submit an annual monitoring report to
the Board on the status of this requirement as it applies to
proposed and newly-sited facilities.
The annual report to the Board will also include any information
provided by cities within the County regarding projects located
within their jurisdiction.
5.
II. LAND USE
IMPACT: Plan approved projects and constructed facilities could result in
displacement of and incompatibility with existing land uses.
Finding: The following mitigation measure has been required in, or incorporated
into the Plan, and/or is within the jurisdiction of another public agency which
has or can and should adopt this measure. This mitigation measure reduces this
impact to a less than significant level.
a. Mitigation Measure: The Plan's siting criteria include a
requirement that facilities other than residuals repositories be
sited only in light and heavy industrial planned areas, avoiding
sensitive land uses such as residential, recreational and cul-
tural areas. If a facility is proposed in a non-industrial area,
a General Plan Amendment will be necessary to re-designate the
property as industrial or a special designation for hazardous
waste facilities in order to be consistent with the Hazardous
Waste Management Plan. Additionally, the establishment of buffer
zones through the health risk assessment and EIR processes is
designed to minimize impacts on existing land uses to less than
significant levels.
Supporting Rationale: There are no specially zoned or plan-
designated areas in the County for hazardous waste management
facilities. However, since treatment facilities are basically
industrial facilities, it is appropriate to site them in indus-
trial areas. This would have the effect of assuring that
compatible industrial activities be maintained in a similar area
separate from other land uses. Health risk assessments and EIR's
will be used to determine appropriate buffer zones between
proposed facilities and more sensitive land uses to further
protect public health and safety.
Monitoring Program: For projects proposed within unincorporated
areas of the County, the CDD shall be responsible for
administering this criterion and for utilizing health risk
assessments and EIRs to determine the need for, and size of
buffer zones. The CDD shall submit an annual monitoring report
to the Board on the status of these requirements as they apply to
proposed and newly-sited facilities.
The annual report to the Board will also include any information
provided by cities within the County regarding projects located
within their jurisdiction.
IMPACT: Noise and dust could adversely impact surrounding land uses during
construction of facilities.
6.
Finding: The following mitigation measure has been required in, or incorporated
into the Plan, and/or is within the jurisdiction of another public agency which
has or can and should adopt this measure. This mitigation measure reduces this
impact to a less than significant level.
a. Mitigation Measure: The applicant/developer shall be required to
use noise and dust suppression devices and practices during
construction of any new or significantly expanded facility.
Supporting Rationale: Noise suppression techniques such as
mufflers on vehicles and limited hours of construction activity
minimize disruption to residential and recreational land uses
surrounding the site. The application of water or dust suppres-
sants on construction site grounds will reduce dust emissions.
Environmental review of specific project proposals may identify
more specific and/or additional mitigation measures for reducing
these impacts on surrounding sensitive land uses to less than
significant levels.
Monitoring Program: For projects proposed within the
unincorporated area of the County, the CDD shall be responsible
for implementing this requirement as a condition of approval for
a project. The CDD shall obtain reports from the BAAQMD (dust)
and from the project sponsor (noise) on the compliance of
facilities to dust and noise requirements, and include this
information in reports to the Board during the construction of
facilities.
The annual report to the Board will also include any information
provided by cities within the County regarding projects located
within their jurisdiction.
III. AIR QUALITY
IMPACT: Degradation of air quality due to criteria pollutant emissions from
facilities; contribution to regional non-attainment of air quality standards.
Finding: The following mitigation measures have been required in, or
incorporated into the Plan, and/or are within the jurisdiction of another public
agency which has or can and should adopt these measures. These mitigation
measures reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
1. The following mitigation measure has been required in or incorporated
into the Plan:
7.
a. Mitigation Measure: The Plan excludes facilities from being
sited in non-attainment areas unless risk assessments can show
that emissions will not contribute to non-attainment of
standards, that such emissions can be mitigated, and that
emissions would not be greater than those associated with
transporting wastes out of the County.
Supporting Rationale: Due to Contra Costa County's non-attain-
ment status, all proposed projects in the County must be found
consistent with BAAQMD's 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan. In
order to prevent further impact to non-attainment areas, the
State Department of Health Services has required that this
criteria be used in all County hazardous waste management plans.
However, it does allow for consideration of a hazardous waste
facility in the context of other emission-producing facilities in
these areas, and with consideration that there are air quality
impacts from transporting wastes out of these areas. A risk
assessment, which considers the physical and chemical
characteristics of the specific types of waste that will be
handled and the design feature of the facility, is required as
part of the permitting process to determine whether impacts from
a proposed facility can meet air emission standards.
Monitoring Program: For projects within the unincorporated areas
of the County, the CDD shall be responsible for implementing this
siting criterion as proposals are being reviewed. The CDD shall
submit to the Board an annual monitoring report on the status of
this requirement as it applies to proposed and newly-sited
facilities.
2. The following mitigation measure is within the jurisdiction and
responsibility of another agency:
a. Mitigation Measure: All facilities must meet BAAQMD air quality
permit requirements for stationary sources. Facilities with air
emissions of criteria pollutants in excess of threshold limits,
set forth in Regulation 2-2-301, must comply with the new source
review and Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements
of the BAAQMD and the California Air Resources Board. BACT for
incinerators would include installation of scrubbers or
electro-statis precipitators to reduce emissions.
Supporting Rationale: Non-attainment areas are those areas in
which one or more of the critical air pollutants (criteria
pollutants) exceed the National Ambient Air Standards required by
the Federal Clean Air Act. As a non-attainment area for the
criteria pollutants of ozone and carbon monoxide, Contra Costa
8.
County is subject to the BAAQMD's 1982 Bay Area Quality Plan.
Therefore, all 'proposed projects in the County that may poten-
tially emit non-attainment criteria pollutants, in this case
ozone and carbon monoxide, must be found consistent with this
Plan. Hazardous waste management facilities would be required to
meet the BAAQMD's conditions in its Authority to Construct and
Operate Permit. To satisfy these conditions, BACT could be
required to be used on facilities.
IMPACT: Degradation of air quality due to tokic (non-criteria) pollutant
emissions from facilities.
Finding: The following mitigation measures have been required in, or
incorporated into the Plan, and/or are within the jurisdiction of another public
agency which has or can and should adopt these measures. These mitigation
measures reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
1. The following mitigation measures are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency:
a. Mitigation Measure: The Plan states that health risk screenings
shall be completed for all proposed facilities. Health risk
assessments will be prepared if determined necessary by the
health risk screening. These studies would be required by the
BAAQMD for an application of Authority to Contract and Permit to
Operate entitlement in order to reduce impacts of toxic pollu-
tants to less than significant levels.
Supporting Rationale: The BAAQMD air toxics screening analysis
must include estimates for emissions for each toxic air contami-
nant, the calculation of the exposure of nearby receptors to
ambient levels of these contaminants, and a comparison of these
ambient levels with safety thresholds determined by BAAQMD staff.
To meet permit requirements, the BAAQMD might require Best
Available Control Technology for facilities, e.g. installation of
scrubbers or electro-static precipitators on incinerators.
b. Mitigation Measure: Hazardous waste incineration facilities
shall meet federal and state requirements for air emissions.
Supporting Rationale: See I.2.d.
9.
IV. NOISE
IMPACT: The operation and traffic-related activity of a facility could create
noise levels which impact sensitive receptors in the area.
Finding: The following mitigation measure has been required in or incorporated
into the Plan, and/or is within the jurisdiction of other public agencies which
can and should adopt this measure. This measure reduces this impact to a less
than significant level.
a. Mitigation Measures: The Plan's siting criteria include a
requirement that facilities other than residuals repositories be
sited only in industrial (heavy and light) areas. The siting
criteria for residuals repositories include the Health and Safety
Code requirement (Section 25202.5(b)(d) ) of a 2,000-foot buffer
zone between residential areas and the facility. Additionally,
the Plan's criteria prohibits access to all facilities through
residential areas. These policies would serve to prevent
significant adverse impacts to ambient noise levels in residen-
tial areas and to sensitive receptors.
Supporting Rationale: The siting of treatment facilities in
heavy industrial areas would assure compatibility with other land
use noise environments. Separation of these facilities from
residential areas will serve as a buffer zone for noise dissipa-
tion. The 2,000-foot buffer zone required for residuals reposi-
tories will serve this same purpose. Moreover, restricting
facility-generated traffic from traveling through residential
areas further reduces the potential noise impacts to sensitive
receptors. Additional noise mitigation measures may be identi-
fied during environmental review of specific projects and
incorporated as conditions of local land use permits.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing these siting criteria as project-specific proposals located
within the unincorporated areas of the County are reviewed. The
CDD shall obtain from the project sponsor reports on the
compliance of the facility to an approved noise monitoring and
abatement program, if required, and include this information in
the annual compliance report to the Board.
The annual report to the Board will also include any information
provided by cities within the County regarding projects located
within their jurisdiction.
IMPACT: The construction of a facility could create noise levels which impact
sensitive receptors in the area.
10.
Finding: The following mitigation measure has been required in, or incorporated
into the Plan, and/or is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency which can and should adopt this measure. This measure reduces
this impact to a less than significant level.
a. Mitigation Measure: The applicant/developer should be required
to use noise suppression devices and practices during
construction of any new or significantly expanded facility.
Supporting Rationale: Noise suppression techniques such as
mufflers on vehicles and limited haurs of construction activity
minimize disruption to sensitive land uses near the site. Envi-
ronmental review of specific project proposals may identify more
specific and/or additional mitigation measures which would
further reduce this impact.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing this requirement as a condition of approval for a project
which is located within an unincorporated area of the County. The
CDD shall obtain from the project sponsor reports on the
compliance of a facility to an approved noise monitoring and
abatement program, if required, and include this information in
its annual monitoring report to the Board.
The annual report to the Board will also include any information
provided by cities within the County regarding projects located
within their jurisdiction.
V. WATER RESOURCES
IMPACT: Spills or leaks from facilities could contaminate surface and
groundwater.
Finding: The following mitigation measures have been required in or
incorporated into the Plan, and/or are within the jurisdiction of another public
agency which has or can and should adopt such measures. These mitigation
measures reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
1. The following mitigation measures have been required in or
incorporated into the Plan:
a. Mitigation Measure: No facility shall be located within the
watersheds of existing or proposed drinking water reservoirs.
Supporting Rationale: The Plan' s siting criteria for facilities
includes this prohibition in order to prevent and/or reduce the
potential infiltration of released hazardous substances to drinking
water supplies by physically separating facilities from sources of
potable water.
11.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for
implementing this siting criterion as project-specific proposals
located within unincorporated areas of the County are reviewed.
The CDD shall submit an annual monitoring report to the Board on
the status of this requirement as it applies to proposed and
newly-sited facilities located within the unincorporated areas of
the County.
The annual report to the Board will also include any information
provided by cities within the County regarding projects located
within their jurisdiction.
b. Mitigation Measure: All facilities near bodies of water must
have engineered structural design features for preventing
migration of waste.
Supporting Rationale: Design features such as spill containment
berms and flooring, and .monitoring devices. will be required for
facilities close to surface water bodies.
Monitoring Program: The CBD shall be responsible for
implementing this siting criterion as project-specific proposals
located within unincorporated areas of the County are reviewed.
The CDD shall submit to the Board an annual monitoring report on
the status of this requirement as it applies to projects located
within the unincorporated areas of the County. The annual report
to the Board will include any information provided by cities
within the County regarding projects located within their
jurisdiction.
C. Mitigation Measure: All treatment-type facilities must have
properly engineered spill containment features, inspection
measures and other environmental protection controls.
Supporting Rationale: Incorporating certain design features into
specific treatment-type facility projects will ensure that
migration of hazardous substances to groundwater does not occur.
The particular features would be dependent on results of detailed
studies of the hydrology, water quality and groundwater
characteristics of the project site. Containment structures must
be capable of withstanding geologic or soil failures which may
arise.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for
implementing this siting criterion as project-specific proposals
located within unincorporated areas of the County are reviewed.
The CDD shall submit to the Board an annual monitoring report on
12. _
the status of this requirement as it applies to projects located
within the unincorporated areas of the County. The CDD shall
obtain from the DHS and CRWQCB reports on the compliance of a
facility to this requirement and include this information in
monitoring report(s) to the Board during the construction of the
facility.
The annual report to the Board will also include any information
provided by cities within the County regarding projects located
within their jurisdiction.
d. Mitigation Measure: Residual repositories shall be prohibited•
within known or suspected major aquifer recharge areas.
Supporting Rationale: Separation of these types of hazardous
waste facilities from principal recharge areas will reduce the
potential for contamination of groundwater due to spills or leaks
of hazardous substances.
Monitoring Programs: The CDD shall be responsible for
implementing these siting criteria as project-specific proposals
located within unincorporated areas of the County are reviewed.
The CDD shall submit an annual report to the Board on the status
of this criterion as it applies to proposed and newly-sited
facilities. The annual report to the Board will also include any
information provided by cities within the County regarding
projects located within their jurisdiction.
2. The following mitigation measure is within the jurisdiction and
responsibility of another public agency:
a. Mitigation Measure: Residual repositories must meet the depth to
groundwater and permeable strata and soil requirements of the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) .
Supporting Rationale: The waste facility regulations of the
SWRCB address siting, construction and operational criteria
concerning depth to groundwater, and permeable strata and soils.
These regulations, found in Subchapter 15 of Title 23 of the
California Code of Regulations (Subchapter 15) , require natural
clay soils of very low permeability or engineered solutions, e.g.
a synthetic liner, to give equivalent protection. In addition, a
five-foot clearance zone between wastes and the highest
anticipated elevation of underlying groundwater shall be required
for siting and operation of repositories.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall include in the annual report
to the Board information which may be provided by DHS and CRWQCB
on the compliance of a facility to depth to groundwater and
permeable soils requirements.
13.
. r
IMPACT: Leaks from underground storage tanks at facilities could contaminate
groundwater.
Finding: The following mitigation measure has been required in or incorporated
into the Plan, and/or is within the jurisdiction of another public agency which
has or can and should adopt this measure. This mitigation measure reduces this
impact to a less than significant level.
a. Mitigation Measure: All facilities must comply with State and
local legislation requiringthe registration, permitting and
upgrading of all existing and new underground tanks containing
hazardous materials. A double-walled vessel and an underground
monitoring system are among the requirements for these tanks.
Supporting Rationale: The regulations which specify containment
and monitoring requirements help prevent leakage of wastes from
the tanks and serve as an early warning system if materials do
escape.
Monitoring Program: The HSD administers the County Underground
Tank Program and is responsible for the permitting, implementa-
tion of State-mandated regulations for installation, and inspec-
ting of underground tanks. The CDD shall obtain from the HSD
reports on the compliance of a facility to the underground tank
regulations and include this information in its annual monitoring
report to the Board.
114PACT: Flooding of hazardous waste management facilities.
Finding: The following mitigation measures have been required in or
incorporated into the Plan, and/or are within the jurisdiction of another public
agency which has or can and should adopt such measures. These mitigation
measures reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
a. Mitigation Measure: Residuals repositories shall be prohibited
from locating in 100-year flood areas.
Supporting Rationale: The Plan's siting criteria for repository-
type facilities include this prohibition in order to prevent
and/or reduce the potential contact of hazardous substances with
surface and groundwater. Map A of Section IV, Chapter 8 of the
Plan shows the areas in the County subject to the 100-year flood
event.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing this siting criterion as project-specific proposals within
the unincorporated areas of the County are reviewed. The CDD
shall submit an annual monitoring report to the Board on the
status of this requirement as it applies to proposed and
newly-sited facilities. The annual report to the Board will also
include any information provided by cities within the County
regarding projects located within their jurisdiction.
14.
r
b. Mitigation Measure: Treatment-type facilities located in 100-
year flood areas must have engineered design features to prevent
contact of wastes with surface and groundwater.
Supporting Rationale: Design features such as berms, drainage
systems, ponds and elevation above flood levels will be required
in order to prevent floods from impacting the wastes on site. As
specific facilities are proposed, the issue of flooding will need
to be addressed in greater detail in environmental review of
these proposals.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for assuring
that adequate design features are included in hazardous waste
treatment facility projects which are' proposed for the
unincorporated areas of the County. The CDD shall obtain from
the DHS and CRWQCB reports on the compliance of a facility to
this requirement, and include this information in reports to the
Board during construction of the facility. The annual report to
the Board will also include any information provided by cities
within the County regarding projects located within their
jurisdiction.
IMPACT: Wastewater discharge from a facility could adversely impact sewage
treatment facilities or surface water quality.
Finding: The following mitigation measures are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency.
1. The following mitigation measures are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency which has or can and should
adopt these measures.
a. Mitigation Measure: Wastewater treatment agencies would require
pre-treatment of hazardous waste management facility wastewater.
Supporting Rationale: Some hazardous waste management facilities
would need to be provided with wastewater treatment services.
These facilities might discharge effluent that could interfere
with a wastewater treatment plant's ability to adequately treat
sewage. In order to prevent this possibility, the treatment plan
would require a facility to pre-treat its effluent before
discharging it to the sewer system.
b. Mitigation Measure: In order to reduce the impact to surface
waters to a less than significant level, the California State
Regional Water Quality Control Board (CSRWQCB) would require a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
for direct discharge of effluent to the Bay/Delta system by a
facility.
15.
Supporting Rationale: A treatment facility must obtain a NPDES
permit from the applicable RWQCB in order to discharge effluent
to surface waters in the State. To obtain this permit, the
proposed facility must meet water quality criteria set by the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) . This discharge
permit would require pretreatment of a facility's wastewater if
necessary to meet the SWRCB regulations.
VI. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
IMPACT: Slope instability, differential settlement and unstable construction
conditions could cause damage to facilities.
Finding: The following mitigation measures have been required in or
incorporated into the Plan, and/or are within the jurisdiction of another public
agency which has or can and . should adopt such measures. These mitigation
measures reduce this impact to a less than significant level,
a. Mitigation Measure: Facilities .may not be located within 200
feet of faults designated active, recently active or important in
the County Seismic Safety Element.
Supporting Rationale: Earthquakes affecting the Bay Area either
directly or indirectly can produce groundshaking, ground dis-
placement, ground failure (including slope failure) , liquefac-
tion, tsunamis and seiches. Siting facilities greater than 200
feet from the trace of any active fault will help reduce the
potential impacts of slope failure and differential ground
settlement to facilities.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing this siting criterion as project-specific proposals located
within unincorporated areas are reviewed. The CDD shall include,
in their annual monitoring report to the Board, an update of this
requirement as it applies to proposed and newly-sited facilities.
This report will also include any information provided by cities
within the County regarding projects located within their
jurisdiction.
b. Mitigation Measure: Facilities located within areas with un-
stable soil shall have engineered design features to assure
structural stability. This category includes steep slopes and
areas subject to liquefaction and subsidence due to residual
causes.
16.
Supporting Rationale: Due to the variable density and strength
of unconsolidated sediments underlying the County's lowland
areas, there is a potential for differential settlement in these
areas. Differences in density and strength of earth materials
also occur in upland areas adjacent to unconsolidated alluvium
and colluvial deposits. For these reasons, facility sites will
be engineered to provide stability under design criteria, using
such procedures as conservative grading practices and excavation
and replacement of unstable soils from potential slide areas.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing this design requirement as project-specific proposals located
within unincorporated areas of the County are reviewed. The CDD
shall obtain from the DHS and CRWQCB reports on the compliance of
a facility to this requirement, and include this information in
reports to the Board during construction of the facility. The
annual report to the Board will also include any information
provided by cities within the County regarding projects located
within their jurisdiction.
C. Mitigation Measure: Facility foundations and foundation soils.
should be engineered to provide an unyielding foundation to
mitigate the impact of differential settlement.
Supporting Rationale: Due to the variable density and strength
of earth materials in many parts of the County, there is a
potential for differential ground settlement, especially under
additional weight bearing stress. Thus, it is important that
foundation soils be engineered to assure a consistency of
strength.
Monitoring Programs: The CDD shall be responsible for ensuring
that adequate engineering design for foundations be included in
project-specific proposals which are located in unincorporated
areas of the County. The CDD shall obtain from the DHS and the
CRWQCB reports on the compliance of a facility to these design
criteria, and include this information in reports to the Board
during the construction of a facility. The annual report to the
Board will also include any information provided by cities within
the County regarding projects located within their jurisdiction.
d. Mitigation Measure: Construction excavations shall use standard
temporary structural support systems required by OSHA and con-
servative earth-work construction standards.
Supporting Rationale: Walls of open excavations are subject to
washout or collapse, not only from rainwater, but also from
groundwater being pumped out of the excavation if the water table
were interceded by the digging. By meeting OSHA structural
support requirements during construction and utilizing conserva-
17.
tive grading practices, e.g. use of temporary berms and retaining
walls, the impact of unstable construction conditions to facili-
ties would be reduced to less than significant levels. Subse-
quent environmental review of specific projects may identify
additional/more detailed mitigation measures.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing these construction requirements as project-specific pro-
posals which are located within unincorporated areas of the
County are reviewed. The CDD shall obtain from the DHS and the
CRWQCB reports on the compliance of a facility to these
requirements, and include this information in reports to the
Board during the construction of a facility.
IMPACT: The construction of facilities could interfere with or prevent future
extraction of mineral resources in the County.
Finding: The following mitigation measures have been required in or
incorporated into the Plan, and/or are within the jurisdiction of another public
agency which has or can and should adopt such measures. These mitigation
measures reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
a. Mitigation Measure: Hazardous waste facilities should not be
sited so as to preclude extraction of minerals necessary to
sustain the economy of the State of California.
Supporting Rationale: The Plan identifies six significant
mineral resource areas within the County. Included in these
areas is the only deposit of domegine sandstone, used in the
manufacture of heat-resistant glass by the National Space
Program, in the State.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing this siting criterion as project-specific proposals located
within the unincorporated areas of the County are reviewed. The
CDD shall submit an annual monitoring report to the Board on the
statusof this requirement as it applies to proposed and
newly-sited facilities. The annual report to the Board will also
include any information provided by cities within the County
regarding projects located within their jurisdiction.
IMPACT: Soil permeability, expansive. soils, corrosive soils, and erosion could
cause damage to facilities and/or contamination to soils, surface and ground
water.
Finding: The following mitigation measures have been required in or
incorporated into the Plan, and/or are within the jurisdiction of another public
agency which has or can and should adopt such measures. These mitigation
measures reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
18.
a. Mitigation Measure Residuals repositories must conform to the
requirements of Subchapter 15, which include permeable strata and
soils provisions to prevent soil and water contamination by
migration of hazardous substances.
Supporting Rationale: A review of the soil types in the County
did not identify areas large enough for residuals repositories
that meet the permeability requirements of Subchapter 15. How-
ever, site specific geotechnical investigations would need to be
done during environmental review of specific proposals to confirm
this condition. If the natural soil does not meet the State
permeability requirements, engineered solutions, e.g. soil
compaction and/or synthetic liners, would need to be used to
provide a suitable liner under the repository.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing this siting criterion as project-specific proposals located
within unincorporated areas of the County are reviewed. The CDD
shall obtain from the DHS and the CRWQCB reports on the
compliance of a facility to these requirements, and include this
information in its annual monitoring report to the Board during
the construction of a facility. The annual report to the Board
will also include any information provided by cities within the
County regarding projects located within their jurisdiction.
b. Mitigation Measure: Appropriate foundations and/or compacted
non-expansive fills should be used to prevent structural defor-
mation to facilities.
Supporting Rationale: All nine soil classifications in the
County identified by the Soil Conservation Service have soils
with highly expansive properties. Engineered solutions to ensure
that a facility's foundation/structural integrity is not compro-
mised, such as using pier and grade beam foundations or replacing
expansive soils with a compacted fill, are necessary. The
particular solutions will be contingent on the geotechnical
studies of site-specific proposals.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for ensuring
that adequate engineering design for a facility' s structural
integrity be included in project-specific proposals which are
located within the unincorporated areas of the County. The CDD
shall obtain from the DHS and the CRWQCB reports on the compli-
ance of a facility to these design criteria, and include this
information in reports to the Board during the construction of a
facility. The annual report to the Board will also include any
information provided by cities within the County regarding
projects located within their jurisdiction.
19.
c. Mitigation Measure: Corrosion-resistant construction materials
should be used to prevent facility structural failure due to
cumulative corrosive weakening.
Supporting Rationale: All nine soil classifications in the
County identified by the Soil Conservation Service have soils
with corrosive to highly corrosive properties. Facilities
constructed from concrete and/or steel could be subject to cor-
rosion and eventual structural failure. Engineered solutions,
such as the removal of naturally-occurring soil and replacement
with fill and treatment of building materials, might be necessary
to mitigate this effect.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for ensuring
that adequate engineering design for a facility's structural
integrity be included in project-specific proposals which are
located within the unincorporated areas of the County. The CDD
shall obtain from the DHS and the CRWQCB reports on the compli-
ance of a facility to this design criterion, and include this
information in reports to the Board during the construction of a
facility. The annual report to the Board will also include any
information provided by cities within the County regarding
projects located within their jurisdiction.
d. Mitigation Measure: Standard erosion control devices and vege-
tation should be used to prevent dislodged soil due to construc-
tion activities from causing increased sedimentation to local
drainage systems.
Supporting Rationale: Project applicants shall submit an erosion
control plan as part of the Development and Improvement Plan for
their site. The specific mitigation measures would be identified
during environmental review of those projects and might include
the use of sediment ponds, conservative grading techniques, and a
planting and landscaping (including on-going seeding) program to
hold soil.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for ensuring
that an erosion control program is included as a condition of
approval for all facility projects which are located within the
unincorporated areas of the County. The CDD shall submit com-
pliance reports to the Board on this requirement during the
construction phase of projects. The annual report to the Board
will also include any information provided by cities within the
County regarding projects located within their jurisdiction.
IMPACT: Facilities sited in Prime Agricultural Lands would reduce the amount of
these lands in the State of California.
20.
Finding: The following mitigation measure has been required in or incorporated
into the Plan, and/or is within the jurisdiction of another public agency which
has or can and should adopt this measure. This mitigation measure reduces this
impact to a less than significant level.
a. Mitigation Measure: Prime Agricultural Lands may not, under
California law, be used for urban purposes (including hazardous
waste facilities), unless an overriding public need is served.
Supporting Rationale: Contra. Costa County has over 120,000 acres
of land under the four "Important Farmland" categories as clas-
sified according to definitions developed by the State Land Use
Task Force of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The "Prime
Farmland" category encompasses 41,300 acres of the County. These
are lands that have the soil quality, growing season and water
management needed to produce high yields. This siting criteria
will mitigate impacts to Prime Agricultural Lands to less than
significant levels.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing this siting criteria as project-specific proposals which are
located within the unincorporated areas of the County are
reviewed. The CDD shall submit an annual monitoring report to
the Board on the status of this requirement as it applies to
proposed and newly-sited facilities. The annual report to the
Board will also include any information provided by cities within
the County regarding projects located within their jurisdiction.
IMPACT: Seismic-related impacts from groundshaking, liquefaction, lurching,
lateral spreading, seismic-induced landsliding and tsunamis could cause damage
to facilities.
Finding: The following mitigation measures have been required in or
incorporated into the Plan, and/or are within the jurisdiction of another public
agency which has or can and should adopt such measures. These mitigation
measures reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
a. Mitigation Measure: Facilities may not be located within 200
feet of faults designated active, recently active or important in
the County Seismic Safety Element.
Supporting Rationale: Earthquakes affecting the Bay Area either.
directly or indirectly can produce groundshaking, ground dis-
placement, ground rupture (including slope failure) liquefaction,
tsunamis and seiches. Siting facilities greater than 200 feet
from the trace of any active fault will help reduce the potential
seismic impacts and corresponding damage to facilities.
21.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing this siting criterion as project-specific proposals which are
located within unincorporated areas of the County are reviewed.
The CDD shall report annually to the Board on the status of this
requirement as it applies to proposed and newly-sited facilities.
The annual report to the Board will also include any information
provided by cities within the County regarding projects located
within their jurisdiction.
b. Mitigation Measure: Buildings and structures shall meet or
exceed the current design standards for ground acceleration
generated by the maximum credible earthquake.
Supporting Rationale: A geotechnical investigation, including a
seismic stability analysis, for each project-specific proposal
will identify the maximum credible earthquake for that site. The
proposed final engineering design for a facility shall be re-
viewed for resistance to the design earthquake standards. The
final seismic design of all features and buildings of a hazardous
waste facility will be required as a condition of approval by the
County. .
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing this measure through conditions of approval for all projects
which are located within unincorporated areas of the County. The
CDD shall obtain from the DHS and the CRWQCB reports on the
compliance of a facility to earthquake design standards, and
include this information in reports to the Board during the
construction of a facility. The annual report to the Board will
also include any information provided by cities within the County
regarding projects located within their jurisdiction.
C. Mitigation Measure: Building foundations and foundation soils
would be engineered to mitigate secondary seismic effects of
ground failure.
Supporting Rationale: Secondary seismic effects of ground fail-
ure, e.g. liquefaction and landsliding, are exacerbated by the
soil and earth material conditions present in the County. The
lowland areas, where most of the proposed areas for siting
hazardous waste facilities are located, are especially subject to
differential settlement due to the variable density and strength
of the underlying unconsolidated sediment. Differences in
density and strength of earth materials also occur in the Coun-
ty' s upland areas adjacent to unconsolidated alluvium and
colluvial deposits. For these reasons, facilities would need to
be engineered to withstand earthquake-induced ground failure
through the use of techniques such as excavation of unstable
earth materials and replacement with a compacted fill. Subse-
quent environmental review of proposed projects would be needed
to identify more specific engineered mitigation measures.
22.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for ensuring
that adequate engineering design for a facility' s structural
integrity be included in project-specific proposals which are
located within unincorporated areas of the County. The CDD shall
obtain from the DHS and the CRWQCB reports on the compliance of a
facility to this design criterion, and include this information
in reports to the Board during the construction of a facility.
The annual report to the Board will also include any information
provided by cities within the County regarding projects located
within their jurisdiction.
d. Mitigation Measure: Sea walls should be constructed if a facil-
ity is sited along the western coastal portion of the County to
prevent tsunami inundation.
Supporting Rationale: Tsunamis (seismic sea waves) could inun-
date structures that are located along coastal areas. With the
exception of the western coastal area of Contra Costa County,
tsunamis are not expected to cause significant structural damage
by inundation.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for ensuring
that a properly designed sea wall, if appropriate, be included in
specific projects proposed to be located in unincorporated areas
which are subject to tsunami inundation. The CDD shall obtain
from the DHS and the CRWCB reports on the compliance of a
facility to this design criterion, and include this information
in reports to the Board during the construction of a facility.
The annual report to the Board will also include any information
provided by cities within the County regarding projects located
within the jurisdiction.
VII. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
IMPACT: Facility construction and operation could result in disturbance or
removal of vegetation, fish and wildlife.
Finding: The following mitigation measures have been required in or
incorporated into the Plan, and/or are within the jurisdiction of another public
agency which has or can and should adopt such measures. These mitigation
measures reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
a. Mitigation Measure: Treatment-type hazardous waste facilities
shall only be sited in areas designated for industrial (heavy and
light) planned use in the General Plan of the agency with local
land use jurisdiction. If a treatment facility is proposed in a
non-industrial area, a General Plan Amendment will be necessary
to re-designate the property as industrial or a special designa-
tion for hazardous waste facilities in order to be consistent
with the Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
23.
Supporting Rationale: Treatment facilities are basically indus-
trial facilities; therefore, it is appropriate to site them in
industrial areas. These areas are for the most part removed from
areas of high vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat value. By
limiting these facilities to existing industrial areas, the
potential adverse effects to these areas is reduced.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing this siting criterion as project-specific proposals which are
located within unincorporated areas are reviewed. This
department shall submit an annual manitoring report to the Board
of Supervisors on the status of this requirement as it applies to
proposed and newly-sited facilities. The annual report to the
Board will also include any information provided by cities within
the County regarding projects located within their jurisdiction.
b. Mitigation Measure: Facilities shall not be located in wetlands
or critical habitat areas.
Supporting Rationale: Wetlands support, under normal circum-
stances, a prevalence of vegetative and/or aquatic life which
requires saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction.
Critical habitat areas are areas necessary for the viability of
rare, threatened, or endangered species, the development of which
would result in an immediate, direct and unmitigated decrease in
the number or viability of these species. Both wetlands and
critical habitat areas are defined in the adopted general,
regional and State plans. Prohibiting the siting of facilities
in these areas will help assure that these environmentally
sensitive areas are protected.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing these siting criteria as project-specific proposals which are
located within unincorporated areas are reviewed. The department
shall submit to the Board an annual monitoring report on the
status of this requirement as it applies to proposed and
newly-sited projects. The annual report to the Board will also
include any information provided by cities within the County
regarding projects located within their jurisdiction.
C. Mitigation Measure: Facilities located near bodies of water must
have engineered structural design features to ensure that migra-
tion of waste will not occur.
24.
Supporting Rationale: Many industrial areas in the County are
near bodies of water, especially along the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Rivers and the San Francisco Bay. Potential contamination of
these waterways is of major concern. In order to prevent this
from occurring, additional steps must be taken. Engineered
design features such as spill containment and monitoring devices
will be incorporated into project development plans. The
particular features needed to mitigate this potential impact
would be identified in subsequent environmental reviews for
specific facility projects.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for ensuring
that appropriate design features are included in all facility
projects which are proposed to be located in the unincorporated
areas of the County. The CDD shall obtain from the DHS and the
CRWQCB reports on the compliance of a facility to this design
criterion, and include this information in reports to the Board
during the construction of a facility. The annual report to the
Board will also include any information provided by cities within
the County regarding projects located within their jurisdiction.
d.. Mitigation Measure: Any loss of wetland or riparian fish and
wildlife habitat value would require the development of compen-
satory habitat value.
Supporting Rationale: In order to compensate for loss of sensi-
tive biotic habitat, site-specific mitigation plans would be
required by the project applicant as a condition of approval for
a facility. For every acre of habitat to be lost with a project
siting, no less than an equivalent acre should be created in
non-wetland habitat, which must ensure "no net loss" of fish and
wildlife habitat value.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing the appropriate site-specific compensatory mitigation plan as
part of a proposal's conditions of approval for projects located
within unincorporated areas of the County. The same department
shall submit an annual monitoring report to the Board of Super-
visors on the compliance of proposed and sited projects to this
mitigation measure.
e. Mitigation Measure: The siting and design of facilities should
avoid riparian corridors and sensitive upland wildlife habitats.
If facilities are located in areas that could impact upland
wildlife, then siting and design should minimize the loss to this
habitat value.
25.
r �
Supporting Rationale: Because upland habitats, e.g. , grasslands,
in many cases are less sensitive to development than wetland and
riparian habitats, this doesnot imply that environmental impacts
in these areas would be insignificant. Construction and opera-
tional activities can significantly impact plants and wildlife at
some distance from a proposed site. For this reason, care should
be taken in the selection of any upland or riparian site to
ensure that no rare or endangered species occur on or within the
site's potential sphere of influence. Additional measures to
minimize the loss of habitat value might include surveying the
wildlife in the area, minimizing the number of trees and other
vegetation removed during construction, and replanting the vege-
tation removed with a comparable number and quality of species.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing this siting criteria and/or ensuring that an appropriate
biotic mitigation plan be included in project-specific proposals
which are located within unincorporated areas of the County.
This department shall submit an annual monitoring report to the
Board on the compliance of proposed and sited projects to this
criteria and/or biotic mitigation plan. The annual report to the
Board will also include any information provided by cities within
the County regarding projects located within their jurisdiction.
f. Mitigation Measure: Site-specific mitigation plans should be
developed for facilities sited near wetlands in order to minimize
impacts to these areas.
Supporting Rationale: In addition to the siting criteria pro-
hibiting facilities from locating in wetlands (see VII-1-b
above) , a mitigation plan might be needed to reduce the potential
impact of facilities to nearby wetlands. This plan would be
developed by the County in conjunction with the other agencies
involved in the designation, protection and/or management of
wetland areas. They include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission. The mitigation plan should be compatible with the
policies and permit requirements of these agencies.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for developing
mitigation plans for proposed facilities located within
unincorporated areas in order to minimize impacts to wetlands.
This department shall submit an annual monitoring report to the
Board of Supervisors on the compliance of proposed and sited
projects to a wetland mitigation plan. The annual report to the
Board will also include any information provided by cities within '
the County regarding projects located within their jurisdiction.
26.
VIII. TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT: Transport of hazardous substances . in connection with hazardous waste
facilities could result in adverse impacts due to accidents and spills.
Finding: The following mitigation measures have been required in or
incorporated into the Plan, and/or are within the jurisdiction of another public
agency which has or can and should adopt such measures. These mitigation
measures reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
1. The following mitigation measures have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Plan:
a. Mitigation Measure: The preference in the Plan t'or on-site
recycling, treatment and disposal of hazardous waste will reduce
the risks associated with the transport of this waste.
Supporting Rationale: Several of the Plan's policies on hazard-
ous waste management address the issue of reducing the amount and
toxicity and encouraging the on-site treatment, recycling and
disposal of hazardous waste in the County. These policies would,
upon approval of the Plan, be implemented via hazardous waste
management programs and siting criteria for treatment and dis-
posal facilities. The implementation of these policies will
result in a reduced quantity of waste requiring transport to
off-site locations and, thereby, a reduced risk from vehicular
accidents and spills.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing the policies and siting criteria as they pertain to the
on-site recycling, treatment, and disposal hierarchy of the Plan
when permitting facilities which are located within the
unincorporated areas of the County. The annual report to the
Board will also include any information provided by cities within
the County regarding projects located within their jurisdiction.
b. Mitigation Measure: Treatment-type facilities shall only be
sited in areas designated for industrial (heavy and light)
planned use in the General Plan of the agency with local land use
jurisdiction.
Supporting Rationale: Locating treatment facilities in indus-
trial areas would minimize the potential risk of spills and
accidents due to transport of hazardous substances. These
substances, generated mostly in industrial areas, would need to
be transported short distances to be treated, thereby reducing
the number of vehicular miles and amount of time traveled. in
addition, transport of these materials to/from and within in-
dustrial areas would minimize the risk of accidental spills
impacting residential areas.
27.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing this siting criterion when reviewing project-specific
proposals located within unincorporated areas of the County.
This department shall submit an annual monitoring report to the
Board .on the status of this requirement as it applies to proposed
and newly-sited facilities. The annual report to the Board will
also include any information provided by cities within the County
regarding projects located within their jurisdiction.
C. Mitigation Measure: Access to hazardous waste facilities shall
be prohibited through residential areas.
Supporting Rationale: This criterion will help protect residen-
tial areas from potential adverse impacts from spills and
accidents resulting from the transport of hazardous substances.
Access to facilities in areas where the road passes adjacent to
residential developments will be allowed if there are adequate
physical barriers and/or residential setbacks as safeguards.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing this siting criterion by making it a permit condition of
project-specific proposals which are located within
unincorporated areas of the County. This department will submit
an annual monitoring report to the Board of Supervisors on the
status of this requirement as it applies to proposed and
newly-sited facilities. The annual report to the Board will also
include any information provided by cities within the County
regarding projects located within their jurisdiction.
d. Mitigation Measure: Road networks leading to major transporta-
tion routes should be demonstrated to be safe for the vehicular
traffic resulting from a hazardous waste facility.
Supporting Rationale: Site specific transportation analyses
would be required in order to determine whether and how the
potential impacts to localized traffic safety and capacity could
be reduced to less than significant levels. These analyses would
include road design and construction (including Pavement Traffic
Index) , accident rate, excessive traffic, etc. , studies of the
existing and expected future (project added) situations to make
this determination.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for ensuring
that the necessary traffic analyses be conducted and appropriate
mitigation measures be made a condition of approval for all
project-specific proposals which are located within the
unincorporated areas of the County. This department shall submit
an annual monitoring report to the Board on the compliance by
sited projects to these conditions. The annual. report to the
Board will also include any information provided by cities within
the County regarding projects located within their jurisdiction.
28.
e. Mitigation Measure: The Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials
Area Plan provides methods and procedures enabling coordinated,
timely response to transportation incidents involving hazardous
substances.
Supporting Rationale: The County Hazardous Materials Area Plan
implements the emergency response plan requirement of State law
AB 2185%2187. This County plan, in part, details procedures for
responding to County-wide hazardous substance spills and acci-
dents resulting from transport of these substances. Occupational
Health/Hazardous Materials Specialists from the Health Services
Department are responsible for responding to these spills.
Monitoring Program: The County Health Services Department is
responsible for responding to hazardous materials spill incidents
County-wide. The Health Services Department reports weekly to
the Board on the number and type of spills in the County.
2. The following mitigation measure is within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency:
a. Mitigation Measure: The Plan calls for greater inspection of
hazardous materials hauler vehicles and enforcement of vehicle
handling, operating and routing laws in order to attain the
safest possible level of hazardous materials transport.
Supporting Rationale: The California Highway Patrol (CHP) runs
the State Hazardous Materials Enforcement Development Program and
the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. The CHP is respon-
sible for enforcing hazardous waste transportation laws address-
ing routing constraints, and vehicle handling and operation.
These laws in part include the following: hazardous waste vehi-
cles shall use the most direct route, utilizing State or Inter-
state highways when possible; exceptions to the direct route
requirement shall be made in order to avoid congested thorough-
fares, places where crowds assemble, and residential districts;
only highways of sufficient width and load bearing capacity for
the vehicle shall be used; and vehicles shall not be left unat-
tended or parked overnight in a residential district. Local law
agencies aid in the enforcement of vehicle handling/operation
laws.
IMPACT: Existing transportation routes for residual repositories may be
inadequate for the number and types of vehicles that would be accessing these
facilities.
Finding: The following mitigation measures have been required in or
incorporated into the Plan, and/or are within the jurisdiction of another public
agency which has or can and should adopt such measures. These mitigation
measures reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
29.
a. Mitigation Measure: Road systems leading to residual reposito-
ries should be demonstrated to be adequate for accommodating the
vehicular traffic generated by the facility.
Supporting Rationale: Project-specific transportation analyses
would be conducted for every proposed residual repository. These
studies would evaluate the roadways for such things as safety,
design, pavement structure, and accident rates. Using the anal-
yses as a basis, appropriate improvements to the roadways would
be made a condition of approval for the project.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for ensuring
that the necessary traffic studies be conducted and appropriate
mitigation measures be included in projects proposed to be
located within the unincorporated areas of the County. This
department shall submit an annual monitoring report to the Board
of Supervisors on the compliance of newly-sited facilities to the
mitigation measure.
IX. VISUAL QUALITY
114PACT: Tall incinerator air emission stacks could create a significant visual
impact.
Finding: The following mitigation measures have been required in or
incorporated into the Plan, and/or are within the jurisdiction of another public
agency which has or can or should adopt such measures. These mitigation
measures reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
a. Mitigation Measure: Treatment facilities shall be sited only in
industrial (heavy or light) planned areas, and shall not be
allowed in recreational, cultural and aesthetic areas.
Supporting Rationale: Locating incineration facilities in
industrial areas ensures the compatibility of these types of land
uses, thereby separating them from aesthetically sensitive uses.
This siting criterion recognizes that industrial areas are
strictly utilitarian and will be viewed by a limited number of
people with low visual expectations of the area. Recreational,
cultural and aesthetic areas are those that are so designated in
City and County general plans. Maps C and E1-E4 in Chapter 8 of
the Plan show these areas that could be mapped at the scale used
in the text. Smaller areas could not be mapped, and this crite-
rion should be applied on a project-specific basis.
30.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing these criteria as project-specific proposals which are
located within the unincorporated area of the County are
reviewed. This department shall submit an annual monitoring
report to the Board of Supervisors on the status of these re-
quirements as they apply to proposed and newly-sited facilities.
The annual report to the Board will also include any information
provided by cities within the County regarding projects located
within their jurisdiction.
IMPACT: The siting of hazardous waste treatment-type facilities and residual
repositories could create adverse visual impacts.
Finding: The following mitigation measures have been required in or
incorporated into the Plan, and/or are within the jurisdiction of another public
agency which has or can and should adopt such measures. These mitigation
measures reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
a. Mitigation Measure: Treatment facilities shall be sited only in
industrial (heavy and light) planned areas and shall not be
allowed in recreational, cultural and aesthetic areas.
Supporting Rationale: Locating incineration facilities in
industrial areas ensures the compatibility of these types of land
uses, thereby separating them from aesthetically sensitive uses.
This siting criterion recognizes that industrial areas are
strictly utilitarian and will be viewed by a limited number of
people with low visual expectations of the area. Recreational,
cultural and aesthetic areas are those that are so designated in
City and County general plans. Maps C and El-E4 in Chapter 8 of
the Plan show these areas that could be mapped at the scale used
in the text. Smaller areas could not be mapped, and this crite-
rion should be applied on a project-specific basis.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing these criteria as project-specific proposals located within
unincorporated areas of the County are reviewed. This department
shall submit an annual monitoring report to the Board of
Supervisors on the status of these requirements as they apply to
proposed and newly-sited facilities. The annual report to the
Board will also include any information provided by cities within
the County regarding projects located within their jurisdiction.
b. Mitigation Measure: A buffer zone of 2,000 feet shall be required
for residential repositories based on Section 25202.5(b) (d) of
the State Health and Safety Code. For treatment facilities,
health risk screenings/assessments and EIR's would be used to
determine appropriate buffer zones to separate these facilities
from sensitive receptors.
31.
Supporting Rationale: The 2,000-foot buffer zone for residual
repositories is the only buffer zone required by State law. Map
B in Chapter 8 of the Plan shows generalized residential areas of
the County including this buffer zone. However, as the County
and cities change their general plan designation for residential
areas, the map will need to be revised. Further, it is the
responsibility of the project proponent to prove that a specific
facility meets this criterion. The buffer zones for treatment-
type facilities, determined by the required environmental re-
ports/assessments for a project, would serve as visual separators
for these facilities. Buffer zones-in conjunction with landscape
screening (reference IX.2.c below) will reduce the visual impact
of all hazardous waste facilities to a less than significant
level.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing the 2,000-foot criterion and administering the environmental
review process ' as project-specific proposals located within
unincorporated areas of the County are reviewed. This department
shall submit an annual monitoring report to the Board of
Supervisors on the status of these requirements as they apply to.
proposed and newly-sited facilities. The annual report to the
Board will also include any information provided by cities within
the County regarding projects located within their jurisdiction.
C. Mitigation Measure: The use of landscaping and other site design
measures to screen facilities from off-site areas will minimize
visual impacts resulting from these facilities.
Supporting Rationale: A visual study/assessment would be
included in specific project proposals and/or their environmental
review. The particular design features to be incorporated into a
project is contingent on these studies. However, the following
general design criteria should be considered: adding landscape
plantings .and berms; building low profile structures; routing
truck traffic to the least visible side of the facility; and
siting tall elements of treatment facilities so as to not
obstruct distant views enjoyed by the community.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible. for incorpo-
rating appropriate visual mitigation measures as conditions of
approval for a projects located within unincorporated areas of
the County. This department will ensure that these measures are
implemented through site inspection and report the results to the
Board of Supervisors annually. The annual report to the Board
will also include any information provided by cities within the
County regarding projects located within their jurisdiction.
32.
X. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
IMPACT: Hazardous waste emergencies could significantly impact police and fire
departments or other units created to respond to these emergencies.
Finding: The following mitigation measures have been required in or
incorporated into the Plan, and/or are within the jurisdiction of another public
agency which has or can and should adopt such measures. These mitigation
measures reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
a. Mitigation Measure: The Plan states that emergency services
shall be available 24 hours a day for the life of the facility,
and this should be a condition of land use approval.
Supporting Rationale: In order for a land use permit to be
issued for a proposed facility, the permitting agency would
require that adequate emergency services be available to serve
that facility. "Adequate emergency services" would be defined by
the emergency responder's own performance standards.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for implement-
ing this requirement as project-specific proposals which are
located within the unincorporated areas of the County are
reviewed. The CDD shall obtain from the HSD, reports on the
adequacy of emergency services for proposed and sited facilities,
and include this information in its annual monitoring report to
the Board. The annual report to the Board will also include any
information provided by cities within the County regarding
projects located within their jurisdiction.
b. Mitigation Measure: State law requires all hazardous waste
facilities to develop and make available to local governments an
emergency response plan, and requires local implementing agencies
to have an area-wide emergency response plan. This requirement
enables emergency responders to better coordinate and provide
emergency service to facilities.
Supporting Rationale: All businesses that handle hazardous
materials above a threshold quantity are required to submit a
plan for emergency response to incidents, and to disclose the
location and handling procedures for these materials to local
governments. At the county level, this law is implemented
through the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Area Plan
which details emergency response procedures to be followed during
an incident.
Monitoring Program: The Health Services Department is responsi-
ble for implementing the County Hazardous Materials Area Plan and
responds to emergency incidents. The Health Services Department
reports weekly to the Board on the number and type of incidents
in the County.
33.
t +
IMPACT: Wastewater discharge from treatment facilities could adversely impact
sewer and water systems and/or sewage treatment facilities.
Finding: The following mitigation measures have been required in or
incorporated into the Plan, and/or are within the jurisdiction of another public
agency which has or can and should adopt such measures. These mitigation
measures reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
1. The following mitigation measure has been required in, or incorporated
into, the Plan:
a. Mitigation Measure: Sewer services should be available to all
hazardous waste treatment facilities.
Supporting Rationale: There is adequate wastewater treatment
service capacity in the County to serve potential hazardous waste
treatment facilities. Since these types of facilities will be
located in industrial areas, sewer services are readily avail-
able.
Monitoring Program: The CDD shall be responsible for ensuring
that sewage treatment service is available to all treatment-type
facilities located within unincorporated areas, and require
sanitary district discharge permits for project approval. The
CDD shall report annually to the Board of Supervisors on
compliance by treatment-type facilities to the applicable
wastewater treatment agency requirements. The annual report to
the Board will also include any information provided by cities
within the County regarding projects located within their
jurisdiction.
2. The following mitigation measures are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency.
a. Mitigation Measure: Wastewater treatment agencies would require
pre-treatment of hazardous waste management facility wastewater.
Supporting Rationale: Some hazardous waste management facilities
would need to be provided with wastewater treatment services.
These facilities might discharge effluent that could interfere
with a wastewater treatment plant' s ability to adequately treat
sewage. In order to prevent this possibility, the treatment
plant would require a facility to pre-treat its effluent before
discharging it to the sewer system.
b. Mitigation Measure: Facilities must comply with discharge
limitations set forth in a National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System (NPDES) permit issued by the California State
Regional Water Quality Control Board (CSRWQCB) .
34.
i
a +
y
Supporting Rationale: A treatment facility must obtain a NPDES
permit from the appropriate RWQCB in order to discharge effluent
to surface waters in the State. To obtain this permit, the
facility must be able to meet criteria set forth by the State
Water Resources Control Board (CWRCB) . This discharge permit
could require pretreatment of a facility' s wastewater if neces-
sary to meet the SWRCB regulations.
UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the EIR to include a
discussion of program or project effects that would be considered significant
and unavoidable (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15125(b) ) . The Plan would not result
in any unavoidable significant adverse impacts to the environment. Instead, the
Plan would result in a greatly improved situation with regard to hazardous waste
management in the County, through such practices as source reduction, proper
management and disposal of hazardous waste, and environmentally sensitive siting
criteria for hazardous waste management facilities. The policies and the
implementation measures in the Plan would have beneficial impacts to public
health and the environment.
Therefore, the Board of Supervisors finds that the implementation of the Plan
would result in no unavoidable significant adverse impacts to the environment.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT
AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Section 15126(e) of CEQA requires the EIR to describe the long-term effects of
the proposed project which could adversely affect the environment. Impacts that
narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment or pose long-term risks
to public health and safety, as well as the reasons why the proposed project is
believed to be justified, should be explained.
The implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Plan' s
Subsequent EIR and measures that will be identified in project-specific
environmental studies for facilities sited pursuant to the Plan, would result in
the long-term effects of the Plan being less than significant, and would not
narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment. Implementation of the
Plan would enhance long-term productivity of the environment by promoting the
proper management and disposal of hazardous waste. In addition, the Plan would
reduce the long-term risks to public health and safety.
Therefore, the Board of Supervisors finds that the long-term effects of the Plan
would be less than significant and would not narrow the range of beneficial uses
of the environment. Further, the Board asserts that the Plan should be
implemented as soon as possible in order to begin the program to encourage waste
minimization, promote the proper management of hazardous waste treatment,
transport and disposal, and allow for the development of environmentally sound
facilities in the County.
35.
r
r
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Irreversible environmental damage, including the use of nonrenewable resources,
that would result from implementation of a proposed project must be discussed in
an EIR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(f) ) . The primary and secondary impacts
of a project generally commit future generations to similar uses.
Implementation of the Plan would not require the use of nonrenewable resources.
Siting of facilities to treat, store, transfer or dispose of hazardous wastes in
the County would not create irreversible environmental damage provided that
these facilities comply with the Plan's siting criteria, with the regulations
and permit conditions governing their operation, and with the mitigation
measures identified in project-specific EIRs. Treatment-type facilities would
be sited only in industrial areas, which would prevent the loss of land
resources. Residuals repositories, proposed to be located primarily in
agricultural areas, would not create a significant loss of land resources
because of the limited number and size of this type of facility that would be
needed.
Therefore, the Board of Supervisors finds that there are no significant
irreversible impacts that would result from approval and implementation of the
Plan.
GROWTH INDUCEMENT
An EIR must discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic
or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly
or indirectly, in the surrounding environment (CEQA Guidelines, Section
15126(g) ) . This discussion includes whether the project would remove obstacles
to population growth, such as expansion of a waste water treatment plant.
A possible significant growth-inducing issue is whether new hazardous waste
facilities in the County might attract new industries that handle and generate
this type of waste. However, a causal relationship between the siting of
hazardous waste facilities and subsequent industrial development that could use
these facilities has not been established. A casual relationship has
historically not occurred within Contra Costa County or within the State as a
whole. Additional population growth and/or housing construction is not likely
due to the small number of facilities needed under the Plan' s fair share
criterion for the acceptance of facilities. Moreover, the types of facilities
that could be sited are not labor intensive and, thus, will not induce
population growth. In addition, these facilities are not the type that remove
obstacles to population growth.
Therefore, the Board of Supervisors finds that approval and implementation of
the Plan is not growth inducing.
36.
y '
f.
L'+
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
An EIR must consider impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130) . This refers to the incremental
effects of a project which are considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past, current and probable future projects.
The Program EIR on the Plan is, in effect, an analysis of cumulative impacts
because it discusses impacts of all types of facilities that could be sited as a
result of the Plan's implementation. As part of this CEQA requirement, the
Plan's EIR contains a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future
projectsin the County (Table 5-1, page 5-4) . There are 14 existing, 4 proposed
and 3 closed hazardous waste management facilities on this list.
In addition to the EIR's analysis of the County-wide effects of projects allowed
by the Plan, as described in these findings (refer to: Significant Impacts Fully
Mitigated) , other cumulative impact issues are as follows:
1. `The construction and operation of individual hazardous waste facilities in
the County could cause minor temporary alterations of local traffic
patterns during the construction, and could cause a slight increase in
traffic congestion during the operation. These impacts could be
cumulatively considerable in conjunction with existing and forecasted
traffic levels on major County highways. Scheduling truck traffic to and
from facilities (e.g. during off-peak hours) and implementing a
Transportation Systems Management program for employees of these
facilities would contribute to a reduction of these impacts to less than
significant levels.
2. Cumulative noise impacts could occur as a result of increased traffic
generated by new facilities and by the operation of the facilities. In
addition to the mitigation measures described in these findings (refer
to: Significant Impacts Fully Mitigated: Noise) in this report, the
enforcement of requirements that facilities and facility-related traffic
comply with County and city general plan noise elements would reduce these
impacts to less than significant levels.
Due to the above considerations, the Board of Supervisors finds that the
cumulative impacts resulting from the Plans' implementation would be less than
significant.
CONCLUSION
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County finds that incorporating
mitigation measures and rejecting the proposed alternatives in the Final
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, as stated in these findings, into the
project (County Hazardous Waste Management Plan) reduces environmental impacts
that would result from this project to less than significant levels.
RV:jal
jl20:pla.doc (C:pla.doc)
37.
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FRM: J. MICHAEL WAIFORD, PUBILIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: August 29, 1989
SUBJECT: ADOMING AND FILING WRITTEN REPORT WITH IM OOUN TY AUDITCiR
CIONCERNING SEWM SERVICE Cid FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 19.
Specific Request(s) or Reccmmendation(s) & Backgrami & Justification
I. RECCUMENDED ACTION
That the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, as and
constituting the Board of Directors of Contra Costa County Sanitation
District No. 19:
A. Hear and consider all objections or protests, if any, to the
written report filed by the Public Works Director, as the
Engineer Ex Officio of Sanitation District No. 19, with the Clerk
of the Board, as Ex Officio Clerk of the Board of said Sanitation
District, said written report containing a description of each
parcel of real property receiving sewer and water service from
said District and the amount of the charge of each parcel for
Fiscal Year 1989-90, computed in conformity with the charges
prescribed under District Ordinances; and
B. Find that said protests, if any, were not made by the owners of a
majority of separate parcels of property described in the report
and overrule any such protests; and
C. Adopt the report and determine that each charge is as described
therein; and
D. Direct the Clerk to file a copy of said report with the Contra
Costa County Auditor-Controller in accordance with the provisions
of Sections 5473-5473.11 of the Health and Safety Code.
Continued an attac bment: X yes Signature:
Recomnendation of County Administrator Recommendaticn of Board
Approve Other: Committee
Signature s
Action of Board on: AUG 2 9 1989 Approved as Pixxxu nded-X_ Other
Vote of Supervisors I HMEBY CERTIFY THAT T[ff,S IS A ZTd1E
_X_ Unanimous (Absent _}-M AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTIN TAKEN
Ayes AND ENTERED ON THE M MUTES OF THE
Noes BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SUM.
Absent
Abstain
Attested AUG 2 9 1989
PHIL BATaflum
C EEK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINIMMM
By
I&'.PM CLERK
II. EINANCIAL IRPACr•
The above actions have no impact on County finances. County services
to Sanitation District No. 19 are funded entirely by the annual service
charge.
III. REASONS FOR ON/BAQ�JND:
The Board, having elected in ordinance No. 10 to collect said service
fees on the tax roll, having set August 29, 1989 at 9:00 a.m. in the
Board Chambers as the time and place for this public hearing, the
Director of Public Works having prepared and filed the report, the
Clerk having caused notice of the filing of said report and of this
time and place of hearing thereon to be published pursuant to Section
6066 of the Government Code and Section 5473.1 of the Health and Safety
Codes, and the District needs to collect the annual fees.
IV. OONSDOUMCFS OF MCA= ACTION:
The District would have to collect the annual fees by another means,
which may cause a delay in receiving the needed revenue and the cost of
collecting these fees may increase.
Orig. Div.: Public Works (ES)
cc: Public Works Director
Public Works Accounting
Auditor-Controller w/report
County Counsel
SD19 CAC (via PW)
Garrow- Cardinale_
The Hofmann Company
Building Industry Association
Warmngton Homes
Citation Builders
ETS/drg
bo:sdl9.t8
T. lb
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on August 29, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Suprvisors Fanden, Schroder and Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisors Powers and McPeak
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Approval of the 1989 CCC Hazardous Waste Management Plan
This being the time for hearing on the proposed 1989 Contra Costa
County Hazardous Waste Management Plan; and
Dave Okita from the Community Development Department explained
the need for and the provisions of the proposed Plan. He noted that
the Plan has been approved by the majority of the Cities containing
the majority of the incorporated population, and it is now before the
Board for approval before it is submitted to the State.
The Board opened the public hearing on the Plan.
Supervisor Torlakson declared the Board' s appreciation to the
members of the County Hazardous Materials Commission.
Paul DeFalco, Jr. , Chairman of the Commission, declared that the
Commission, after many public hearings on the Plan, has approved it
and is urging that the Board of Supervisors approve the Plan and
submit it to the State for final approval.
There being no other speakers, the Chair declared the hearing
closed.
Supervisor Schroder read a statement into the record indicating
that as of June 1989 he has no interest in Waste Management Inc. , that
prior to June his insurance company had received annual commissions in
excess of $500 from Valley Disposal Service Company, a subsidiary of
Waste Management. Supervisor Schroder declared that County Counsel
had advised him that under the Political Reform Act, Government Code
Section 87101 and Title 2 California Code of Regulations, Section
18701, he can vote on this matter. Supervisor Schroder thereupon
filed the above statement with the Clerk of the Board for record
purposes.
Supervisor Fanden expressed appreciation to the Commission for
the time and effort spent to complete the Plan. She stated that she
felt this was a good example of how industry, the public and elected
officials work together. Supervisor Fanden moved to adopt the Plan,
but noted there may be need to amend or update it at a later time
because of changes in technology, citing possible changes with. the
landfill situation such as using pods for storage of household
garbage, particularly with respect to hazardous household materials,
before it is transferred to a landfill, as well as the proposed use of
a plastic foam as a landfill cover where there is not enough earth
available.
Supervisor Fanden requested staff to review and prepare a report
to the Board as soon as possible on the environmental considerations
of the above proposals, and on how to handle the above problems .
The Board thereupon adopted Resolution No. 89/587 approving the
1989 Contra Costa County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and in
connection therewith, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that staff is
DIRECTED to report as soon as possible on the concerns outlined by
Supervisor Fanden.
i hereby certify that this Is a true and correct CM of
an action taken and entered on the ndnutes of the
Board of Supervise on the dab shown.
ATTESTED: it f
PHIL BATCHELOR.Clark of the Board
of Supervisors and Coungr Adodnlstreta
By -.Deport►
cc: Community Development
County Counsel
County Administrator
Statement
As of June 1989 , I have no interest in Waste Management,
Inc. Prior to June, my insurance company received annual
commissions in excess of $500 from valley Disposal Service
Company, a subsidiary of Waste Management. Though I no longer
receive any income from Waste Management, there is a rule
prohibiting my participation in decisions which materially affect
a former source of income to me for 12 months after my last
receipt of income from that source. It is by no means clear that
the decision regarding adoption of the Hazardous Waste Management
Plan would have a material financial affect on Waste Management,
Inc. However, if adopted, the proposed Hazardous Waste
Management Plan would show that Waste Management's Marsh Creek
site is within the general area where the citing criteria for
residual repositories (Hazardous Waste. Landfills) might be
applicable.
I have been advised that under Health and Safety Code
section 25135.7 the County must act on the final Hazardous Waste
Management Plan by September 1, 1989 . At this stage in the
proceedings, only the Board of Supervisors has authority to
approve or reject the plan on behalf of the County. Under
Government Code section 25005, for the County to act, three
members of the Board of Supervisors must vote affirmatively. I
have been advised by staff that two members of the Board of
Supervisors cannot attend this meetng and that, including myself,
only three members of the Board can be present to vote.
The County Counsel has advised me that under the Political
Reform Act, Government Code section 87101 and Title 2 California
Code of Regulations section 18701 I can vote on this matter.
I have not attempted to influence any other Supervisor's
vote in regard to the Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
VJW/jh
F 0 L E D
AUG -251989
PHIL BATCHELOR
CLL•RK IOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COt.4&=CO.
B Deputy