HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10101989 - 2.2 THE• BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA '
Adopted this Order on October 10, 1989 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder and McPeak
NOES: 'Supervisors Fanden and Torlakson
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RESOLUTION NO. 89/656
SUBJECT: First Combined Amendment of )
the County General Plan as it applies )
to the Bay Pointe Sanitary Landfill , )
East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill , )
Keller Canyon Landfill , Kirker Pass )
Waste Management Landfill and )
Marsh Canyon Landfill area )
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES that:
PART I - General . Contra Costa County is carrying out a program to update
the County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP) in accordance with a
court-entered Stipulated Judgment dated March 2, 1989; the current (1989)
version of the CoSWMP includes five proposed "Reserved" landfill
sites---sites-requiring designation in both the CoSWMP and the County General
Plan --- as a component of the CoSWMP's demonstration of a minimum of eight
years of assured future landfill disposal capacity.
The five intended reserved landfill sites are the Bay Pointe Sanitary Landfill ,
the East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill , the Keller Canyon Landfill , the Kirker
Pass Waste Management Landfill , and the Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill , all of
which are privately-sponsored landfill sites having site-specific geologic,
engineering, and other studies performed for them and are in various stages of
the application and permitting process as landfill projects.
To complement the inclusion of the five proposed landfill sites in the CoSWMP,
the Board of Supervisors initiated a package of five General Plan Amendments,
and, to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the Board
of Supervisors initiated a plan level program-tiered Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) , identifiedlas the Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan/General
Plan Amendments EIR.
Preceding the Board of Supervisors hearing on the five General Plan Amendments
on September 19, 1989, the Board of Supervisors received and considered, among
other things:
1. The Final Environmental Impact Report, identified above, from the County
Zoning Administrator, who recommended its certification.
2. Resolutions 39/1989 (Bay Pointe Sanitary Landfill ) , 38/1989 (East Contra
Costa Sanitary Landfill ) , 35/1989 (Keller Canyon Landfill ) , 37/1989 (Kirker
Pass Waste Management Landfill ), and 36/1989 .(Marsh Canyon Sanitary
Landfill ) , from the County Planning Commission documenting the Commission's
public hearing process and transmitting its recommendations on the five
sites; and transcripts of the hearings and various communications received
by the Commission.
3. A staff report from the Director of Community Development containing the
staff' s recommendations and transmitting copies of the text and plan map
diagrams constituting the General Plan Amendment.
4. Written correspondence from various interested parties.
California Planning Law provides that each General Plan element mandated by the
State cannot be amended more than four times in Calendar Year 1989. The
landfill amendments package would amend the Land Use Element, previously amended
once in 1989, as well as the Open Space/Conservation Element, which are mandated
elements.
The Board of Supervisors, on September 19, 1989, conducted a duly-noticed public
hearing at which time all who wished to speak were afforded the opportunity,
closed the hearing, considered the documents identified above as well as the
testimony received at the public hearing, declared its intent to approve all
five proposal General Plan Amendments, and directed staff to prepare this
resolution for adoption.
The Board of Supervisors declares that the adoption actions described below
composing its first combined amendment, constitute its second amendment of the
Land Use Element, and its first amendment of the Open Space/Conservation Element
for Calendar Year 1989.
PART II - Environmental Impact Report Certification: The Board of
Supervisors hereby reaffirms its August 15, 1989 certification of the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management
Plan/General Plan Amendments as being adequate and having been completed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and affirms that the
Board intended its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report to
apply to each of the five proposed landfill site General Plan Amendments as well
as to the 1989 revision of the County Solid Waste Management Plan.
PART III - Bay Pointe Sanitary Landfill (5-89-CO) . This Board hereby
certifies, finds, declares, adopts, approves, and takes actions with respect to
the Bay Pointe Sanitary Landfill as follows:
A. The Board hereby incorporates the actions set forth in. Part II . The Board
of Supervisors further certifies that it has reviewed and considered the
Final Environmental Impact Report for the Contra Costa County Solid Waste
Management Plan/General Plan Amendments in connection with the Board' s
consideration This General Plan Amendment.
B. The Board hereby adopts the CEQA findings for the Bay Pointe Sanitary
Landfill General Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by this reference.
C. The Board hereby adopts the amendment to the County General Plan for the
Bay Pointe Sanitary Landfill as part of this first combined amendment to
the County General Plan, including both the filed Plan text and map diagram
prepared by the Community Development Department, attached hereto as
Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. A copy of the Plan
map diagram and text reflecting this amendment, on file in the office of
the Clerk of the Board, shall be endorsed approved by the Clerk.
PART IU - East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (6-85-CO) . This Board hereby
certifies, finds, declares, adopts, approves, and takes actions with respect to
the East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill as follows:
A. The Board hereby incorporates the actions set forth in Part II . The Board
of Supervisors further certifies that it has reviewed and considered the
Final Environmental Impact Report for the Contra Costa County Solid Waste
Management Plan/General Plan Amendments in connection with the Board's
consideration this General Plan Amendment.
B.. The Board hereby adopts the CEQA findings for the East Contra Costa
Sanitary Landfill General Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit C and
incorporated herein by this reference.
r.
C. The Board hereby adopts the amendment to the County General Plan for the
East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill as part of this first combined
amendment to the County General Plan, including both the filed Plan text
and map diagram prepared by the Community Development Department, attached
hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by this reference. A copy of
the Plan, map diagram and text reflecting this amendment, on file in the
office of the Clerk of the Board, shall be endorsed approved by the Clerk.
PART IU - Keller Canyon Landfill (3-89-CO) . This Board hereby certifies,
finds, declares, adopts, approves, and takes actions with respect to the Keller
Canyon Landfill as follows:
A. The Board hereby incorporates the actions set forth in Part II . The Board
2
of Supervisors further certifies that it has reviewed and considered the
Final Environmental Impact Report for the Contra Costa County Solid Waste
Management Plan/General Plan Amendments in connection with the Board's
consideration This General Plan Amendment.
B. The Board hereby adopts the CEQA findings for the Keller Canyon Landfill
General Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit E and incorporated
herein by this reference.
C. The Board hereby adopts the amendment to the County General Plan for the
Keller Canyon Landfill as part of this first combined amendment to the
County General Plan, including both the filed Plan text and map diagram
prepared by the Community Development Department, attached hereto as
Exhibit F and incorporated herein by this reference. A copy of the Plan,
map diagram and text reflecting this amendment, on file i n the office of
the Clerk of the Board, shall be endorsed approved by the Clerk.
Part VI - Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill (24-84-00): This Board
hereby certifies, finds, declares, adopts, approves, and takes actions with
respect to the Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill as follows:
A. The Board hereby incorporates the actions set forth in Part II . The Board
of Supervisors further certifies that it has reviewed and considered the
Final Environmental Impact Report for the Contra Costa County Solid Waste
Management Plan/General Plan Amendments -in connection with the Board' s
consideration of this General Plan Amendment.
B. The Board hereby adopts the CEQA findings for the Kirker Pass Waste
Management Landfill General Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit G
and incorporated herein by this reference.
C. The Board hereby adopts the amendment to the County General Plan for the
Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill as part of this first combined
amendment to the County General Plan, including both the filed Plan text
and map diagram prepared by the Community Development Department, attached
hereto as Exhibit H and incorporated herein by this reference. A copy of
the Plan, map diagram and text reflecting this amendment, on file in the
office of the Clerk of the Board, shall be endorsed approved by the Clerk.
Part VII - Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill (4-89-CO) : This Board hereby
certifies, finds, declares, adopts, approves, and takes actions with respect to
the Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill as follows:
A. The Board hereby incorporates the actions set forth in Part II . The Board
of Supervisors further certifies that it has reviewed and considered the
Final Environmental Impact Report for the Contra Costa County Solid Waste
Management Plan/General Plan Amendments in connection with the Board' s
consideration This General Plan Amendment.
B. The Board hereby adopts the CEQA findings for the Marsh Canyon Sanitary
Landfill General Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit I and
incorporated herein by this reference.
C. The Board hereby adopts the amendment to the County General Plan for the
Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill as part of this first combined amendment to
the County General Plan, including both the filed Plan text and map diagram
prepared by the Community Development Department, attached hereto as
Exhibit J and incorporated herein by this reference. A copy of the Plan,
map diagram and text reflecting this amendment, on file i n the office of
the Clerk of the Board, shall be endorsed approved by the Clerk.
Part VIII - Redesignation of Unused Sites: The Contra Costa County Board
of Supervisors hereby declares that it intends to initiate amendments to
eliminate from the General Plan any of the five landfill sites which do not have
project permit applications under active consideration by the time of the third
anniversary of the adoption of the resolution. The Board directs the County
Community Development Department to report back annually on the status of the
landfill sites.
Part IX -Severability: If any part or portion thereof of this Resolution
is held unconstitutional or otherwise invalid for any reason by a court of
competent jurisdiction, the Board hereby declares its intent that every other
3
, F • 0
r
Part or portion thereof remain in full force and effect, irrespective of such
invalidity.
Part X - CEQA Notice. The Director of Community Development i.s hereby
directed to file with the County Clerk a Notice of Determination concerning this
adoption and the related CEQA actions.
encl : Exhibits A-J General Plan Amendment and Related
CEQA Findings for the Five Proposed
Landfill Sites
1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
c c: County Administrator an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Director of Community Development Board of Supervisors on the date Awa.
Director of Public Works ATTWE& October 10 , 1989
County Counsel PM IL BATCHELOP4 CM*of the Board
California Waste Management Board of&+ and Adminlstretor
By i 1AAA71.d,AILI
,Oeauty
RG:vpl/cjc4/89-2ac.res
RESOLUTION NO. 89/656
4
BAY POINTE SANITARY LANDFILL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL 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, requires the preparation
of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for certain public and
private sector projects requiring discretionary actions by
California's governments .
The discretionary approval powers over the proposed CEQA project
known as the proposed Bay Pointe Sanitary Landfill General Plan
Amendment (GPA 5-89-CO) reside with the County. The County, as
the Lead Agency, determined that an EIR was required for this
project and issued a Notice of Preparation on January 25, 1989 ,
to the State Clearinghouse and to various public agencies
(including all the cities in the County) , organizations and
individuals . As part of the environmental review process, the
County held a public scoping session on February 15, 1989 .
The County determined that the EIR should address the general
environmental impacts associated with amending the Contra Costa
County General Plan to include this proposed landfill site. In
addition, the EIR serves as the environmental dc,>>cument for the
proposed 1989 revision to the County Solid Wastc Management Plan
( "COSWMP" ) .
. The County determined that the California Environmental Quality
Act documentation for the CoSWMP and the proposed General Plan
Amendments and the individual solid waste development projects
which could result from the CoSWMP and the proposed General Plan
Amendments be prepared in stages . The first tier is a Program
EIR, the subject of these findings , on the CoSWMP and General
Plan Amendments, which analyzes the possible environmental
consequences of implementing the solid waste management policies
in the CoSWMP and adopting General Plan Amendments . The second
tier of the process will be the environmental review of
individual projects for the specific facilities proposed and
designed to fulfill the goals and policies of the CoSWMP; this
level of review generally will be accomplished through site-
specific Project EIRs . Together, the two tiers are intended to
carry out the California Environmental Quality Act and implement
the State's and the County's CEQA Guidelines .
1
EXHIBIT A
On May 15, 1989, a Draft EIR for the CoSWMP and the proposed
General Plan Amendments was published by the County and
distributed to the State Clearinghouse and the 18 cities in the
County. The County Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on
this draft document in the City of Pittsburg on June 20, 1989 .
The public review period ended on June 30, 1989 .
On August 2, 1989, the Final EIR for the CoSWMP and the proposed
General Plan Amendments was published, consisting of the Draft
EIR and the Response to Comments document.
On August 7, 1989, the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator
found that the Final EIR for the CoSWMP and the proposed General
Plan Amendments was prepared and processed in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act, and that the EIR is
adequate in its coverage of environmental impacts, mitigation
measures, alternatives, and other environmental effects that
could result from the adoption of the CoSWMP and the five General
Plan Amendments . Further, the Zoning Administrator transmitted
the Final EIR to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation
that it be certified.
On August 15, 1989 , the Board of Supervisors certified that the
Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed 1989 CoSWMP
Revision and the five proposed General Plan Amendments had been
completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act and that it had been presented to the Board and the Board had
considered the information contained in it.
The County, as the lead agency, has determined that a written
finding, accompanied by an explanation of the rationale for the
finding, be prepared for each potentially significant impact
identified in the Final EIR. Each finding set forth below is
based on the entire record before the Board. In addition, as
required by recent State legislation (Pub. Resources Code,
.§ 21081 . 6 [AB 3180] ) , every public agency making such findings
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 Board of Supervisors finds that the following impacts, which
could result from implementation of the proposed Bay Pointe
Sanitary Landfill General Plan Amendment and Landfill Project,
are potentially significant from an environmental standpoint.
2
EXHIBIT A
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE
CONSIDERED MITIGABLE TO INSIGNIFICANCE
I . PLANNING AND LAND USE
1 . Impact: Landfill operations at this proposed landfill site
would remove agricultural usage (currently grazing) from at least
part of this site for the life of the landfill.
a. Mitigation: Mitigation measures would include
enhancing the grazing capabilities on the remainder of
the landfill site or on another site.
b. Supporting Rationale: If landfill operations on this
site were to occur, existing agricultural (grazing) use
currently on the active portion of the landfill site
would be displaced. The project-specific environmental
review would include on-site and/or off-site mitigation ,
measures, such as enhancement of the site's grazing
capabilities . It may be preferable to substitute other
uses, such as recreation or habitat, for grazing. The
County Community Development Department shall address
the potential loss of agricultural values in the site-
specific EIR, and, where found to be appropriate, shall
ensure that the agricultural values' mitigation
measures identified in that EIR to reduce this impact
to a less than significant level are implemented by
making them Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval .
C. Monitoring Program: The status of this siting
criterion as it applies to proposed and sited landfills
shall be reported to the Board annually.
2 . Impact: Surrounding residential, commercial and
recreational uses could be adversely affected by the siting
of a landfillon this site.
a. Mitigation: The implementation of the mitigation
measures identified in the Program EIR and elsewhere in
these Findings concerned with traffic reduction and
control, prevention of air and water pollution, and
visual mitigation, will help reduce these impacts in
many cases to less than significance.
b. Supporting Rationale: Specific environmental issues
that would affect surrounding land uses can be found in
the Program EIR's sections on Air Quality, Visual
Quality, Noise and Transportation. Impacts identified
3
EXHIBIT A
in these sections can result in significant land use
impacts to nearby land uses . The mitigation measures
identified in these sections would be addressed in
project-specific EIRs . Most of the mitigation measures
are capable of being implemented by the County, and are
appropriate for inclusion in Land Use Permit Conditions
of Approval or Solid Waste Facilities Permits .
C. Monitoring Program: The status of this siting
criterion shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board, and are subject to control by the
County.
3 . Impact: The operations for portions of this landfill site
could be inconsistent with the Concord Naval Weapons Station
Explosive Safety Easement requirements if filling activity
were to occur within the easement area.
a. Mitigation: Due to the Naval Weapons Station easement
restrictions, filling operations would be limited to
areas which are not affected by the safety easement;
alternately, the terms of the easement would have to be
changed by the U.S. Navy or relinquished by sale of the
easement area.
b. Supporting Rationale: The Department of the Navy
restricts activity within the designated safety
easement area adjacent to the Concord Naval Weapons
Station. The Bay Pointe Landfill proposed footprint is
located within the easement and is subject to this.
requirement. It is not expected that the U.S . Navy
will consider changing the terms of the easement or
selling it back to ,a landowner in the next several
years .
C . Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall ensure that the Department of the
Navy's restriction on landfill operations in the safety
easement be observed by making it a Condition of
Approval for any proposed landfill at this site. The
County Community Development Department shall report
annually to the Board .on this Naval Department
restriction and its enforcement.
II . PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
1 . Impact: This landfill site has the potential to provide
food, cover and breeding ground for disease vectors such as
mosquitos, small rodents, and certain species of birds .
4
EXHIBIT A
• •
a. Mitigation: Compaction and daily cover of refuse would
limit birds and rodents from feeding on the refuse.
The compaction of refuse in collection vehicles and at
landfills effectively controls rodent populations in
most cases . If these measures prove inadequate to
control rodents and birds, additional measures such as
more frequent covering of refuse, scaring of birds, and
poisoning or trapping of rodents/mosquitos. would be
used.
b. Supporting Rationale: Studies by the Los Angeles
County Sanitation Districts have shown that rats do not
survive the compaction process of the refuse trucks or
disposal operation. State law requires landfill
operators to compact and cover the waste with a layer
of soil or new waste in order to minimize the
occurrence of rats and other vectors . The requirements
are included in a landfill's Solid Waste Facilities
Permit and may be included in Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval . The County's Health Services
and Community Development Departments shall include
appropriate provisions in the permit.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Health Services
Department, as the Local Enforcement Agency for the
California Waste Management Board, enforces the State
requirements for compaction and cover of refuse.
Reports of violations are given to the landfill
operator and the State. The Community Development
Department shall report on the status of these
mitigation measures to the Board on a yearly basis .
2 . Impact: Mosquitos could breed in basins constructed to
control surface water runoff . :
a. Mitigation: In order to mitigate this impact to less
than significance, storm runoff from the landfill
should be stored in sedimentation basins for short
periods such as two weeks . The applicant should
coordinate the design of the basin with the County
Mosquito Abatement District to enable easy inspection
and spraying of larval suppressant.
b. Supporting Rationale: Mosquito populations could be
indirectly increased at a landfill site -where
sedimentation basins and leachate collection
containment ponds would contain standing water for
periods of greater than two or three weeks . Prevention
of this larval emergence could be suppressed by not
allowing water to stand over two weeks and/or spraying
the ponds with. a non-toxic odorant/colorant such .
5
EXHIBIT A
as Golden Bear 1356, which degrades in 48 hours . The
County Community Development Department would ensure
that the applicant designs and constructs the
sedimentation basins in coordination with the County
Mosquito Abatement District. The County Health
Services Department (HSD) is responsible for
determining whether there is a need for spraying to
control mosquitos . Appropriate provisions would be
included in the landfill's Solid Waste Facilities
Permit and/or its Land Use Permit Conditions of
Approval.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall obtain reports from the HSD on
mosquito problems and abatement at this landfill and
include this information in its annual report to the
Board.
3 . Impact: Operation of a landfill and equipment could cause
additional risk of fire.
a. Mitigation: The following typical mitigation measures
would be expected to reduce this impact to a less than
significant level. Most of these measures are
specified by the Riverview Fire Protection District.
Emergency procedures shall be developed and facility
employees trained in fire control procedures . One
120, 000-gallon water storage tank, a water cannon and
stockpiled soil cover will be available on-site for use
in fire suppression. The landfill must have a 100-foot
firebreak around the perimeter and at least two
emergency all-weather roads maintained by the operator.
The earthmoving equipment would be equipped with fire
extinguishers and spark arresters, and fuel shall be
stored in a safe, approved manner. The operator shall
ensure that all incoming loads are inspected for
smoldering refuse and that a small fill-area working
face be maintained. The Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) requirement that all solid
waste landfills monitor landfill gas emissions and
install a gas collection system would minimize
potential accumulation of methane gas and the
associated explosion and fire hazard. As part of a
Fire Control Plan, to be reviewed by the Fire
Protection District, it should be required to
demonstrate the means by which proposed structures on
the site will be protected from accumulation of
methane gas and associated explosion and fire hazard.
6
EXHIBIT A
b. Supporting Rationale: Fire district requirements will
be obtained through environmental review procedures and
addressed in the project-level EIR. A Fire Control
Plan, including the above mitigation measures., would be
submitted by the landfill applicant and subject to
District and County staff approval. Upon final
approval of the Fire Control Plan by the Fire
Protection District, the Plan would be incorporated
into the landfill's Development and Improvements Plan,
which will be required as a Land Use Permit Condition
of Approval . Compliance with this Plan shall be
subject to inspections by the District and the County.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall obtain the inspection and monitoring
reports from the appropriate regulatory agencies and
include this information in its annual monitoring
report to the Board.
4 . Impact: Residential and commercial refuse taken to a
landfill at this site could contain materials that are
considered hazardous, which of sufficient quantity might
adversely affect air and water quality.
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures would be
expected to reduce this impact. A new landfill would
accept only non-hazardous municipal refuse, designated
wastes allowed by the: appropriate Regional Water
Quality Control Board, and inert
construction/demolition materials through the State-
mandated periodic load-checking requirement (CCR Title
23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 15) . Landfill structural
features such as liners, leachate collection systems,
and cover would limit the creation of leachate and
reduce the potential for a landfill to contaminate air
and water.- Further, a comprehensive waste acceptance
control program could be established as a part of
landfill, transfer station, and collection agreements
between the County and individual cities . This program
would include the training of franchise haulers and
transfer station and landfill employees in the proper
identification, handling, storage and disposal of
hazardous wastes .
b. Supporting Rationale: Despite a wide range of
existing Federal and State controls on disposal of
hazardous wastes , small quantities of this waste
frequently enter the solid waste stream. Health
impacts associated with direct contact with toxic
7.
EXHIBIT A
materials would pertain .primarily to site workers .
Indirect effects of the presence in a landfill of
hazardous waste include intensification of leachate
toxicity and mobilization of otherwise stable inorganic
metals contained in refuse. This leachate is a greater
threat to surface and groundwater supplies (see Impact
5 below) . Load checking, household hazardous waste
programs, and landfills structural requirements would
be addressed in Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval .
The County is currently working on a household
hazardous waste program to collect, recycle, and
properly dispose of hazardous waste and will begin its
implementation in Spring of 1990 . The County Community
Development Department and Health Services Department
are responsible for approving a load inspection program
for receiving waste loads at landfills/transfer
stations in the unincorporated area. The County Health
Services Department's Solid Waste Facilities permits
pertain to facilities countywide. In addition, the
landfill operator must submit quarterly Incoming Waste
Reports to the County Health Services Department.
The household hazardous waste and waste acceptance
control program' s are subject to Health Services
Department and Community Development Department
approval.
c . Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall obtain reports on the status of these
programs and the compliance to the above mitigation
measure, and submit this information to the Board
in the annual monitoring report.
5 . Impact: There is a potential for public exposure to
hazardous and infectious wastes through leachate
contamination of groundwater and off-site surface water.
a. Mitigation, Supporting Rationale and Monitoring
Program: See Section VIII - Hydrology and Water
Quality, Impact 4 of these findings .
6 . Impact: There is a potential health and safety hazard to
on-site employees of a landfill from the potentially toxic
constituents of landfill gas.
a. Mitigation: This impact would be reduced through
compliance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District's requirements . Regulation 8, Rule 34
requires the installation of a gas collection system
and the monitoring of gas emissions at all new
landfills . The BAAQMD's Air Risk Screening Policy
8
EXHIBIT A
I
i
(February, 1988 ) specifies that a screening analysis
for assessment of risk shall be performed as part of
the agency's review of landfill permit requests . The
extent of gas emissions and the appropriate mitigation
measures, such as gas collection and flaring, would be
addressed in the individual landfill's site-specific
EIR.
b. Supporting Rationale: The landfill operator must
install a landfill gas control and collection system
and perform the necessary testing and reporting of
landfill gas emissions . The BAAQMD's Air Risk Screen-
ing Policy for toxic emissions, required for an
Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate
entitlement, must include estimates of emissions
for each contaminant, the calculation of the exposure
of nearby receptors to ambient levels of the
contaminants, and a comparison of these ambient levels
with safety thresholds determined by BAAQMD staff .
Required installations can be Land� Use Permit Condi-
tions of Approval. If emission levels do not meet the
standards, then remedial measures can be implemented
through Solid Waste Facilities Permit provisions to
protect employee safety. The County Community
Development Department shall be responsible for
evaluating landfill gas emissions through the
CEQA process and implementing the necessary
installations and programs in coordination with the
County Health Services Depa -'tment and the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall obtain air emission/compliance
information from the BAAQMD' s periodic
inspections/reviews of the gas collection and
monitoring systems at the landfill and report this
information to the Board in an annival report.
I
III . TRANSPORTATION
1 . . Impact: Traffic volumes generated by the landfill site
would add to the current congestion on ;Highway 4 in the area
between Antioch and the Willow Pass Grade.
a. Mitigation: The travel patterns for transfer trucks
are adaptable to be managed to reduce or avoid truck
trips to the landfill during the pleak hours especially
the AM peak. Traffic would be minimized by the
use of transfer stations and prohibition of self-
9
EXHIBIT A
i
haulers at the landfill . In addition, there are
several highway projects planned that will widen and
improve Highway 4 in this area.
b. Supporting Rationale: The EIR finds that if truck
traffic is .managed, to avoid the peak hours, there will
not be a significant impact to traffic volume on this
stretch of roadway. The EIR analysis concluded that
during the AM peak hour there would be about ten truck
trips eastbound (loaded vehicles) and seven trips
westbound (empty vehicles) . During the PM peak hour,
there would be about two truck trips eastbound and four
trips westbound. This analysis reflects the
assumptions that transfer stationsiwill be used and
self-haulers prohibited from direct access to the
landfill. Peak period traffic management study to
reduce peak period conflicts with traffic on Highway 4
would be addressed in the site-specific Project EIR.
The County Community Development Department would
require necessary miti-gation measures to be included
in the Land Use Permit as Conditions of Approval. The
prohibition of self-haulers at the landfill would also
be expected to be made a condition of project
approval.
C. Monitoring Program: The Community Development
Department shall include compliance with these
conditions in its annual monitoring report to the
Board. i
2 . Impact: The additional refuse truck traffic, which includes
vehicles weighing up to 38 tons, would ;cause wear and damage
to existing roadway pavements in the vicinity of the
landfill .
a. Mitigation: The project developer would upgrade and
improve the pavement sections on the local roads
impacted by truck traffic to the 1landf ill .
b. Supporting Rationale: In order to reduce this impact
to a less than significant level, Ithe pavement traffic
index (TI ) , a measure of the durability and capacity of
a road, must be adequate to accommodate the anticipated
traffic load. Suitable TIs, in thle range of 9 . 0 to
10. 5 for the immediate access roads are expected to be
necessary to comply with Caltrans'j design
specifications . If a 20-year pavement life is
determined to be appropriate, a TIi of 10.0-10 .5 would
be required. The landfill project'
Is site-specific EIR
would address the pavement section improvements needed
10
EXHIBIT A
I
as part of the project. The improvements would be
approved by the County Community Development Department
And County Public Works Department !and CALTRANS if
appropriate, and included in the Land Use Permit's
Condition of Approval. The improvements called for in
this study would be constructed bylthe developer.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall report annually to the Board on the
implementation of the required road improvements .
3 . Impact: The additional refuse truck traffic would cause
moderate impacts on the local roads and streets in the
vicinity of the landfill .
a. Mitigation: The project developer would provide or
participate in the funding the necessary roadway and
traffic control improvements .
b. Supporting Rationale: The Program EIR's analysis of
the proposed landfill site shows that the project would
not cause any roadway segments or intersections to
degrade to a critical level of service. For landfills,
this assumes that transfer vans will be used to reduce
traffic to and from the landfill . Because the amount
of landfill traffic would be low and most of this
traffic would not occur during the peak commute
periods, the traffic generated by the landfill would
not present a significant capacity problem. This
traffic may result in additional accidents in
proportion to the increased traffic . The specific
improvements needed for this potential landfill site
would be identified during subsequent project
environmental review. Road improvements would be
required as Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval .
C . Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall submit an annual report to the Board
on the status of these traffic mitigation measures .
4 . Impact: There would be an increase in traffic hazards to
bicyclists and pedestrians on the local roadways in the
vicinity of a landfill at this site.
a. Mitigation: A plan and program to implement a bicycle
and pedestrian path system would be required at this
landfill site to reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level .
11
EXHIBIT A
b. Supporting Rationale: The presence of heavy truck
traffic on roads with significant bicycle and
pedestrian activity can be hazardous . Planned future
bicycle paths and pedestrian trails also could be
affected by access road improvements. It may be
necessary to accommodate bicycling or pedestrian
activities by implementing a path system. The project
developer would include a bicycle/ pedestrian path in
the roadway improvement program for the site if it is
determined to be necessary for mitigating potential
safety hazards .
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department would ensure that this mitigation is
implemented by making it a Land Use Permit Condition of
Approval. This department shall include the status of
this mitigation measure in its annual monitoring report
to the Board.
5 . Impact: There would be potentially significant traffic
impacts to the adjacent land uses on the local haul routes
used for this site.
a. Mitigation: This impact would be mitigated by the use
of transfer stations, by eliminating public access to
the landfill, by controlling the hours of truck
operation, and by the use of alternate haul routes
where possible.
b. Supporting Rationale: This impact is related to the
visual and perceived traffic flow (safety and capacity
impacts are addressed under Section I . 6 , 7 , and Section .
III . 1-4 above) . By reducing the amount of vehicular
traffic on haul routes to the landfill through the use
of transfer stations and the prohibition of self-
haulers, the visual impact will be greatly reduced.
Controlling the hours of operation for. the remaining
truck traffic will help further reduce this impact.
Where alternate haul routes are feasible, they would be
considered during environmental review in order to
minimize impacts to residential development, schools,
medical facilities and public areas such as parks . The
County Community Development Department would
incorporate restrictions on the types of vehicles
allowed, the place of origin for such vehicles, and the
hours of truck operation into the Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval. Alternative haul routes would
be addressed in the project-specific EIR and the one(s)
chosen to best mitigate traffic impacts would be
12
EXHIBIT A
written in the Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval
as well .
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall submit an annual monitoring report to
the Board on the compliance of the site operator to
these Conditions of Approval.
IV. AIR QUALITY
1 . Impact: Decomposing wastes in a landfill would create
substantial amounts of gas, which includes relatively small
amounts of reactive organic compounds (ROG) and chemical
compounds considered to be toxic. Downwind receptors could
be adversely affected by these compounds.
a. Mitigation: Installation of a gas collection and
combustion system would destroy 90% of the ROG and .
toxic compounds . A risk screening analysis would be
required to be conducted on the remaining fraction of
these emissions to determine whether downwind receptors
are at significant risk from exposure. More efficient
gas collection and combustion equipment could be
specified if necessary.
b. Supporting Rationale: Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) Regulation 8, Rule 34 requires that
landfill gas emission and mitigation be controlled and
the gas disposed of properly. The most common method
of disposal is installation of a gas collection and
flaring system to combust the gas . A risk analysis is
required prior to BAAQMD' s issuance of the Authority to
Construct and Permit to Operate a landfill . It must
include estimates of emissions for each contaminant,
the calculation of the exposure of nearby receptors to
ambient levels of the contaminants , and a comparison of
these ambient levels with safety thresholds determined
by the BAAQMD staff . If the analysis does not
demonstrate that the maximum exposure of any individual
to an air toxic emitted from a landfill would result in
a chance of less than one in a million of developing
cancer, then the BAAQMD' would require Best Available
Control Technology be used to control emissions . The
site-specific Project EIR for the landfill shall
consider this impact and the specific mitigation
measures . The mitigation measures determined to be
necessary will become Land Use Permit Conditions of
Approval. The County Community Development Department
13
EXHIBIT A
would ensure that the project applicant include a gas
collection system proposal and submit a health risk
assessment as part of its landfill application.
Installation of the collecting/flaring system at the
landfill would be required by the County as a Land Use
Permit Condition of Approval, as well as being a
requirement of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District.
C. Monitoring Program: Information from the BAAQMD on
compliance of a landfill with air emission requirements
shall be obtained by the County Community Development
Department and submitted to the Board annually.
2 . Impact: Trace constituents of landfill gas are odorous and
could impact people in the area and nearby residences or
other sensitive land uses .
a. Mitigation: Landfill management techniques, such as
daily covering of waste and installation of a gas
collection and flaring system, would mitigate this
impact. Exceptional problems could be mitigated by
more frequent cover and the immediate covering of
odorous loads .
b. Supporting Rationale: The BAAQMD Regulation 1-301
prohibits the discharge of odorous compounds and the
resulting public nuisance, while Regulation 7 provides
procedures for evaluating odor complaints . The
covering of newly disposed refuse with compacted soil
(or other approved means) , a requirement of the
California Waste Management Board, serves to control
odors . The frequency of cover may be increased in
order to mitigate odor complaints received by the
BAAQMD or County HSD. The gas collection and flaring
system reduces odors from landfill gas, composed
primarily of methane and carbon dioxide. If the County
HSD determines that flaring creates a nuisance, e.g. ,
noise and/or visual impacts, other methods of methane
disposal shall be required. The mitigation measures
can be implemented through incorporation into the
conditions of project approval and through enforcement
of BAAQMD and California Waste Management Board
requirements . The County Health Services Department is
responsible for enforcing odor regulations at landfills
and shall make this information available to the County
Community Development Department. The Bay Area Air
Quality Management District would also perform
inspections and enforce its own regulations .
14
EXHIBIT A
C. Monitoring Program: An annual monitoring report shall
be submitted to the Board by the County Community
Development Department on implementation of and
compliance with these odor control mitigations .
3 . Impact: Construction and operation of a landfill could
cause emissions of dust resulting in air quality degradation
and impacts to downwind receptors.
a. Mitigation: Dust emissions are mitigable with the
following measures: minimizing the extent of un-,
planted working and graded areas, application of water
or an environmentally-safe chemical soil stabilizer to
exposed earth surfaces; covering of haul trucks with
tarpaulins or other effective covers; and avoiding of
unnecessary idling of equipment.
b. Supporting Rationale: Dust emissions related to waste
handling can be reduced by approximately 50% by
watering surfaces down. . Watering should be conducted
in late morning and at the end of the day to be most
effective. The frequency of watering should increase
if wind exceeds 15 mph. The landfill operator's
application of water or dust suppressants to working
surfaces of the landfill, to its unpaved roads, and to
construction areas as determined to be necessary by the
County HSD, shall be a condition of the project's Solid
Waste Facilities Permit. The HSD would be responsible
for requiring additional management practices if
problems due to dust emissions are reported.
Mitigation measures may also become Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval .
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall report to the Board on the landfill's.
compliance to the dust suppression measures required in
its Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval .
V. NOISE
1 . Impact: Noise resulting from waste handling could disturb
nearby residents and sensitive receptors .
a. Mitigation: In order to reduce this impact to a less
than significant level, landfill hours of operation
should be limited to the extent practicable to daylight
hours in order to minimize disruption to residential
and recreational land uses surrounding the site.
Operations and equipment should be muffled or
15
EXHIBIT A
controlled to meet acceptable noise levels (shown in
Table 4 .5-2 of the Program EIR) . Some additional
_ measures that might be contained in the project EIR
include construction of sound walls, earth berms, and
on-site truck routing.
b. Supporting Rationale: Higher noise levels are
generally more acceptable during the day. The
construction of a facility, in particular, should be
limited to normal working hours as they were for the
Acme transfer station, due to the higher levels of
noise. Retrofitting existing equipment with noise
control features and/or purchasing quieter new
equipment for a landfill would, according to the EIR
analysis, reduce the radius of disturbance to less than
500 feet. The County Community Development Department
would incorporate appropriate noise control mitigation
measures into the project's Land Use Permit Conditions
of Approval . These conditions may include a noise
monitoring and abatement program to be implemented by
the facility operator with approval by the County
Community Development Department and County Health
Services Department.
C. . Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall obtain information relating to noise
impacts, including complaint reports from the Health
Services Department, and compliance of a facility to
stipu .ated noise requirements, and include this
information in its report to the Board.
2 . Impact: Waste haul trucks entering/exiting the
landfillcould disturb residents along the site access roads .
a. Mitigation: Limiting the hours of access to the
landfill and requiring that all haul trucks be filled
with operable mufflers and be properly maintained would
reduce the likelihood of disturbance to adjacent
residences . Specified access routes and the use of
transfer stations, which would facilitate control over
self-hauler traffic to the landfill, would be
identified in the project-specific EIR.
b. Supporting Rationale: Restricting truck hauler traffic
to daylight hours, when higher noise levels are more
acceptable, would help offset the impact from the
projected increase of landfill- generated noise.
According to Table 4 .5-3 of the EIR, this increased
level of noise ranges from 2-5 decibels Ldn (day-night
16
EXHIBIT A
i
average noise level over a 24-hour period) along
I
elected roadways leading to the landfill site. Other
measures that might be recommended in the project EIR
include noise shielding- along routes and active
enforcement of muffler and vehicle noise standards by
police services . The County Community Development
Department shall incorporate appropriate noise control
_ mitigation measures into the conditions of project
approval . These conditions may include a noise
monitoring and abatement program to be implemented by
the facility operator with approval by the County
Community Development Department and County Health
Services Department.
C. Monitoring Program: The status of this requirement
shall be reported by the Community Development
Department in its annual monitoring report to the
Board.
VI . VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
1 . Impact: Landfill development could increase the variety and
number of weedy plant and pest wildlife species .
a. Mitigation: Implementation of a weed control program
at the site would typically include a list of noxious
weeds, periodic monitoring for these species, and a
weed control and removal program via physical removal,
prescribed burning and./or limited application of
herbicides . . Daily covering of the landfill would help
control potential pest problems . A pest control
program should be developed to be implemented if
problems occur and would include a list of pests,
methods to be used for control of them, and a
monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of the
program.
b. Supporting Rationale: Landfills are often populated by
non-native, invasive weeds and pests . This intrusion
could adversely impact the native species populations,
especially when a landfill is close to regionally
,significant open spaces like regional parks, and could
become a potential source of diseased vectors . Proper
operation of a landfill, including daily cover and
;compaction of waste and a weed control and pest control
program, does not provide for a suitable habitat for
propagation or survival of non-native species . The use
of pesticides and/or fumigants should only occur as a
last resort and with the approval of local and State
17
EXHIBIT A
public health and natural resource agencies. The
County Community Development Department would
ensure that a weed control and pest control program, if
needed, is developed and implemented by making it a
Land Use Permit Condition of Approval . The Health
;Services Department would monitor the pest control
program.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall report to the Board annually on the
status of weed and pest control mitigations at the
landfill.
2 . Impact: The landfill site, located within or adjacent to
natural waterways, could impact riparian and other
vegetation through soil erosion if there is inadequate
revegetation of cover areas . Stream erosion could occur
below the fill area if runoff is significantly increased.
a. Mitigation: Erosion control planting should be
undertaken on both intermediate and final cover areas
immediately as portions of the landfill close.
Inactive areas, -even if only temporary, should be
planted. Check dams with sedimentation basins should
be placed, if needed, in the stream channel below the
landfill footprint (fill area) . An erosion control and
hydrology plan coordinating these measures would be
developed for the landfill site.
b. Supporting Rationale: Landfill development could
result in increased stormwater runoff, increased
erosion, and subsequent sedimentation and increased
turbidity in the runoff and in the waterway below the
fill area. This process would disturb riparian and
other vegetation. Application of planted groundcover
would help to hold the soil in place. Sedimentation
basins would control the rate of release of stormwaters
and reduce turbidity. An erosion control plan would
identify plant materials and methods to be used in
revegetation efforts, identify where erosion control
structures would be located, and estimate the flow
changes downstream of the site to determine whether it
could result in significant erosion or vegetation
problems. An erosion control/surface water monitoring
plan, approved by the County Community Development
Department, and coordinated with the County Public
,Works Department and the appropriate Regional Water
;Quality Control Board, would be required by the Land
Use Permit Conditions of Approval.
18
EXHIBIT A
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall obtain all applicable information on
the implementation and monitoring of the revegetation
and erosion control programs at the landfill and report
it to the Board annually.
3 . Impact: Landfill construction activities would displace or
cause the death of some wildlife in and adjacent to the
proposed fill areas .
a. Mitigation: In order to reduce the impact of landfill
activities on wildlife, the landfill would be
constructed and operated in phases that limit clearing
to areas needed for immediate use, and grasses and
other vegetation would be planted after project
completion to aid in accommodating wildlife in the
area.
b. Supporting Rationale: Phased construction would limit
the amount of land disturbed at any one time to a
minimum. This would reduce the acute impact to
wildlife, as habitat would be lost gradually, thus
giving the wildlife time to relocate and regenerate .
Testing of soils to be replaced in completed areas
should be required to determine the need for adding
nutrients and/or other soil amendments to enhance
revegetation and restoration of wildlife values . A
habitat protection and enhancement plan would be
required as part of the Land Use Permit Conditions of
Approval for the landfill . This plan would be prepared
by a qualified biologist in consultation with the
California Department of Fish and Game, and where
appropriate, East Bay Regional Park District. The plan
would, to the extent possible, replace and/or enhance
the wildlife habitat lost to the landfill operator.
C . Monitorings Program: The County Community Development
Department would be responsible for ensuring that this
condition is met and implemented, and would report to
the Board annually on the compliance of the landfill
developer with this plan.
4 . Impact: Landfill activities could cause the release of
toxic materials to downstream areas . resulting in degradation
of aquatic and riparian habitats .
a. Mitigation: To reduce this impact to a less than
significant level, a leachate collection and recovery
system would .be installed at the landfill site. A
monitoring program would assure that the system is
19
EXHIBIT A
working properly. If it is discovered that downstream
areas are being adversely affected, a remedial plan
shall be implemented to correct the problem.
b. Supporting Rationale: In addition to a leachate
collection system, a highly impermeable soil layer
and/or a synthetic plastic liner is required at all
Class II landfills . The Contra Costa CoSWMP calls for
all new landfills to be designed and constructed to
Class II standards . The combination of these two
requirements would be expected to reduce the potential
impact of a toxic material release to insignificance.
Water quality mitigation programs are discussed in more
detail in Section VIII of the Program EIR. The County
Community Development Department would ensure that a
landfill at this site is designed to the requirements
of Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 15 of the California
Code of Regulations (Subchapter 15) regarding leachate
collection and bottom liner systems . The monitoring
program required by the RWQCB would be subject to
sampling and analysis of groundwater wells in order to
provide an early warning of toxic release to downstream
areas .
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall obtain the well testing reports from
the RWQCB and include this information in its annual
monitoring report to the Board.
5 . Impact: Landfill construction and grading activities could
indirectly impact vegetation not removed directly by
construction.
a. Mitigation: Vegetation that is to remain on-site
(outside the fill area) would be protected by the dust
control measures to minimize air quality impacts (to
help prevent damage to vegetation from dust
deposition) . To prevent plant life from being
adversely affected by dust settling on leaves, periodic
watering, as an extension of dust suppression
mitigation, should be used to clean the vegetation.
b. Supporting Rationale: The County would require a
Habitat Protection and Enhancement Plan as a Land Use
Permit Condition of Approval. which would give priority
to the use of the site, except where landfill
operations and appurtenant facilities are located, for
the preservation and enhancement of plant and wildlife
habitat.
20
EXHIBIT A
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall be responsible for ensuring that these
conditions are complied with and report its findings to
the Board annually.
VII . GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
1 . Impact: Landslide activity on fill or cut slopes and
unstable natural slopes could occur as a consequence of site
excavations and earthwork construction, causing structural
damage and endangering lives .
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures would be
expected to reduce these impacts to less than
significant levels :
1 . ' Potential slide areas would be drained to keep
slip surfaces dry, and unstable earth materials
would be excavated and landfill used to buttress
landslide areas .
2 . A slope monitoring program would be implemented
during operation.
3. The applicant would perform a site-specific static
and seismic stability analysis as part of the
final design, approved by the County.
4 . Cut slopes would be .designed to consider adversely
oriented joint surfaces, existing shallow
landslide deposits and other relevant geotechnical
factors under static and seismic conditions .
5 . Use of conservative geotechnical engineering
practices and stabilization measures during
excavation of areas of landslide activity.
6 . Monitor slopes with adversely oriented bedding
surfaces or joint surfaces through a metering
system.
7 . As conditions of project approval previously
stipulated by Contra Costa County., a Landslide
Study and a Slope Monitoring Program would be
_undertaken by a California Certified Engineering
Geologist, or by a qualified team. The Study and
Program would be incorporated into the final
design for the project.
21
EXHIBIT A
b. Supporting Rationale: Hillside and fill/cut slope
failures in natural materials and in the landfill can
be minimized by maintaining maximum strength of the
materials and by increasing forces that resist sliding
and slope failure. The County Community Development
Department would ensure that the above geotechnical
investigations are conducted during project
environmental review, and that appropriate mitigation
measures are included in the project's Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval. A geotechnical inspector
responsible to the County would be present when
sensitive grading and installations are performed.
C. Monitoring Program: Reports on the implementation of
these measures and from the on-site monitoring programs
shall be obtained by the County Community Development
Department and included in the annual monitoring report
to the Board.
2 . Impact: Engineered surfaces and slopes within the landfill
footprint could be subject to excessive fill settlement
and/or localized slope sloughing resulting from
decomposition of refuse, causing potential slope failure and
rupture of seals .
a. Mitigation: This impact would be expected to be
reduced to a less than significant level through the
following measures . The refuse and cover materials
would be compacted to maximum strength. The landfill
slopes would be engineered to provide stability under
design criteria. The infiltration of water would be
controlled through drainage features, lateral barriers
and intermediate and final covers . Heavy equipment
would be operated so as to minimize vibrations . Cover
soil would be stockpiled outside the fill area. As a
condition of project approval previously stipulated by
the County, the landfill developer could be required to
install a network of settlement platforms to detect and
correct settlement problems . The developer would
,provide a stability analysis of the final engineering
design of the landfill and its appurtenant
.improvements .
b. _Supporting Rationale: The above mitigation measures
are required by the RWQCB and the County to mitigate
the potential effects from refuse decomposition. This
impact could be exacerbated by the variable density and
strength of earth materials underlying much of the
upland areas of the County. The County Community
Development Department would include the above landfill
22
EXHIBIT A
j � •
practices for mitigating potential impacts from fill
settlement in the Development and Improvements Plan of
the Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall obtain all applicable reports on the
implementation, monitoring and enforcement of these
requirements, from the geotechnical inspector, the
County HSD, and the RWQCB, and include this information
in its annual report to the Board.
3 . Impact: Excessive stockpiling of loose soil could result in
slope instability, causing sedimentation and possibly
damaging structures and endangering lives .
a. Mitigation: A stockpile stability monitoring program
would reduce this impact to a less than significant
level .
b. Supporting Rationale: The landfill operator would.
continually analyze the on-site stockpiles of daily
cover material to determine the maximum allowable
heights and/or slopes for stability. This monitoring
would commence at the onset of stockpiling. The County
Community Development Department would include this
mitigation measure in the Slope Monitoring Program as a
Land Use Permit Condition of Approval.Monitoring
Program: The landfill operator will make the results
of this monitoring program available to the County
Community Development Department on demand. The County
Community Development Department will report on the
status of this program to the Board annually.
4 . Impact: Adequate amounts of general cover materials for low
permeability soils for final cover might not be available on
this landfill project site, causing off-site quarrying
impacts such as excavation slope instability and depletion
of mineral resources at the source of borrow materials .
a. Mitigation: To reduce these impacts to less than
significant levels, the following mitigation measures
would be considered for implementation by the County.
The RWQCB requires that on-site cover soil be compacted
to decrease its permeability and, if necessary, it can
be amended with additional compacted soil or other
material such as bentonite. If supplies are not
available on-site, low permeability materials would be
imported to provide cover. The Program EIR originated
these additional measures: soils that meet Subchapter
15 permeability requirements should be selected and
23
EXHIBIT A
i
stockpiled for use as a final cover; soil borrow source
areas should be evaluated with respect to State mineral
resource zoning programs and regional resource
classification and designation plans to resolve
questions of resource supply and demand; slope
stability of stockpiled soils should be addressed (see
Section VII Impacts 1, 2 and -3 above) . Consideration
also may be given to cover substitutes, such as
commercial landfill foam.
b. Supporting Rationale: The site geotechnical
investigations, including soil borings, required by the
landfill developer during the application process would
determine the amount of soil cover material available
on the site. Proposals to use cover substitutes or to
excavate off-site soils for cover would be subject to
environmental review. The County Community Development
Department would require that an adequate supply of
landfill cover material that meets the RWQCB
permeability standard be available before it issues a
Land Use Permit for a landfill. The proper hauling and
storing of this material would be addressed in the
project-specific EIR and would become part of the
conditions of project approval .
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department will report to the Board annually on the
project's compliance to these requirements .
5 . Impact: The shrink/swell behavior of expansive foundation
soils could deform building and landfill structure
foundations .
a. Mitigation: This impact would be expected to be
reduced to a .less than significant level by adherence
to geotechnical recommendations, such as the use of
pier and grade beam foundations and/or the replacement
of native soils with compacted non-expansive soils .
b. Supporting Rationale: All nine Soil Conservation
Service soil classifications in the County have soils
with highly expansive properties . Engineered solutions
to ensure that the landfill foundation and/or
structural integrity is not compromised are necessary.
The particular solutions will be contingent on the
geotechnical studies of the site-specific proposal .
The County Community Development Department is
responsible for ensuring that adequate engineering
design for the landfill structural integrity be
included in the project-specific proposal and made a
24
EXHIBIT A
Land Use Permit Condition of Approval. The Conditions
of Approval would be expected to require a geotechnical
inspector to be present on-site when sensitive
installations are performed.
c. , Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall obtain all relevant information from
the inspector, the RWQCB and the County Department of
Public Works on the compliance of the landfill to these
conditions and include it in its annual monitoring
report to the Board.
6 . Impact: Highly impermeable soils could allow water to pond
beneath landfill building foundations, causing a deformation
of these foundations .
a. Mitigation: Use of standard Uniform Building Code
grading procedures to direct drainage away from
buildings would reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level .
b. Supporting Rationale: Highly impermeable soils occur
at the proposed landfill area. These types of soils
could pond water, swelling expansive soils and/or
saturating and weakening foundation soils . Directing
water away from building foundation soils with the use
of such techniques as drainage ditches and culverts and
grading to convey surface run-off water away from any
landfill building would prevent the ponding of water.
The landfill developer would be required to submit a
project proposal, which describes the placement and
construction of the drainage system to be used on the
site, as part of the Development and Improvements Plan.
This would be evaluated in the project's Environmental
Impact Report. Mitigation measures would be
incorporated into the Land Use Permit Conditions of
Approval .
C. Monitoring Program: The Contra Costa County Community
Development Department and Building Inspection
Department would oversee the implementation of this
site plan and the County Community Development
Department shall include this information, when
applicable, in its annual monitoring report to the
Board.
7 . Impact: Groundshaking from off-site earthquakes could
damage the landfill' s containment and drainage features
and/or cause slope failure.
25
EXHIBIT A
1 •
a. Mitigation: The following measures would be expected
to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant
level. The landfill and drainage features would be
designed to withstand ground accelerations from a
maximum credible earthquake, as required by the State
for Class II landfills . The proposed final engineering
design for the landfill, including face slope
gradients, operating components and appurtenant
improvements, shall be reviewed for resistance to the
current design earthquake standards. An emergency
program for inspecting the landfill facility,
addressing the possibility of failures and interim
refuse handling, would be developed for implementation
following a substantial earthquake. A study of the
faults that could affect slope stability and
groundwater movement at the site shall be performed and
incorporated in the final site program and design of
structures A dam failure prevention and warning
system program, including daily monitoring, for the
sedimentation ponds would be prepared and implemented,
as a Land Use Permit Condition of Approval.
b. Supporting Rationale: Where active fault traces are
suspected to exist, fault rupture along the trace would
be mitigated through set-back recommendations in the
site-specific geotechnical investigations . State
siting criteria for Class II and Class III solid waste
facilities require that structures be located off the
trace of any active ;fault. The maximum credible
earthquake for a proposed facility would be identified
during geotechnical review of the site. Seismically-
induced landsliding at proposed permanent cut areas
would be mitigated by appropriate slope gradients or
subdrained concrete retaining structures, engineered
and designed according to Uniform Building Code and the
California Structural Engineers Association standards .
The above-referenced geotechnical studies and
emergency/monitoring programs would be developed by the
landfill developer, approved by the County, and
incorporated into the Land Use Permit Conditions of
Approval .
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall obtain all applicable reports on the
implementation, monitoring and enforcement of these
requirements, from the geotechnical inspector, the
County Health Services Department and the RWQCB, and
include this information in its annual report to the
Board.
26
EXHIBIT A
VIII . HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1 . Impact: Landfill development involving the excavation and
stockpiling of soil could result in soil erosion and
subsequent increased turbidity in run-off and the
sedimentation of drainageways .
a. Mitigation: This impact would be expected to be fully
mitigated by the routing of drainage water through
sedimentation basins to be located at the downstream
end of the canyon proposed for landfilling. In
addition, review and approval by the County of an
erosion and sediment control plan shall be required of
the developer prior to issuance of a grading permit.
b. Supporting Rationale: All stormwaters would be routed
through these basins and detained for a sufficient time
to allow the excess turbidity to settle out. A routine
maintenance plan would be required to ensure the
continued proper functioning of this basin system. The
erosion control plan would ensure, among other things,
that ,eroded sediments are trapped before entering the
constructed drainage channels and that stockpiled soils
are sufficiently stabilized. A sedimentation basin
system and sediment and erosion control plan would be
required by the County Community Development Department
as a Land Use Permit Condition of Approval, on the
basis of the project's site-specific EIR. It would be
developed and implemented by the landfill developea:,
with the approval of the County Community Development
Department, County HSD and Public Works, and the RWQCB.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall report on the status of these
mitigation measures in its annual monitoring . report to
the Board.
2 . Impact: Failure of the sedimentation/detention basins when
full or nearly full would pose a hazard to downstream areas .
a. Mitigation: In order to reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level, all sedimentation/detention
basins would be designed and constructed according to
Class II requirements : The basins would be inspected
regularly by the State Department of Water Resources
for those dams over 25 feet high and storing over 50
acre-feet of water.
b. Supporting Rationale: The sedimentation/detention
basins should be designed for a 1,000-year, 24-hour
27
EXHIBIT A
storm intensity and should be capable of withstanding
the maximum credible earthquake identified for the
site. The County Community Development Department
would be responsible for ensuring that a landfill
sedimentation basin system included in the project
would meet all State and County requirements by making
compliance a Land Use Permit Condition of Approval .
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department will report annually to the Board on the
implementation of this system, including the preventive
maintenance program to be developed by the landfill
operator.
3 . Impact: Replacement of natural drainage with a man-made
system could result in increased stormwater run-off, erosion
and subsequent sedimentation and increased turbidity.
a. Mitigation: The installation of sedimentation/
detention basins would reduce these impacts to less
than significant levels by controlling the rate of
release of stormwaters and reducing turbidity.
b. Supporting Rationale: The existing natural drainages
would be replaced by man-made drainage channels to keep
stormwater from ponding over the landfill site. This
re-routing of run-off would also help avoid the
generation of leachate. Basins would be needed to hold
and control the rate of release of these stormwaters in
order to prevent downstream erosion and increased
sedimentation and turbidity. Regular inspection and
maintenance would be conducted to ensure proper
functioning of the system. Moreover, Class II
landfills are required by State law (Subchapter 15 ) to
be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to
prevent inundation or washout due to a 100-year flood.
Final site design, sediment and erosion control, and
surface drainage system plans must be developed and
implemented by the landfill developer, with the
approval of the County Community Development
Department, County HSD and Public Works, and the RWQCB.
The County' s requirements would be imposed by the
project's Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval and
would be monitored. by the above agencies .
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall report on the status of these
mitigation measures in its annual report to the Board.
28
EXHIBIT A
4 . Impact: Landfill leachate could contaminate surface water
or groundwater with which it comes into contact.
a. Mitigation: The following measures would be expected
to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level .
To prevent surface water contamination, rain falling on
the landfill would be isolated from the refuse by a
system of slopes, drainage benches, drain ditches and
sedimentation basins . Final grading and cover would
allow proper drainage so that water would not pond over
the landfill . Groundwater protection would be ensured
by the landfill being constructed and operated
according to Subchapter 15 requirements . A minimum of
five feet vertical separation between the landfill base
and the historic high groundwater or perched water
elevation is required. Installation of a low-
permeability clay liner or a composite liner (synthetic
plastic) , a subdrain system, and a leachate control and
removal system would comply with these regulations .
The landfill would be required to have a groundwater
monitoring program to provide early warning in the
event of leachate migration from the landfill. The
RWQCB would limit the disposal of "wet" wastes such as
sludges on a site-specific basis .
b. Supporting Rationale: All detention and sedimentation
basins at the landfill site would be designed to
accommodate the 1 , 000-year design storm as required for
a Class II landfill. To meet Subchapter 15 criteria, a
landfill liner for Class II sites must have a water
permeability no greater than 1 x 10-6 cm/second. The
leachate collection system would be designed to
transport all excess leachate to a point where it could
be removed and disposed of properly, according to a
leachate management plan required by the County. The
groundwater monitoring program would be developed in
concert with the RWQCB and likely involve quarterly
sampling and analysis of upgradient and downgradient
wells . The landfill operator shall comply with the
requirements of the RWQCB for disposal of de-watered
sewage, and other utilities' sludges in landfills to
prevent excess liquid disposal. Other liquid wastes
. shall not be accepted at the -landfill. The County
Community Development Department would ensure that
State and RWQCB requirements on water protection from
leachate will be complied with as conditions in a
project' s Land Use Permit. An independent geotechnical
consultant, responsible to the County, would be
. expected to be required by the Land Use Permit to
inspect regularly over the life of the landfill the
29
EXHIBIT A
installation and condition of liners and leachate
control facilities as they are installed.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall obtain all relevant information on the
compliance of the landfill with these requirements from
the appropriate agencies and include it in the annual
report to the Board.
5 . Impact: The water supply requirements for the landfill
might not be available on-site, thus requiring the
procurement of off-site water.
a. Mitigation: A public water source for some or all of a
landfill's needs would require a connection to Contra
Costa Water District (CCWD) facilities . Annexation to
the CCWD service area would require approval by the
CCWD, possibly a city, and the Local Agency Formation
Commission.
b. Supporting Rationale: The generally poor quality of
on-site water (unsuitable for drinking) would be
adequate for most landfill activities such as
compaction, dust control, and fire suppression. The
EIR recommends exploring the feasibility of utilizing
sub-potable supplies such as reclaimed wastewater, on-
site stormwater retention, or connection to a non-
potable public water supply systems . A connection of
the latter kind could be considered to be non-growth-
inducing. The County Community Development Department
requires that the landfill developer_ submit a water
service plan covering available water resources,
estimated total water needs and supplies, landfill
construction and operation, landscaping, fire
protection, employee hygiene, human consumption water
needs, and water supply sources . It is evaluated in
the project's EIR and resulting mitigation measures are
included in the Land Use Permit's Conditions of
Approval.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall report annually to the Board on the
compliance of the proposed landfill to this water
service plan requirement.
IX. VISUAL QUALITY
1 . Impact: A landfill's on-site operational lighting could
create glare and visual disturbances to nearby off-site land
30
EXHIBIT A
uses .
a. Mitigation: To mitigate the effects of this impact,
lighting should be designed (e.g. , through downward-
oriented reflectors) and placed to reduce glare under
full operating conditions and should be dimmed or
turned off, except for security lighting, during late
hours of darkness. Full operational lighting may be
limited to normal operational hours of the landfill .
Focused directional security and operational lighting
should be installed as part of the project. Excessive
lighting of the access and operational areas should be
avoided.
b. Supporting Rationale: Construction and operational
lighting would increase ambient light and glare due to
night lighting. Lighting and hours of operation
restrictions would be addressed during project design
and review. The County Community Development
Department would ensure that construction and
operational lighting of a landfill does not
substantially impact nearby land uses by including the
appropriate mitigation measures in Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval . The County HSD could also
specify hours of operation in the Solid Waste
Facilities Permit and respond to lighting complaints by
residents in the vicinity.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall report annually on the implementation
and enforcement of these requirements to the Board.
2 . Impact: Excavation and filling activity at the landfill
site would substantial alter the natural topography and
appearance of the area.
a. Mitigation: To mitigate this impact, visual berms
could be installed at the toe level and/or at the faces
of lifts; the area of active operation could be limited
to approximately 20-25 acres at any one time, except
when major modules are being prepared and foundation
improvements installed. Covered layers of refuse could
be graded and contoured to replicate the form of the
existing surrounding terrain. Revegetation of
completed fill areas and areas to be inactive for more
than 90 days could be required.
b. Supporting Rationale: A landscaping and screening plan
based on the applicant' s project description and
project EIR mitigation measures would be required. as
31
EXHIBIT A
part of a final site plan.. It would detail the
locations and configurations of grades and - contours,
;screen plantings, overall site landscaping, and
revegetation efforts . The County Community Development
Department would ensure that these plans are prepared
and implemented by the landfill developer by including
them in the Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval .
C. Monitoring Program: An annual compliance report on
these conditions shall be submitted by the County
Community Development Department to the Board.
3 . Impact: Construction and operation of a landfill would
result in the removal of existing vegetation.
a. Mitigation: The planting of temporary or permanent
vegetation to match the existing visual character
following placement of each portion of intermediate or
final cover on filled areas would mitigate this impact.
b. Supporting Rationale: Restorative landscaping may
appear to clash with the existing visual character of
the native plantings or may be planted in unnatural
plant groupings . Thus, trees, shrubs and broadleaf
species which are currently found in the site area or
are native to the area should be planted on filled
areas . In addition, the County would require the
planting of annual grasses as temporary cover and
perennial grasses as. permanent cover which can be used
later for grazing. As a condition of approval for the
project' s Land Use Permit, the landfill developer shall
prepare and implement a final landscaping plan, as part
of the site design plan, which shows plant species,
size and locations, a maintenance program, and any
landscape mitigation measures identified in the
project-specific EIR for the site. This plan is
subject to County Community Development Department
approval.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development.
Department shall submit an annual monitoring report to
the Board on the compliance of the proposed landfill
to this requirement.
4 . Impact: Landfill operations may be visible from off-site
residential and recreational areas, as well as from travel
corridors .
32
EXHIBIT A
a. Mitigation: . This impact can be mitigated by utilizing
natural topography as a visual barrier and by providing
visual buffers, such as noise/visual berms along the
active landfill operation, and by providing screening
elsewhere on the site. . Corporation yards and staging
areas should be constructed away from public view if
possible. Views from roadways, especially scenic
routes, would be screened by installing dense plantings
along the roadway or elsewhere on the site where the
screening is most effective.
b. Supporting Rationale: Since the proposed landfillis
located in a, canyon, topography will provide visual
screening to some degree.. This natural screening can be
enhanced by installing berms and screens. Earth berms
are an effective visual buffer for screening views to
the landfill. The form of the berms could mimic the
natural line of the area's hills . Berms would be
landscaped with perennial grasses and native trees and
shrubs as appropriate. Planting patterns could be
naturalistic . The County Community Development
Department would ensure that visual mitigation measures
identified in the project's EIR are included in its
Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval. The landfill
developer would be required to prepare and implement a
final landscaping plan with the approval of the County
Community Development Department.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall submit an annual monitoring report to
the Board on the compliance of the proposed landfill
to this requirement.
5 . Impact: Windblown debris and litter from the landfill could
result in an adverse visual impact and/or could be carried
to off-site locations . Illegal dumping near a landfill-
entrance could visually detract from the appearance of the
surrounding area .
a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures would
reduce these impacts . Eliminating self-haulers to a
landfill at this site would reduce littering on the
site and on access roads . The landfill operator might
be able to align refuse unloading areas away from the
prevailing wind direction. Refuse would- be covered at
least once a day, and could be covered more often,
depending on wind velocity. Installation of portable
fencing near the working area and a permanent fence
around the landfill site periphery to intercept and
contain windblown debris would be required. Litter
33
EXHIBIT A
would be collected from the litter fences and planting
screens on a daily basis and from along access roadways
as often as in deemed necessary by the County. The
landfill operator would post signs along access roads
noting littering and illegal dumping laws; signs at the
entrance would note hours of operation. Policing of
the site and entrance area would be required on a daily
basis or more often, if needed. The landfill operator
would implement a program to limit uncovered loads,
possibly including a higher charge for these loads to
help off-set the cost of monitoring litter collection.
Litter control rules should be periodically published
in newspaper advertisements or mailed flyers .
b. Supporting Rationale: The County Community Development
Department would incorporate a litter control plan
generally including the above mitigation measures into
the project's Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval
for a landfill at this site. The County HSD would have
the authority to enforce this plan.
C. Monitoring Program: A quarterly monitoring report
shall be submitted to the Board by the County HSD on
the compliance of the proposed landfill to these
regulations .
X. SOCIOECONOMICS
1 . Impact: The siting of a landfill could adversely affect the
value of property located in the vicinity of this site.
a. Mitigation: The mitigation measures listed in -other
sections of these findings, especially those that
relate to odor control, dust control, litter control,
landscaping and traffic control are expected to reduce
this impact to wn insignificant level .
b. Supporting Rationale: In three separate studies on the
effects of landfills on surrounding property values,
the conclusions were as follows : solid waste disposal
sites have no apparent negative effect on change in
property value of single family homes in their
immediate vicinity (The Effects of Solid Waste Disposal
Sites on Property Values, 1972 ) ; property
characteristics other than distance to the landfill
appear much more important in explaining prices
(Pennsylvania State University, Effects of Solid Waste
Disposal Sites on Community Development and Residential
Property Values, 1982) ; and proximity to the landfill
had a negligible impact on initial sales pricing of
34
EXHIBIT A
recently constructed homes (Property Value Impact
Study, Puente Hills Landfill, 1983) . As part of the
complaint program, a County representative could meet
with local homeowners, associations or organize
neighborhood meetings to ensure that an appropriate
response is received. The County Community Development
Department would incorporate the appropriate mitigation
measures suggested in the program EIR, as well as those
identified in the project-specific proposal, into the
Land Use Permit conditions of approval for the project.
C. Monitoring Program: As stated throughout these
findings, the County Community Development Department
shall submit monitoring reports to the Board on a
regular basis regarding the implementation, monitoring
and enforcement of the identified mitigation measures .
XI . CULTURAL RESOURCES
1 . Impact: Previously unknown cultural resources at a
potential landfillon this site could be impacted during
construction.
a. Mitigation: In order to reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level, the following measures would be
taken. If an historic site is discovered during .
construction, work would temporarily cease to allow a
site evaluation. Concurring field and archival
research would be undertaken by an historic
archaeologist to determine the quality and quantity of
information relating to site occupation, and the
extent, integrity, and diversity of archaeological
remains . Should this testing phase indicate that the
site could yield additional information of importance
to area history, then a date recovery phase may be
warranted. This phase could include further archival
or oral history research, excavation of a sample of the
site, or combinations thereof . If significant deposits
are not encountered, the testing phase could be
considered adequate mitigation. Project-related
indirect impacts to known sites in the vicinity of the
proposed landfill site can be mitigated by 1) limiting
employee access to off-project areas and enforcing a
strict prohibition against artifact collecting or
vandalism; 2 ) limiting construction vehicle movement to
road surfaces that have been subject to previous
survey; and 3) consulting an archaeologist prior to
conducting any off-project activities (road
35
EXHIBIT A
construction, drainage control, pit construction) that
may not have been subject to previous archaeological
surveys .
b. Supporting Rationale: Historic areas have been found
within an adjacent to some of the proposed landfill
site areas . These have been surveyed and mitigation
measures identified in the project EIRs .
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall incorporate appropriate cultural
resource mitigation measures identified in the project
EIR into the conditions of project approval. On-site
mitigations shall be approved in conjunction with the
Regional Clearinghouse of Sonoma State University and a
qualified archaeologist shall oversee their
implementation. The County Community Development
Department shall report annually to the Board on the
applicability of cultural resource findings and
mitigation measures as they apply to the proposed
landfill at this site. .
XII . PUBLIC SERVICES
1 . Impact: A landfill could increase the risk of fire.
Mitigation, Supporting Rationale, and Monitoring
Program: See Section II . Public Health and Safety,
Impact 3 of these findings .
2 . Impact: Disposal of landfill leachate could adversely
impact wastewater treatment systems .
a. Mitigation: The RWQCB requires that landfill
developers prepare and implement a disposal plan for
- leachate with the appropriate wastewater treatment
agency prior to construction of the landfill . In most
cases, the disposal plan would require on-site
treatment of the leachate to meet RWQCB standards prior
to its introduction into the wastewater system.
b. Supporting Rationale: The County Community Development
Department would ensure that all RWQCB requirements are
met during environmental review of the proposed
landfill . The disposal means (mitigation measures)
would also be included in the landfill's Land Use
Permit Conditions of Approval and may be specified in
the County Services Department's Solid Waste Facilities
Permit as well.
36
EXHIBIT A
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
,Department shall obtain reports from the RWQCB and
appropriate wastewater treatment agencies on compliance
of a landfill facility to the disposal plan, and make
this information available to the Board on an annual
basis .
3 . Impact: Construction and. operation of a landfill would
require large quantities of water which may impact local
groundwater supplies or the supplies of a public water
supply utility (the Contra Costa Water District) .
a. Mitigation: As previously noted, the landfill
developer would propose a water service plan, covering
available water resources, estimated total water needs
And supplies, landfill construction and operation,
landscaping, fire protection, employee hygiene, human
consumption water needs, and water supply sources .
Specific mitigation measures would be identified in the
project-specific EIR.
b. Supporting Rationale: The water plan would be based on
verified supply information. Water for operation could
be obtained either from on-site drilling of deep wells
or on-site collection of surface drainage. If on-site
water is not adequate, water for construction might be
obtained from off-site sources . Use of Contra Costa
Water District (CCWD) water would require its approval,
possibly that of a city, and the Local Agency Formation
Commission's approval . The County Community
Development Department would evaluate the landfill
developer's water service plans in the project's site
specific EIR, and include mitigation measures as Land
Use Permit Conditions of Approval .
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall report annually to the Board on the
compliance of the proposed landfill to this plan and/or
its implementation requirements .
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH MAY NOT BE
MITIGABLE TO A LEVEL LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The Board of Supervisors finds that the following impacts which
could result from implementation of the General Plan Amendmentare
potentially significant from an environmental standpoint and may
not be fully mitigated. The Board hereby directs the Community
Development Department to address to following mitigation
37
EXHIBIT A
measures in the subsequent tier of Environmental Impact Report
and other 'environmental documents implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act that will emanate from the adoption of
this General Plan Amendment. If the project-level tier of
environmental documents finds that the impacts are significant
and that the particular mitigation measures are necessary to
achieve substantial mitigation, the Board declares its intent to
adopt them as part of the project approvals . If the project-
level tier of environmental documents also finds that the impacts
are significant and unavoidable, the Board declares its intent to
adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the benefits of
the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts . Further,
the monitoring program -- primarily an annual report on the
implementation of the mitigation measures -- shall be carried out
by the County Community Development Department. All other County
departments and agencies involved in solid waste management shall
assist with the preparation of the monitoring report.
I . VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
1 . Impact: Landfill development would result in the removal of
wetlands and/or oak woodland vegetation.
a. Mitigation: A wetland habitat enhancement plan would
be proposed and ultimately implemented by the landfill
developer. The plan would be developed in conjunction
with and submitted to the appropriate resource
management agencies for permit review,, including the
California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) , the
appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) , United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) , National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) , and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).. At a minimum,
the plan would provide for acre-for-acre and habitat
unit-for-habitat-unit replacement for lost wetland.
Oak woodland mitigation would be subject to the
County's judgment.
b. Supporting Rationale: A habitat enhancement plan
should be developed in conjunction with the County's
consideration of a landfill application and reviewed
through its Environmental Impact Report. The habitat
value of the on- or off-site mitigation area selected
should be increased by means of sound management
practices . It is noted that specific mitigation
measures addressed in the project-specific EIR might
reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels .
The County Community Development Department would
ensure that a habitat enhancement and management plan
38
EXHIBIT A
"would be implemented, when necessary, by incorporating .
it into the project's Land Use Permit Conditions of
Approval. The plan, or variations of it, could also be
implemented through regulatory agency permits . The
appropriate resource management agencies and the County
Community Development Department_ shall oversee the
implementation- of the plan..
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall submit an annual report to the Board
on compliance- to the provisions of this plan.
II . GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1 . Impact: Development/modification of a landfill would
permanently alter the topography of the landfill site.
a. Mitigation: A grading plan that is designed to blend"
the landfilled area with the surrounding topography
would partially mitigate this impact. Contour grading
techniques could provide a smooth transition between
the new topography of the landfill and the natural
topography of the site: cuts and fills would be
constructed with rounded corners to eliminate sharp
angles of intersection; variable slope gradients would
provide rounded, irregular forms that mimic natural
slopes . Also, see the Visual Quality section
following, and under Potentially Significant Impacts
Fully Mitigated in these findings .
b. Supporting Rationale: Significant topographic
alteration will occur regardless of how well the
landfilled area is blended into the surrounding land
forms . The County Community Development Department
would require that a proposed landfill project have an
appropriate site grading program that is sensitive to
the surrounding site area. It would be evaluated in
the project's EIR and the resulting mitigation measures
would be included in the Development and Improvements
Plan of the Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval in
order to ensure implementation.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall report annually, if applicable, to the
Board on the compliance of the landfill developer to
this requirement.
39
EXHIBIT A
III . VISUAL QUALITY
1 . Impact: A landfill sited in rolling hills would
substantially change the existing visual contours.
a. Mitigation: To the extent practicable, landfill
facilities should be sited well below the ridgeline
levels, in canyons or valleys . The highest portion of
the fill should be below surrounding ridgelines .
Berms, fencing and/or landscaping should be employed to
screen landfill operations . In addition, habitat
enhancement and/or development to improve the visual
character of the site could be implemented to help
diminish visual impacts not fully mitigated by siting
criteria.
b. Supporting Rationale: Wherever a new landfill is
sited, substantial visual alteration of the site would
occur. This visual alteration can be diminished
through the above proposed measures . It is noted that
additional and/or more detailed measures identified in
the project-specific EIR could reduce this impact to a
less thansignificant level for this landfill. The
County Community Development Department would ensure.
that mitigation measures identified in the project EIR
to reduce the effect of this impact be implemented by
incorporating them in the project' s Land Use Permit
Conditions of approval .
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development
Department shall report to the Board annually, as
applicable, on compliance to the identified conditions .
ALTERNATIVES
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires EIRs to
describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to
the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the
basic objectives of the project and evaluate the comparative
merits of the alternatives (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126 (d) ) .
For the reasons stated below, these alternatives should be
rejected in favor of the currently proposed plan.
I . NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
This alternative is defined as the failure to approve this
General Plan Amendment, which would have the effect of
maintaining the status quo with respect to landfill development
40
EXHIBIT A
• i
in the area covered by the proposed General Plan Amendment. In
this alternative, no new landfills would be developedin this
area, existing landfills would be used until their closure, and
then solid waste would be exported for disposal to other
counties . With Acme ,Landfill's impending closure, waste
currently going to Acme would be diverted to the two remaining
landfills in the County. These two landfills, Contra Costa
Sanitary Landfill (CCSL) and West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill
(WCCSL) , . are near capacity and at the present rate of waste
acceptance are due to close in 1990-1991 and 1993, respectively.
The No Project Alternative would exacerbate the demands on the
limited existing in-County capacity. After exhaustion of in-
County capacity, the County would have to export its waste,
which, though possible, would not be a certainty, would be non-
cost effective in the long run, and subject to other
jurisdictions' requirements and politics .
II . WASTE REDUCTION ALTERNATIVE
In this alternative, three specific technologies would be used in
lieu of landfilling solid waste, viz. , recycling, composting, and
waste-to-energy. Two in-depth County studies indicate that
between 2 and 5 percent of the total wastestream could be
reasonably reduced via residential recycling programs .
.Composting the approximately 10-15 percent vegetative waste of
the residential wastestream would be equivalent to approximately
2 percent of the wastestream. Though waste-to-energy
technologies could produce a 70-percent reduction by weight of
the wastestream that is incinerated, there are several problems
involved. Ash residue from mass incineration is about 30 percent
by weight of incoming waste and this would have to be disposed
of . Landfill disposal would still be required for this ash
residue and for non-combustible material . In addition, waste-to-
energy projects are capital intensive, the environmental issues
are great, and the current chances for siting a project in the
.near term are slim.
III . SUBSTITUTE LANDFILL SITES ALTERNATIVE
During the years 1984-1987, there were three landfill siting
studies performed in the County to identify potential sites .
These efforts initially considered 22 .sites, which were later
narrowed through a ranking system to seven sites . Four of the
final seven sites recommended to the Board of Supervisors are
sites identified in the CoSWMP. The reasons for dropping the
other 15 sites are listed in Table 6 . 3-1 of the CoSWMP EIR, and
deal mostly with the sites not meeting the County's list of
criteria for new landfill development (Table 6 . 3-2 of the EIR) .
41
EXHIBIT A
It was intended that developers of landfills would use this
information to identify future sites in the County. During the
first study, three sites were proposed by the private sector --
Kirker Pass. Waste Management Landfill (KPWML) , East Contra Costa
Sanitary Landfill (ECCSL) and Central Landfill . The Central
Landfill proposal was withdrawn in December of 1986 . In 1987,
KPWML and ECCSL completed their hearings and environmental review
with the Planning Commission. Both were unable to obtain a
majority approval by the Board of Supervisors . In 1988, the
Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill and Keller Canyon Landfill were
proposed by the private sector. They are currently undergoing
environmental review. This alternative was rejected because no
sites other than those now proposed to be included in the CoSWMP
are capable of becoming operating facilities by 1992 if site-
specific studies were started now. However, none of the other
sites have sponsors who have obtained control of the land and
begun the application studies .
IV. NO TRANSFER STATION ALTERNATIVE
In this alternative, the General Plan Amendment would not include
the provision for transfer stations, and instead rely on direct
haul of solid waste to the landfill and/or resource recovery
facilities . This would entail the use of low-capacity packer
trucks to haul the waste from the point of collection to the
ultimate disposal or processing point, rather than using high-
capacity transfer vehicles to haul waste from a transfer station.
to the ultimate disposal/processing location. There would be a
substantially greater number of vehicle trips needed to transport
a given amount of solid waste to its ultimate destination. In
the worst case condition for traffic generation, a single
landfill would become the destination for all the solid waste
operations in the County. According to Table 6 . 3-3 in the
COSWMP/General Plan Amendment EIR, there would be almost three
times as many vehicle trips generated under this scenario than
under the proposed project scenario which includes transfer
stations ( 1,726 trips by the year 2005 instead of 640 trips ) .
There would be substantially greater air emissions and noise
impacts . In addition, there could be more public service impacts
due to road maintenance and traffic enforcement, and greater land
use, visual and property value impacts as a result of increased
traffic.
CONCLUSION
Incorporating mitigation measures and rejecting the proposed
alternatives in the Final Environmental Impact Report, as stated
in these findings, into the General Plan Amendment) reduces
42
EXHIBIT A
i � •
i
environmental impacts that would result from this Project to
less-than-significant levels, and through adoption of the
Statement of Overriding �Considerations set forth hereunder, the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act have
been satisfied with regard to the proposed General Plan
Amendment.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Notwithstanding the disclosure of the significant impacts and the
mitigation measures described above, pursuant to Section 15093 of
the State CEQA Guidelines, the Board of Supervisors finds that
the benefits of the Keller Canyon Landfill General Plan Amendment
outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental
impacts, and the Amendment should be approved. The Board of
Supervisors further finds that there are specific social,
economic and other reasons for approving this project, based on
information in the record, notwithstanding the substantial
adverse impacts disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact
Report and described above as significant impacts not fully
mitigated. The Board also finds that, to the extent any
mitigation measures recommended in 'the EIR were not or will not
be incorporated into the General Plan Amendment or the Landfill
Project, such mitigation measures are infeasible with respect to
the Landfill Project, because such measures would impose
restrictions on the landfill project that would prohibit the
realization of specific economic, social, and other benefits that
this Board finds outweigh the unmitigated impacts . The Board
also finds that the alt;)rnatives set forth in the EIR are
infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of
specific economic, social, and other benefits that this Board
finds outweigh the environmental benefits of the alternatives .
Further,. the Board finds that the following reasons warrant
approval of the General Plan Amendment notwithstanding any
unavoidable . or unmitigated impacts :
1 . State law requires the adoption of the CoSWMP Revision,
including reserved sites showing at least eight years of landfill
capacity. In order to qualify as a reserved site, a site must be
consistent with the County's general plan. Therefore, the
adoption of this General Plan Amendment is required for the
Keller Canyon Landfill site to qualify as a reserved site under
state law.
2 . The writ of mandate issued to the County in California
Waste Management Board v. Board of of Supervisors , etc. , Contra
Costa County Superior Court No. C89-00833, requires the County,
among other things, to adopt the CoSWMP Revision and adopt
general plan amendments for the potential landfill sites pursuant
43
EXHIBIT A
i
to a detailed time schedule. Adoption of this General Plan
Amendment is required for the County to comply with the writ of
mandate.
3 . Adoption of this General Plan Amendment will reduce the
need to export solid waste to other counties . This will reduce
or eliminate the environmental, traffic, and energy impacts of
hauling waste outside the County and constitutes an environmental
benefit of; this project.
4 . Adoption of this General Plan Amendment will provide
overall social benefits to the County. A number of services,
including healthcare, child day care, care for senior citizens,
and supply of food and housing all depend on an assured system of
solid waste collection and disposal. As part of. the CoSWMP
Revision and implementation of the Revision, the General Plan
Amendment will help ensure the continued provision of such
services .
5 . Adoption of this General Plan Amendment and subsequent
approval of a landfill project will provide construction jobs
over a period of several years .
6 . Adoption of this General Plan Amendment and subsequent
approval of a landfill project will forestall the public health
hazard that would result from the exhaustion of landfill capacity
in this County without a replacement landfill site.
FINDINGS REGARDING MONI7-JRING OR REPORTING
OF CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES
Section 21081 . 6 of the California Public Resources Code requires
this Board to adopt a monitoring or reporting program regarding
CEQA mitigation measures in connection with these findings . This
Board has made specific findings regarding mitigation monitoring
as it applies to various specific impacts of the Landfill
Project, in the findings sections set forth above. Those
specific findings call for annual reporting, based on information
to be gathered by the County Community Development Department.
This annual reporting will be done pursuant to the following
program, which this Board hereby adopts in fulfillment of the
CEQA mitigation monitoring requirement:
A. The Community Development Department shall file a written
report with this Board approximately once each year, beginning on
or about the first anniversary of the approval of this General
Plan Amendment by the Board of Supervisors and continuing until
the Landfill Project is developed pursuant to additional land use
approvals that may be granted by the County. The written report
44
EXHIBIT A
I _
i
i
shall briefly state the status in implementing each mitigation
measure that is adopted as a Condition of Approval or that is
incorporated into the Landfill Project. The written report may
include information from other agencies regarding implementation
of the mitigation measures . When such information from other
agencies is included, the report shall include such additional
information, if any, as the Department deems necessary to provide
a complete report on the implementation of mitigation measures .
B. Community Development staff and this Board shall review the
written report and determine whether there is any unforeseen,
unusual, and substantial delay in, or obstacle to, implementing
the adopted or incorporated mitigation measures that requires
action by Department staff .
C. The Board may delegate its review of the mitigation
monitoring report, in this, Board's sole discretion. If any
interested party requests it, the result of this review will be
provided to such party in writing.
D. If the staff or this Board determines that action is required
to ensure that one or more mitigation measures is implemented,
then the staff shall advise this Board of the situation.
45
EXHIBIT A
• EXHIBIT B.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
BAY POINTE SANITARY LANDFILL
(.GPA 5-89-CO)
The Contra Costa County General Plan is amended as provided below.
1. REFUSE DISPOSAL PLAN
a. Add to the Central Study Area Text (p. 22) :
"Bay Pointe Sanitary Landfill.
A sanitary landfill facility, or sanitary landfill facilities, may be
developed at the location identified as a Sanitary Landfill Refuse
Disposal Facility on the accompanying Plan map, in accordance with
Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval adopted by the Board of Super-
visors. A sanitary landfill developed in the subject location is
intended to take residential-commercial-industrial wastes (i.e. ,
wastes allowable for a Class II landfill under the terms of Subchapter
15, Chapter 3, Title 23 of the California Administrative Code, 1984) .
The facility is intended to serve Contra Costa County and other areas
specified by the Board of Supervisors."
b. Add the attached diagram entitled Plan Map--Bay Pointe Sanitary Land-
fill to the above plan text Amendment.
2. LAND USE ELEMENT
a. Reclassify the Land Use designations of the area shown on the accom-
panying Plan Map from Agricultural Preserve to General Open Space.
b. Add the Bay Pointe Sanitary Landfill (2b) to the following section of
the Land Use Element which was adopted on December 15, 1987:
"Adopted Refuse Disposal Facilities
The following Refuse Disposal Facilities are consistent with the
Land Use Element and their site areas are deemed to be overlays
on the Land Use Element Plan Map:
1. Refuse Disposal Facilities approved prior to January 1,
1983, by the Board of Supervisors in General Plan Components
and Land Use Permits (includes West Contra Costa Sanitary
Landfill, and the IT Corporation's Baker, Pacheco, and Vine
Hill facilities) .
2. Refuse Disposal Facilities approved by General Plan Amend-
ments adopted subsequent to January 1, 1983, by the Board of
Supervisors. These are: (a) the Acme Fill Waste Recovery
and Transfer Station, adopted December 15, 1987; and (b) the
Bay Pointe Sanitary Landfill, East Contra Costa Sanitary
Landfill, Keller Canyon Landfill, Kirker Pass Waste
Management Landfill, and Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill,
adopted September 19, 1989.
3. OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Add "refuse disposal" to the following statement of purpose on Page 1,
Purposes, of the Open Space and Conservation Element, indicated by
underlining:
Open Space and Conservation in this plan can mean land for
orchards, crops, livestock production, water supply, national
. defense, public and private recreation, forestry, mineral extrac-
tion, refuse disposal, agricultural industry, and even very low
density residential uses, where appropriate to location and other
planning considerations.
I hereby certify that this amendment
to the Contra Costa County General Plan
was Adopted by the Board of Supervisors
on October 10, 1989.
Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and Coun y Administrator
By ONY"
Depu y
CAZ/jn
169:baypoint.gpa
GENERAL PLAN AML•' MMENT
DAY POINTE SANITARY LANDFILL
(GPA 5-89-CO)
' ' `c " - II
26 r. ooe
CJI I l �f
E IL-•SII � .1
1 A! Ac / - l�J
• ' � r �� - TrArlrr
a� AV1lA
tom- p•• A
• l
2!.!! AC p 93.06 .AC AIVC! •`•, �x, Mir
RASCN ET A4
G U : 1e•e5a0 •''1 •� ,,
• i
PLAN MAP -- BAY POINTE SANITARY LANDFILL
Riocc Part of the Refuse Disposal Plan and o
Land Use Element of the Contra Costa '",-•'� J
County General Plan CAIMAT A
1A1110
N00^C
..' • . � , � CIO •
1 /
AIVERNA2
AIV[ A2 '� • /� ��_
r f
s0 AC 74.00 •••••` • // / /
1 •*•►I' • `� A �� IA.TT AC
4.
%1
1' 0
21
23
�� �• i
I J 1
1 Et W Oft T
V .18AC
� s ,
0 1000 2000
Scale in Feet X14,
10
28 �dAoils o
\ \ O 2Tt.T:a AC/
1 J ot` ro
27
� .1 '•�o`
NJ
\ ` w c REIICR t11t
O `. .� �•.. s 204 AL
General Plan Amendment Area and Area Reclassified
...� from Agricultural Preserve to General Open Space
Sanitary Landfill Refuse Disposal Facility
I hereby certify that this
amendment to the Contra Costa
County General Plan was
Adopted by the Board of
Supervisors on October 10, 1989.
Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Borird
of Supervisors and County
Administrator
By: Lo
Depu y
i
I
I
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE EAST CONTRA COSTA .
LANDFILL SITE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT ( "CEQA" ) AND ADOPTION OF A
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 6-85-CO
(EAST CONTRA COSTA SANITARY LANDFILL)
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County (this
"Board" ) , California, adopts the following findings regarding
the East Contra Costa landfill site general plan amendment .
I . INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. The General Plan Amendment
Contra Costa County ( "County" ) is required by state
law and by court order to prepare a Solid Waste Management Plan
including reserve capacity at one or more landfill sites . This
general plan amendment is proposed in order to comply with the
County' s obligations pursuant to state law and court order:: to
adopt an adequate solid waste management plan including reserve
capacity at landfill sites designated in the County General
Plan.
The County is required to adopt landfill site general
plan amendments pursuant to the California Solid Waste
Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972 , California
Government Code sections 66780 et seq. This Act requires the
County to prepare a County Solid Waste Management Plan
( "CoSWMP" ) , and the County is currently seeking the required
approvals from cities within the county for the 1989 revision
to the CoSWMP. This 1989 revision is required to comply with
state law and with the. provisions of the court order in
California Waste Management Board v. Board of Supervisors ,
Contra Costa County Superior Court No . 89-00833 (the
"Litigation" ) . This litigation was initiated against the
County to require submission of a final revised CoSWMP, and the
court order requires the County to carry out certain tasks set
forth in a schedule for the 1989 CoSWMP revision. This
schedule requires this Board to adopt general plan amendments
for five landfill sites . The proposed East Contra Costa site,
the subject of this General Plan Amendment , is one of those
five sites .
EXHIBIT C � 1
i
i
_. . -Previo.usly, ..the County_:has _identified existing
landfills in the General Plan, but has not shown proposed sites
in the General Plan because site-specific General Plan
Amendments were processed along with specific development
applications for each landfill project, such as use permits or
conditional use permits . State law now requires that proposed
landfill sites be shown in the County General Plan, so the five
general plan amendments were initiated by the County. These
General Plan Amendments are the following:
1 . A General Plan Amendment for the proposed Bay
Pointe Sanitary Landfill , located southwest of West Pittsburg,
one mile south of Highway 4 , west of Bailey Road, and east of
the Concord Naval Weapon Station (the "Bay Pointe Sanitary
Landfill" ) . (County File No . 5-89-CO)
2 . A General Plan Amendment for the proposed Keller
Canyon (Keller-Bailey) Sanitary Landfill located south of
Pittsburg, generally east of Bailey Road and northwest of
Kirker Pass Road .(the "Keller-Bailey Landfill" ) . (County File
No . 3-89-CO)
3 . A General Plan Amendment for the proposed East
Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill , located south of Antioch, south
of the existing Contra Costa Waste Sanitary Landfill , and west
of Fredickson Lane (the ''East Contra Costa Landfill" ) . (County
File No . 6-85-CO)
4 . A General Plan Amendment for the proposed Kirker
Pass Sanitary Landfill , located off Kirker Pass Road
approximately one mile northeast of Concord and 1 . 5 miles
southwest of Pittsburg (the "Kirker Pass Landfill " ) . (County
File No . 24-84-CO) -
5 . A -General Plan -Amendment for the proposed Marsh
Canyon Sanitary Landfill located west of Byron, approximately
one mile southwest of the intersection of Marsh Creek Road and
Deer Valley Road (the ''Marsh Canyon Landfill'' ) . The Marsh
Canyon Landfill site consists of approximately 1 , 680 acres, of
which 320 acres would be used for landfill . The remainder of
the site will be kept as open space. (County File No . 4-89-CO)
The five general plan amendments referred .to above are
collectively referred to as the "Five General Plan
Amendments . " The general plan amendment for the East Contra
Costa Landfill , the subject of these findings, is referred as
this "General Plan Amendment . "
EXHIBIT C - 2
_At .this . time:, _this .Board is ..consi;dering .only general
plan amendments for the five proposed landfill sites . This
Board is not presently considering specific applications to
develop .any of the landfill sites, any other specific land use
application relating to the landfill sites , or any
Project-level EIRs . Specifically, this Board is not now
considering any specific land use approval or Project-level EIR
for the East Contra Costa Landfill . One or more of the owners
of the five proposed sanitary landfill sites will submit or may
have submitted applications for use permits and other land use
development approvals which may be required for development of
each particular site. In some cases, the applications may have
been submitted but are not ready for or capable of,
consideration by this Board at this time. This Board is
required by state law and by court order to adopt this General
Plan Amendment (and all of the Five General Plan Amendments) at
this time, and cannot delay adoption of this Amendment until
specific development applications and Project-level EIRs are
ready for consideration. As stated above, the East Contra
Costa Landfill Site -general plan amendment approved by this
Board is hereinafter referred to as this "General Plan
Amendment . " The future development of the East Contra Costa
Landfill , pursuant to this General Plan Amendment and other
land use approvals which may be granted in the future is
hereinafter referred to as the "Landfill Project . "
Although this Board is currently approving only the
Five General Plan Amendments , the environmental impact report
( "EIR" ) for the Five General Plan Amendments is intended to
serve as a program EIR for each of the Five General Plan
Amendments and the 1989 CoSWMP revision. Subsequent land use
approvals for one or more specific sanitary landfill sites
would be processed in conjunction with preparation of an
additional site-specific EIR. The CEQA Guidelines authorize
the use - of program EIRs for a°series of actions that can be
characterized as one large project , along with preparation of
subsequent EIRs on specific projects . The Guidelines also
authorize lead agencies such as the County to incorporate
general mitigation measures developed in a program EIR into
subsequent actions in the program of land use approvals .
The EIR recommends mitigation measures for an overall
project including the 1989 CoSWMP revision and the Five General
Plan Amendments . These measures include general mitigation
measures for all of the proposed sites and certain specific
mitigation measures for each individual proposed landfill
sites . Many of these mitigation measures are designed to be
incorporated into specific development plans and specific
development plans for each of the landfill sites have not yet
been submitted to this Board. As this General Plan Amendment
changes the designation of one of the proposed landfill sites
EXHIBIT C 3
i
i
and ,.does-._not.,.include ..any specific authorization to develop the
proposed site, and as this Board will be presented with future
specific development proposals for one or more .of the proposed
sites , some conditions of approval and mitigation measures
cannot beimposed in connection with this General Plan
Amendment 'but must instead be imposed in connection with future
land use approvals .
B. The Environmental Impact Report .
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , as
amended, together with the State CEQA Guidelines, requires the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for certain
public and private sector projects requiring discretionary
actions by California ' s governments .
The discretionary approval power over the General Plan
Amendments resides with the County. The County, as the Lead
Agency, determined that an EIR was required for this project
and issued a Notice of Preparation on January 25, 1989 , to the
State Clearinghouse and to various public agencies ( including
all the cities in the County) , organizations and individuals .
As part of the environmental review process , the County held a
public scoping session on February 15 , 1989 .
The County determined that the EIR should address the
general environmental impacts amending the Contra Costa County
General Plan to include any or all of the five landfill sites
included in the CoSWMP . In addition, the EIR serves as the
environmental document for the proposed 1989 revision to the
County Solid Waste Management Plan ( "CoSWMP'' ) .
The County determined that the California
Environmental Quality Act documentation for the CoSWMP and the
proposed Five General Plan Amendments and the individual solid
waste development projects which could result from the CoSWMP
and the proposed General Plan Amendments be prepared in
stages . The first tier is a Program EIR, the subject of these
findings, on the CoSWMP and Five General Plan Amendments , which
analyzes the possible environmental consequences of
implementing the solid waste management policies in the CoSWMP
and adopting General Plan Amendments . The second tier of the
process will be the environmental review of individual projects
for the specific facilities proposed and designed to fulfill
the goals and policies of the CoSWMP; this level of review
generally will be accomplished through site-specific Landfill
Project EIRs . Together, the two tiers are intended to carry
out the California Environmental Quality Act and implement the
State ' s and the County' s CEQA Guidelines .
EXHIBIT C 4
On-May-15 , 1989 , a Draft EIR for .-the -CoSWMP and the
proposed General Plan Amendments was published by the County
and distributed to the State Clearinghouse and the 18 cities in
the County,. The County Zoning Administrator held a public
hearing on' this draft document in the City of Pittsburg on
June 20 , 1989 . The public review period ended on June 30 , 1989 .
On August 2 , 1989 , the Final EIR for the CoSWMP and
the proposed Five General Plan Amendments was published,
consisting of the Draft EIR and the Response to Comments
document .
On August 7 , 1989, the Contra Costa County Zoning
Administrator found that the Final EIR for the CoSWMP and the
proposed Five General Plan Amendments was prepared and
processed in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act , and that the EIR is adequate in its coverage of
environmental impacts , mitigation measures , alternatives , and
other environmental effects that could result from the adoption
of the CoSWMP and the Five General Plan Amendments . Further ,
the Zoning Administrator transmitted the Final EIR to the Board
of Supervisors with the recommendation that it be certified.
On August 15 , 1989 , the Board of Supervisors certified
that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed
1989 CoSWMP Revision and the Five proposed General Plan
Amendments had been completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and that it had been presented to the
Board and the Board had considered the information contained in
it .
The County, as the lead agency, has determined that a
written finding, accompanied by an explanation of the rationale
for the finding, be prepared for each potentially significant
impact
identified -in -the Final EIR. In addition, as required
by recent State legislation (Pub . Resources Code,
section 21081 . 6 [AB 3180 ] ) , every public agency making such
findings must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the
changes to a project which it has adopted or made a condition
of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant
impacts to the environment . This monitoring program is
adopted, as set forth below in the findings .
For purposes of these Findings , the "EIR" consists of
the draft EIR, the Final EIR including the response document
dated August 1989 , the initial study for the Five General
Amendments and the CoSWMP revisions , all notices of
preparation, completion, and other notices relating to the EIR,
and all appendices , exhibits , supplements , and documents
incorporated by reference into the EIR. Without limiting the
foregoing, and as stated on page C&R-398 of the Final EIR
EXHIBIT C 5
-Response -Document, -the.-EIR includes .and consists in part of
1) the Solid Waste Management Project Report done by the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District in cooperation with
Contra Costa County in February 1985, 2) the Southeast County
Landfill Siting Study, prepared for Contra Costa County by a
consultant in June 1986 , and 3) the Final Report of .the
Landfill Siting Task Force adopted by the County Board of -
Supervisors on July 21 , 1987 . This Board finds that these
reports are properly incorporated into the EIR pursuant to the
CEQA Guidelines .
In the alternative, to the extent that the
aforementioned reports are not already duly incorporated into
the EIR, this Board hereby determines that these reports are
part of the EIR and are incorporated in full into the EIR as
technical addenda . This Board hereby finds (to the extent
these reports are not already properly a part of this EIR) that
these reports represent a technical change to the EIR and that
these reports do not constitute a subsequent change in any
project , a substantial change in circumstances , or new
information of substantial information. This Board is
authorized to make such a technical change or addendum pursuant
to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines , and interpretive California court
decisions .
C. Mitigation Measures - General Finding.
These findings contain numerous specific findings
based on mitigation measures set forth in the EIR, which is a
program EIR. The impacts and mitigation measures for this
Landfill Project will be analyzed in more detail in one or more
subsequent project-level EIRs once final or specific
development plans for the Landfill Project are considered.
With respect to each finding set forth in these
findings relating to mitigation measures and incorporation of
mitigation measures into the Landfill Project , this Board makes
the following additional findings :
( i ) it is infeasible to impose many of the
general mitigation measures at the Program EIR and general plan
amendment stage because the measures relate to specific
development plans;
( ii) if the project-specific EIR concludes
that the impacts and recommended mitigation measures in each
category are identical , then those mitigation measures will be
imposed as conditions of approval and thus incorporated into
the Landfill Project at the time specific development plans are
approved;
EXHIBIT C 6
i
( iii) i f :the .proj ect-spe.ci.f is EIR concludes
that the impact in a certain category is not significant, then
the mitigation measure may not be required to be imposed; and
( iv) if the project-specific EIR determined
that the impact remains potentially significant but that
different or additional mitigation measures are feasible and
will be required to mitigate the impact to a level of
insignificance, then the new or additional feasible mitigation
measures to reduce project impacts will be imposed or
incorporated into the Project as conditions of approval .
D. Description Of The Record.
The record before this Board relating to this General
Plan Amendment includes , without limitation, the following:
1 . The application for this General Plan
Amendment , together with all documents , files and reports on
this General Plan Amendment and on each of the other Five
General Plan Amendments maintained by the County Community
Development Department ;
2 . All Staff Reports on the Five General Plan
Amendments (the "Staff Reports" ) ;
3 . All documentary and oral evidence received
and reviewed by the Zoning Administrator, the Planning
Commission and this Board before and during the public hearings
on the Approvals , the Draft EIR, and the Five General Plan
Amendments;
4 . All documentary and oral evidence received
and reviewed by this .Board during the public. hearings on the
- EIR and on the Five- General Plan Amendments ;
5 . The Final EIR, including all notices
relating to the EIR and all documents and reports incorporated
by reference into the E`IR; and
6 . The court order in the Litigation referenced
above; and
7 . All matters of common knowledge, such as :
( a) the County General Plan, (b) the County Zoning Code,
(c) other County policies and regulations , (d) the County Solid
Waste Management Plan and revisions to it, and (e) applicable
state law.
The discussions and findings which follow for each
category of possible environmental impact recite some of the
EXHIBIT C -7
r • •
backgr.ound information relating to this General Plan
Amendment . These findings are each based on all of the facts
and the entire record before this Board, including without
limitation the information which is recited in the discussion
in each particular category of these findings .
This Board intends that any finding or determination
required or permitted to be made by this Board shall. be deemed
made if it appears in any portion of this document, and that
all of the text included in this document constitutes findings
and determinations by this Board, whether or not any particular
caption, sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect .
Although the discussions of facts in category below
may be primarily or entirely based on the Final EIR, this Board
intends that each finding herein is based on the entire record,
including written and oral testimony to the Planning Commission
and this Board. The omission of any relevant fact from the
summary discussions below is not an indication by this Board
that a particular .finding is not based in part on the omitted
fact . This Board ' s findings as set forth herein are based on
all of the facts in the record before this Board.
II . FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
DETERMINED IN THE INITIAL STUDY NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
This Board adopts and makes the following findings
regarding those certain potential environmental impacts of the
General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project which were
determined in the initial study not to be potentially
significant adverse environmental impacts .
A. Facts .
.1 . . - The initial study on this project contains
an explanation for its conclusions following each of the
questions appearing in the initial study. On the basis of
those explanations , the initial study concludes that the Five
General Plan Amendments , including this General Plan Amendment ,
will have an insignificant impact on beach, river or stream
erosion or siltation, will not alter air movement or change
climate locally or regionally, alter the course of flood
waters , change the amount of surface water in any water body,
or substantially reduce. the amount of water otherwise available
for public water supplies .
2 . This General Plan Amendment and the Landfill
Project are not expected to reduce the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants , introduce new species of
plants or act as a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species , reduce the numbers of any unique, rare or
I,
I
EXHIBIT C 8
i
endangered.:animals, - introduce new animals, ,or.,cause a
deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat .
3 . This General Plan Amendment and the Landfill
Project will not interfere with emergency response plans , alter
the location, distribution density or growth rate of human
population, affect existing parking facilities, or cause
significant alterations to water-borne, rail or air traffic .
A . This General Plan Amendment and the Landfill
Project will not have a potentially significant impact on
police protection, schools or demand for park or recreation
j facilities , and. will not affect unique ethnic cultural values
or restrict existing religious or sacred uses .
i
B . Findings .
I,
Based upon the EIR, the initial study, and the entire
record, the Board finds that :
I
I ( i ) With respect to the categories of
impacts set forth above, this General Plan Amendment and the
Landfill Project will not have a potentially significant
adverse impact on the environment .
( ii ) Because these impacts were determined
to be insignificant in the initial study, no mitigation
measures are required to be adopted pursuant to CEQA relating
to the foregoing insignificant impacts , no analysis of these
i impacts is required in an environmental impact :report , and no
finding is required regarding these impacts .
( iii) To the extent that any of the above
impacts are potentially significant , despite the conclusions of
the impact -of the dnitial study as stated above, these impacts
will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the numerous
mitigation measures and conditions of approval which have been
or will be incorporated into or imposed upon this Landfill
Project either in connection with this General Plan Amendment
or in connection with future land use approvals .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the above impacts are significant and cannot be
mitigated to insignificance, despite the conclusions of the
initial study as stated above, the environmental , economic ,
social and other benefits of this General Plan Amendment
outweigh and override any significant impact, as more fully
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section VI below) .
EXHIBIT C 9
I
1
..III . . .: ,P.OTENT.IALLY. SIGNIF.ICANT. IMPACTS WHICH. ARE CONSIDERED
MITIGABLE TO INSIGNIFICANCE
A. Planning And Land Use .
1 . General Plan designations .
a. Facts .
( i) Impact no . 1 set forth on
page 4 . 1-13 of the EIR relates to general plan designations .
The existing County land use designation for this General Plan
Amendment site is inconsistent with a landfill use.
( ii ) As mitigation, the identified
j landfill sites in the CoSWMP require general plan amendments in
order to make them consistent with a landfill use, as
recommended in the EIR.
( iii ) California Planning law requires
waste disposal sites to be shown in the general plans of
counties or cities having jurisdiction . The County, however ,
has not pre-designated future landfill sites in its General
Plan. By intent, new sites are to be added, when necessary,
through the amendment process . All five of the sites
identified for landfills in the CoSWMP are within the
unincorporated area of the County and, therefore, are subject
to the County General Plan. This General Plan Amendment would
address the Refuse Disposal Plan, and the Land Use and Open
Space/Conservation Elements of the County General Plan. This
Amendment would enable findings of General Plan consistency to
be made for the East Contra Costa Landfill when the County
Planning Commission and Board. of Supervisors consider land use
permits and other planning entitlements .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) Impact of this General Plan
Amendment relating to general plan designations has been
mitigated to a level of insignificance by the adoption of this
General Plan Amendment, as recommended in the EIR. This
mitigation measure, in effect , constitutes this General Plan
Amendment .
( ii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any general plan designation impacts of this . General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project are not insignificant or
mitigated to insignificance, the environmental , economic ,
EXHIBIT C 10
j
social and other benefits of .the Landfill Project override any
such significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (section VI below) .
( iii ) This mitigation measure has been
fully implemented by adoption of the General Plan Amendments ,
and no further implementation is necessary. This may be noted
on the annual monitoring report to be submitted to this Board
as required pursuant to section VII below.
2 . Transfer station designations .
a. Facts .
( i) The possible inconsistency with
general plan land use designations of applications for transfer
stations or resource recovery facilities is listed as impact
no . 2 on page 4 . 1-14 of the EIR. In the unincorporated area of
the County, applicants for transfer stations and resource
recovery :fac.ilit.ies ,within land use designations-..other than
Heavy Industrial or Agricultural , with appropriate zoning,
would be in conflict with both the current and the Preliminary
Draft County General Plans .
. ( ii ) As mitigation, the EIR recommends
that any solid waste facility proposed on a site which is
inconsistent with the applicable jurisdiction ' s general plan
must apply for and receive a general plan amendment in order to
facilitate its siting .
( iii ) None of the land use designations
outlined in either the County' s current or the Preliminary
Draft County General Plan specifically identify solid waste
transfer or major resource recovery facilities as allowable
-uses ,. but Chapter 418-4 of the. County Ordinance Code allows
waste disposal facilities to be considered in the Heavy
Industrial zone, and in agricultural areas zoned A-2 or A-3
under the Land Use Permit procedures . A general plan amendment
would be required to allow a solid waste facility to be
considered at a particular location in a general plan land use
element category which allows H-I , A-2 , or A-3 zoning. The
Community Development Department shall require a proponent of a
solid waste facility site which is inconsistent with the
General Plan to apply for and receive general plan amendment
before accepting an application for a Land Use Permit .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the. entire record, this
Board finds that :
EXHIBIT C 11
I,
I 1� •
I
( i ) Applications .for transfer stations
or resource recovery facilities are not apart of this General
Plan Amendment, and this impact identified in the EIR does not
apply to this General Plan Amendment . Accordingly, no
mitigation measures or findings are required to be imposed or
adopted with respect to this impact at this time.
( ii) In the alternative, to the extent
that this impact is a part of this General Plan Amendment , this
li impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
incorporation into any application for transfer stations or
resource recovery facilities of general plan amendments as
required. This mitigation measure is incorporated into the
Landfill Project by operation of state law requiring
consistency of zoning designations with the general plan, and
because this Board will require general plan amendments where
necessary.
( iii ) In the alternative, this
I mitigation measure will be incorporated into the .Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of final development plans
for landfill , transfer , or resource recovery facilities . It is
notfeasibleor appropriate to incorporate into this General
Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
transfer station or resource recovery facilities because this
General Plan Amendments set forth general designations for one
landfill site, and does not constitute approval of any
development plan for any particular site, or any development
plan for a transfer station or resource recovery facility.
( iv) In the alternative, and to the
extent that any solid waste facility is located within a city
rather than an unincorporated area of the County,
implementation of this mitigation measure is within the
responsibility. and .jurisdiction of that city, and not this
Board. Any required general plan amendment can and should be
approved by such a city. To the extent that any changes in the
Landfill Project may be required as a result of such a general
plan amendment in such a city, such a city has the authority to
require those changes .
(v) In the alternative, to the extent
that this impact of the General Plan Amendment is not
insignificant , mitigated to insignificance, or within the
jurisdiction of another agency, the environmental , - economic,
j social , and other benefits of this General Plan Amendment
override any such signficant impacts ,. as more fully stated in
the Statement of Overriding Considerations (section VI below) .
(vi) The status of this requirement
shall be reported by the Community Development Department in
its annual monitoring report to the Board.
I
EXHIBIT C 12
3 . Loss of grazing uses .
a . Facts .
( i) According to Impact 3 discussed at
page 4 . 1-24 of the EIR, landfill operations at the landfill
site would remove agricultural usage (currently grazing) from
at least parts of the Sites for the life of the landfill .
( ii) Mitigation measures would include
enhancing the grazing capabilities on the remainder of the
landfill site or on another site.
( iii) If landfill operations on the
sites identified in the CoSWMP were to occur , existing
agricultural (grazing) use currently on the active portion of
the landfill site(s) would be displaced. The project-specific
environmental review would include on-site and/or off-site
mitigation measures, such as enhancement of the sites ' s grazing
capabilities . In some cases , ..it may be preferable to
substitute other uses , such as recreation or habitat, for
grazing. The County Community Development Department shall
address the potential loss of agricultural values in the
site-specific EIRs , and, where found to be appropriate, shall
ensure that the agricultural values ' mitigation measures
identified in that EIRs to reduce this impact to a less than
significant level are implemented by making them land use
permit conditions of approval .
( iv) Loss of grazing uses is not listed
in the EIR as an unavoidable significant impact .
b . Findings .
Based -upon the EIR and the entire record, this board
finds that :
( i ) This mitigation measure will be
incorporated into the Landfill Project as a condition of
approval of a development plan for subsequent permit . It is
not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this General
Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to loss of
grazing use because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for a landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for any particular
site.
( ii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of this General Plan Amendment relating
to grazing use are not insignificant or mitigated to a level of
insignificance, the environmental , economic , social , and
EXHIBIT C 13
.other benefits of the Landfill Project and this General Plan
Amendment override any such significant impacts, as more fully
stated inthe Statement of Overriding Considerations
(section VI , below) .
The status of this mitigation
measure as it applies to proposed and sited landfills shall be
reported to the Board annually.
4 . Incompatability with surrounding uses .
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 4 is discussed in the EIR
on page 4 . 1-24 through 25 . Surrounding residential , commercial
and recreational uses could be adversely affected by the siting
of a landfill on this site.
( ii) The implementation of the
mitigation measures identified..elsewhere in .these findings
concerned with traffic reduction and control , prevention of air
and water pollution, and visual mitigation, will help reduce
these impacts to a level of insignificance.
( iii) Specific environmental issues that
would affect surrounding land uses can be found in the Program
EIR' s sections on Air Quality, Visual Quality, Noise and
Transportation. Impacts identified in these sections can
result in significant land use impacts to nearby land uses .
L'he mitigation measures identified in these sections would be
addressed in project-specific EIRs . Most of the mitigation
measures are capable of being implemented by the County, and
are appropriate for inclusion in Land Use Permit Conditions of
Approval or Solid Waste Facilities Permits .
( iv) Incompatability of this landfill
site with surrounding uses is not set forth in the EIR as an
unavoidable adverse impact to the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :.
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to incompatibility with surrounding uses will be mitigated to a
level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they will be included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
EXHIBIT C 14
(.ii) In .the .alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
surrounding use compatability, because this General Plan
Amendment sets forth general designations for the landfill
site, and does not constitute approval of any development plan
for. this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI , below) .
( iv) The status of this mitigation
measure shall be included in the annual monitoring report to
the Board, and is subject to control by the County.
5 . Loss of Development Potential .
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 5 as discussed in the EIR
on page 4 . 1-2.5 is the loss of development potential of landfill
sites for revident"ial or commercial purposes . This would be of
particular concern for the Bay Pointe Keller Canyon sites , and
to some degree, the Kirker Pass site, according to the EIR.
The EIR does not list the Marsh Canyon site as of particular
concern regarding loss of development potential .
( ii ) The EIR concludes that this impact
is not significant .
( iii ) Loss of development potential is
not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of
the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to loss of development potential are insignificant, no
mitigation measures are required, and no further findings are
required.
EXHIBIT C 1"5
( ii) . In._the_-_alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
6 . Loss of State Designated Important Farmlands .
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 5 as discussed in the EIR
is the loss of state designated important farmlands .
( ii) The EIR recommends as a mitigation
measure that project level environmental review shall examine
the possibility for offsite enhancement , and that , after final
. cover , the -landfill sites could be used for agricultural
purposes if the county determines such uses to be the best use
of the site
( iii) Loss of state designated important
farmland is not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse
impact of the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds .that :
( i ) Landfill Project impacts relating
to loss of state designated important farmlands will be
mitigated to -a level of insignificance by the imposition of the .
mitigation measures recommended or described in the EIR. These
mitigation measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project
because they will be included in any subsequent land use
development applications and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact use compatability, because this General Plan
Amendment sets forth general designations for the landfill
site, and does not constitute approval of any development plan
for this site.
EXHIBIT C 16
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or .this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override . any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
7 . Inconsistency with U.S . Navy Explosive
Safety Easement .
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 7 as discussed on
page 4 . 1-26 of the EIR is the possible inconsistency of the Bay
Pointe and Keller Canyon landfill sites with the Concord Naval
Weapons Station explosive safety easement requirements . The
EIR states that this is most likely with regard to the Bay
Pointe site .
( ii ) This inconsistency is not set
forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) This impact is potentially
significant only with respect to the Bay Pointe and Keller
Canyon landfill sites , and with respect to this General Plan
Amendment , this impact is insignificant .
( ii) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to this posssible inconsistency will
be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of
the mitigation measures recommended or described in the EIR.
These mitigation measures are incorporated into this Landfill
Project because they will be included in any subsequent land
use development applications and approvals .
. ( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
EXHIBIT C ' 17
.Proj.e.ct .as_:.c.onditions . of appr-oval -of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact use compatability, because this General Plan
Amendment sets forth general designations for the landfill
site, and does not constitute approval of any development plan
for this site.
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures -shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
8 . Incompatability With Surrounding Uses .
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact 8 discussed on page 4 . 1-27
of the EIR relates to potential incompatability with
surrounding uses . There could be significant land use impacts
resulting from increased traffic and noise, and decreased
safety and air quality along the access routes to both the
existing Contra Costa landfills and the out-of-County sites if
they are used . for the diversion of County solid waste.
( ii ) As mitigation, the EIR recommends
that use of the existing Acme transfer station (or other
transfer station that may be placed into operation during the
diversion period) by collection trucks and self-haulers would
reduce truck traffic going to landfill sites . The scheduling
of truck traffic to avoid peak periods would also help reduce
to less-than-significant levels the traffic, noise, safety and
air quality impacts due to truck traffic . In addition,
specific environmental review for waste diversion projects
would identify additional and/or more specific mitigation
measures for these impacts .
( iii) If the County chooses to
temporarily divert part or all of its solid waste to County
landfills and/or out-of-County landfills , the land use impacts
along access routes could be significant . By requiring
collection trucks and self-haulers to use the Acme transfer
EXHIBIT C 18
. station,, -.or.._.other .available .transfer. .station., traffic will be
substantially reduced along access routes to the landfill
sites . This vehicle routing plus the scheduling of transfer
truck movement to off-peak hour times will reduce impacts to
existing traffic volumes , noise levels , and air pollution and
safety hazards . Further measures .to reduce these impacts may
be found in other sections of the Environmental Impact Report
(Air Quality, Noise Transportation, and Socio- economics) as
well as in project-specific EIRs . The County Community
Development Department would provide for the implementation of
the identified mitigation measures by making them Conditions of
Approval for any County-issued permit for a diversion project .
( iv) Alameda and Solano counties are
proposing versions of these mitigation measures in their import
conditions of approval .
(v) This impact is not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) This impact relates to access
roads to interim diversion sites , not to the Marsh Canyon
landfill site . With respect to the Marsh Canyon landfill site,
this impact does not exist or is insignificant .
( ii) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to this impact will be mitigated to a
level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they will be included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project -or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
EXHIBIT C 19
i •
mitigated to a. level of insignificance, the.,..environmental ,
economic , social, and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
9 . Other unrelated impacts .
a. Facts .
( i) The EIR discusses a number of
impacts relating to interim measures or other components of the
County Solid Waste Management Plan. These are planning and
land use impact 9 ( land use impacts from increased traffic) ,
impact 10 ( incompatability with surrounding .l and uses) ,
impact 11 ( incompatability with surrounding uses) , impact 12
( reduction of solid waste storage problems) , and impact 13
(collection of recycled materials) , discussed at pages 4 . 1-28
through 30 of the EIR.
( ii) Of these impacts, impact 12 and
impact 13 are benefits of the CoSWMP in general . This General
Plan Amendment will facilitate implementation of the CoSWMP,
and accordingly these impacts are environmental benefits of
this General Plan Amendment .
( iii ) These impacts are not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill.
Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) None of these impacts relate to
the Marsh Canyon Landfill Site. With respect to this General
Plan Amendment , these impacts either do not exist or are
insignificant . This Board is not required to impose any
mitigation measures or adopt any findings for this General Plan
Amendment because of this impact .
( ii) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to these impacts will be mitigated to
a level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
EXHIBIT C 20
they •will..be included .in any .subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
(iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these . findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
B. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
1 . Vectors .
a. Facts .
( i ) Public Health Impact 1 relates to
disease vector , as discussed on page 4 . 2-6 of the EIR. This
. landfill sites haves the potential to provide food, cover and
breeding ground for disease vectors such as mosquitos , small
rodents , and certain species of birds .
( ii) Compaction and daily cover of
refuse would limit birds and rodents from feeding on the
refuse. The compaction of refuse in collection vehicles and at
landfills effectively controls rodent populations in most
cases . If these measures prove inadequate to control rodents
and birds, additional measures such as more frequent covering
of refuse, scaring of birds , and poisoning or trapping of
rodents/mosquitos would be used.
( iii) Studies by the Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts have shown that rats do not survive the
compaction process of the refuse trucks or disposal operation.
State law requires landfill operators to compact and cover the
waste with a layer of soil or new waste in order to minimize
EXHIBIT C 21
_the :occurrence of .rats . and other. vectors . . _.-The . requirements are
included in a landfill ' s Solid Waste Facilities Permit and may
be included in Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval . The
County' s Health Services and Community Development Departments
shall include appropriate provisions in their respective
permits .
( iv) The County Health Services
Department, as the Local Enforcement Agency for the California
Waste Management Board, enforces the State requirements for
compaction and cover of refuse. Reports of violations are
given to the landfill operator and the State.
(v) Mosquitos could breed in basins
constructed to control surface water runoff .
(vi) In order to mitigate mosquito
impacts, storm runoff from the landfill should be stored in
sedimentation basins for short periods such as two weeks . The
applicants should coordinate the designs of the basins with the
County Mosquito Abatement District to enable easy inspection
and spraying of larval suppressant .
(vii) Mosquito populations could be
indirectly increased at a landfill site where sedimentation
basins and leachate collection containment ponds would contain
standing water for periods of greater than two or three weeks .
Prevention of this larval emergence could be suppressed by not
allowing water to stand over two weeks and/or spraying the
ponds with a non-toxic odorant/colorant such as Golden
Bear 1356 , which degrades in 48 hours . The County Community
Development Department would ensure that the applicant designs
and constructs the sedimentation basins in coordination with
the County Mosquito Abatement District . The County Health
,.Services Department (HSD) is responsible for determining
whether there is a need for spraying to control mosquitos .
Appropriate provisions would be included in the landfill ' s
Solid Waste Facilities Permit and/or its Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval .
(viii ) This impact is not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to disease vectors and mosquitos will be mitigated to a level
EXHIBIT C 22
i •
of insi:gnifIcance _by the imposition _of..the .mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not ,
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .-
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures . shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
2 . Fire Hazard.
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 2 discussed on page 4 . 2-7
of the EIR relates to fire hazard. Operation of a landfill and
equipment could cause additional risk of fire .
( ii) The following typical mitigation
measures would be expected to reduce this impact to a less than
significant level . Most of these measures are specified by the
appropriate fire district , which would be the Riverview Fire
Protection District or the East Diablo Fire Protection District
(District) . Emergency procedures' shall be developed and
facility employees trained in fire control procedures . One
120 , 000-gallon water storage tank, a water cannon and
stockpiled soil cover will be available on-site for use in fire
suppression. The landfill must have a 100-foot firebreak
around the perimeter and at least two emergency all-weather
roads maintained by the operator . The earthmoving equipment
would be equipped with fire extinguishers and spark arresters ,
and fuel shall be stored in a safe, approved manner . The
EXHIBIT C 23
'op,erator shall ensure that all incoming loads are inspected for
smoldering refuse and that a small fill-area working face be
maintained. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) requirement that all solid waste landfills monitor
landfill gas emissions and install a gas collection system
would minimize potential accumulation of methane gas and the
associated explosion and fire hazard. As part of a Fire
Control Plan, to be reviewed by the Fire Protection District,
it should be required to demonstrate the means by which
proposed structures on the site will be protected from
accumulation of methane gas and associated explosion and fire
hazard.
( iii ) Fire district requirements will be
obtained through environmental review procedures and addressed
in the project-level EIRs . A Fire Control Plan, including the
above mitigation measures , would be submitted by the landfill
applicant and subject to District and County staff approval .
Upon final approval of the Fire Control Plan by the Fire
Protection District, the Plan would be incorporated into the
landfill ' s Development and Improvements Plan, which will be
required as, a Land Use Permit Condition of Approval .
Compliance with this Plan shall be subject to inspections by
the District and the County.
( iv) Fire hazard impacts are not set
forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) Landfill Project -impacts relating
to fire hazards will be mitigated to a level of insignificance
by the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or
described in the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
EXHIBIT C 24
( iii) In the alternative, implementation
of these mitigation measures are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ,
but not Board. Any required mitigation measures can and should
be imposed by BAAQMD.
( iv) In the alternative, implementation
of the mitigation measures set forth is within the
responsibility of the Riverview -Fire Protection District, and
not this Board. Any required mitigation measures can and
should be imposed by the District .
(v) - In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerati-ons (section VI of these findings , below) .
(vi) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
3 . Hazardous Materials and Special Wastes .
( i ) Impact 3 discussed on page 4 . 2-9
through 4 . 2-12 of the EIR relates to hazardous materials and
special wastes . Residential and commercial refuse taken to a
landfill/transfer station at this site could contain materials
that are considered hazardous , which of sufficient quantity
might adversely affect air and water quality.
( ii ) The following mitigation measures
would be expected to reduce this impact . A new landfill or
transfer station would accept only non-hazardous municipal
refuse, designated wastes allowed by the appropriate Regional
Water Quality Control Board, and inert construction/demolition
materials through the State-mandated periodic load-checking
requirement (CCR Title 23 , Chapter 3 , Subchapter 15) . Transfer
stations would be required, as is the case for the approved
Acme Transfer Station, to provide for the acceptance of
household hazardous waste collection and transfer as a
condition of Land Use Permit approval . Landfill structural
features such as liners , leachate, collection systems , and
cover would limit the creation of leachate and reduce the
potential for a landfill to contaminate air and water .
Further , a comprehensive waste acceptance control program could
be established as a part of landfill , transfer station, and
EXHIBIT C 25
i �►
collection agreements between the=:County and:windividual
cities . This program would include the training of franchise
haulers and transfer station and landfill employees in the
proper identification, handling, storage and disposal of
hazardous wastes .
( iii) Despite a wide range of existing
Federal and State controls on disposal of hazardous wastes ,
small quantities of this waste frequently enter the solid waste
stream. Health impacts associated with direct contact with
toxic materials would pertain primarily to site workers .
Indirect effects of the presence in landfills of hazardous
waste include intensification of leachate toxicity and
mobilization of otherwise stable inorganic metals contained in
refuse. This leachate is a greater threat to surface and
groundwater supplies (see next finding, below) . Load checking,
household hazardous waste programs , and landfills structural
requirements would be addressed in Land Use Permit Conditions
of Approval . The County is currently working on a household
hazardous waste .program to collect , recycle, .°and properly
dispose of hazardous waste and will begin its implementation
in Spring of 1990 . The County Community Development Department
and Health Services Department are responsible for approving a
load inspection program for receiving waste loads at
landfills/transfer stations in the unincorporated area. The. .
County Health Services Department ' s Solid Waste Facilities
permits pertain to facilities countywide. In addition, the
landfill operator must submit quarterly Incoming Waste Reports
to the County Health Services Department . The household
hazardous waste and waste acceptance control programs are
subject to Health Services Department and Community Development
Department approval .
( iv) Landfill Project impacts relating
to hazadous materials and special wastes are is not set forth
in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
(v) The imposition of a waste
acceptance control program as a mitigation measure could
increase the incidence of inappropriate disposal of hazardous
wastes which otherwise would have been delivered to a
landfill . Mitigation measures which would reduce the incidence
of such inappropriate disposal to a level of insignificance are
recommended elsewhere in the EIR, and have been or will be
incorporated into the Landfill Project , as discussed elsewhere
in these findings .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
EXHIBIT C 26
(i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to hazardous materials and special wastes will be mitigated to
a level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they will be included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals . These mitigation measures are also
incorporated into this Landfill Project by operation of law,
because they are required by state law.
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does. not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In ,the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
(v) Like the impact discussed above,
the impact of the recommended mitigation measure is
insignificant or mitigated to a level of insignificance . In
the alternative, the impact of the recommended mitigation
measure, if not mitigated to insignificance, is overridden, as
stated above:
4 . Leachate .
a. Facts .
( i ) Impact 4 is discussed on
page 4 . 2-12 of the EIR. There is a potential for public
exposure to hazardous and infectious wastes through leachate
contamination of groundwater and off-site surface water .
( ii ) Most mitigation of Leachate
impacts will be provided by regulation of landfill design by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The various
EXHIBIT C 27
mitigation .:me.a.sures recommended . in. ,the .EIR .-under the discussion
of hydrology and water quality may also mitigate Leachate
impacts .
( iii) This impact is not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) Landfill Project impacts relating
to this impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance
by the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or
described in the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, implementation
of these mitigation measures is within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and
other state agencies , and not this Board . Any required
mitigation measures can and should be approved the Board or
other state agencies . To the extent that any changes in the
project may be required as a result of such mitigation
measures, the Board and other state agencies have the authority
to require those changes .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
EXHIBIT C 28
report to :.the .Board-as set .forth in -.sectionVII of .these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
5 . Landfill gas .
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 5 is discussed on
page 4 . 2-13 of the EIR. There is a potential health and safety
hazard to on-site employees of new or expanded landfills from
the potentially toxic constituents of landfill gas .
( ii) This impact would be reduced
through compliance to the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District ' s; requirements . Regulation 8 , Rule 34 requires the
installation of a gas collection system and the monitoring of
gas emissions at all new landfills . The BAAQMD ' s Air Risk
Screening Policy (February 1988) specifies that a screening
analysis for assessment of risk shall be performed as part of
the agency' s review of landfill permit requests . . The extent of
gas emissions and the appropriate mitigation measures , such as
gas collection and flaring, would be addressed in the
individual landfill ' s site-specific EIRs .
( iii) The landfill operator must install
a landfill gas control and collection system and perform the
necessary testing and reporting of- landfill gas emissions . The
BAAQMD ' s Air Risk Screening Policy for toxic emissions ,
required for an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate
entitlement , must include estimates of emissions for each
contaminant , the calculation of the exposure of nearby
receptors to ambient levels of the contaminants,' and a
comparison of these ambient levels with safety thresholds
determined by BAAQMD staff . Required installations can be Land
Use Permit Conditions of Approval . If emission levels do not
meet the standards, then remedial measures can be implemented
through Solid Waste Facilities Permit provisions to protect
employee safety. The County Community Development Department
shall be responsible for evaluating landfill gas emissions
through the CEQA process and implementing the necessary
installations and programs in coordination with the County
Health Services Department and the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District .
( iv) Landfill gas impacts are not set
forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
EXHIBIT C 29
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to landfill gases will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, implementation
of the above recommended mitigation measure is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the state and the Bay Area
Air Quality Management Board, and not this Board. Any required
mitigation can and should approved by the State and the
District . To the extent that any changes in the Landfill
Project may be required as a result of such mitigation, the
State and the District have the authority to require those
changes .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding 'Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
6 . Transfer station impacts .
a . Facts .
( i ) Impacts of transfer stations are
discussed on page 4 . 2-14 of the EIR. Transfer stations could
recreate the vector , fire, hazardous waste, leachate and
landfill gas impacts associated with landfills .
EXHIBIT C 30
( ii) Mitigation measures are expected
to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level .
( iii) The impacts of transfer stations
are not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact
of the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) The impacts of transfer stations
relate to the interim measure set forth in the CoSWMP and to
the siting of such transfer stations , not to this General Plan
Amendment . With respect to this General Plan Amendment, the
impact of transfer stations either does not exist or is
insignificant . Accordingly, no mitigation measures are
required to be incorporated into this General Plan Amendment ,
and no further findings are necessary.
( ii) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to transfer stations will be mitigated
to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the
mitigation measures recommended or described in the EIR. These
mitigation measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project
because they will be included in any subsequent land use
development applications and approvals .
( iii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and 'other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
EXHIBIT C 31
7 : Waste-to-energy facilities .
a . Facts .
( i) The impact of waste-to-energy
facilities is discussed on page 4 . 2-15 of the EIR.
Waste-to-energy facilities would have the potential for
explosions in their processing and storage areas causing safety
impacts to' plant personnel .
( ii) Regular inspections of incoming
waste, explosive gas warning/detection systems, shielding
between waste areas with explosion potential and facility
personnel , and installation of pressure relief features in
incinerator chambers would be expected to reduce this impact to
a less than significant level .
( iii) The impacts of waste-to-energy
facilities are not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable
adverse ,impact of the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .-
Based
indings :Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) The impact of waste-to-energy
facilities relate to the siting and installation of such
facilities , not to this General Plan Amendment . With respect
to this General Plan Amendment , such impacts either do not
exist or are insignificant . No mitigation measures need to be
incorporated into this General Plan Amendment as a result of
this impact, and no further findings are necessary.
( ii) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to waste-to-energy facilities will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the
mitigation measures recommended or described in the EIR. These
mitigation measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project
because they will be included in any subsequent land use
development applications and approvals .
( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
EXHIBIT C 32
( iv) In . the .alternative, to the extent
that this impact is not insignificant , implementation of the
recommended mitigation measure is within the responsibility of
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and not this
Board. Any required mitigation measure can and should be'
approved by the District . To the extent that any changes in
the Landfill .Project may be required as a result of such
mitigation measures , the District has the authority to require
those changes .
(v) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(vi) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
8 . Composting impacts .
a . Facts .
( i) The impacts of composting are
discussed on pages 4 . 2-16 through 17 of the EIR. Co-composting
of vegetative material and sewage sludge could result in
distribution of soil amendment products containing hazardous
levels of inorganic metals and disease-causing organisms .
( ii) In order to reduce this impact ,
the County shall require that composting operations meet the
State Department of Health Services ' regulations on land
application of sludge and distribution of sludge-amended
products . The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
currently investigating characteristics of municipal sewage
sludge and will issue standards for publicly-owned treatment
plants . These standards will help to ensure production of
sludge amenable to use as a feed stock .
( iii) The impact of composting is not
set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
EXHIBIT C 33
( i) The impact o.f -:c•omposting relates
to the initiation of installation of composting facilities, and
not to this General Plan Amendment. With respect to this
General Plan Amendment, the impact of composting is either does
not exist or is insignificant . No mitigation measures need to
be incorporated into this General Plan Amendment as a result of
this impact , and no further findings are necessary.
( ii) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to composting impacts will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the
mitigation measures recommended or described in the EIR. These
mitigation measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project
because they will be included in any subsequent land use
development applications and approvals .
( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iv) In the alternative, implementation
of the recommended mitigation measures is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the U. S . Environmental
Protection Agency, and not this Board. Any required mitigation
measures can and should be approved by the agency. To the
extent the changes in the Landfill Project may be required as a
result of such mitigation measures , the agency has the
authority to require those changes .
(v) In the alternative, .to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the. Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
overriding -Considerations ( section VI of these findings, below) .
(vi) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these.
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
EXHIBIT C 34
9 . Waste-to-energy pl-ant emissions .
a. Facts .
( i) The EIR discusses potentially
significant emissions of waste-to-energy plants on
page 4 . 2-15 . Waste-to-energy facilities could result in
emissions of conventional and toxic air pollutants .
( ii) The impact of emissions from
waste-to-energy plants is not set forth in the EIR as an
unavoidable adverse impact. of the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) The impact of emissions from air
waste-to-energy plants relates to the siting and installation
of such plants, and not to this General Plan Amendment . With
respect to this General Plan Amendment , this impact either does
not exist or is insignificant . Accordingly, no mitigation
measures are required to be incorporated into this General Plan
Amendment , and no further findings are necessary.
( ii) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to emissions from waste-to-energy
facilities will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by
the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or
described in the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, -because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iv) In the alternative, implementation
of any mitigation measures in within the responsibility of
other agencies such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District, and not this Board. Any required mitigation measures
can and should be approved by the District and other agencies .
To the extent that any changes in the Landfill Project may be
required as a result of such mitigation measures, the District
and other agencies have the authority to require those changes .
EXHIBIT C 35
(v) In the alternat-ave, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
(vi) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
C. Transportation.
1 . Impact ori Highway 4 .
a . Facts .
( i) The impact on Highway 4 is
discussed as Impact l on page 4 . 3-12 of the EIR. Traffic
volumes generated by any of the five landfill sites would add
to the current congestion on Highway 4 in the area between
Antioch and the Willow Pass Grade .
( ii ) The travel patterns for transfer
trucks can be managed to reduce or avoid truck trips to the
landfill during the peak hours especially the AM peak. Traffic
would be minimized by the use of transfer stations and
prohibition of self-haulers at the landfill . In addition,
there are several highway projects planned that will widen and
improve Highway 4 in this area .
( iii ) If truck traffic is managed to
avoid the peak hours , there will not be a significant impact to
traffic volume on this stretch of roadway. During the AM peak
hour there would be about ten truck trips eastbound ( loaded
vehicles) and seven trips westbound (empty vehicles) . During
the PM peak hour , there would be about two truck trips
eastbound and four trips westbound. This analysis reflects the
assumptions that transfer stations will be used and
self-haulers prohibited from direct access to the landfill .
Peak period traffic management study to reduce peak period
conflicts with traffic on Highway 4 would be addressed in the
site-specific Landfill Project EIRs for the individual
landfills . The County Community Development Department would
require necessary mitigation measures to be included in the
land use permits as Conditions of Approval . The prohibition of
self-haulers at the landfill would also be expected to be made
a condition of project approval .
EXHIBIT C 36
( iv) The .impact of..::the Landfill Project
on Highway 4 is not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable
adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to Highway 4 impacts will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
- and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not, insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VTI of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
2 . Pavement deterioration.
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 2 is discussed on
page 4 . 3-12 through 4 . 3-14 of the EIR. The additional refuse
truck traffic , which includes vehicles weighing up to 38 tons ,
would cause wear and damage to existing roadway pavements in
the vicinity of landfills and transfer stations .
EXHIBIT C 37 .
( ii) As stated in-...the EIR, the project
developer would upgrade and improve the pavement sections on
the local roads impacted by truck traffic to solid waste
facilities .
( iii) In order to reduce this impact to
a less than significant level , the pavement traffic index (TI) ,
a measure of the durability and capacity of a road, must be
adequate to accommodate the anticipated traffic load. Suitable
TIs, in the range of 9 . 0 to 10 . 5 for the immediate access roads
are expected to be necessary to comply with Caltrans ' design
specifications . If a 20-year pavement life is determined to be
appropriate, a TI of 10 . 0-10 . 5 would be required. The landfill
project ' s site-specific EIRs would address the pavement section
improvements needed as part of the project . The improvements
would be approved by the County Community Development
Department and County Public Works Department and CALTRANS if
appropriate, and included in the Land Use Permit ' s Condition of
Approval . The improvements called for in this study would be
constructed by the developer .
( iv) Pavement deterioration is not set
forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) Landfill Project impacts relating
to pavement deterioration will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
EXHIBIT C '38
ec.onomic, .social, .and ..other .benefits of the-General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
3 . Local traffic impacts .
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 3 is discussed on
page 4 .3-14 through 4 . 3-16 of the EIR. The additional refuse
truck traffic would cause moderate impacts on the local roads
and streets in the vicinity of landfills and transfer stations .
( ii ) The project developer would
provide or participate in the funding the necessary roadway and
traffic control improvements .
( iii ) The Program EIR' s analysis of the
site shows that the project would not cause any roadway
segments or intersections to degrade to a critical level of
service. For landfills, this assumes that transfer vans will
be used to reduce traffic to and from the landfills . Because
the amount of landfill traffic would be low and most of this
t-�:affic would not occur during the peak commute periods , the
traffic generated by a landfill would not present a significant
capacity problem. This traffic may result in additional
accidents in proportion to the increased traffic . The specific
improvements needed for the site would be identified during
subsequent project environmental review. Road improvements
would be required as Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval .
( iv) Local road impacts are not set
forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to traffic on local roads will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
EXHIBIT C 39
t► !
-be included �in .any subsequent land ,use .development applications
and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
4 . Pedestrian and bicycle safety.
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 4 is discussed on
page 4 . 3-17 of the EIR. There could be an increase in traffic
hazards to bicyclists and pedestrians on the local roadways in
the vicinity of each solidwaste facility.
( ii) A plan and program to implement a
bicycle and pedestrian path system would be required at each
landfill/transfer station site to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level .
The presence of heavy truck
traffic on roads with significant bicycle and pedestrian
activity can be hazardous . Planned future bicycle paths and
pedestrian trails also could be affected by access road
improvements . It may be necessary to accommodate bicycling or
pedestrian activities by implementing a path system. The
project developer would include a bicycle/pedestrian path in
the roadway improvement program for the site if it is
determined to be necessary for mitigating potential safety
hazards .
EXHIBIT C 40
( iv) The impacts _of :the Landfill
Project on bicycle and pedestrian safety are not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to bicycle and pedestrian safety will be mitigated to a level
of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
5 . Traffic impacts on adjacent uses .
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 5 is discussed on
page 4 . 3-18 of the EIR. There would be potentially significant
traffic impacts to the adjacent land uses on the local haul
routes used for each site.
EXHIBIT C 41
_(ii) :This __impact would be .mitigated by
the use of transfer stations, by eliminating public access to
the landfill , by controlling the hours of truck operation, and
by the use of alternate haul routes where possible.
( iii) This impact is related to the
visual and perceived traffic flow. The impact will vary with
each site depending on the level of current and anticipated
development . By reducing the amount of vehicular traffic on
haul routes to landfills through the use of transfer stations
and the prohibition of self-haulers, the visual impact will be
greatly reduced. Controlling the hours of operation for the
remaining truck traffic will help further reduce this impact .
where alternate haul routes are feasible, they would be
considered during environmental review in order to minimize
impacts to residential development, schools, medical facilities
and public areas such as parks . The County Community
Development Department would incorporate restrictions on the
types of vehicles allowed, the place of origin for such
vehicles, and the hours of truck operation into the Land Use
Permit Conditions of Approval . Alternative haul routes would
be addressed in project-specific EIRs and the one(s) chosen to
best mitigate traffic impacts would be written in the Land Use
Permit Conditions of Approval as well .
( iv) The impact of traffic generated by
landfills on adjacent land uses is not set forth in the EIR as
an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to the effect of traffic on adjacent land uses will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the
mitigation measures recommended or described in the EIR. These
mitigation measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project
because they will be included in any subsequent land use
development applications and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
EXHIBIT C 42
{ iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of_ these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
6 . Interim measures .
a. Facts .
( i ) The impact of various interim
measures -is discussed in the EIR on pages 4 .3-19 through
4 . 3-21 . These include the impact of interim diversions to the
Richmond and Antioch sites , the impact of possible expansion of
existing landfills , and the impact of exporting solid wastes
out of the County..
( ii ) These various impacts of the
proposed interim measures are not set forth in the EIR as an
unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) These impacts relate to interim
measures which may be a part of the CoSWMP, and do not relate
to this General Plan Amendment . With respect to this General
Plan Amendment , these impacts either do not exist or are
insignificant . Accordingly, no mitigation measures need to be
incorporated into this General Plan Amendment as a result of
these impacts, and no further findings are necessary.
( ii ) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to traffic impacts of interim measures
will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIR. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
EXHIBIT C 43
0
( ii) Ln the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute- approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any .of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in. the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shallbe included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
D. Air Quality.
1 . Generation of dust .
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact 1 is discussed on
pages 4 . 4-14 through 4 . 4-15 of the EIR. Decomposing wastes in
a landfill would create substantial amounts of gas, which
includes relatively small amounts of reactive organic compounds
(ROG) and chemical compounds considered to be toxic . Downwind
receptors could be adversely affected by these compounds .
Construction and operation of a landfill could cause emissions
of dust resulting in air quality degradation and impacts to
downwind receptors .
( ii) Dust emissions are mitigable with
the following measures : minimizing the extent of un- planted
working and graded areas , application of water or an
environmentally--safe chemical soil stabilizer to exposed earth
surfaces; covering of haul trucks with tarpaulins or other
effective covers; and avoiding of unnecessary idling of
equipment .
( iii) Dust emissions related to waste
handling can be reduced by approximately 50% by watering
surfaces down. Watering should be conducted in late morning
and at the end of the day to be most effective. The frequency
EXHIBIT C 44
of -water:ing .should increase if wind :.exceeds .35 .mph. . The
landfill operator ' s application of water or dust suppressants
to working surfaces of the landfill , to its unpaved roads , and
to construction areas as determined to be necessary. by the
County HSD, shall be a condition of the project ' s Solid Waste
Facilities Permit . The HSD would be responsible for requiring
additional management practices if .problems due to dust
emissions are reported. Mitigation measures may also become
Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval .
( iv) Dust generation impacts are not
set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts. relating
to dust generation will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent -land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
EXHIBIT C 45
2 . Vehicle emissions.
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 2 is discussed on
pages 4 . 4-14 through 4 . 4-15 of the EIR. Air pollutants would
be emitted by waste haul trucks , although these emissions would
not exceed significant thresholds established by the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District .
( ii) Although the emissions would not
exceed significant thresholds , the EIR suggests as mitigation
that emissions would be reduced by choosing a landfill close to
a transfer station and by avoiding unnecessary idling of
equipment .
( iii) The impact of emissions from waste
haul trucks is not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable
adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Because emissions will not exceed
established significant thresholds , this impact is not
significant , and this Board is not required to impose any
mitigation measures or adopt any additional findings relating
to this impact .
( ii) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to waste haul truck emissions will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance by avoiding unnecessary
idling of landfill equipment . This mitigation measure is
incorporated into this Landfill Project because it will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( iii) In the alternative, this
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as a condition of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
EXHIBIT C 46
economic, :-social , and other benefits ..of the_;Gener.al Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) In the alternative, to the extent
that the proposed mitigation of choosing a landfill site closer
to a proposed transfer station applies to this General Plan
Amendment, this mitigation measure is rejected. With respect
to this landfill site, that recommended mitigation measure is
identical to the no-project alternative, and is rejected for
the same reasons as the no-project alternative is rejected.
(vi) The status of the aforementioned
adopted mitigation measure shall be included in the annual
monitoring report to the Board as set forth in section VII of
these findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
3 . CO levels along access routes.
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 3 is discussed on
page 4 . 4-15 of the EIR. Although increased truck traffic on
access roads may adversely ,affect CO levels, no violations of
CO standards are projected. The EIR concludes that no
mitigation of this impact is required .
( ii ) This impact is not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b. Findings .
-Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) This impact is insignificant , and
this Board is not required to adopt any mitigation measures or
adopt any further findings .
( ii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
EXHIBIT C 47
( iii) The status of -the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
4 . Gases .
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 4 is discussed on
page 4 . 4-18 of the EIR. Decomposing landfill waste can create
substantial amounts of gas .
( ii ) Installation of a gas collection
and combustion system would destroy 90% of the reactive organic
compounds and toxic compounds . A risk screening analysis would
be required to be conducted on the remaining fraction of these
emissions to determine whether downwind receptors are at
significant risk from exposure. More efficient gas collection
and combustion equipment could be -specified if necessary.
( iii ) Bay Area Air Quality Management
District . (BAAQMD) Regulation 8 , Rule 34 requires that landfill
gas emission and mitigation be controlled and the gas disposed
of properly. The most common method .of disposal is
installation of a gas collection and flaring system to combust
the gas . A risk analysis is required prior to BAAQMD ' s
issuance of the Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate a
landfill . It must include estimates of emissions for each
contaminant, the calculation of the exposure of nearby
receptors to ambient levels of the contaminants , and a
comparison of these ambient levels with safety thresholds
determined by the BAAQMD staff . If the analysis does not
demonstrate -that the maximum exposure of any individual to an
air toxic emitted from a landfill would result in a chance of
less than one in a million of developing cancer , then the
BAAQMD would require Best Available Control Technology be used
to control emissions . The site-specific Landfill Project EIRs
for individual landfills consider this impact and the specific
mitigation measures . The mitigation measures determined to be
necessary will become land use permit conditions of approval .
The County Community Development Department would ensure that
project applicants include a gas collection system proposal and
submit a health risk assessment as part of their landfill
applications . Installation of the collecting/flaring system at
all new landfills would be required by the County as a Land Use
Permit Condition of Approval , as well as being' a requirement of
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District .
EXHIBIT C 48
s
Civ) . .Gas emiss.ions :..are not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to gas emissions will be mitigated to a level of insignificance
by the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or
described in the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will be.
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, implementation
of this mitigation measure is within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ,
and not this Board. Any required mitigation measure can should
be appraised by the District . To the extent that any changes
in the Landfill Project may be required as a result of such
mitigation measures , the District has the authority to require
those changes .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
EXHIBIT C 49
5 . Gas Odors .
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 5 is discussed on
page 4 . 4-18 of the EIR. Trace constituents of landfill gas are
odorous and could impact people in the area and nearby
residences or other sensitive land uses .
( ii) Landfill management techniques,
such as daily covering of waste and installation of a gas
collection and flaring system, would mitigate this impact .
Exceptional problems could be mitigated by more frequent cover
and the immediate covering of odorous loads .
( iii) BAAQMD Regulation 1-301 prohibits
the discharge of odorous compounds and the resulting public
nuisance, while Regulation 7 provides procedures for evaluating
odor complaints . The covering of newly disposed refuse with
compacted soil (or -other approved means) , a requirement of the
California Waste Management Board, serves to control odors .
The frequency of cover may be increased in order to mitigate
odor complaints received by the BAAQMD or County HSD . The gas
collection and flaring system reduces odors from landfill gas ,
composed primarily of methane and carbon dioxide. If the
County HSD determines that flaring creates a nuisance, e. g. ,
noise and/or visual impacts , other methods of methane disposal
shall be required. The mitigation measures can be implemented
through incorporation into the conditions of project approval
and through enforcement of BAAQMD and California Waste
Management Board requirements . The County Health Services
Department is responsible for enforcing odor regulations at
landfills and shall make this information available to the
County Community Development Department . The Bay Area Air
Quality Management District would also. perform . inspections and
enforce its own regulations .
( iv) Gas odors are not set forth in the
EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) Landfill Project impacts relating
to gas odors will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by
the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or
described in the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
EXHIBIT C : 50
( i.i) In the alternative, .these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the altnerative, implementation
of the recommended mitigation measures is within the .
responsibility and jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, and not this Board. . Any required
mitigation measure can and should be imposed by the District .
To the extent that any changes in the Landfill Project may be
required as a result of such mitigation measures , the District
has the authority to require those changes .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Projector this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
6 . Air Quality Impacts of Waste-to-Energy
Facilities .
a . Facts .
( i) The air quality impact of
waste-to-energy facilities is discussed as Impact 1 on
page 4 . 4-20 of the EIR. Waste-to-energy facilities could emit
significant amounts of both criteria and non-criteria (toxic)
air pollutants .
( ii) The Bay Area Air Quality
Management District would specify mitigation measures .
( iii) The BAAQMD requires major
stationary sources of criteria air pollutants to comply with
New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration
regulations . Under these regulations , any facility that emits
any criteria pollutant above specified thresholds must use the
EXHIBIT C 51
-:Best Available Control Technology (SACT) to..,--r-educe these
emissions . In addition, the BAAQMD' s Air Toxics Risk Screening
Policy requires that application for an Authority to Construct
and a Permit to Operate a facility include a risk screening
analysis of toxic air pollutants . Contra Costa County is a
non-attainment area for two of the five non-criteria
pollutants, viz . , carbon monoxide (CO) and photochemical
oxidants (ozone) . Therefore, all potential new sources of
criteria pollutants must be found to be consistent with the
1982 BAAQMD Bay Area Quality Plan. To accomplish this , BACT
may be required. For toxic air emissions , a health risk
screening would be conducted for all landfill proposals
(screenings are currently being reviewed by the BAAQMD) . The
County Community Development Department shall be responsible
for ensuring that the application and permitting process for
these BAAQMD requirements are part of all waste-to-energy
proposals and that BAAQMD- required BACT is included as a
condition of project approval .
( iv) This impact is not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) This impact relates to
waste-to-energy facilities , and not this General Plan
Amendment . With respect to this General Plan Amendment , this
impact does not exist or is insignificant . Accordingly, this
Board is not required to impose any mitigation measures or
adopt any further findings .
( ii) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to these impacts will be mitigated to
a level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they will be included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate . into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
EXHIBIT C 52
( iv) In the :-altern. at:ive, implementation
of the recommended mitigation measures is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, and not this Board. Any required
mitigation measures can and should be imposed by the District .
To the extent that any changes in the Landfill Project may be
required as a result of such mitigation measures, the District
has the authority to require those changes .
(v) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
(vi) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
E. Noise .
1 . Equipment Noise .
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact 1 is discussed at
pages 4 . 5-4 .through 4 . 5-6 of the EIR. Noise resulting from
waste handling could disturb nearby residents and sensitive
receptors .
( ii ) In order to reduce this impact to
a less than significant level , landfill/transfer station hours
of operation should be limited to the extent practicable to
daylight hours in order to minimize disruption to residential
and recreational land uses surrounding the sites . Operations
and equipment should be muffled or controlled to meet
acceptable noise levels . Some additional measures that might
be contained in project EIRs include construction of sound
walls, earth berms, and on-site truck routing.
( iii) Higher noise levels are generally
more acceptable during the day. The construction of a
facility, in particular , should be limited to normal working
hours as they were for the Acme transfer station, due to the
.higher levels of noise. Retrofitting existing equipment with
noise control features and/or purchasing quieter new equipment
for a landfill would, according to the EIR analysis , reduce the
EXHIBIT C 53
radius of ,disturbance to Tess than 5.00 feet.. The County
Community Development Department would incorporate appropriate
noise control mitigation measures into the project ' s Land Use
Permit Conditions of Approval . These conditions may include a
noise monitoring and abatement program to be implemented by
the facility operator with approval by the County Community
Development Department and County Health Services Department .
( iv) Equipment noise impacts are not
set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to equipment noise impacts will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
EXHIBIT C 54
2 . Roadway Noise.
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 2 is discussed on
page 4 . 5-6 of the EIR. Waste haul trucks entering/exiting
landfills, transfer stations, waste-to-energy, or other
processing facilities could disturb residents along the site
access roads .
( ii) Limiting the hours of access to
solid waste facilities and requiring that all haul trucks be
filled with operable mufflers and be properly maintained would
reduce the likelihood of disturbance to adjacent residences .
Specified access routes and the use of transfer stations, which
would facilitate control over self-hauler traffic to landfills ,
would be identified in project-specific EIRs .
( iii ) Restricting truck hauler traffic
to daylight hours , when higher noise levels -are -more
acceptable, would help offset the impact from the projected
increase of solid waste facility generated noise. This
increased level of noise ranges from 2-5 decibels Ldn
(day-night average noise level over a 24-hour period) along
selected roadways leading to alternative landfill sites . Other
measures that might be recommended in project EIRs include
noise shielding along routes and active enforcement of muffler
and vehicle noise standards by police services . The County
Community Development Department shall incorporate appropriate
noise control mitigation measures into the conditions of
project approval . These conditions may include a noise
monitoring and abatement program to be implemented by the
facility operator with approval by the County Community
Development Department and County Health Services Department .
( iv) Noise impacts along roadways are
not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of
the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) Landfill Project impacts relating
to roadway noise will be mitigated to a level of insignificance
by the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or
described in the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
EXHIBIT C 55
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
3 . Impacts of Interim Measures .
a . Facts .
( i) The EIR discusses noise impacts of
interim measures on pages 4 . 5-8 through 9 . Diversions to
existing landfills and export to other counties may increase
noise levels resulting from waste haul trucks . The EIR
recommends certain mitigation measures for these impacts .
( ii) These impacts of interim measures
are not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact
of the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) These impacts relate to interim
disposal measures, and not to this General Plan Amendment .
with respect to this General Plan Amendment , these impacts
either do not exist or are insignificant . Accordingly, this
Board is not now required to impose mitigation measures or
adopt any further findings .
( ii) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to noise impacts of interim measures
EXHIBIT C 56
will be -mitigated to a -level .:of Ansignificanc.e by t;he
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIR. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill . Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, ,social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
F. Vegetation And Wildlife .
1 . Weeds and pests .
a. Facts .
( i). Impact 1 is discussed on
page 4 . 6-19 of the EIR. Landfill development could increase
the variety and number of weedy plant and pest wildlife species .
( ii) Implementation of a weed control
program at the site would typically include a list of noxious
weeds , periodic monitoring for these species, and a weed
control and removal program via physical removal , prescribed
burning and/or limited application of herbicides . Daily
covering of the landfill would help control potential pest
problems . A pest control program should be developed to be
implemented if problems occur and would include a list of
pests , methods to be used for control of them, and a monitoring
program to evaluate the effectiveness of the program.
EXHIBIT C 57
(iii) Landfills are .often populated by
non-native, invasive weeds and pests . This intrusion could
adversely impact the native species populations, especially
when a landfill is close to regionally significant open spaces
Pike regional parks , and could become a potential source of
diseased vectors . Proper operation of a landfill , including
daily cover and compaction of waste and a weed control and pest
control program, does not provide for a suitable habitat for
propagation or survival of non-native species . The use of
pesticides and/or fumigants should only occur as a last resort
and with the approval of local and State public health and
natural resource agencies . The County Community Development
Department would ensure that a weed control and pest control
program, if needed, is developed and implemented by making it a
Land Use Permit Condition of Approval . The Health Services
Department would monitor the pest control program.
( iv) Impacts relating to weeds and
pests are not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse
impact of the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to weeds and pests will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project aslconditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
EXHIBIT C ' 58
I
( iv) The. status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
2 . Riparian impacts .
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 2 is discussed on
pages 4 . 6=19 and 20 of the EIR. Landfill sites located within
or adjacent to natural waterways could impact riparian and
other vegetation through soil erosion if there is inadequate
revegetatilon of cover areas . Stream erosion could occur below
the fill area if runoff is significantly increased.
( ii) Erosion control planting should be
undertaken on both intermediate and final cover areas
immediately as portions of the landfill close. Inactive areas ,
even if only temporary, should be planted. Check dams with
sedimentation basins should be placed, if needed, in the stream
channel below the landfill footprint (the fill area) . An
erosion control and hydrology plan coordinating these measures
would be developed for each landfill site.
( iii) Landfill development could result
in increased stormwater runoff, increased erosion, and
subsequent,, sedimentation and increased turbidity in the runoff
and in the waterway below the fill area . This process would
disturb riparian and other vegetation. Application of planted
groundcover would help to hold the soil in place.
SedimentatIion basins would control the rate of release of
stormwaters and reduce turbidity. An erosion control plan
would identify plant materials and methods to be used in
revegetation efforts , identify where erosion control structures
would be located, and estimate the flow changes downstream of
the site tIo determine whether it could result in significant
erosion ori vegetation problems . An erosion control/surface
water monitoring plan, approved by the County Community
Development Department , and coordinated with the County Public
Works Department and the appropriate Regional Water Quality
Control Board, would be required by the Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval .
( iv) Riparian impacts are not set forth
in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds thath
EXHIBIT C 59
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to riparian areas and vegetation will be mitigated to a level
of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals . _
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as+ conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not ;feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the .aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
3 . Construction activities and wildlife .
a. Facts .
( i ) Impact 3 is discussed on
pages 4 . 6-20 and 21 of the EIR. Landfill construction
activities would displace or cause the death of some wildlife
in and adjacent to the proposed fill areas .
In order to reduce the impact of
landfill activities on wildlife, the landfill would be
constructed and operated in phases that limit clearing to areas
needed for immediate use, and grasses and other vegetation
would be planted after project completion to aid in
accommodating wildlife in the area.
i
( iii ) Phased construction would limit
the amount of land disturbed at any one time to a minimum.
This would reduce the acute impact to wildlife, as habitat
would be lost gradually, thus giving the wildlife time to
EXHIBIT C 60
i
1
relocate ,and :regenerate. Testing of :soils_:'to be replaced in
completedlareas should be required to determine the need for
adding nutrients and/or other soil amendments to enhance
revegetat on and restoration of wildlife values . A` habitat
protection and enhancement plan would be required as part of
the Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval for any landfill .
This plan would be prepared by a qualified biologist in
consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game,
and whereappropriate, East Bay Regional Park District . The
plan would, to the extent possible, replace and/or enhance the
wildlife habitat lost to landfill operators .
( iv) Construction impacts upon wildlife
are not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse - impact
of the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) Landfill Project impacts relating
to construction impacts upon wildlife will be mitigated to a
level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they will be included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of .approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the" Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
EXHIBIT C 61
4 . Toxic materials .
a. Facts .
( i) Impact , 4 is discussed on
page 4 . 6-21 of the EIR. Landfill activities could cause the
release of toxic materials to downstream areas resulting in
degradation of aquatic and riparian habitats .
( ii) To reduce this impact to a less
than significant level , a leachate collection and recovery
system would be installed at each approved landfill site. A
monitoring program would assure that the system is working
properly. If it is discovered that downstream areas are being
adversely affected, a remedial plan shall be implemented to
correct the problem.
( iii ) In addition to a leachate
collection system, a highly impermeable soil layer and/or a
synthetic plastic liner is required at all Class II landfills .
The Contra Costa CoSWMP calls for all new landfills to be
designed and constructed to Class II standards . The
combination of these two requirements would be expected to
reduce the potential impact of a toxic material release to
insignificance. Water quality mitigation programs are
discussed in more detail in Section VIII of the Program EIR.
The County Community Development Department would ensure that
all new landfills in the County are designed to the
requirements of Title 23 , Chapter 3 , Subchapter 15 of the
California Code of Regulations (Subchapter 15) regarding
leachate collection and bottom liner systems . The monitoring
program required by the RWQCB would be subject to sampling and
analysis of groundwater wells in order to provide an early
warning of toxic release to downstream areas .
( iv) The impact of possible toxic
releases upon downstream areas is not set forth in the EIR as
an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project.
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) Landfill Project impacts relating
to possible releases of toxic materials into downstream areas
will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIR. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
EXHIBIT C 62
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation :measunes . shall be included in the.._annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
5 . Grading and vegetation.
a .. Facts .
( i) Impact 5 is discussed at
page 4 . 6-21 of the EIR. Landfill construction and grading
activities could indirectly impact vegetation not removed
directly by construction.
( ii ) Vegetation that is to remain
on-site (outside the fill area) would be protected by the dust
control measures to minimize .air quality impacts (to help
prevent damage to vegetation from dust deposition) . To prevent
plant life from being adversely affected by dust settling on
leaves , periodic watering, as an extension of dust suppression
mitigation, should be used to clean the vegetation.
( iii) The County would require a Habitat
Protection and Enhancement Plan as a Land Use Permit Condition
of Approval which would give priority to the use of the site,
except where landfill operations and appurtenant facilities are
located, for the preservation and enhancement of plant and
wildlife habitat .
( iv) Construction impacts upon
surrounding vegetation are not set forth in the EIR as an
unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
EXHIBIT C 63
I
i
b . .Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to construction and surrounding vegetation will be mitigated to
a level of; insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures alre incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they willbe included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation; measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as! conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not 'feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the. Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below.) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
- findings, ,below, and is subject to control by the County.
6 . Impacts of other landfills .
a . Facts .
( i) Vegetation and wildlife impacts
relating to specific landfills are discussed at pages 4 . 6-23
through 4 . 6-30 of the EIR. With some exceptions, these impacts
relate to sites other than the East Contra Costa Landfill .
Findings regarding impacts specific to this site are set forth
below.
( ii) The impacts relating to other
sites are Marsh Canyon impact 1 listed on page 4 . 6-25, Kirker
Pass impacts 1 and 2 listed on pages 4 . 6-26 through 4 . 6-28 ,
Keller Canyon impacts 1 and 2 listed on pages 4 . 6-28 through
4 . 6-29 , and Bay Pointe impacts 1 through 5 set forth on
pages 4 . 6-29 through 4 . 6-30 .
EXHIBIT C 64
i
i
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) These impacts relate to other
sites and other general plan amendments , and not to this
General Plan Amendment . With respect to this General Plan
Amendment1 these impacts do not exist or are insignificant .
Accordingly, this Board is not required to impose mitigation
measures or adopt any further findings with respect to these
impacts .
( ii) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to these impacts will be mitigated to
a level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they will be included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible. or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment' on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of' these findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
7 . East Contra Costa Landfill-woodland and
wetlands .
a. Facts .
( i ) Four specific impacts relating to
the East Contra Cost Landfill are set on pages 4 . 6-23 through
EXHIBIT C 65
4 . 6-25 of the EIR. Impact one is the removal of approximately
56 acres of oak woodland.
( ii) The EIR concludes that the
eventual of 56 acres of oak woodland could be mitigated in
part, but not entirely, but establishment of new trees and
habitat enhancement . In addition, removal of grazing from the
oak woodland will enhance the habitat values of these areas and
allow increased numbers of native species and oak woodlands to
develop.
( iii) Impact two is the loss of
approximately three acres of riparian woodland and less than
one-half acre of marsh resulting from filling of the small pond
within the landfill area . The EIR recommends that these
impacts be; mitigated through development and enhancement of
these habitats elsewhere on the site.
( iv) Impact three istheloss of upland
grassland habitat , which may constitute a loss of foraging
habitat toraptor birds . Monitoring of the site through the
nesting season, together with cooperative agreements with the
CaliforniaiDepartment of Fish and Game and the East Bay
Regional Park District to fund a raptor habitat enhancement
effort are recommended as mitigation measures .
(v) Impact four is the possible impact
of landfilling on sensitive plant and animal species . Surveys
of the site made to date are adequate and do not indicate
significant impacts , although other species could be evaluated.
(vi ) Impact one, loss of approximately
56 acres off oak woodland, is set forth in the EIR as an
unavoidabl''e impact of this Landfill Project . The remaining
impacts discussed above are not set- forth in the EIR as
unavoidable .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that!:
( i ) This Board' s findings regarding
the loss of 56 acres of oak woodland are set forth in
section V,; below, and in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations ( section VI , below) .
i
( ii ) Although the loss of some oak
woodland may be unavoidable, other Landfill Project impacts
relating to vegetation and wildlife will be mitigated to a
level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
EXHIBIT C 66
measur-es are -incorporated into this .:Landfil;l- Project because
they will be included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( iii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iv) To the extent that any of the
impacts of the Landfill Project or this General Plan Amendment
on surrounding uses are not insignificant or mitigated to a
level of insignificance, the environmental , economic, social ,
and other benefits of the General Plan Amendment and the
Landfill Project override any such significant impacts, as more
fully stated in the Statement of OverridingConsiderations
( section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
8 . Interim measure impacts .
a. Facts .
( i ) Impacts of interim measures
pursuant to the CoSWMP are discussed on pages 4 . 6-31 through 35
of the EIR. Impact one is the possible impact of diversion
sites -on sensitive plant or animal species , described in the
EIR as highly unlikely. Impact one of the possible Acme
Landfill expansion is reduction in seasonal wetlands , impact
two is the impact on plant and wildlife species , and impact
three is the impact upon marsh and other aquatic habitat . None
of these impacts relate to this landfill, site.
( ii ) These impacts are not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
EXHIBIT C 67
F
i
( i) These .impacts .r:elate to interim
measures and not to this General Plan Amendment . With respect
to this General Plan Amendment, these impacts either do no
exist or are insignificant . Accordingly, the Board is not
required t,o impose mitigation measures on this General Plan
Amendment because of these impacts , and no further findings are
required.
( ii) Landfill Project impacts relating
to these impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance
by the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or
describedlln the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of lat.er development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a Ic?vel of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings ; below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
G. Geology, Soils and Seismicity.
1 . Landslides .
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact 1 is discussed on
page 4 . 7-12 of the EIR. Landslide activity on fill or cut
slopes and unstable natural slopes could occur as a consequence
of site excavations and earthwork construction, causing
structural damage and endangering lives .
EXHIBIT C 68
(ii) The following mitigation measures
would be expected to reduce these impacts to less than
significant levels :
( 1 ) Potential slide areas would
be .drained to keep slip surfaces dry, and unstable earth
materials would be excavated and landfill used to buttress
landslide areas .
(2) A slope monitoring program
would be implemented during operation.
(3) The applicant would perform a
site-specific static and seismic stability analysis as part of
the final design, approved by the County.
(4) Cut slopes would be designed
to consider adversely oriented joint surfaces , existing shallow
landslide deposits and other relevant geotechnical factors
under static and seismic conditions .
( 5) Use of conservative
geotechnical engineering practices and stabilization measures
during excavation of areas of landslide activity.
( 6) Monitor slopes with adversely
oriented bedding surfaces or joint surfaces through a metering
system.
( 7) As condition; of project
approval previously stipulated by Contra Costa County, a
Landslide Study and a Slope Monitoring Program would be
undertaken by a California Certified Engineering Geologist , or
by a qualified team. The Study and Program would be
incorporated into the final design for the project .
Some of the recommended mitigation measures can be imposed as
conditions of approval , and some are required by the Water
Resources Quality- Control Board. In addition, some of the
recommended mitigation measures have been previously required.
( iii) Hillside and fill/cut slope
failures in natural materials and in the landfill can be
minimized by maintaining maximum strength of the materials and
by increasing forces that resist sliding and slope failure.
The County Community Development Department would ensure that
the above geotechnical investigations are conducted during
project environmental review, and that appropriate mitigation
measures are included in the project ' s Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval . A geotechnical inspector responsible
EXHIBIT C 69
I
to the -County would. b.e present when sensitive grading and
installations are performed.
( ii) Landslide impacts are not set
forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to landslides will be mitigated to a level of 'insignificance by
the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or
described in the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals . This includes the mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR, the mitigation measures which have
previously been required, and the mitigation measures which may
be required by the Water Resources Quality Control Board.
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
2 . Settlement .
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact 2 is discussed on
page 4 . 7-13 of the EIR. Engineered surfaces and slopes within
EXHIBIT C 70
I
{
I
the- >landfill footprint_ could be subj..ect to :excessive fill
settlement and/or localized slope sloughing resulting from
decomposition of refuse, causing potential slope failure and
rupture of seals .
( ii) This impact would be expected to
be reduced to a less than significant level through the
following measures . The refuse and cover materials would be
compacted ;to maximum strength. The landfill slopes would be
engineered to provide stability under design criteria. The
infiltration of water would be controlled through drainage
features , ; lateral barriers and intermediate and final covers .
Heavy equipment would be operated so as to minimize
vibrations . Cover soil would be stockpiled outside the fill
area. As ;a condition of project approval previously stipulated
by the County, the landfill developer could be required to
install anetwork of settlement platforms to detect and correct
settlement problems . The developer would provide a stability
analysis of the final engineering design of the landfill and
its appurtenant improvements .
( iii) The above mitigation measures are
required by the RWQCB and the County to mitigate the potential
effects from refuse decomposition. This impact could be
exacerbated by the variable density and strength of earth
materials underlying much of the upland areas of the County.
The County Community Development Department would include the
above landfill practices for mitigating potential impacts from
fill settlement in the Development and Improvements Plan of the
Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval .
( iv) Impacts relating to settlement and
sloughing are not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable
adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to settlement andsloughing will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
EXHIBIT C " 71
It is .--not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
3 . Slope instability and stockpiling.
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact 3 is discussed on
page 4 . 7-14 of the EIR. Excessive stockpiling of loose soil
could result in slope -instability, causing sedimentation and
possibly damaging structures and endangering lives .
A
( ii ) A stockpile stability monitoring
program would reduce this impact to a less than significant
level .
I
( iii ) The landfill operator would
continually analyze the on-site stockpiles of daily cover
material to determine the maximum allowable heights and/or
slopes for stability. This monitoring would commence at the
on-set of stockpiling. The County Community Development
Department would include this mitigation measure in the Slope
Monitoring Program as a Land Use Permit Condition of
Approval .Monitoring Program: The landfill operator will make
the results of this monitoring program available to the County
Community Development Department on demand.
( iv) Slope instability impacts are not
set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
I
EXHIBIT C 72
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to slope instability resulting from stockpiling will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the
mitigation measures recommended or described in the EIR. These
mitigation measures are. incorporated into this Landfill Project
because they will be included in any subsequent land use
development applications and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated , to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the -General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
4 . Soil cover and off-site impacts .
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 4 is discussed on
page 4 . 7-14 of the EIR. Adequate amounts of general cover
materials for low permeability soils for final cover might not
be available on a landfill project site, causing off-site
quarrying impacts such as excavation slope instability and
depletion of mineral resources at the source of borrow
materials .
( ii) To reduce these impacts to less
than significant levels , the following mitigation measures
would be considered for implementation by the County. The
EXHIBIT C 73
RWQCB requires that on-site cover .soil .be compacted to decrease
its permeability and, if necessary, it can be amended with
additional compacted soil or other material such as bentonite.
If supplies are not available on-site, low permeability
materials would be imported to provide cover . The Program EIR
originated these additional measures : soils that meet
Subchapter 15 permeability requirements should be selected and
stockpiled for use as a final cover; soil borrow source areas
should be evaluated with respect to State mineral resource
zoning programs and regional resource classification and
designation plans to resolve questions of resource supply and
demand; slope stability of stockpiled soils should be
addressed. Consideration also may be given to cover
substitutes, such as commercial landfill foam.
( iii) The site geotechnical
investigations, including soil borings, required by the
landfill developer during the application process would
determine the amount of soil cover material available on the
site. Proposals to use cover substitutes or* to excavate
off-site soils for cover would be subject to environmental
review. The County Community Development Department would
require that an adequate supply of landfill cover material that
meets the RWQCB permeability standard be available before it
issues a Land Use Permit for a landfill . The proper hauling
and storing of this material would be addressed in project-
specific EIRs and would become part of the conditions of
project approval .
( iv) Impacts resulting from inadequate
soil cover and relating to off-site areas are not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill. Project impacts relating
to these impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance
by the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or
described 'in the EIR. These mitigation measures -are
incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
I
EXHIBIT C 74
I
,General ,.Plan �Amendment .specific miti:gat.ion,measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or,
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social, and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
5 . Shrinking and swelling of soils .
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 5 is discussed on
page 4 . 7-115 of the EIR. The shrink/swell behavior of expansive
foundation soils could deform building and landfill structure
foundations .
( ii) This impact would be expected to
be reduced to a less than significant level by adherence to
geotechnical recommendations , such as the use of pier and grade
beam foundations and/or the replacement of native soils with
compacted non-expansive soils .
( iii) All nine Soil Conservation Service
soil classifications in the County have soils with highly
expansive properties . Engineered solutions to ensure that a
solid waste landfill or facility' s foundation and/or structural
integrity is not compromised are necessary. The particular
solutions will be contingent on the geotechnical studies of
site- specific proposals . The County Community Development
Department is responsible for ensuring that adequate
engineering design for a landfill or facility' s structural
integrity �be included in all project-specific proposals and
made a Land Use Permit Condition of Approval . The Conditions
of Approval would be expected to require a geotechnical
inspector to be present on-site when sensitive installations
are performed.
( iv) Impacts resulting from shrinking
and swelling behavior are not set forth in the EIR as an
unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
I
EXHIBIT C 75
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to shrinking and swelling of expansive soils will be mitigated
to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the
mitigation measures recommended or described in the EIR. These
mitigationlmeasures are incorporated into this Landfill Project
because they will be included in any subsequent land use
development applications and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans ..
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general .designations for the landfill site,. and .does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses 'are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
.findings , below, . and is subject to control by the County.
6 . Ponding of water .
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 6 is discussed on
page 4 . 7-115 of the EIR. Highly impermeable soils could allow
water to pond beneath solid waste facility building
foundations , causing a deformation of these foundations .
j
( ii) Use of standard Uniform Building
Code grading procedures to direct drainage away from buildings
would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level .
( iii) Highly impermeable soils occur at
most of the proposed landfill/facility areas . These types of
EXHIBIT C ; 76
i
i
I
,soils-=could ..pond ._water., swelling..expansive_..sai1s. and/or
saturatingjand weakening foundation soils . Directing water
away from building foundation soils with the use of such
techniques as drainage ditches/culverts and grading to convey
surface run-off water away from facility buildings would
prevent .the ponding of water . The facility developer would be
required to submit a project proposal , which describes the
placement land construction of the drainage system to be used on
the site, As part of the Development and Improvements Plan.
This would' be evaluated in the Landfill Project ' s Environmental
Impact Report. Mitigation measures would be incorporated into
the Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval .
( iv) Water ponding is not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b. Findings .
Bused upon the EIR °and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to water ponding will be mitigated to a level of insignificance
by the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or
described in the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan -Amendment specific -mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of .insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment iand the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding, Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
EXHIBIT C 77
report to the Board as set forth in section -VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
i
7 . Groundshakinq.
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 7 is discussed on
page 4 . 7-15 of the EIR. Groundshaking from off-site
earthquakes could damage the landfill ' s containment and
drainage features and/or cause slope failure.
( ii) The following measures would be
expected to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant
level . The landfill and drainage features would be designed to
withstand ground accelerations from a maximum credible
earthquake, as required by the State for Class II landfills .
The proposed final engineering design for the landfill ,
including face slope gradients, operating components and
appurtenant improvements , shall be reviewed for resistance to
the current design earthquake standards . An emergency program
for inspecting the landfill facility, addressing the
possibility of failures and interim refuse handling, would be
developed for implementation following a substantial
earthquake. A study of the faults that could affect slope
stability and groundwater movement at the site shall be
performed and incorporated in the final site program and design
of structures . A dam failure prevention and warning system
program, including daily monitoring, for the sedimentation
ponds would be prepared and implemented, as a Land Use Permit
Condition of Approval .
( iii) Where active fault traces are
suspected to exist , fault rupture along the trace would be
mitigated through set-back recommendations in site-specific
geotechnical investigations . State siting criteria for Class
II and Class III solid waste facilities require that structures
be located off the trace of any active fault . The maximum
credible earthquake for a proposed facility would be identified
during geotechnical review of the site. Seismically-induced
landsliding at proposed permanent cut areas would be mitigated
by appropriate slope gradients or subdrained concrete retaining
structures, engineered and designed according to Uniform
Building Code and the California Structural Engineers
Association standards . The above-referenced geotechnical
studies and emergency/monitoring programs would be developed by
the landfill developer , approved by the County, and
incorporated into the Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval .
( iv) The impact of groundshaking is not
set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
EXHIBIT C 78
i
j
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that:
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to groundshaking will- be mitigated to a level of insignificance
by the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or
described in the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of.
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
8 . East Contra Costa-coal mine impacts .
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 8 is discussed on
page 4 . 7-16 of the EIR. Coal mine ventilation shafts at the
extreme southern fringe of the proposed landfill footprint
could collapse, causing unanticipated surface subsidence and
possibly jeopardizing the leachate containment system.
( ii ) This impact can be mitigated by
measures proposed by the applicant and recommended in the EIR.
Measures proposed by the applicant include excavation of
surface materials as part of the projects, which would expose
existing ventiliation shafts which could then be sealed with
conical or tapered reinforced plugs , and other engineering
EXHIBIT C 79
adjustments can be made . In addition, the excavation of
depression' at the upper rim of the landfill prior to
preparation of the EIR revealed that none of those depressions
were mine ventiliation shafts . As additional mitigation,
inspectionlby an independent geologist or registered mining
engineer can determine the existence of abandoned air shafts ,
with further exploration, if any, ventilation shafts are
exposed. The geotechnical engineer could then develop
mandatory recommendations for review and approval by the
County.
Impacts relating to coal mine
ventilation shafts and resulting subsidence are not set forth
in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that:
( i) This impact is not significant .
Previous excavation of depressions at the upper level brim of
the landfill has shown that those depressions were not caused
by mine ventilation shafts, and other evidence in the record
confirms that, based on existing knowledge, this impact will
not be significant .
( ii ) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to subsidence resulting from
ventilation shaft collapse will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( iii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated ;to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
EXHIBIT C 80
i
Amendment Lnd the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to (the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , !below, and is subject to control by the County.
9 . Marsh Canyon--soil cover .
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 9 discussed on page 4 . 7-17
of the EIR relates to soil cover and the Marsh Canyon Sanitary
Landfill site . This impact does not relate to this General
Plan Amendment .
( ii) This impact is not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) This impact relates to the Marsh
Canyon landfill , and does not relate to this General Plan
Amendment . With respect to this General Plan Amendment , this
impact either does not exist or is insignificant . Accordingly,
this Board is not required to impose mitigation measures or
adopt further findings as a result of this impact .
( ii) In the alternative, Landfill .
Project impacts relating to this impact will be mitigated to a
level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they will be included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
EXHIBIT C 81
(iii) In ..the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigatedjto a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , lsocial , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendmentiand the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
10 . Interim measure and other impacts .
a . Facts .
( i) Impacts 10 , 11 , and 12 are
discussed on pages 4 ..7-18 through 4 . 7-19 of the EIR. These
impacts relate either to interim waste disposal measures or to
other components of the CoSWMP, and do not relate to this
General Plan Amendment .
( ii ) These impacts are not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) These impacts relate to interim
measures or other components of the CoSWMP, and not to this
General Plan Amendment . With respect to this General Plan
Amendment , these impacts either do not exist or are
insignificant . Accordingly, this Board is not required to
impose any. further mitigation measures or make further findings
as a result of this impact .
( ii ) In the alternative, Landfill.
Project impacts relating to these impacts will be mitigated to
a level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they will be included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
EXHIBIT C 82
i
Project -as�.:condit.ions .of .approval of....later._rlevelopment plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of .the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding' Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below., and is subject to control by -the County.
H. Hydrology and Water Quality .
1 . Leachate .
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 1 is discussed on
page 4 . 8-7 of the EIR. Landfill leachate could contaminate
surface water or groundwater with which it comes into contact .
( ii ) The following measures would be
expected to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level . To prevent surface water contamination, rain falling on
the landfill would be isolated from the refuse by a system of
slopes , drainage benches , drain ditches and sedimentation
basins . Final grading and cover would allow proper drainage so
that water would not pond over the landfill . Groundwater
protection would be ensured by the landfill being constructed
and operated according to applicable requirements . A minimum
of five feet vertical separation between the landfill base and
the historic high groundwater or perched water elevation is
required. Installation of a low-permeability clay liner or a
composite liner (synthetic plastic) , a subdrain system, and a
leachate control and removal system would comply with these
regulations . All landfills would be required to have a
groundwater monitoring program to provide early warning in the
event of leachate migration from the landfill . The RWQCB would
limit the disposal of "wet" wastes such as sludges on a
site-specific basis .
EXHIBIT C 83
1
All detention-and sedimentation
basins ata landfill site would be designed to accommodate the
1 , 000-year, design storm as required for a Class II landfill .
To meet Subchapter 15 criteria, a landfill liner for Class II
sites must have a water permeability no greater than 1 x 10-6
cm/seconds The leachate collection system would be designed to
transport all excess leachate to a point where it could be
removed and disposed of properly, according to a leachate
management plan required by the County. The groundwater
monitoring program would be developed in concert with the RWQCB
and likely involve quarterly sampling and analysis of
upgradient and downgradient wells . The landfill operator shall
comply with the requirements of the RWQCB for disposal of
de-watered sewage, and other utilities ' sludges in landfills to
prevent excess liquid disposal . Other liquid wastes shall not
be accepted at the landfill . The County Community Development
Department would ensure that State and RWQCB requirements on
water protection from leachate will be complied with as
conditions in a project ' s Land Use Permit . An independent
geotechnical consultant , responsible to the -County, would be
expected to be required by the Land Use Permit to inspect
regularly over the life of the landfill the installation and
condition of liners and leachate control facilities as they are
installed.
( iv) These impacts are not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Project impacts relating to these
impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIR. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
.this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
EXHIBIT C 84
(iii) -In -.the alternative, to the 'extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigationimeasures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
2 . Alteration of Site Drainage..
a. Facts .
( i ) Impact 2 as discussed ori
page 4 .-8-10 of the EIR. Landfill development could result in
replacement of natural canyon areas with engineered fill ,
altering existing drainage patterns . Without mitigation,
implementation of the Landfill Project could result in
increased storm water runoff , increased erosion and subsequent
sedimentation and turbidity in the storm water runoff .
( ii ) Mitigation measures will include
manmade drainage channels , detention and sedimentation basins ,
design in accordance with class II landfill requirements , and
regular inspection and maintenance, as required by the State of
California.
( iii ) The alteration of site drainage is
not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of
the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that:
( i) Project impacts relating to
alteration of site drainage will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
EXHIBIT C 85
i
r
i
Project- as .conditions of approval .of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment 'and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding; Considerations ( section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as s.et forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
3 . Reduction of Groundwater Recharge .
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact 3 is discussed on
page 4 . 8-10 of the EIR. Landfilling in canyon areas could
eliminate potential groundwater recharge, although the site
does not have substantial groundwater recharge potential . Deep
groundwater is not af-fected by local recharge. The EIR
concludes that this impact is not significant .
( ii) Groundwater recharge impacts are
not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of
the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that:
( i ) The impacts of this Landfill
Project relating to groundwater recharge are not significant .
Accordingly, this Board is not required to impose any
mitigation, measures relating to this impact , and no further
findings are required.
( ii ) In the alternative, project
impacts relating to groundwater recharge will be mitigated to a
level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
i
i
EXHIBIT C 86
I
measure.s.:.-a,r:e : ncor.porated into this :Landfill Project because
they willbe included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( iii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation- measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project asl conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
i
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as-more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
4 . Erosion Potential .
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact 4 is discussed on
page 4 . 8-10 through 11 of the EIR. Landfill development
involving the excavation and stockpiling of soil could result
in soil erosion and subsequent increased turbidity in run-off
and the sedimentation of drainageways .
( ii ) This impact would be expected to
be fully mitigated by the routing of drainage water through
sedimentation basins to be located at the downstream end of the
canyon proposed for landfilling. In addition, review and
approval by the County of an erosion and sediment control plan
shall be required of the developer prior to issuance of a
grading permit .
( iii ) All stormwaters would be routed
through these basins and detained for a sufficient time to
allow the excess turbidity to settle out . A routine
maintenance plan would be required to ensure the continued
proper functioning of this basin system. The erosion control
plan would ensure, among other things , that eroded sediments
EXHIBIT C 87
tare. t.rapp.ed :bef-ore.,..entering...the. constr_ucted_.,drainage channels
and that stockpiled soils are sufficiently stabilized. A
sedimentation basin system and sediment and erosion control
plan would be required by the County Community Development
Department as a Land Use Permit Condition of Approval , on the
basis of the project ' s site-specific EIR. It would be
developediand implemented by the landfill developer, with the
approval of the County Community Development Department ,
County HSD and Public Works , and the RWQCB .
i
( iv) Erosion potential is not set forth
in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) Project impacts .relating to
erosion potential will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
j
i
EXHIBIT C 88
i
i
.5. ._Flood Hazards .
f a . Facts .
t
( i ) Impact 5 is discussed on
page 4 . 8-11 of the EIR. Failure of the sedimentation/detention
basins when full or nearly full would pose a hazard to
downstream areas .
( ii) In order to reduce this impact to
a less- than-significant level , all sedimentation/detention
basins would be designed and constructed according to Class II
requirements . The basins would be inspected regularly by the
State Department of Water Resources for those dams over 25 feet
high and storing over 50 acre-feet of water .
( iii ) The sedimentation/detention basins
should be designed for a 1 , 000-year , 24-hour storm intensity
and should be capable of withstanding the maximum credible
earthquake identified for the site . The County Community
Development Department would be responsible for ensuring that a
landfill sedimentation basin system included in a project would
meet all State and County requirements by making compliance a
Land Use Permit Condition of Approval .
( iv) Impacts relating to flood hazard
and sedimentation basin failure are not set forth in the EIR as
an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) Project .impacts relating to these
impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIR. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not ,feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plian Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute) approval of any development plan for this site.
i
EXHIBIT C 89
i
( iii) In .the ..a.lternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding .uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) . The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings., below, and is subject to control by the County.
6 . Water Consumption.
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact 6 is discussed on
pages 4 :8-11 through 12 of the EIR. The water supply
requirements for a landfill might not be available on-site,
thus requiring the procurement of off-site water .
( ii ) A public water source for some or
all of a landfill ' s needs would require a connection to Contra
Costa Water District (CCWD) facilities . Annexation to the CCWD
service area would require approval by the CCWD, possibly a
city, and the Local Agency Formation Commission.
( iii) The generally poor quality of
on-site water (unsuitable for drinking) would be adequate for
most landfill activities such as compaction, dust control , and
fire suppression . The EIR recommends exploring the feasibility
of utilizing sub-potable supplies such as reclaimed wastewater ,
on-site stormwater retention, or connection to a non-potable
public water supply systems . A connection of the latter kind
could be considered to be non-growth-inducing. The County
Community Development Department requires that the landfill
developer submit a water service plan covering available water
resources , estimated total water needs and supplies, landfill
construction and operation, landscaping, fire protection,
employee hygiene, human consumption water needs, and water
supply sources . It will be evaluated in the project ' s EIR and
resulting mitigation measures will be included in the Land Use
Permit ' s Conditions of Approval .
( iv) Water supply impacts are not set
forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
EXHIBIT C 90
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds thati
( i) Project_ impacts relating to water
supply will 'be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIR. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfili
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for .this site .
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
7 . Impacts of Interim Measures and Other
Components of the County Solid Waste
Management Program.
a . Facts .
( i) The EIR discusses impacts of
transfer stations , interim measures , and other components of
the County Solid Waste Management Program on pages 4 . 8-14
through 4 . 8-19 . These impacts include tranfer station impacts
on water quality ( Impact 7 on page 4 . 8-15) , transfer station
flooding impacts ( Impact 8 on page 4 . 8-16) , construction
activity impacts ( Impact 9 on page 4 . 8-16) , impacts of
recycling (page 4 . 8-17) and impacts of program components
relating to energy facilities , hazardous wastes , - and special
wastes (page 4 . 8-18) .
EXHIBIT C 91
i
I
i
! ( ii) These impacts relate to transfer
stations , linterim measures , and other components of the CoSWMP,
and do not relate to this General Plan Amendment .
These impacts are not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the. Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
(.i) These impacts relate to other
components of the CoSWMP, not to this General Plan Amendment .
With respect to this General Plan Amendment , these impacts
either do not exist or are insignificant . Accordingly, no
mitigation measures are required to be adopted as a result of
this impact , and no further findings are required.
( ii) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to these impacts will be mitigated to
a level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they will be included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, .and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to ,the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
i
EXHIBIT Ci 92
i
i
1 . Visual Quality.
i
1 . Change in Visual Character of the Existing
Land Use.
a . Facts .
I ( i) Impact is discussed on page 4 . 9-6
of the EIR. The landfill site would be cited rolling grassland
hills currently used for grazing. The visual character of the
existing land use would change, and the EIR concludes that this
change is ' an unavoidable adverse impact of the Project .
( ii) With respect to this General Plan
Amendment , and the Marsh Canyon Landfill , this impact may be
reduced because this site is less visable to a smaller number
of people when compared to other sites , due to the reduced
number of roadways and residences nearby from which this site
is visable .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) The findings of this Board
relating to the unavoidable impact of topographical change are
set forth in section v, below.
( ii) Although the change in topography
may be an unavoidable impact of this Landfill Project , other
project impacts relating to visual quality will be mitigated to
a level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are .incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they will be included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated, to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
EXHIBIT C' 93
i
i
economic , _ soc_ial , .and other benefits _of the :.General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
OverridinglConsiderations (section VI of these findings, below) . •
I ( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigationimeasures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
a
2 . Glare and Light . -
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 2 is set forth on
page 4 . 9-6, of .the EIR. A solid waste facility' s on-site
operational lighting could create glare and visual disturbances
to nearby off-site land uses .
( ii) To mitigate the effects of this
impact, lighting should be designed (e.g. , through
downward-oriented reflectors) and placed to reduce glare under ,
full operating conditions and should be dimmed or turned off ,
except for security lighting, during late hours of darkness .
Full operational lighting may be limited to normal operational
hours of the facility. Focused directional security and
operational lighting should be installed as part of the
project . Excessive lighting of the access and operational
areas should be avoided .
( iii ) Construction and operational
lighting would increase ambient light and glare due to night
lighting. Lighting and hours of operation restrictions would
be addressed during project design and review. The County
Community Development Department would ensure that construction
and operational lighting of a solid waste facility does not
substantially impact nearby land uses by including the
appropriate mitigation measures in Land Use Permit Conditions
of Approval . The County HSD could also specify hours of
operation in the Solid Waste Facilities Permit and respond to
lighting complaints by nearby residents .
( iv) Impacts relating to night lighting
are not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact
of the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and .the entire record, this Board
finds that':
EXHIBIT C 94
i
1
i
- i
j ( i) Project impacts relating to night
lighting impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance
by the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or
described in the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Landfill Project .because they will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
-Plan Amendment. on -surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
2 . Appearance of Excavation and Filling.
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 3 is discussed at
page 4 . 9-6 of the EIR. Excavation and filling activity at a
landfill site would substantial alter the natural topography
and appearance of the area.
( ii) To mitigate this impact , visual
berms could be installed at the toe level and/or at the faces
of lifts; lthe area of active operation could be limited to
approximately 20-25 acres at any one time, except. when major
modules ate being prepared and foundation improvements
installed!. Covered layers of refuse could be graded and
contoured; to replicate the form of the existing surrounding
terrain. ! Revegetation of completed fill areas and areas to be
inactive for more than 90 days could be required.
I
I
I
EXHIBIT C! 95
i
( iii) A _landsc.aping ,and screening plan
based on the applicant ' s project description and project EIR
mitigation measures would be required as part of a final site
plan. It would detail the locations and configurations of
grades and contours , screen plantings, overall site
landscaping, and revegetation efforts . The County Community
Development Department would ensure that these plans are
prepared and implemented by the landfill developer by including
them in the Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval .
( iv) Although visual quality impact 1 ,
discussedfabove is set forth as an unavoidable adverse impact,
this impact is not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable
adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) Project impacts relating to this
impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIR. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project .because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to -the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , !below, and is subject to control by the County.
EXHIBIT C 96
i
i
I
4 . ..Removal .of -Vegetation.
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 4 is discussed at page
4 . 9-7 of the EIR. Construction and operation of a landfill
would result in the removal of existing vegetation. This may
clash with! existing visual characteristics .
( ii) The planting of temporary or
permanent vegetation to match the existing visual character
followingiplacement of each portion of intermediate or final
cover on £,filled areas would mitigate this impact .
( iii ) Restorative landscaping may appear
to clash with the existing visual character of the native
plantings or may be planted in unnatural plant groupings .
Thus , trees , shrubs and broadleaf species which are currently
found in the site area or are native to the area should be
planted on- filled areas . In addition, the County would require
the planting of annual grasses as temporary cover and perennial
grasses as permanent cover which can be used later for
grazing. As a condition of approval for the project ' s Land Use
Permit, the .landfill developer shall be required to prepare and
implement a final landscaping plan, as part of the site design
plan, which shows plant species , size and locations , a
maintenance program, and any landscape mitigation measures
identified in the project-specific EIR for the site . This plan
will be subject to County Community Development Department
approval .
( iv) Visual impacts resulting from
removal of existing vegetation are not set forth in the EIR as
an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Project impacts relating to visual
impacts resulting from removal of existing vegetation will be
mitigated ;to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the
mitigation measures recommended or described in the EIR. These
mitigation measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project
because they will be included in any subsequent land use
development applications and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
EXHIBIT C -97
i.
I
.I.t .is ..no.t .-,f.easible .or -appropriate .to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
co.nstitut elapproval of any development plan for .this site.
In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts, of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
5 . Visibility of Landfill Operations .
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 5 is discussed at
page 4 . 9-7 of the EIR. Landfill operations may be visible from
off-site residential and recreational areas , as well as from
travel corridors .
( i) This impact can be mitigated by
utilizing natural topography asa visual barrier and by
providing visual buffers , such as noise/visual berms along the
active landfill operation, and by providing screening elsewhere
on the site. Corporation yards and staging areas should be
constructed away. from public view if possible. Views from
roadways , especially scenic routes , would be screened by
installing dense plantings along the roadway or elsewhere on
the site where the screening is most effective.
( iii) Since all of the proposed
landfills are located in canyons , topography will provide
visual screening to some degree. This natural screening can be
enhanced by installing berms and screens . Earth berms are an
effective visual buffer for screening views to a landfill . The
form of the berms could mimic the natural line of the area ' s
hills . Berms would be landscaped with perennial grasses and
native trees and shrubs as appropriate. Planting patterns
could be naturalistic . The County Community Development
Department will ensure that visual mitigation measures to be
identified in the project-level EIR are included in its Land
Use. Permit Conditions of Approval . The landfill developer
EXHIBIT C '98
t
,would .:be .r.equir.ed to _prepare :and implement a ..final . landscaping
plan withlthe approval of the County Community Development
Department .
( iv) Visibility of landfill operations
is not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of
the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Project impacts relating to
visibility of landfill operations will be mitigated to a . level
of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and -approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social ,- and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
6 . Windblown Debris and Dumping.
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 6 is discussed on
page 4 . 9-8 of the EIR. Windblown debris and litter from a
solid waste facility could result in an adverse visual impact
i
i
EXHIBIT C! 99
i
I
and/or..xould be carried to off-.site. 1:ocati.=s . . -.Illegal dumping
near a facility entrance could visually detract from the
appearance of the surrounding area.
I
( ii ) The following mitigation measures
would reduce these impacts . Eliminating self-haulers to new
landfillsiwould reduce littering on their sites and on access
roads . The landfill operator might be able to align refuse
unloadingiareas away from the prevailing wind direction.
Refuse would be covered at least once a day, and could be
covered more often, depending on wind velocity. Installation
of portable fencing near the working area and a permanent fence
around the landfill site periphery to intercept and contain
windblown debris would be required. Litter would be collected
from the litter fences and planting screens on a daily basis
and from along access roadways as often as in deemed necessary
by the County. The landfill operator would post signs along
access roads noting littering and illegal dumping laws; signs
at the entrance would note hours of operation. Policing of the
- si'te and entrance area would be required on a daily basis or
more often, if needed. The landfill operator would implement a
program to limit uncovered loads , possibly including a higher
charge for these loads to help off-set the cost of monitoring
litter collection. Litter control rules should be periodically
published in newspaper advertisements or mailed flyers .
( iii ) The County Community Development
Department would incorporate a litter control plan generally
including the above mitigation measures into the project ' s Land
Use Permit Conditions of Approval for all new landfill and
transfer station facilities . The County HSD would have the
authority to enforce this plan.
( iv) The impact of windblown debris ,
litter , and illegal dumping is not set forth in the EIR as an
unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) Project impacts relating to
windblown 'debris , litter , and illegal dumping will be mitigated
to a lever of insignificance by the imposition of the
mitigation measures recommended or described in the EIR. These
mitigation measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project
because they will be included in any subsequent land use
development applications and approvals .
EXHIBIT C 100
In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of . these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
7 . Impacts of Other Landfill Sites .
a . Facts .
( i ) The EIR on pages 4 . 9-8 through
4 . 9-11 discusses several potential impacts of other proposed
landfill sites . These include impact 7 (Bay Pointe) , impact 8
(Canyon) , impacts 10 and 11 (Kirker Pass) , and impact 12 (Marsh
Canyon) . These impacts relate specifically to the referenced
other sites .
( ii) These impacts are not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that:
( i ) These impacts relate to other
landfill sites , and not to this general plan amendment . With
respect tol this general plan amendment , these impacts either do
not exist �or are insignificant.. Accordingly, this board is not
required to impose any mitigation measures in this general plan
amendment relating to these impacts of other sites , and no
further findings with respect to .this general plan amendment
are necessary as a result of these impacts of other sites .
EXHIBIT 'C i 101
i
( ii ) In the alternative, Project
impacts relating to these impacts will be mitigated to a level
.of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( iii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
8 . East Contra Costa Landfill Impacts .
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact 9 on page 4 . 9-10 of the EIR
related to visual impacts of the East Contra Costa Landfill .
The proposed site may be visible from urbanizing areas to the
north, and about 1 , 500 feet of a regional park trail overlooks
the site .
( ii ) Mitigation measures include
limiting the active fill area to 20 acres , and temporary
landscaped earth berms to screen the active area from view on
the north and east sides .
( iii ) Although visual quality impact 1
is set forth as an unavoidable adverse impact , this specific
impact of , this site is not set forth in the EIR as an
unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
EXHIBIT C 102
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i)- Project impacts relating to
specific visual impacts of the East Contra Costa Landfill site
relating to nearby residential and recreational views will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the
mitigation measures recommended or described in the EIR. These
mitigation measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project
because they will be included in any subsequent land use
development applications and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,.
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
9 . Impacts of Interim Measures and Other
Components of the County Solid Waste
Management Plan.
1) a. Facts .
I
( i ) The EIR discusses various impacts
of interim measures and other components of the CoSWMP on
pages 4 . 12! through 4 . 9-14 . These include impact 13 ( interim
facilities) , impact 14 (visual impact of solid waste) ,
impact 15 '�(night lighting at interim facilities) , and impact 16
( litter from resource recovery or composting operations
generally)!. Mitigation measures are recommended for these
impacts . i
EXHIBIT C ! 103
(ii) Visual quality impact 6, discussed
above, specifically discusses litter as a result of landfill
sites and related activities .
( iii) These impacts are is not set forth
in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) These impacts relate to interim
measures. and other components of the CoSWMP and not to this
General Plan Amendment . With respect to this General Plan
Amendment , these impacts either do not exist or are
insignificant . Accordingly, this board is not required to
impose any mitigation measures or adopt any further findings
with regard to these impacts .
( ii) In the alternative, with respect
to litter , the findings of this board relating to litter
impacts of landfill sites generally are set forth above in the
findings on visual quality impact 6 :
( iii ) In the alternative, project
impacts relating to these impacts will be mitigated to a level
of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or. described in th,.� EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( iv) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
(v) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
I
EXHIBIT C ; 104
(vi) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
JI. Socioeconomics .
i
1 . Transportation Costs , Transfer Station
Costs, and Total System Costs .
a . Facts .
( i) On pages 4 . 10-4 through 4 . 10-8 ,
the EIR evaluates three socioeconomic impacts which are
determined not to be significant. Impact l is a possible
increase in transportation costs due to longer hauling
distances to landfill sites . Impact 2 is an increase in costs
due to the introduction of transfer stations into the solid
waste disposal process . Impact 3 is an increase in total
systems costs .
( ii) These impacts relate to
implementation of the CoSWMP, but not specifically to this
General Plan Amendment or to .the siting of a particular
landfill .
( iii) These impacts are not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that:
( i ) These impacts are insignificant .
This board is not required to impose any mitigation measures or
adopt any finding with respect to these impacts .
( ii) In the alternative, these impacts
relate to general provisions of the CoSWMP, not to this General
Plan Amendment . With respect to this General Plan Amendment ,
these impacts either do not exist or are insignificant .
Accordingly, this board is not required to impose any
mitigation measures or adopt any findings for this General Plan
Amendment as a result of these impacts .
( iii ) In the alternative, project
impacts relating to these impacts will be mitigated to a level
of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
EXHIBIT C 105
i
.are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( iv) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures. will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans.
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
i
(v) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated.;to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , ,social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant_ impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(vi) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to 'the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
2 . Property Values .
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 4 is discussed on
pages 4 . 10-8 through 4 . 10-11 of the EIR. The siting of a solid
waste facility could adversely affect the value of property
located .in the vicinity of the site .
( ii ) The mitigation measures listed in
other sections of this report , especially those that relate to
odor control , dust control , litter control , landscaping and
traffic control are expected to reduce this impact to an
insignificant level .
( iii) In three separate studies on the
effects of landfills on surrounding property values , the
conclusions were as follows : solid waste disposal -sites have
no apparent negative effect on change in property value of
single family homes in their immediate vicinity (The Effects of
Solid Waste Disposal Sites on Property Values, 1972) ; property
characteristics other than distance to the landfill appear much
more important in explaining prices (Pennsylvania State .
University, , Effects of Solid Waste Disposal Sites on Community
I
EXHIBIT C ' 106
i
j •I
I
i
Development and Residential Property Values, 1982) ; and
proximity �to the landfill had a negligible impact on initial
sales pricing of recently constructed homes (Property Value
Impact Study, Puente Hills Landfill , 1983) . As part of the
complaint program, a County representative could meet with
local homeowners ' associations or organize neighborhood
meetings to ensure that an appropriate response is received.
The County Community Development Department would incorporate
the appropriate mitigation measures suggested in the EIR, as
well as those identified in project-specific proposals , into
the Land Use Permit conditions of approval for a project .
( iv) . The EIR concludes that, if
necessary mitigation measures are incorporated into final
development plans for landfills , which will be considered by
the County at a later date, property values would not be
affected by the proposed landfill sites .
(v) The CEQA guidelines state that ,
while economic or social effects of a project may be used to
determine the significance of physical changes caused by the
project, economic or social effects of a project shall not be .
treated as significant effects in the environment . Decreases
or increases in property values are economic effects .
(vi ) The impact of this Landfill
Project on property values is not set forth in the EIR as an
unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) This impact is not a potentially
significant adverse environmental impact of this project , but
is a potential economic impact which will be mitigated . The
EIR is not required to evaluate this impact., and this board is
not required to impose mitigation measures or adopt findings
with regard to this impact . This economic impact, while it may
relate toother environmental impacts analyzed in the EIR and
discussed elsewhere in these findings , is not in itself an
adverse impact of this project for CEQA purposes .
( ii) In the alternative, project
impacts relating to property values will be mitigated to a
level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they will be included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
EXHIBIT C 107
I
( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impaclt, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute+ approval of any development plan for this site.
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , zocia-1 , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) ,
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
K. Cultural Resources
1 . Impacts of Other Sites .
At pages 4 . 11-6 through 4 . 11-9 , the EIR discusses
specific cultural resources impacts of particular landfill
sites . Impact 3 (Marsh Canyon) and Impact 6 (Keller Canyon
site) both relate to other proposed landfill sites , , and not the
this General Plan Amendment .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) These impacts relate to other
landfill sites, and not to this General Plan Amendment . With
respect to this General Plan Amendment , these specific impacts
either do not exist or are not significant . Accordingly, this
Board is not required to impose mitigation measures or adopt
any further findings for this General Plan Amendment as a
result of ,these specific impacts which could result from
development of other sites .
In the alternative, project
.impacts relating to these impacts will be mitigated to a level
of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
i
EXHIBIT C , 108
j
i
I
.are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals ..
( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
i
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, 'social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
2 . East Contra Costa Impacts .
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 1 is discussed at
page 4 . 11-6 of the EIR. A historic homestead lies within the
proposed site, and could be eliminated by the proposed .
landfill . As mitigation, the EIR recommends concurrent field
and archival research.
( ii ) Certain historical features could
be eliminated, and date pertaining to these sites is too
limited to evaluate their importance at this time . As
mitigation, the EIR recommends field and archival research by
an archaeologist and testing for significant sites .
( iii) Impact 4 is a relatively intact
- mining and domestic complex of potentially high significance
which lies immediately outside the boundary of the proposed
site . This historical site would not be directly affected by
the Project, but indirect impacts of vandalism or inadvertent
construction traffic are possible. As mitigation, the EIR
recommends restricting public and employee access .
EXHIBIT C ' 109
( iv) Impact 5 is discussed on
page 4 . 11'8 of the EIR. A number of prehistoric and historic
archaeological sites are known to exist immediately surrounding
the proposed Marsh Canyon Landfill . The sites could be subject
to indirect impact, although the sites lie outside the areas of
direct impact . As mitigation, the EIR recommends limiting
access toioff project areas, a strict prohibition against
artifact collecting or vandalism, limiting construction vehicle
movement and consultation with an archeologist prior to
conducting any off project activities .
I (v) Impact 5 regarding off-site
prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, and impact 4 ,
regarding the historic site outside the landfill area, are not
set forthiin the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
(vi) Impacts 1 and 2 relating to the
historic homestead, is set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable
adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) The findings of this Board
relating to the listed unavoidable adverse impact on the
homestead and the other historic sites are set forth in
section IV, below, and in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations , section VI , below.
( ii ) Although the impact of this
project on one homestead and on historic sites of unknown
importance is an unavoidable adverse impact , project impacts
relating to other cultural resources will be mitigated to a
level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they will be included in any subsequent land use development ,
applications and approvals .
( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
Itis not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
EXHIBIT C, 110
i
1
i •
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, �social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment ,and the Landfill Project override any such
.significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
3 . Unknown Cultural Resources .
a. Facts .
( i ) Impact 7 is discussed on
page 4 . 11-9 of the EIR. Previously unknown cultural resources
at potential landfill , transfer station, or resource recovery
facilities could be impacted during construction.
( ii ) In order to reduce this impact ,
the following measures would be taken. If an historic site is
discovered during construction, work would temporarily cease to
allow a site evaluation. Concurring field and archival
research would be undertaken by an historic archaeologist to,
determine the quality and quantity of information relating to
site occupation, and the extent, integrity, and diversity of
archaeological remains . Should this testing phase indicate
that the site could yield additional information of importance
to area history, then a date recovery phase may be warranted.
This phase could include further archival or oral history
research, excavation of a sample of the site, or combinations
. thereof . If significant deposits are not. encountered, the
testing phase could be considered adequate mitigation .
Project-related indirect impacts to known sites in the vicinity
of the proposed facility sites can be mitigated by 1) limiting
employee access to off-project areas and enforcing a strict
prohibition against artifact collecting or vandalism; 2)
limiting construction vehicle movement to road surfaces that
.have been subject to previous survey; and 3) consulting an
archaeologist prior to conducting any off-project activities
( road construction, drainage control , pit construction) that
may not have been subject to previous archaeological surveys .
( iii ) Historic areas have been found
within an adjacent to some of the propose landfill site areas .
These have been surveyed and mitigation measures identified in
the project EIRs .
EXHIBIT C ! 111
i
( iv) The cultural .resources referenced
under the discussion of Impact 7 are unknown. It is unknown
whether this impact is unavoidable or can be mitigated.
Mitigation measures which could be imposed as a result of
excavation or testing during project development, assuming
further development approvals are granted, could mitigate this
impact to , a level of insignificance.
( iv) This impact is set forth in the
EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project ,
although a number of mitigation measures are recommended, both
under Impact 7 generally, and under Impact 5, regarding sites
located near the Marsh Canyon Project Area.
b. Findings..
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
(i ) This impact , while it may or may
not be significant, is not unavoidable. In the alternative,
this impact is not now know to be, and cannot be determined to
be, unavoidable.
( ii) Project impacts relating to this
impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIR. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , ,social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendmentland the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
I
EXHIBIT C 112
1
i
i
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County. In
particular, on-site mitigations shall be approved in
conjunction with the Regional Clearinghouse of Sonoma State
University and a qualified archaeologist shall oversee their
implementation. The County Community Development Department
shall report annually to the Board on the applicability of
cultural resource findings and mitigation measures as they
apply to proposed and sited solid waste projects.
L. Public Services .
1 . " Fire risk .
a. Facts .
( i ) Impact one is discussed on
page 4 . 12-4 of .the EIR. Landfills and transfer stations could
increase the risk of fire .
( ii ) Mitigation measures are set forth
in the EIR' s discussion of public health and safety impacts .
The EIR concludes that fire risk impacts will not be
significant after mitigation.
( iii ) This impact is not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) Project impacts relating to this
impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIR. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is notifeasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific. mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
EXHIBIT C 113
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject ,to control by the County.
2 . Police services .
a . Facts .
( i ) Landfills and transfer stations
could have impacts on police services relating to traffic and
litter violations . Internal security problems can be handled
by on-site security personnel and construction of fences .
Enforcement of regulations and periodic litter pickup
requirements at site entrances could mitigate the impact of
increased littering.
( ii) This impact is not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Project impacts relating to this
impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIR. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
i
EXHIBIT Ci 114
i
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
3 . Water supplies .
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact three is discussed on
page 4 . 12-6 of the EIR. Landfill sites will require off-site
sources of water, and extension of water lines . As mitigation,
the developer can prepare a water service plan, water can be
obtained from either on-site drilling or collection, and the
various mitigation measures previously discussed relating to
water supply can be imposed.
( ii) This impact is not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) Project impacts relating to this
impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIR, both under the discussion of public services impact
three and under the discussion of hydrology and water quality
impact six. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
EXHIBIT C 115
i
i
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
4 . Leachate disposal .
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact four is discussed on
page 4 . 12-7 of the EIR. Disposal of landfill leachate could
adversely impact wastewater treatment systems .
( ii ) The RWQCB requires that landfill
developers prepare and implement a disposal plan for leachate
with the appropriate wastewater treatment agency prior to
construction of the landfill . In most cases, the disposal plan
would require on-site treatment of the leachate to meet RWQCB
standards prior to its introduction into the wastewater system.
( iii ) The County Community Development
Department would ensure that all RWQCB requirements are met
during environmental review of proposed landfills . The
disposal means (mitigation measures) would also be included in
the landfill "s Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval and may
be specified in the County Services Department ' s Solid Waste
Facilities Permit as well .
( iv) This impact is not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Project impacts relating to this
impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
EXHIBIT C 116
i
i
f
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIR. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
.this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
(ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
5 . Kirker Pass utility lines .
a . Facts .
( i) Impact five discussed on
page 4 . 12-7 of the EIR relates to utility lines on the Kirker
Pass site. This impact does not relate to any other landfill
site or to this General Plan Amendment .
( iii ) This impact is not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) This impact does not relate to
this General Plan Amendment . With respect to this General Plan
Amendment, this impact either does not exist or is
insignificant . This Board is not required to impose mitigation
EXHIBIT C 117
j
measures or adopt any further findings with respect to this
General Plan Amendment as a result of this impact .
( ii) In the alternative, Project
impacts relating to this impact will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( iii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, -and is subject to control by the County.
6 . Personnel impacts .
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact six is discussed on
page 4 . 12-7 of the EIR. Development of solid waste projects ,
including landfills, will require increased personnel and
resources from affected agencies . These impacts will be
mitigated through the levy of fees on the various solid waste
projects .
( ii ) This impact is not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
EXHIBIT C 118
b. Findings .
j
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that'':
( i) Project impacts relating to this
impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIR,. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
. General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
7 . Impacts of interim measures and other
components of the Plan.
a. Facts .
( i ) On pages 4 . 12-8 through 4 . 12-10 ,
the EIR discusses various impacts. of interim measures and other
componentsof the CoSWMP . These include impact seven ( interim
measures) ,! impact eight (transfer stations) , impact nine
(composting facility fire danger) , impact ten (waste-to-energy
facility fire danger) , and impact eleven (abandoned vehicles) .
These impacts do not relate to this landfill site or this
General Plan Amendment .
( ii ) These impacts are not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill -
Project .
EXHIBIT C 119
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that::
( i ) These impacts relate to other
aspects of' the CoSWMP, and not to this General Plan Amendment .
With respect to this General Plan Amendment , these specific
impacts either do not exist or are insignificant . Accordingly,
this Board is not required to impose any mitigation measures or
adopt further findings for this General Plan Amendment as a
result of these specific impacts of other aspects of the CoSWMP
plan.
( ii ) In the alternative, Project
impacts relating to these impacts will be mitigated to a level
of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any de°selopment plan for this site.
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
M. Growth Inducing Impacts .
1 . Facts .
( i ) The EIR discusses the potential
growth inducing effects of the General Plan Amendment and the
120
EXHIBIT C ;
Landfill Project on pages- 5-1 through 5-3 . The addition of
alternate landfill sites is a necessary public service, and the
connection between the capacity of landfill sites and
corresponding future development is less direct than the
connection between most public service facilities and future
development .
( ii) Lack of solid waste facilities
would at some point preclude growth and development, so removal
of this obstacle through implementation of this General Plan
Amendment, could be considered technically growth inducing.
( iii ) Access roads and sewer line
extensions, if constructed pursuant to development plans to be
approved later pursuant to this General Plan Amendment, could
have growth inducing impacts .
( iv) Growth inducing impacts are not
set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) The growth inducing impacts of
this General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project are
insignificant . This. Board is not required to impose mitigation
measures or make further findings with respect to growth
inducing impacts .
( ii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any growth inducing impacts of this General Plan Amendment
or the Landfill .Project are not insignificant , the
environmental , economic, social , and other benefits of the
General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project override any
such significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Consideration (Section VI of these findings,
below) .
N. Cumulative Impacts .
i
1 . Facts .
( a) Certain impacts of the General Plan
Amendment evaluated in the EIR, while not significant in
themselves, may be cumulatively significant when considered
with otheri planned projects in the vicinity. Cumulative
impacts of the Five General Plan Amendments and the CoSWMP
revision together are analyzed at pages 5 . 3-5 . 8 of the EIR.
i
i
EXHIBIT Ci 121
I
I
(b) The EIR analyzes cumulative impacts of
the CoSWMP revision as a whole, including this General Plan
Amendment .: Impacts which are cumulatively significant with
respect to the CoSWMP revision may not be cumulatively
significant with respect to this General Plan Amendment alone .
(c) The cumulative impacts include
increases 'in traffic volumes along access roads to new
facilities , increases in truck traffic on Highway 4 , cumulative
air quality impacts resulting from increased traffic,
cumulative increases in demand on public services, cumulative
loss of open space and agricultural lands and the cumulative
effect of loss of riparian and wetland habitat .
(d) As mitigation, the EIR recommends
several possible measures , which could include general plan and
zoning ordinance enactments to favor high-density development
and urban infilling by both the County and cities within the
County; imposition of more stringent pollutant controls on
vehicles; transportation system management measures;
restrictions on the use of packaging materials; and County
support of coordinated infrastructure and land use planning.
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) The cumulative impacts analyzed in the
EIR as significant on a cumulative basis with respect to the
CoSWMP provision, are not significai:t on a project-specific or
cumulative basis with respect to this General. Plan Amendment .
(b) . In the alternative, these impacts may
be potentially significant on a cumulative basis with respect
to this General Plan Amendment , but are not significant on a
project-specific basis . These potentially significant
cumulative, impacts will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR, both with respect to
cumulative impacts and with respect to particular
project-specific impacts . These mitigation measures are
incorporated into or will be incorporated into this General
Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project because they will be
included in subsequent land use development applications and
approvals ,i if such subsequent applications are approved.
(c) The imposition of more stringent
vehicle pollution controls is within the jurisdiction of
federal and state agencies governing air quality standards,
including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and not
i
EXHIBIT C 122
i
this County. Such changes can and .should .;be adopted by such
other state and federal agencies .
(d) Adoption of general plans and zoning
ordinances that . favor high-density development and urban
infilling by cities with the County is within the .jurisdiction
and responsibility of those cities , not this County. Those
cities have the authority to adopt such enactments, and can and
should adopt such enactments .
(e) The mitigation measures calling for
County adoption of general plans and zoning ordinances,
transportation system management measures , restrictions on the
use of packaging materials, and support for coordinated
infrastructure are incorporated into this General Plan
Amendment and will be incorporated into the Landfill Project by
operation of existing County ordinances and policies .
Provisions in the proposed County general plan will promote
infilling to reduce consumption of open land and wildlife
habitat, transportation system management measures are required
by the County for final development plan approval of project ,
the County is encouraging restrictions on the use of packaging
and increased use of returnable beverage containers through
policies implemented by its solid waste commission, and the
County coordinates infrastructure and land use planning through
its participation in the Measure C financing and coordination
program for. developments . Although the County is considering
steps regarding disposal diapers , hearings by this Board and
the Solid Waste Commission have indicated that health concerns
and legal considerations may make a prohibition of disposal
diapers infeasible.
(f) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the cumulative impacts of the Landfill Project or this
General Plan Amendment are not insignificant or mitigated to a
level of insignificance, the environmental , economic , social ,
and other benefits of the General Plan Amendment and the
Landfill Project override any such significant impacts , as more
fully stated in- the Statement of overriding Considerations
(Section VI of these findings , below) .
(g) The status of mitigation measures
incorporated or adopted as referenced above shall be included
in the annual monitoring report to the Board as set forth in
Section VII of these findings , below.
EXHIBIT C 123
IV. FINDINGS REGARDING UNAVOIDABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE
ADVERSE IMPACTS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 , this Board
adopts and makes the following findings regarding those certain
environmental impacts of the General Plan Amendment and the
Landfill Project discussed in the Final EIR which may be
determined to be significant, unavoidable adverse environmental,
impacts of this General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project .
A.. Vegetation And Wildlife.
1 . Facts .
(a) Landfill development would result in
the removal of 56 acres of oak woodlands from the landfill
site. This is listed in the EIR as an unavoidable impact of
this Project , although a habitat enhancement plan may
compensate for the loss of some or all of . this habitat .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) To the extent that this impact is
significant , this impact is mitigated to a level of
insignificance by mitigation measures which are incorporated
into this General Plan Amendment or will be incorporated into
this Landfill Project during subsequent development approvals .
These mitigation measures will reduce the impact of. this
Landfill Project on vegetation and wildlife by providing a
habitat enhancement plan which can provide for replacement or
compensation for removal of wetlands and oak woodlands.
(b) In the alternative, to the extent that
this unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of this
Landfill Project is not mitigated to a level of insignificance,
despite the mitigation measures which are incorporated into
this General Plan Amendment or will be incorporated during
subsequent development approvals for the Landfill Project
(should such approvals be granted) , the environmental ,
economic, social and other benefits of this Landfill Project
override this potentially significant adverse impact as more
fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section VI , below) .
(c) As discussed in Section V, below;
regarding alternatives to this Landfill Project , the
above-described impact of the General Plan Amendment and this
Landfill Project would similarly be an unavoidable and
EXHIBIT C : 124
irreversible impact under the alternatives . to the General Plan
Amendment and this Landfill Project, except under the
No-Project alternative, which alternative is, rejected as more
fully described in Section V below.
(d) This Board is not required to .adopt
findings for this General Plan Amendment in connection with any
potentially unavoidable impacts upon vegetation and wildlife of
other landfill sites, because the specific impacts of those
sites. listed as unavoidable in the EIR do not relate to this
General Plan Amendment .
B. Geology And Soils - Topography.
1 . Facts .
(a) Development of the proposed landfill
would alter the topography of the proposed landfill area. This
impact is listed as unavoidable, although it can be mitigated
to some extent by contour grading and other mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR.
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) To the extent that this impact is
otherwise significant, this impact is mitigated to a level' of
insignificance by mitigation measures which are incorporated
into this General Plan Amendment or will be incorporated into
this Landfill Project during subsequent development approvals .
These mitigation measures , which include contour grading, will
reduce the impact of this Landfill Project on topography and
visual impact by masking the appearance of the landfill .
(b) In the alternative, to the extent that
this unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of this
Landfill Project is not mitigated to a level of insignificance,
despite the mitigation measures which are incorporated into
this General Plan Amendment or will be incorporated during
subsequent development approvals for the Landfill Project
( should such approvals be granted) , the environmental ,
economic, ;social and other benefits of this Landfill Project
override this potentially significant adverse impact as more
fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section VI , below) .
(c) As discussed in Section V, below,
regarding alternatives to this Landfill Project, the
above-described impact of the General Plan Amendment and this
i
i
EXHIBIT C i 125
Landfill -Project would similarly be an unavoidable and
irreversible impact under the alternatives to the General ,Plan
Amendment and. this Landfill Project, except under the
No-Project alternative, which alternative is rejected as more
fully described in Section V below.
C. Visual Quality.
1 . Facts .
(a). The landfills would be sited on rolling
hills and would .change the existing visual character . This is
listed as an unavoidable impact in the EIR.
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
(a) To the extent that this impact is
otherwise significant , this impact is mitigated to a level of
insignificance by mitigation measures which are incorporated
into this General Plan Amendment or will be incorporated into
this Landfill Project during subsequent development approvals .
These mitigation measures will reduce the impact of this
Landfill Project on surrounding views by masking the appearance
and operation of the landfill .
(b) In the alternative, to the extent that
this unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of this .
Landfill Project is not mitigated to a level of insignificance,
despite the mitigation measures which are incorporated into
this General Plan Amendment or will be incorporated during
subsequent development approvals for the Landfill Project
(should such approvals be granted) , the environmental ,
economic, social and other benefits of this Landfill Project
override this potentially significant , adverse impact as more
fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section VI , below) .
(c) As discussed in Section V, below,
regarding alternatives to this Landfill Project, the
above-described impact of the General Plan Amendment and this
Landfill Project would similarly be an unavoidable and
irreversible impact under the alternatives to the General Plan
Amendment and this Landfill Project, except under the
No-Project alternative, which alternative is rejected as more
fully described in Section V below.
i
EXHIBIT C ! 126
i
D. Cultural Resources .
1 . Facts .
(a) Previously unknown cultural resources
at potential landfill and transfer station locations could be
directly impacted during construction. This impact is listed
as unavoidable, although the EIR recommends a series of
mitigation measures regarding the discovery of previously
unknown historical or prehistoric resources during construction.
(b) Development of this Landfill Project
pursuant to this General Plan Amendment and subsequent
development approvals which may be granted would result in the
destruction or removal of a historic homestead site and other
potentially significant historic areas of unknown importance .
This impact is listed as unavoidable .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) The impact on unknown cultural
resources is not significant , because the significance of these
resources is unknown, and because they are located near the
site, but not within the actual area of proposed landfill
operation.. In the alternative, this impact is mitigated to a
level of insignificance, by the recommended mitigation measures .
(b) To the extent that the impact on the
homestead and other areas are significant, this impact is
mitigated to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures
which are incorporated into this General Plan Amendment or will
be incorporated into this Landfill Project during subsequent
development approvals . These mitigation measures , which -
include field research, testing phases, or excavation of a
sample of the site, will reduce the impact of this Landfill
Project on . this homestead by determining the significance of
the site, and evaluating the feasibility of preservational
removal of particular significant portions of the site .
(c) In the alternative, to the extent that
this unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of this
Landfill Project is not mitigated to a level of insignificance,
despite the mitigation measures which are incorporated into
this General Plan Amendment or will be incorporated during
subsequent development approvals for the Landfill Project
(should such approvals be granted) , the environmental ,
economic„ social and other benefits of this Landfill Project
override this potentially significant , adverse impact as more
EXHIBIT C 127
I
fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section VI , below) .
E. Other Unavoidable Impacts .
1 . Facts .
(a) All other unavoidable adverse impacts
designated in the EIR relate to interim measures or to other
components of CoSWMP, not to this General .Plan Amendment and
the Landfill Project .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) These other unavoidable impacts do not
relate to this General Plan Amendment . With ,respect to this
General Plan Amendment , these other impacts either do not exist
. or are insignificant . Accordingly, this Board is not required
to impose mitigation measures or adopt findings for this
General Plan Amendment as a result of these impacts of other
aspects of the CoSWMP .
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
The EIR discusses four (4) alternatives to the General
P"an Amendment and -.o the overall 1989 CoSWMP revision of which
General Plan Amendment is a part . One of these alternatives is
a discussion of numerous possible alternate sites for a
landfill , including the site which is. the subject of this
General Plan Amendment and the other sites which are the
subject of the Five General Plan Amendments . The alternatives
to the General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project analyzed
in this EIR are the following :
1 . The no-project amendment , pursuant to which this
General Plan Amendment would not be adopted.
2 . A waste reduction alternative, pursuant to which
waste reduction technologies would be implemented, but
additional landfill sites including the site subject to this
General Plan Amendment would not be approved.
3;. A range of substitute landfill sites evaluated in
several studies which are incorporated into the EIR., The
analysis in these studies , and the reasons why most of the
twenty (20) alternate sites originally evaluated are rejected,
are summarized in the EIR.
EXHIBIT C 128
4 . A no transfer station alternative, pursuant to
which this General Plan Amendment could be adopted, but the
transfer stations which are proposed as a part of the 1989
CoSWMP revision would not be implemented.
With respect to the scope of the alternatives
evaluated in the EIR, this Board finds that the EIR sets forth
a reasonable range of alternatives to the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project . Specifically, this Board
finds that numerous alternate sites are adequately discussed in
the EIR and evaluated in documents incorporated into the EIR.
In addition; the EIR contains a brief explanation of why the
numerous alternate sites enumerated were rejected. In
addition, this program EIR and this General Plan Amendment are
the first phase of a series of development approvals pursuant
to which the County is considering five (5) possible landfill
sites, the five sites covered by the Five General Plan
Amendments, as possible alternative landfill disposal sites .
Unlike situations where a local government is considering one
site at a particular location, the evaluation of alternative
sites for a landfill is ongoing, pursuant to the adoption of
the Five General Plan Amendments , and as required by the
provisions of state law and the court order entered as judgment
in the Litigation against the county referenced in section
I .A. , above, of these findings .
A. The "No Project'' Alternative.
1 . Facts .
(a) This alternative is defined as the
failure to adopt a CoSWMP revision and General Plan Amendments ,
which would have the effect of maintaining the status quo with
respect to solid waste management and landfill development in
the County. In this alternative, no new landfills would be
developed, existing landfills would be used until their
closure, and then solid waste would be exported for disposal to
other counties . With Acme Landfill ' s impending closure, waste
currently going to Acme would be diverted to the two remaining
landfills in the County.
(b) These two landfills, Contra Costa
Sanitary Landfill (CCSL) and West Contra Costa Sanitary
Landfill (WCCSL) , are near capacity and at the present rate of
waste acceptance are due to close in 1990-1991 and 1993 ,
respectively. Although the CoSWMP identifies a, 24-acre
expansion at Acme Landfill , an application for such an
expansion was denied. by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board in 1988 . Expansion of CCSL and WCCSL are also provided
for in the CoSWMP, if approvals can be obtained. If one or
both are granted, they would provide only a few years of
I
EXHIBIT C 129
i
capacity for .the County. . This . General. Plan Amendment, in
conjunction with the other provisions of the CoSWMP, is
necessary to provide additional waste disposal capacity.
(c) In addition to new landfills, the
CoSWMP includes policies for increasing the current rate of
resource recovery. Failure to implement these provisions under
the No Project Alternative would exacerbate the demands on the
limited existing in-County capacity. After exhaustion of
in-County capacity, the County would have to export its waste,
which, though theoretically possible, would not be a certainty,
would be non-cost effective in the long run, and subject to
other jurisdictions ' requirements and politics .
(d) Adoption of the no project alternative
would be contrary to the county' s obligations pursuant to state
law, and contrary to the county' s obligations pursuant to the
Litigation referenced above.
(e) As stated elsewhere in these findings ,
many of the environmental impacts of this General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project have been or will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance, and this General Plan
Amendment and this Landfill Project will provide many benefits ,
including environmentally sound disposal of solid wastes, and
the resulting economic and social benefits to the entire county.
2 . Findings .
This Board finds �r_hat the no project alternative is
infeasible and less desirable than this General Plan Amendment ,
and rejects the no project alternative for the following
reasons :
(a) Adoption of the no project alternative
is illegal , contrary to the county' s obligation to adopt a
solid waste management plan pursuant to state law, and contrary
to the county' s obligations pursuant to the court order in the
Litigation referenced above .
(b) Mitigation measures incorporated into
this General Plan Amendment , or which will be incorporated into
future development approvals as conditions of approval , have
substantially mitigated or will substantially mitigate most of
the environmental effects of the General Plan Amendment and the
Landfill Project , thereby diminishing or obviating the
perceived mitigating benefits of approving the no project
alternative.
(c) Approval of the no project alternative
would entirely eliminate sound planning for disposal of future
EXHIBIT C 130
i
solid wastes in the county, resultingin severe economic and
social dislocation.
(d) The environmental , social , economic and
other benefits derived from this General Plan Amendment and the
Landfill Project as discussed in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations would not be obtained.
B. Waste Reduction Alternative.
1 . Facts .
(a) The CoSWMP includes goals and policies
for increasing the proportion of the County' s solid waste that
is diverted through resource recovery. The long-term goal is
to divert 73 percent of the wastestream. In this alternative,
three specific technologies would be used in lieu of
landfilling solid waste, viz . , recycling, composting, and
waste-to-energy. Two in-depth County studies indicate that
between 2 and 5 percent of the total wastestream could be
reasonably reduced via residential recycling programs .
Composting the approximately 10-15 percent vegetative waste of
the residential wastestream would be equivalent to
approximately 2 percent of the wastestream. Though waste-to-
energy technologies could produce a 70-percent reduction by
weight of the wastestream that is incinerated, there are
several problems involved. Ash residue from mass incineration
is about 30 percent by weight of incoming waste and this would
have to be disposed of . Landfill disposal would still be
required for this ash residue and for cion-combustible
material . In addition, waste-to-energy projects are capital
intensive, the environmental issues are great, and the current
chances for siting a project in the near term are slim. Waste
reduction technologies pursuant to this alternative would have
a limited effect on extending the life of the existing
landfills in the county, or on extending the life of expansions
of those landfills . A waste to energy program as part of this
alternative would require a minimum of five ( 5) years to be
implemented, ,a time schedule which extends beyond the scheduled
closure dates for existing landfill .
(b) Reduction in the amount of solid waste
entering the waste stream does not eliminate the need, or the
legal requirement , for identification of alternate landfill
sites , and the legal need and justification for adoption of
this General Plan Amendment .
(c) Many of the waste reduction programs
can be implemented together with the General Plan Amendment as
a part of the 1989 CoSWMP revision.
EXHIBIT C 131
i
I
h
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that the waste reduction alternative
is infeasible and less desirable than the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project, and rejects the waste
reduction alternative as an alternative to this General Plan
Amendment for the following reasons :
(a) This Board is legally required to adopt
this General Plan Amendment, and cannot legally adopt the Waste
Reduction alternative in its place.
(b) Although the waste reduction
alternative includes many. components which can be incorporated
into the CoSWMP, as a separate alternative to this Project the
waste reduction alternative will not eliminate the need for
alternate landfill sites in the county.
(c) mitigation measures incorporated into
the General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project or which
will be adopted as conditions of approval to subsequent
development approvals has substantially mitigated or will
substantially mitigate most of the environmental effects of the
General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project, thereby
diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating benefits of
approving this alternative.
(d) Because this alternative does not
include the General Plan Amendment and the Landfill. Project ,
the environmental , social , economic and other bene:=:its derived
from the General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project as
discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations would
not be obtained.
C. Alternate Landfill Sites.
1 . Facts .
( a) During the years 1984-1987 , there were
three landfill siting studies performed in the County to
identify potential sites . These efforts initially considered
22 sites , 'which were later narrowed through a ranking system to
seven sites . Four of the final seven sites recommended to the
Board of Supervisors are sites identified in the CoSWMP, the
subject of these Findings . The reasons for dropping the other
15 sites are listed in Table 6 . 3-1 of the CoSWMP EIR, and deal
mostly with the sites not meeting the County' s list of criteria
for new landfill development (Table 6 . 3-2 of the EIR) . It was
intended that developers of landfills would use this
information to identify future sites in the County.
I
EXHIBIT C ; 132
i
(b) . During the first study, three sites
were proposed by the private sector -- Kirker Pass Waste
Management Landfill (KPWML) , East Contra Costa Sanitary
Landfill (ECCSL) and Central Landfill . The Central Landfill
proposal was withdrawn in December of 1986 . In 1987 , KPWML and
ECCSL completed their hearings and environmental review with .
the Planning Commission. Both were unable to obtain a majority
approval by the Board of Supervisors . In 1988, the Marsh
Canyon Sanitary Landfill and Keller Canyon Landfill were
proposed by the private sector . They are currently undergoing
environmental review. This alternative was rejected because no
sites other than those now proposed to be included in the
CoSWMP are capable of becoming operating facilities by 1992 if
site-specific studies were started now. However, none of the
other sites have sponsors who have obtained control of the land
and begun the application studies .
(c) The referenced studies , the 1985 Solid
Waste Management Project report , the Southeast County Landfill
Siting Study prepared in June 1986 , and the Final Landfill
Siting Task Force Report adopted in 1987, are incorporated into
the EIR, and fully and completely analyze twenty (20) proposed
sites, including the site of the Five General Plan Amendments
and the site which is governed by this General Plan Amendment .
(d) In addition, the EIR contains an
explanation of the reasons why each of these sites is
infeasible as an alternative to this General Plan Amendment .
With respect to these specific sites, the EIR sets forth the
following conclusions :
( i) The Christie Road site has
insufficient capacity to meet minimum solid waste disposal
needs for a landfill site in the county.
( ii.) The Cummings Skyway site has a
significantly reduced capacity, because of the rerouting of
Highway 4 .
( iii) The Ozol site conflicts with a
nearby naval jet refueling facility.
( iv) New development is encroaching
upon the gig Canyon. site, making development of a landfill site
there infeasible.
(v) Access to the Kirker Pass site is
superior to two (2) unnamed sites near Kirker Pass Road, making
adoption of those sites infeasible.
i
EXHIBIT C I 133
P
(vi) Access to a site south of Antioch
at the end of Briones Valley Road is infeasible, because of the
high potential cost of road improvements and because access to
the Marsh Creek Landfill site is superior .
(vii) The cost of road improvements to a
site at the end of Camino Tassajara Road is prohibitive and
access to the Kirker Pass site is superior.
(viii) The cost of road improvements to a
site on the east of Camino Tassajara Road, south of Highland
Road, is prohibitive, and access to the Kirker Pass site is
superior .
( ix) Access to a proposed site west of
Camino Tassajara Road, and east of Doherty Road is prohibitive
due to the cost of road improvements, and access to the Kirker
Pass site is superior .
(x) Use of the Sand Quarry site is
incompatible with two proposed reservoirs , and the site will be
highly visible due to low rolling terrain, as the Sand Quarry
site is not a canyon landfill site.
(xi ) The Vasco Road site is located at
an extreme distance from waste generation sources , creating a
significant cost to reach the site, and is located too close to
archaeological sites .
(xii ) The Camino Vaqueros site is too
close to the proposed Kellogg Reservoir , has a relat-ively small
capacity, and possible access problems .
(xiii) The Armstrong Road site is very
remote and difficult to access , with a significant cost to
reach the site .
(xiv) The Briones Valley site is located
too close to future residential development, and would be
highly visible due to low rolling terrain rather than a canyon
landfill site configuration.
(xv) The proposed Altamont site is
located at an extreme distance from waste generation sources ,
creating a significant cost to reach the site, and is located
in close proximity to archaeological sites .
(xvi ) The Refuse Canyon Naval Station
site is infeasible because it is located on naval property.
f
I
EXHIBIT C � 134
The complete explanation of these conclusions is set forth in
the 1985 , 1986, and 1987 reports referenced above. These
reports are incorporated into the EIR pursuant to CEQA
Guideline 15150 .
(e) The county is still considering the Bay
Point, Bailey Road, Kirker Pass , East Contra Costa and Marsh
Canyon sites, and this evaluation of these alternative sites
will continue after the adoption of the Five General Plan
Amendments including this General Plan Amendment .
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that the substitute landfill
alternative, and each of the alternatives evaluated (excluding
the sites subject to the Five General Plan Amendments) is
infeasible and less desirable than the General Plan Amendment
and the Landfill Project, and rejects the substitute landfill
alternative and those sites not included in the Five General
Plan Amendments, for the following reasons :
.(a) Mitigation measures incorporated into
the General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project or which
will be adopted as conditions of approval to subsequent
development approvals have substantially mitigated or will
substantially mitigate most of the environmental effects of the
General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project, thereby
diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating benefits of
approving this alternative or any of the alternative sites .
(b) The alternative sites are infeasible
for the various reasons set forth below:
( i) The Christie Road is infeasible
because it lacks sufficient capacity.
( ii ) The Cummings Skyway site is
infeasible because it will have a significantly reduced
capacity due to the rerouting of Highway 4 .
( iii ) The Ozol site is infeasible
because its use as a landfill conflicts with a nearby naval jet
refueling facility.
( iv) The Big Canyon site is infeasible
because new development of other uses is encroaching upon that
site.
(v) The two unnamed sites located near
Kirker Pass Road are infeasible because access is poor, and
access to ; the Kirker Pass site is superior .
EXHIBIT C ' 135
I
I
I
(vi) The site of south of Antioch at,
the end of Briones Valley Road is infeasible because road
improvements are prohibitively expensive and because access to
the Marsh Canyon landfill is superior .
(vii) The ,site at the end of Tassajara
Road is infeasible because of the high cost of road
improvements and because access to the Kirker Pass site is
superior .
(viii) The site east of Tassajara Road is
infeasible because of .the high cost of road improvements and
because access to the Kirker Pass site is superior .
( ix) The site west of Camino Tassajara
Road and east of Doherty Road is infeasible because the cost of
road improvements is prohibitive and access to the Kirker Pass
site is superior .
(x) The Sand Quarry site is infeasible
because it is incompatible with two proposed reservoirs and
because the site will be more highly visible, as it is located
on low-rolling terrain and not in a canyon .
(xi) The Vasco Road site is infeasible
because it is located at an extreme distance from
waste-generating sources and because it is located too close to
archaeological sites .
(xii ) _ The Caminos Vaqueros site is
infeasible because it is too close to a proposed reservoir,
because it has a relatively small capacity, and because of
possible access problems .
(xiii) The Armstrong Road is infeasible
because it is remote and difficult and expensive to obtain
access to the site .
(xiv) The Briones Valley site is
infeasible because it is located too close to future
residential development and because it would be more highly
visible, as it is located on rolling terrain and not in a
canyon.
(xv) The Altamont site is infeasible
because it is located at an extreme distance from
waste-generation sources and is close to archaeological sites .
(xvi) The Refuse Canyon Naval Station
site is infeasible because it is located on naval property and
is not available for landfill purposes .
EXHIBIT C ! 136
I
i
(xvii ) In addition, each of these sites
is infeasible because the County is bound by court order to
adopt the Five General Plan Amendments.
(c) Because the various alternate sites
listed above which are not the subject of the Five General Plan
Amendments are infeasible, adoption of the substitute landfill
alternative would eliminate the environmental , social , economic
and other benefits derived from the General Plan Amendment and
the Landfill Project as discussed in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations .
(d) The county is required pursuant to the
court order in the Litigation referenced above to adopt general
plan amendments for five ( 5) sites , including the site governed
by this General Plan Amendment . Adoption of the Substitute
Landfill Alternative would be contrary to the county' s
obligations pursuant to the court order in the Litigation.
D. No Transfer Station Alternative .
1 . Facts .
(a) In this alternative, the CoSWMP
revision and General Plan Amendments would not include the
provision for transfer stations , and instead rely on direct
haul of solid waste to landfill(s) and/or resource recovery
facilities . This would entail the use of low-capacity packer
trunks to haul the waste from the point of collection to the
ultimate disposal or processing point , rather than using
high-capacity transfer vehicles to haul waste from a transfer
station to the ultimate disposal/processing location. There
would be a substantially greater number of vehicle trips needed
to transport a given amount of solid waste to its ultimate
destination(s) . In the worst case condition for traffic
generation, a single landfill would become the destination for
all the solid waste operations in the County. According to
Table 6 . 3-3 in the CoSWMP/General Plan Amendment EIR, there -
would be almost three times as many vehicle trips generated
under this scenario than under the proposed project scenario
which includes transfer stations ( 1 , 726 trips by the year 2005
instead of 640 trips) . There would be substantially greater
air emissions and noise impacts . In addition, there could be
more public service impacts due to road maintenance and traffic
enforcement, and greater land use, visual and property value
impacts as a result of increased traffic . .
(b) The county is required by state law and
pursuant to the court order in the Litigation to adopt the Five
General Plan Amendments .
i
EXHIBIT C , 137
i
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that the no transfer station
alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the General
Plan Amendment, and rejects the no transfer station alternative
for the following reasons :
(a) The County is legally obligated to
adopt the Five General Plan Amendments, and accordingly cannot
adopt this alternative in their place . This alternative is
contrary to the County' s obligations pursuant to state law and
pursuant to the court order in the Litigation.
(b) Mitigation measures incorporated into
the General Plan Amendment, or which will be incorporated into
future development approvals as conditions . of approval , has
substantially mitigated or will substantially mitigate most of
the environmental effects of the General Plan Amendment and the
Landfill Project , thereby diminishing or obviating the
perceived mitigating benefits of approving this alternative .
(c) This alternative would result in
adverse environmental impacts , including additional traffic ,
greater air emissions , and greater public services impacts .
Increased traffic could result in adverse land use, visual and
property value impacts . For these reasons, this alternative is
infeasible and undesirable.
VI . STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 , this Board
adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding
Considerations regarding the unavoidable environmental impacts
of the Project , as discussed above, and the anticipated
environmental , economic , social and other benefits of the
General Plan Amendment and Landfill Project . To the extent
that any impacts of the General Plan Amendment and the Landfill
Project may be significant adverse impacts , this Board finds
that such impacts are overridden by the benefits of the General
Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project as set forth below.
A. Generally.
This Board finds that , to the extent that any impacts
( including cumulative impacts) attributable to this Landfill
Project or to the General Plan Amendment remain unmitigated,
such impacts are overridden by, and acceptable in light of , the
environmental , social , economic and other overriding
considerations set forth herein because these benefits outweigh
the significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts
i
EXHIBIT C 138
of the Landfill Project .. This Board also. finds that, to the
extent that any mitigation measures which were recommended in
the EIR were not or will not be incorporated into the General
Plan Amendment or the Landfill Project , such mitigation
measures are infeasible with respect to the Landfill Project ,
because such measures would impose limitations and restrictions
on the development of the Landfill Project so as to prohibit
the. attainment of specific social , economic and other benefits
of the Landfill. Project which this Board finds outweigh the
unmitigated impacts of the Landfill Project . . This Board
further finds that the alternatives to the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project set forth in the EIR are
infeasible because such alternatives would prohibit the
attainment of specific social , economic and other benefits of
the Landfill Project which this Board finds outweigh the
environmental benefits of the alternatives . Specifically, this
Board finds that the following social , economic and other
considerations warrant approval of the General Plan Amendment
notwithstanding any unavoidable or unmitigated impacts :
1 . The General Plan Amendment is necessary to
comply with state law.
The General Plan Amendment is required so the County
may comply with state law governing solid waste management and
landfill sites . Pursuant to the California Solid Waste
Management Resource Recovery Act of 1972 , California Government
Code section 66780 et sec . , the County is required to prepare
and update a county solid waste management plan ( "CoSWMP" ) . In
addition, California law regtaires that the CoSWMP show eight
years of assured capacity in reserved waste disposal sites
which are identified in both the CoSWMP and in the County
General Plan. The County cannot demonstrate eight years of
capacity without providing new landfill sites , and no new site
is currently included in the County General Pian. Accordingly,
general plan amendments are required for these landfill sites .
On March 1 , 1989 , the California Attorney General , on
behalf of the California Waste Management Board, filed suit
against this Board because, among other things, the County had
not yet adopted a CoSWMP revision which included future
landfill disposal sites . California Waste Management Board v.
Board of Supervisors , Contra Costa .County Superior Court
No . 89-00833 (the "Litigation" ) . This General Plan Amendment
is necessary for the County to comply with its legal obligation
to provide adequate disposal sites in the County.
i
EXHIBIT C 139
I
i
2 . The General Plan Amendment is necessary to
comply with court order .
The General Plan Amendment is necessary for the County
to comply with the provisions of the court order . The
provisions of this order relating to landfill sites and
landfill site general plan amendments are binding on the County.
This Litigation was initiated against the County to
require compliance with California Government Code
section 66780 . 5 requiring submission of the final revised
county waste management plan. The court order requires the
County to carry out certain tasks set forth in a schedule for
the 1989 CoSWMP Revision and landfill general plan amendments .
This schedule requires this Board to adopt general plan
amendments for the various landfill sites set forth in the
General Plan Amendment . Pursuant to the court order , this
Board is under a legal obligation to adopt the General Plan
Amendment , and may be subject to sanctions or other remedies
for failure to adopt the General Plan Amendment .
3 . Environmental and waste management benefits .
The General Plan Amendment is an integral part of the
County' s 1989 CoSWMP revision, and adoption of this General
Plan Amendment is required in order to implement the 1989
revision. The purpose of the 1989 revision is to establish
goals and policies to produce the amount of solid waste
generated in the County, to recycle as much of the solid waste
as possible, to utilize the energy and nutrient value of solid
waste where possible, and to properly dispose of remaining
solid waste. Implementation of these goals and policies will
be a substantial environmental benefit to the entire county and
region, and adoption of this General Plan Amendment is
necessary to fully implement these goals .
The proposed CoSWMP revision requires new landfills to
be constructed to Class II standards . Class II landfills are
required to have liners , leachate collection systems , and other
features to protect the environment and provide for proper
waste management . According to the EIR, the CoSWMP requirement
of Class II standards will provide a higher level of
environmental protection at new landfill sites in the County,
and this is a substantial environmental benefit of the General
Plan Amendment .
In addition, the collection policy in the CoSWMP calls
for mandatory subscription to solid waste collection service,
replacing the current option in some areas to either subscribe
to collection service or dispose of solid waste individually.
The EIR states that mandatory collection is a beneficial and
EXHIBIT C 140
i
i
environmental impact because it reduces solid waste storage
problems and results in a more. healthful , attractive
community. This policy also reduces traffic associated with
individual solid waste transport and disposal . This is an
environmental benefit of the proposed CoSWMP, and this General
Plan Amendment is necessary to fully implement the CoSWMP so
the reduction of solid waste storage problem is an
environmental benefit of this General Plan Amendment .
Similarly, the CoSWMP encourages recycling, composting
and waste to energy or waste processing programs, all of which
reduce overall solid waste and are a beneficial environmental
impact of the CoSWMP. As this General Plan Amendment is
necessary to full implementation of the CoSWMP, the collection
of recycled materials and reduction in the solid waste frame is
an environmental benefit of this General Plan Amendment .
4 . Reduced export of solid waste to other
counties .
Existing landfills in Contra Costa County are expected
to close at different times , based on their remaining capacity,
beginning with the Acme Landfill in 1989 and concluding with
the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill in or about 1991 .
Because of these closures , the County will be required to
export solid waste to other counties until new landfill sites
can be developed. Adoption of this General Plan Amendment will
reduce or eliminate the County' s need to export solid waste to
other counties . This will reduce or eliminate the energy,
environmental and traffic impacts of transferring waste outside
of the County and is an environmental benefit of the project .
5 . Overall economic benefit to the County.
The provision of adequate solid waste storage, and
accordingly the CoSWMP revision and this General Plan
Amendment , are necessary to the continued economic development
of the County and preservation of existing jobs and
businesses . The failure to reserve adequate landfill capacity
will adversely affect existing businesses by making it more
difficult to operate, and will discourage or prevent other
businesses from locating in the County.
6 . Overall social benefits to the County.
The provision of adequate solid waste storage, and
accordingly the CoSWMP revision and this General Plan
Amendment ;i provide great social benefits to the County. The
provision of a number of services , including adequate
healthcare, child daycare, care for senior citizens , and supply
of food and housing, all depend upon a reliable and assured
EXHIBIT C1 141
source of adequate and environmentally sound solid waste
storage. Because this General Plan Amendment is a part of the
1989 CoSWMP revision and is necessary to implement that
revision, these social benefits throughout the County are a
benefit of a this General Plan Amendment .
7 . Provision of construction jobs .
This General Plan Amendment , and development of one or
more landfill sites pursuant to subsequent land use approvals
which may be granted, will provide construction jobs over a
period of several years .
B. Vegetation And Wildlife.
With respect to any unavoidable impacts of the
Landfill Project and the General Plan Amendment on vegetation
and wildlife ( including removal of wetlands or oak woodland
vegetation) , this Board finds that the aforementioned
'environmental , social , economic and other considerations
warrant approval of the General Plan Amendment. and the Landfill
Project notwithstanding the fact that these impacts of the
Landfill Project and the General Plan Amendment may not be
avoided despite the numerous mitigation measures and conditions
of approval which are imposed or will be imposed on the
Landfill Project and the development of the General Plan
Amendment site pursuant to subsequent development approvals .
This Board finds that these impacts also cannot be avoided
except by approval of the No Project Alternative, which
alternative would eliminate the Landfill Project benefits as
set forth above, and which alternative would not achieve
compliance with either state law or governing court orders .
C. Geology And Soils .
With respect to any unavoidable impacts of the
Landfill Project and the General Plan Amendment on geology and
soils ( including alteration of topography at landfill sites) ,
this Board finds that the aforementioned environmental , social ,
economic and other considerations warrant approval of the
General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project notwithstanding
the fact that these impacts of the Landfill Project and the
General Plan Amendment may not be avoided despite the numerous
mitigation measures and conditions of approval which are
imposed or will be imposed on the Landfill Project and the
development of the General Plan Amendment site pursuant to
subsequent development approvals . This Board finds that these
impacts also cannot be avoided except by approval of the No
Project Alternative, which alternative would eliminate the
Landfill Project benefits as set forth above, and which
r
EXHIBIT C 142
.alternative would not achieve compliance with either state law
or governing court orders . .
D. Visual .Quality.
with respect to any unavoidable impacts of the
Landfill Project and the General Plan Amendment on visual
quality ( including any adverse changes in existing visual
character of landfill sites) , this Board finds that the
aforementioned environmental , social , economic and other
. considerations warrant approval of the General Plan Amendment
and the Landfill Project notwithstanding the fact that these
impacts of the Landfill Project and the General Plan Amendment
may not be avoided despite the numerous mitigation measures and
conditions of approval which are imposed or will be imposed on
the Landfill Project and the Development of the General Plan
Amendment site pursuant to subsequent development approvals .
This Board finds that these impacts also cannot be avoided
except by approval of the No Project Alternative, which
Alternative would eliminate the Landfill Project benefits as
set forth above, and which alternative would not achieve
compliance with either state law or governing court orders . .
E. Cultural Resources .
with respect to any unavoidable impacts of the
Landfill Project and the General Plan Amendment on cultural
resources ( including the possible elimination of historic
homesteads on the East Contra Costa sanitary landfill and the
Marsh Canyon sanitary landfill sites) , this Board finds that
the aforementioned environmental , social , economic and other
considerations warrant approval of the General Plan Amendment
and the Landfill Project notwithstanding the fact that these
impacts of the Landfill Project and the General Plan Amendment
may not be avoided despite the numerous mitigation measures and
conditions of approval which are imposed .or will be imposed on
the Landfill Project and the development of the General Plan
Amendment sites pursuant to subsequent development approvals .
This Board finds that these impacts also cannot be avoided
except by approval of the No Project Alternative, which
Alternative would eliminate the Landfill Project benefits as
set forth ; above, and which alternative would not achieve
compliance with either state law or governing court orders.
F. Cumulative Impacts .
With respect to any unavoidable cumulative impacts of
the Landfill Project and the General Plan Amendment, this Board
finds that the aforementioned environmental , social , economic
and other considerations warrant approval of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project notwithstanding the fact
EXHIBIT C ; 143
a
that these impacts of the .Landfill Project and the General Plan
Amendment may not be avoided despite the numerous .mitigation
measures and conditions of approval which are imposed or will
be imposed on the Landfill Project and the development of the
General Plan Amendment sites pursuant to subsequent development
approvals . This Board finds that these impacts also cannot be
avoided except by approval of the No Project Alternative, which
Alternative would eliminate the Landfill Project benefits as
set forth above, and which alternative would not achieve
compliance with either state law or governing court orders .
G. Other Environmental Impacts .
With respect to any other impacts of the Landfill
Project and the General Plan Amendment which are unavoidable
adverse impacts, notwithstanding the conclusions in the final
EIR that other impacts are either insignificant or. mitigated to
a level of insignificance, this Board finds that the
aforementioned environmental , social , economic and other
considerations warrant approval of the General Plan Amendment
and the Landfill Project notwithstanding the fact that these
impacts of the Landfill Project and the General Plan Amendment
may not be avoided despite the numerous mitigation measures and
conditions of approval which are imposed or will be imposed on
the Landfill Project and the development of the General Plan
Amendment site pursuant to subsequent developmental approvals .
This Board finds that these impacts also cannot be avoided
except by approval of the No Project Alternative, which
alternative would eliminate the Landfill Project benefits as
set forth above, and which alternative would not achieve
compliance with either state law or governing court orders .
VII . FINDINGS REGARDING MONITORING OR REPORTING OF CEQA
MITIGATION MEASURES
Section 21081 . 6 of the California Public Resources
Code requires this Board to adopt-a monitoring or reporting
program regarding CEQA mitigation measures in connection with
these findings . This Board has made specific findings
regarding mitigation monitoring as it applies to various
specific impacts of the Landfill Project, in the findings
sections set forth above. Those specific findings call for
annual reporting, based on information to be gathered by the
County Community Development Department . This annual reporting
will be done pursuant to the following program, which this
Board hereby adopts in fulfillment of the CEQA mitigation
monitoring requirement :
A. The Community Development Department shall file a
written report with this Board approximately once each year ,
EXHIBIT C1 144
.beginnington or about the first anniversary of the approval of
this General Plan Amendment by the Board of Supervisors and
continuing until the Landfill Project is developed pursuant to
additional, land use approvals which may be granted by the
County. The written report shall briefly state the status in
implementing each mitigation measure which is adopted as a
Condition ;of .Approval or which is incorporated into the
Landfill Project . The written report may include information
from other agencies regarding implementation of the mitigation
measures . * when such information from other agencies is
included, the report shall include such additional information,
if any, as the Department deems necessary to provide a complete
report on the implementation of mitigation measures .
B. Community Development staff and this Board shall
review the written report and determine whether there is any
unforeseen, unusual and substantial delay in, or obstacle to,
implementing the adopted or incorporated mitigation measures
which requires action by Department staff .
C. The Board may delegate its review of the
mitigation monitoring report , in this Board ' s sole discretion.
If any interested party requests it , the result of this review
will be provided to such party in writing.
D. If the staff or this Board determines that action
is required to ensure that one or more mitigation measures is
implemented, then the staff shall advise this Board of the
situation.
VIII . GENERAL
This Board makes the following general findings and
determinations and intends them to be generally applicable to
this General Plan Amendment and to all findings and
determinations as a whole contained herein.
A. In addition to the foregoing specific findings ,
this Board hereby incorporates by reference the applicable
portions of the County Staff reports and studies, oral and
written evidence submitted into the record, .oral and written
evidence submitted into the record, the EIR, resolutions and
conditions of approval , all relating to the General Plan
Amendment .
B. This Board intends that the foregoing findings
and determinations be considered as an integrated whole and,
whether or not any subdivision of these findings and
determinations fails to cross-reference or incorporate by
reference any other subdivision of these findings and
determinations , that any finding and/or determination required
EXHIBIT C ! 145
M
i
i
or permitted to be made by this Board with respect to any
particular subject, matter of the General Plan Amendment shall
be deemed made if it appears in any portion of these findings
and determinations . All of the foregoing constitute findings
and determinations by this Board whether or not any particular
sentence or :clause states such.
C. Each and all of the findings and determinations
contained herein are based upon the competent and substantial
evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record
relating to ; the General Plan Amendment and the Landfill
Project, including, without limitation, that evidence presented
in hearings on the General Plan Amendment and the EIR before
the Planning Commission, the Zoning Administrator and the Board
of Supervisors . The findings and determinations constitute the
independent findings and determinations of this Board in all
respects and are fully and completely supported by competent
and substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
i
i
I
i
i
i
EXHIBIT C 146
D
EXHIBIT D
I
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
EAST CONTRA COSTA SANITARY LANDFILL
(GPA 6-85-CO)
The Contra Costa County General Plan is amended as provided below.
1
1. REFUSE DISPOSAL PLAN
a. Add to the Eastern Study Area Text (p. 29) :
-East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill.
I
A sanitary landfill facility, or sanitary landfill facilities, may be
developed at the location identified as a Sanitary Landfill Refuse
Disposal Facility on the accompanying Plan Map, in accordance with the
Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval adopted by the Board of
Supervisors. A sanitary landfill developed in the subject location is
intended to take residential-commercial-industrial wastes (i.e. ,
wastes allowable for a Class II landfill under the terms of Subchapter
15; Chapter 3, Title 23 of the California Administrative Code, 1984) .
The facility is intended to serve Contra Costa County and other areas
specified by the Board of Supervisors."
b. Add the attached diagram entitled Plan Map--East Contra Costa Sanitary
Landfill to the above plan text amendment.
2. LAND USE ELEMENT
Add the East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (2b) to the following section
of the Land Use Element which was adopted on December 15, 1987:
"Adopted Refuse Disposal Facilities.
The following Refuse Disposal Facilities are consistent with the Land
Use Element and their site areas are deemed to be overlays on the Land
Use Element Plan Map:
1. Refuse Disposal Facilities`approved prior to January 1, 1983, by
the Board of Supervisors in General Plan Components and Land Use
Permits (includes West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, and the IT
Corporation's Baker, Pacheco, and Vine Hill facilities. .
2. Refuse. Disposal Facilities approved by General Plan Amendments
adopted subsequent to January 1, 1983, by the Board of Supervi-
sors. These are: (a) the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer
Station, adopted December 15, 1987; and (b) the Bay Pointe
Sanitary Landfill, East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, Keller
Canyon Landfill, Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill, and Marsh
Canyon Sanitary Landfill, adopted September .19, 1989.
i
i
f
3. OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Add "refuse disposal" to the following statement of purpose on Page 1,
Purposes, of the Open Space and Conservation Element, indicated by under-
lining
f
Open Space and Conservation in this plan can mean land for orchards,
crops, livestock production, water supply, national defense, public
and private recreation, forestry, mineral extraction, refuse disposal, .
agricultural industry, and even very low density residential uses,
where appropriate to location and other planning considerations.
I
I hereby certify that this amendment
to the Contra Costa County General Plan
was Adopted by the Board of Supervisors
on October 10, 1989.
Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of
Super 'sors d 2Lnistrator
BY ucwl
Dep ty
RV:jll4:eccsan.gpa
I
GGNF,.RAL PLAN AmF.NDMENT
EAST CONTRA COSTA SANITARY LANDFILL
(GPA 6-85-CO)
r •4r ^< Z
r rN w t '1
1 � .a flan fhC.
PLAN MAP -- EAST CONTRA COSTA SANITARY LANDFILL
Part of the Refuse Disposal Plan and
Land Use Element ( Plan Map Overlay) of
the Contra - Costa County General Plan
( CROSR♦PA*
t' 32(Wi xT / {
((( } Z 40 AC f t\I I
t
N
I ,x
a . z-7 r J
a0 A.• -A�.:'- ,� It I: is I 11 / o
I •� O S A 171 99 A,..
t1 > ----- --------j- ;• o•-------
0
Lane
m
47
' T fi
G wT
6 At ; t .'r + ACO x AN10
rsville�f 1:
d +}T i.#
�..• • �; >' 0 1000• 2400
N - + .__ _ _._ -•-1%-_- __j scale ia :eec
60 AC 190 AC -.x:� 'i"s" s++•" + 1
41HOCH10 �
• ZA0 AG t
i
StewFirtville
1
�---* General Plan Amendment Area
Sanitary Landfill Refuse Disposal Faciljiy
I hereby certify that this
amendment to the Contra Costa
County General Plan was
Adopted by the Board of
supervisors on October 10, 1989.
Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board
of Supervisor:, rind County
Adrninis.t.gator
a
I t3y:
Uepu
vp t.
r
i
i
I
i
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS AND MONITORING PROGRAM
PROCEDURES
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County,
California (hereinafter the "Board" or the "Board of
Supervisors" ) , finds that:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , as
amended, together with the State CEQA Guidelines, requires
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
certain public and private .sector projects requiring
discretionary actions by California's governments .
The discretionary approval powers over the proposed
CEQA project known as the proposed Keller Canyon Landfill
General Plan Amendment (3-89-CO) reside with the County. The
County, as the Lead Agency, determined that an EIR was
required for this project and issued a Notice of Preparation
on January 25, 1989, to the State Clearinghouse and to
various public agencies (including all the cities in the
County) , organizations and individuals . As part of the
environmental review process, the County held a public
scoping session on February 15, 1989 .
The County determined that the EIR should address
the general environmental impacts associated with amending
the Contra Costa County General Plan to include this proposed
landfill site. In addition, the EIR serves as the
environmental document for the proposed 1989 revision to the
County Solid Waste Management Plan ( "CoSWMP" )
The County determined that the California
Environmental Quality Act documentation for the CoSWMP and
the proposed General Plan Amendments, and the individual
solid waste development projects which could result from the
CoSWMP and the proposed General Plan Amendments, be prepared
in stages . The first tier is a Program EIR, the subject of
these findings, on the CoSWMP and General Plan Amendments,
which analyzes the possible environmental consequences of
implementing the solid waste management policies in the
COSWMP, and adopting each of five General Plan Amendments .
The second tier of the process will be the environmental
review of the specific landfill project proposed and designed
for the area covered by the Keller Canyon General Plan
Amendment; this level of review generally will be
accomplished through a site-specific Project EIR. Together,
the two tiers are intended to carry out the California
-1-
EXHIBIT E
Environmental Quality Act and implement the State's and -the
County' s CEQA Guidelines .
On May 15, 1989, a Draft EIR for the CoSWMP and the
proposed General Plan Amendments was published by the County
and distributed to the State Clearinghouse and the 18 cities
in the County. The County Zoning Administrator held a public
hearing on this draft document in the City of Pittsburg on
June 20, 1989 . The public review period ended on June 30,
1989 .
On August 2, 1989, the Final EIR for the CoSWMP and
the proposed General Plan Amendments was published,
consisting of the Draft EIR and the Response to Comments
document.
On August 7 , 1989, the Contra Costa County Zoning
Administrator found that the Final EIR for the CoSWMP and the
proposed General Plan Amendments was prepared and processed
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act,
and that the EIR is adequate in its coverage of environmental
impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives, and other
environmental effects that could result from the adoption of
the CoSWMP and the five General Plan Amendments . Further,
the Zoning Administrator transmitted the Final EIR to the
Board of Supervisors with the recommendation that it be
certified.
On August 15, 1989, the Board of Supervisors
certified that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
proposed 1989 CoSWMP Revision and the five proposed General
Plan Amendments had been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and that it had been
presented to the Board and the Board had considered the
information contained in it.
The County, as the lead agency, has determined that
a written finding, accompanied by an explanation of the
rationale for the finding, be prepared for each potentially
significant impact identified in the Final EIR. In addition,
as required by recent State legislation (Pub. Resources Code,
§21081 . 6 (AB 3180) ) , every public agency making such findings
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 Board of Supervisors finds that the impacts
described in these findings, which could result from
implementation of the proposed Keller Canyon Landfill, are
potentially significant from an environmental standpoint.
-2-
EXHIBIT E
CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS
The CEQA statute and CEQA Guidelines contain
specific requirements for findings that must be made by a
lead agency when it approves a project for which an EIR has
been prepared. These requirements are found in Public
Resources Code Sections 21081 and 21081 .5 and State CEQA
Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs . , tit. 14, §15000 et seq. ,
"Guidelines" ) , Sections 15091 and 15093. Basically, the lead
agency, in this case the Board of Supervisors, must make a
finding for each potentially significant impact, either that
it has been mitigated below the level of significance, or
that mitigation is infeasible and the project's overall
benefits outweigh its risks (Statement of Overriding
Considerations . )
The CoSWMP/GPA EIR is a. "program EIR" and is part
of a "tiering" process under CEQA. Specific project EIRs
will follow at the next level of the tiering process . At
each level of the process, the Board's findings regarding
mitigation should be appropriate to the level of
generality/specificity involved. At the present policy
level, a general plan amendment for the Keller Canyon
Landfill site is being considered. The mitigation measures
are therefore expressed in less detailed terms than will be
the case at the later specific project approval level . In
addition, the mitigation measures shall be adopted as
conditions of approval as part of the land use permit when a
specific landfill project is approved.
With regard to findings and determinations required
by CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors hereby finds and determines as
follows :
A. A finding is made for each significant
impact identified in the EIR (Public Resources Code (PRC)
§21081, Guidelines §15091) . Each finding set forth below is
based on the entire record before the Board.
B. The finding for each impact describes
mitigation measures and indicates that these measures, as
further specified and detailed, should be required or
considered at the project approval stage. This Board hereby
declares its intent to adopt each such mitigation measure,
assuming that the project-level EIR concludes that each
significant impact is as it was described in the Program EIR
and that such mitigation measure is feasible and effective.
If the project-level EIR concludes that an impact is not as
described in the Program EIR or that a mitigation measure
-3-
EXHIBIT E
adopted herein is not feasible or effective, the Board shall
address the impact identified and described as a significant
impact in the project-level EIR and shall adopt mitigation
measures that are feasible and effective in mitigating such
impact to a level less than significant. In the alternative,
if the impact is considered unmitigable, The Board shall
consider the appropriateness of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations. This approach is appropriate for a Program
EIR and a plan-level approval, and is consistent with the
tiering process (PRC §§21093, 21094, Guidelines §15168) .
C. The mitigation indicated will be
considered and required by Contra Costa County as the Lead
Agency. In addition, where appropriate, mitigation is
indicated as being required by other public agencies (PRC
§21081, Guidelines §15091) .
D. With regard. to each finding, the Board of
Supervisors hereby determines that there exists substantial
evidence in the record to support such finding. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21081 .5, Guidelines § 15091)
E. Consideration has been given to each
alternative analyzed in the EIR, and findings have been made,
with supporting rationale, for rejecting each alternative.
(Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, Guidelines § 15091 ) .
F. In light of the urgent need to increase
landfill capacity in order to forestall a public health
hazard and accommodate the County's growing population and
employment base, the Board of Supervisors hereby finds and
determines that its Statement of Overriding Considerations
contained in the findings is applicable in those instances
where there may remain unavoidable significant impacts after
mitigation. (Guidelines § 15093) .
G. The record before the Board comprises the
following:
1) All documents, files, and reports on
this General Plan Amendment and on each of the other general
plan amendments adopted in Parts III through VII of this
Resolution.
2) All staff reports on all five general
plan amendments.
3 ) All documentary and oral evidence
received and reviewed by the Zoning Administrator, the County
Planning Commission, and this Board before and during the
-4-
EXHIBIT E
public hearings on the Draft EIR and on the five general plan
amendments .
4) The Final EIR, including all notices
relating to the EIR and all documents and reports
incorporated by reference into the EIR.
5) The Judgment and the Peremptory Writ
of Mandate in California Waste Management Board v. Board of
Supervisors, etc. , Contra Costa County Superior Court No.
C89-00833.
6) All matters of common knowledge, such
as the County General Plan, the County Ordinance Code, County
policies and regulations, the County Solid Waste Management
Plan and revisions to it, and applicable state law.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE
CONSIDERED MITIGABLE TO INSIGNIFICANCE
I . PLANNING AND LAND USE
1 . Significant Effect: Landfill operations at the Keller
. Canyon Landfill site would remove agricultural usage
(currently grazing) from the active parts of this site
for the life of the landfill (FEIR, pp. 4 . 1-24, 4 . 1-26 ) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
,by the EIR. Mitigation measures will include
enhancing the grazing capabilities on the remainder
of the landfill site or on another site. The
County Community Development Department shall
address the potential loss of agricultural values
in the site specific EIRs, and, where found to be
appropriate, shall ensure that the mitigation
measures identified in the EIRs to reduce this
impact to a less than significant level are
implemented by making them Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval .
b.: Supporting Explanation: The project-specific
environmental review would include on-site and/or
off-site mitigation measures, such as enhancement
of the sites's grazing capabilities . It may be
preferable to substitute other uses, such as
recreation or habitat, for grazing.
-5-
EXHIBIT E
l
C., Monitoring Program: The status of this siting
criterion as it applies to proposed and sited
landfills shall be reported to the Board annually.,
2 . Significant Effect: Surrounding residential, commercial
and recreational uses could be adversely affected by
traffic, air and water pollution, and visual impacts due
to the siting of a landfill on this site (FEIR, p. 4 . 1-
24) .
a.� Findincr: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. The implementation of the mitigation
measures identified elsewhere in these Findings
concerned with traffic reduction and control,
prevention of air and water pollution, and visual
mitigation, will reduce these impacts to less than
significance. Most of the mitigation measures are
capable of being implemented by the County, and are
appropriate for inclusion in Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval or Solid Waste Facilities
Permits .
b. Supporting Explanation: Specific environmental
issues that would affect surrounding land uses can
be found in the Program EIR's sections on Air
Quality, Visual Quality, Noise and Transportation.
Impacts identified in these sections can result in
significant land use impacts to nearby land uses .
The mitigation measures identified in these
sections would be addressed in the project-specific
EIR.
C. Monitoring Program: The status of this siting
criterion shall be included in the annual
monitoring report to the Board, and are subject to
control by the County.
3 . Significant Effect: Filling operations on a portion of
the Keller Canyon site could be inconsistent with the
Concord Naval Weapons Station Explosive Safety Easement
if filling activities were to occur within the easement
area. (FEIR, pp. 4. 1-19, 26-7 )
a. Finding: This Board finds that there will be no
such significant impact if the planned
configuration of fill area for the Keller Canyon
site lies outside of the Naval Easement area, as
i represented in the project application. The
implementation of this mitigation measure is
-6-
EXHIBIT E
I
i
i
controlled by the U.S. Department of Defense, and
is subject to the terms of the easement.
4
b.1 Supporting Explanation: The boundaries of the
Naval Easement affect only a portion of the overall
Keller Canyon site and encroachment into the
easement area is not required inorder for the
applicant to construct and operate the proposed
landfill on this site.
c., Monitoring Program: The enforcement of the Naval
easement is within the exclusive control of the
Department of Defense.
4 . Significant Effect: Construction and operation of a
landfill at the Keller Canyon site will require the
Board of Supervisors to approve cancellation of
Williamson Act contracts governing portions of the
overall project area. Other portions of the project
site will be set aside as permanent buffer area and will
require no such Williamson Act contract cancellations .
(FEIR, pp. 4 . 1-1.8, 24; App. A-12,13)
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact is
potentially significant but may be mitigated to a
level less than significant by the imposition of
the mitigation measures, includng those recommended.
by the EIR. The impac,.s resulting from
cancellation of the applicable Williamson Act
contracts entail loss of use of a portion of the
project site for agricultural uses during the
operational life of the landfill. Mitigation
measures will include enhancing the grazing
capabilities on the remainder of the landfill site
and within the permanent buffer area or on another
site. The County Community Development Department
shall address the potential loss of agricultural
values in the site specific EIR, and, where found
to be appropriate, shall include the mitigation
measures identified in the program and project EIRs
with the objective of reducing this impact to a
less than significant level. The Board of
Supervisors shall consider the appropriateness of
cancellation of the applicable Williamson Act
contracts following preparation of the site
specific EIR.
b. Supporting Explanation: The project-specific
environmental review would include on-site and/or
off-site mitigation measures, such as enhancement
of the sites's grazing capabilities . Most of the
-7-
EXHIBIT E
i
measures are subject to implementation through the
County's Land Use Permit.
C., Monitoring Program: The status of this siting
criterion shall be included in the annual
monitoring report to the Board, and are subject to
control by the County.
5 . Effect: Construction and operation of a landfill at the
Keller Canyon site will limit potential future uses of
this site as proposed in the City of Pittsburg's General
Plan and could limit potential future uses of
surrounding areas for residential or commercial
purposes. (FEIR, pp. 4 . 1-25,26)
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact is not
significant or, alternatively, will be mitigated- to
a level less than significant by the imposition of
the mitigation measures recommended by the EIR. The
County's land use designation which currently
governs this site restricts it to agricultural
uses . While the City of Pittsburg General Plan
indicates. a plan for residential and commercial
development in the northern portion of the Keller
site, the City does not have jurisdiction over any
portion of this site because it is outside both the
City' s limits and the City's Sphere of Influence.
This site is within the County's jurisdiction for
land use planning. Therefore any inconsistency
between the City of Pittsburg' s General Plan and
development of a landfill at this site is not a
significant impact. Moreover, the area of landfill
activities is surrounded by a buffer zone where no
filling activities would take place. Therefore,
the development potential of any remaining land
surrounding the landfill site would not be
significantly impacted by the development of this
site. (See also the Finding in Section I . 2,
above) .
b. Supporting Explanation: For the foregoing reasons,
no mitigation measures are required other than
those required to reduce the impact of the landfill
activities on surrounding land uses, as more fully
described as mitigation measures to be implemented
in response to Significant Impact No. 2 set forth
above, which is incorporated herein by this
reference.
C., Monitoring Program: The status of this siting
criterion shall be included in the annual
-g-
EXHIBIT E
i
monitoring report to the Board, and are subject to
control by the County.
II . PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
1 . Significant Effect: The Keller Canyon Landfill site has
the potential to provide food, cover and breeding ground
for disease vectors such as mosquitos, small rodents,
and certain species of birds (FEIR, p. 4 . 2-6 ) .
a.' Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. Compaction and daily cover of refuse
will limit birds and rodents from feeding on the
refuse. The compaction of refuse in collection
vehicles and at landfills effectively controls
rodent populations in most cases . The requirements
will be included in the landfill's Solid Waste
Facilities Permit and may be included in Land. Use
Permit Conditions of Approval. The County's Health
Services and Community Development Departments
shall include appropriate provisions in the
permits . If these measures prove inadequate to
control rodents and birds, additional measures such
as more frequent covering of refuse, scaring of
birds, and poisoning or trapping of
rodents/mosquitos will be used.
b. Supporting Explanation: Studies by the Los Angeles
County Sanitation Districts have shown that rats do
not survive the compaction process of the refuse
trucks or disposal operation. State law requires
landfill operators to compact and cover the waste
with a layer of soil or new waste in order to
minimize the occurrence of rats and other vectors .
C. Monitoring Program: The County Health Services
Department, as the Local Enforcement Agency for the
California Waste Management Board, enforces the
State requirements for compaction and cover of
refuse. Reports of violations are given to the
landfill operator and the State. The Community
Development Department shall report on the status
of these mitigation measures_ to the Board on a
yearly basis .
2. Significant Effect: Mosquitos could breed in basins
constructed to control surface water runoff (FEIR, p.
4 . 2-6) .
-9-
EXHIBIT E
i
a.; Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. Storm runoff from the landfill will be
f stored in sedimentation basins for as short a
period of time as practicable. ' The applicants
should coordinate the designs of the basins with
the County Mosquito Abatement District to enable
easy inspection and, if necessary, spraying of non-
toxic larval suppressant. Appropriate provisions
will be included in the landfill's Solid Waste
Facilities Permit and/or its Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval.
b. Supporting Explanation: Mosquito populations could
be indirectly increased at a landfill site where
sedimentation basins and leachate collection
ncontainment ponds would contain standing water for
periods of greater than two or three weeks .
Prevention of this larval emergence could be
suppressed by not allowing water to stand over two
weeks and/or spraying the ponds with a non-toxic
odorant/colorant such as Golden Bear 1356 , which
degrades in 48 hours . The County Community
Development Department would ensure that the
applicant designs and constructs the sedimentation
basins in coordination with the County Mosquito
Abatement District. The County Health Services
Department is responsible for determining whether
there is a need for spraying to control mosquitos .
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall obtain reports from
. the County Health Services Department on mosquito
problems and abatement at the Keller Canyon
Landfill and include this information in its annual
report to the Board.
3 . Significant Effect: Operation of the landfill and
associated equipment could cause additional risk of fire
and explosion (FEIR, p. 4 . 2-7 ) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. Most of the listed measures are
specified by the Riverview Fire Protection
District. Emergency procedures shall be developed
and facility employees trained in fire control
procedures . One 120,000-gallon water storage tank,
a water cannon and stockpiled soil cover will be
_10-
EXHIBIT E
i
t
i
s
available on-site for use in fire suppression. The
landfill must have a 100-foot firebreak around the
' perimeter and at least two emergency all-weather
roads maintained by the operator. , The earth-moving
equipment will be equipped with fire extinguishers
and spark arresters, and fuel shall be stored in a
safe, approved manner. The operator shall ensure
that all incoming loads are inspected for
smoldering refuse and that a small fill-area
working face be maintained. The Bay Area Air
Quality Management District requirement that all
solid waste landfills monitor landfill gas
emissions and install a gas collection system will
minimize potential accumulation of methane gas and
the associated explosion and fire hazard. A Fire
Control Plan, to be reviewed by the Fire Protection
District, shall demonstrate the means by which
proposed structures on the site will be protected
from accumulation of methane gas and associated
explosion and fire hazard. Upon final approval of
the Fire Control Plan by the Fire Protection
District, the Plan will be incorporated into the
landfill' s Development and Improvements Plan, which
will be required as a Land Use Permit Condition of
Approval . Compliance with this Plan shall be
subject to inspections by the District and the
County.
b. Supporting Explanation: Fire district requirements
will be obtained through environmental review
procedures and addressed in the project-level EIR.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall obtain the inspection
and monitoring reports from the appropriate
regulatory agencies and include this information in
its annual monitoring report to the Board.
4 . Significant Effect: Residential and commercial refuse
taken to the Keller Canyon Landfill could contain
materials that are considered hazardous, which in
sufficient quantity might adversely affect air and water
quality. Health impacts associated with direct contact
with toxic materials would pertain primarily to site
workers. (Indirect effects of the presence in landfills
of hazardous waste include intensification of leachate
.toxicity and mobilization of otherwise stable inorganic
metals contained in refuse; this leachate is a threat to
surface and groundwater supplies (see Impact 5 below) . )
(FEIR, p. 4 .2-9 )
-11-
EXHIBIT E
i
I
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. The Keller Canyon Landfill will accept
only non-hazardous municipal refuse, designated
wastes allowed by the appropriate Regional Water
Quality Control Board, and inert
construction/demolition materials through the
State-mandated periodic load-checking requirement
(Cal.Code Regs. , tit. 23, Chapter 3,
Subchapter 15) . Landfill structural features such
as liners, leachate, collection systems, and cover
will limit the creation of leachate and reduce the
potential for a landfill to contaminate air and
water. Further, a comprehensive waste acceptance
control program could be established as a part of
landfill, transfer station, and collection
agreements between the County and individual
cities. This program could include the training of
franchise haulers and transfer station and landfill
employees in the proper identification, handling,
storage and disposal of hazardous wastes . Load
checking, household hazardous waste programs, and
landfill structural requirements will be addressed
in Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval. The
County is currently working on a household
hazardous waste program to collect, recycle, and
properly dispose of hazardous waste and will begin
its implementation in Spring of 1990 . The County
Community Development Department and Health
Services Department are responsible for approving a
load inspection program for receiving waste loads
at landfills/transfer stations in the
unincorporated area. The County Health Services
Department's Solid Waste Facilities permits pertain
to facilities countywide. In addition, the
landfill operator must submit quarterly Incoming
Waste Reports to the County Health Services
Department. The household hazardous. waste and
waste acceptance control programs are subject to
County Health Services Department and Community
Development Department approval.
b. Supporting Explanation: Despite a wide range of
existing Federal and State controls on disposal of
hazardous wastes, small quantities of this waste
frequently enter the solid waste stream.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall obtain reports on the
status of these programs and the compliance to the
-12-
EXHIBIT E
I
j
above mitigation measure, and submit this
information to the Board in the annual monitoring,
report.
5 . Sicrnificant .Effect: There is a potential for public
exposure to hazardous and infectious wastes through
leachate contamination of groundwater and off-site
surface water (FEIR, p. 4 . 2-9 ) .
a. Mitigation Finding, Supporting Explanation and
Monitoring Program: See Section VIII - Hydrology
and Water Quality, Impact 4 of this report.
6 . Significant Effect: There is a potential health and
safety hazard to on-site employees of new or expanded
landfills from the potentially toxic constituents of
landfill gas (FEIR, p. 4 . 2-13) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. This impact would be reduced through
compliance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District's requirements . Regulation 8, Rule 34
requires the installation of a gas collection
system and the monitoring of gas emissions at all
new landfills . The Bay Area Air Quality Management
District's Air Risk Screening Policy (February,
1988) specifies that a screening analysis for
assessment of risk shall be performed as part of
the agency's review of landfill permit requests .
The extent of gas emissions and the appropriate
mitigation measures, such as gas collection and
flaring, will be addressed in the Keller Canyon
Landfill's site-specific EIR. The County Community
Development Department shall be responsible for
evaluating landfill gas emissions through the CEQA
process and implementing the necessary
installations and programs in coordination with the
County Health Services Department and the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District.
b. Supporting Explanation: The landfill operator must
install a landfill gas control and collection
system and perform the necessary testing and
reporting of landfill gas emissions . The Bay Area
Air Quality Management District' s Air Risk
Screening Policy for toxic emissions, required for
an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate
entitlement, must include estimates of emissions
for each contaminant, the calculation of the
-13-
EXHIBIT E
I,
i
exposure of nearby receptors to ambient levels of
the contaminants, and a comparison of these ambient
levels with safety thresholds determined by Bay
Area Air Quality Management District staff.
Required installations can be Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval. If emission levels do not
meet the standards, then remedial measures can be
implemented through Solid Waste Facilities Permit
provisions to protect employee safety.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development shall obtain air emission/compliance
information from the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District's periodic inspections/reviews
of the gas collection and monitoring systems at
landfills and report this information to the Board '
-in an annual report.
7 . Significant Effect: Co-composting of vegetative
material and sewage sludge could result in distribution
of soil amendment products containing hazardous levels
of inorganic metals and disease-causing organisms (FEIR,
p. 4 . 2-10) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. In order to reduce this impact, the
County shall require that composting operations
meet the State Department of Health Services '
regulations on land application of sludge and
distribution of sludge-amended products . The
Environmental Protection Agency is currently
investigating characteristics of municipal sewage
sludge and will issue standards for publicly-owned
treatment plants . These standards will help to
ensure production of sludge amenable to use as a
feed stock.
b. Supporting Explanation: Compost would be required
to be analyzed by qualified laboratories before its
use is authorized. Composting facilities may be
required to use pilot facilities to determine
whether suitable compost can be produced and under
what operating conditions . The CoSWMP recognizes
that composting of vegetative wastes, which make-up
approximately 13% of the County's solid waste, and
its conversion to a usable soil amendment could
lead to significant reduction of landfilled waste.
Should municipal sewage sludge be used with these
wastes, there could be health impacts to humans by
-14-
EXHIBIT E
exposure to soil-amended products . The
Environmental Protection Agency's Part 503
technical sludge management regulations were
released for public comment in early 1989 . These
regulations will address exposure to humans to
metals in sludge-amended soils, including aggregate
health risks posed by several exposure pathways .
Until the Federal regulations are in effect, the
State guidelines on sludge use for composting will
be followed by the County. New landfills are
expected to be required to implement pilot level
studies of composting to determine if there would
be potential problems .
c. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall report annually to the
Board on the status of co-composting of vegetative
material mitigation measures .
III . TRANSPORTATION
1 . Significant Effect: Traffic volumes generated by the
Keller Canyon Landfill would add to the current
congestion on Highway 4 in the area between Antioch and
the Willow Pass Grade (FEIR, p. 4 . 3-12) .
a. Finding: Thi.-s Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. The travel patterns for transfer
trucks shall be managed to reduce or avoid truck
trips to the landfill during the peak hours,
especially the AM peak. Traffic will be minimized
by the use of transfer stations and prohibition of
self-haulers at the landfill . In addition, there
are several highway projects planned that will
widen and improve Highway 4 in this area. The
County Community Development Department shall
require necessary mitigation measures to be
included in the Land Use Permits as Conditions of
Approval . The prohibition of self-haulers at the
landfill will be made a condition of project
approval.
b. Supporting Explanation: The CoSWMP EIR finds that
if truck traffic is managed to avoid the peak
hours, there will not be a significant impact to
traffic volume on this stretch of roadway. The EIR
analysis concluded that during the AM peak hour
there would be about ten truck trips eastbound
-15-
EXHIBIT E
(loaded vehicles) and seven trips westbound (empty
vehicles) . During the PM peak hour, there would be
about two truck trips eastbound and four trips
westbound. This analysis reflects the assumptions
that transfer stations will be used and self-
haulers prohibited. from direct access to the
landfill. Peak period traffic management studies
to reduce peak period conflicts with traffic on . .
Highway 4 would be addressed in the site-specific
project EIR for the Keller Canyon Landfill.
C. Monitoring Program: The Community Development
Department shall include compliance with these
conditions in its annual monitoring report to the
Board.
2. Significant Effect: The additional refuse truck
traffic, which includes vehicles weighing up to 38 tons,
will cause wear and damage to existing roadway pavements
in the vicinity of the Keller Canyon Landfill (FEIR, p.
4 .3-12) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. The project developer will upgrade and
improve the pavement sections on the local roads
impacted by truck traffic to solid waste
facilities . The improvements shall be approved by
the County Community Development Department, and
County Public Works Department and CALTRANS if
appropriate, and will be included in the Land Use
Permit's Condition of Approval.
b. Supporting Explanation: In order to reduce this
impact to a less_ than significant level, the
pavement traffic index (TI) , a measure of the
durability and capacity of a road, must be adequate
to accommodate the anticipated traffic load.
Suitable TIs, in the range of 9 .0 to 10 .5 for the
immediate access roads are expected to be necessary
to comply with Caltrans' design specifications. If
a 20-year pavement life is determined to be
appropriate, a TI of 10 . 0-10 . 5 would be required.
The landfill project's site-specific EIR would
address the pavement section improvements needed as
part of the project.
c.:1Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall report annually to the
Board on the implementation of the required road
-16-
EXHIBIT E
improvements .
3. Sicrnif icant Effect: The additional refuse truck traffic
would cause moderate congestion and safety impacts on
the local roads and streets in the vicinity of the
Keller Canyon Landfill (FEIR, p. 4 . 3-16) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. The project developer will provide or
participate in the funding of the necessary roadway
and traffic control improvements. Road
improvements will be required as Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval.
b. Supporting Explanation: The Program EIR's analysis
of the proposed Keller Canyon Landfill site shows
that the project would not cause any roadway
segments or intersections to degrade to a critical
level of service. This assumes that transfer vans
will be used to reduce traffic to and from the
landfills . Because the amount of landfill traffic
would be low and most of this traffic would not
occur during the peak commute periods, traffic
generated by the landfill would not present a
significant capacity problem. This traffic may
result in additional accidents in proportion to the
increased traffic. These mitigation measures shall
be considered in more detail in the Project EIR.
C . Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall submit an annual
report to the Board on the status of these traffic
mitigation measures .
4 . Significant Effect: There would be an increase in
traffic hazards to bicyclists and pedestrians on the
local roadways in the vicinity of the Keller Canyon
Landfill . The presence of heavy truck traffic on roads
with significant bicycle and pedestrian activity can be
hazardous (FEIR, p. 4 . 3-17 ) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. A plan and program to implement a
bicycle and pedestrian path system will be required
at the landfill. The County Community Development
Department will ensure that this mitigation is,
-17-
EXHIBIT E
implemented by making it a Land Use Permit
Condition of Approval.
b. Supporting Explanation: Planned future bicycle
paths and pedestrian trails could be adversely
affected. by access road improvements . It may be
necessary to accommodate bicycling or pedestrian
activities by implementing a new path system.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall include the status of
this mitigation measure in its annual monitoring
report to the Board.
5 . Significant Effect: Landfill traffic would create
potentially significant visual and nuisance impacts on
the adjacent land uses on the local haul routes used for
the Keller Canyon Landfill (FEIR, p. 4 . 3-18) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. This impact will be mitigated by the
use of transfer stations, by eliminating public
access to the landfill, by controlling the hours of
truck operation, and by the use of alternate haul
routes where possible. The County Community
Development Department will incorporate
restrictions on the types of vehicles allowed, the
place of origin for such vehicles, and the hours of
truck operation into the Land Use Permit Conditions
of Approval . Alternative haul routes will be
addressed in project-specific EIRs and the one(s)
chosen to best mitigate traffic impacts will be
incorporated into the Land Use Permit Conditions of
Approval as well . .
b. Supporting Explanation: This impact is related to
the visual and perceived traffic flow (safety and
capacity impacts are addressed under Section III .
1-4 above) . Where alternate haul routes are
feasible, they will be considered during subsequent
environmental review in order to minimize impacts
to nearby development.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall submit an annual
monitoring report to the Board on the compliance of
the site operator with these Conditions of
Approval .
t
-18-
EXHIBIT E
i
IV. AIR QUALITY
1 . Significant Effect: Decomposing wastes in the Keller
Canyon Landfill could create substantial amounts of gas,
including relatively small amounts of reactive organic
compounds and chemical compounds considered to be toxic.
Downwind receptors could be adversely affected by these
compounds (FEIR, p. 4 .4-18) .
a. Finding[: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. Bay Area Air Quality Management
District Regulation 8, Rule 34 requires that
landfill gas emission and mitigation be controlled
and the gas disposed of properly. The most common
method of disposal is installation of a gas
collection and flaring system to combust the gas .
Installation of a gas collection and combustion
system will destroy 90% of the reactive organic
compounds and toxic compounds . A risk screening
analysis will be conducted on the remaining
fraction of these emissions to determine whether
downwind receptors are at significant risk from
exposure. A risk analysis is required prior to Bay
Area Air Quality Management District's issuance of
the Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate a
landfill. More efficient gas collection and
combustion equipment could be specified if
necessary. The mitigation measures determined to
be necessary will become Land Use Permit Conditions
of Approval . The County. Community Development
Department will ensure that the project applicant
includes a gas collection system proposal and
submits a health risk assessment as part of the
landfill application. Installation of the
collecting/flaring system will be required by the
County as a Land Use Permit Condition of Approval,
as well as being a requirement of the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District.
b. Supporting Explanation: The risk screening
analysis must include estimates of emissions for
each contaminant, the calculation of the exposure
of nearby receptors to ambient levels of the
contaminants, and a comparison of these ambient
levels with safety thresholds determined by the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District staff . If the
analysis does not demonstrate that the maximum
exposure of any individual to an air toxic emitted
from the landfill would result in a chance of less
-19-
EXHIBIT E
than one in a million of developing cancer, then
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District would
require that Best Available Control Technology be
used to control emissions . The site-specific
I Project EIR will consider this impact and the
specific mitigation measures .
C.! Monitoring Program: Information from the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District on compliance of
the landfill with air emission requirements shall
be obtained by the County Community Development
Department and submitted to the Board annually.
2. Significant Effect: Trace constituents of landfill gas
are odorous and could impact people in the area and
nearby residences or other sensitive land uses (FEIR, p.
4 . 4-18) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. Landfill management techniques, such
as daily covering of waste and installation of a
gas collection and flaring system, will mitigate
this impact. Exceptional problems could be
mitigated by more frequent cover and the immediate
covering of odorous loads . The mitigation measures
will be implemented through incorporation into the
conditions of project approval and through
enforcement of Bay Area Air Quality Management
District and California Waste Management Board
requirements .
b., Supporting Explanation: Bay Area Air Quality
Management District Regulation 1-301 prohibits the
discharge of odorous compounds and the resulting
public nuisance, while Regulation 7 provides
procedures for evaluating odor complaints . The
covering of newly disposed refuse with compacted
soil . (or other approved means) , a requirement of
the California Waste Management Board, serves to
control odors . The frequency of cover may be
increased in order to mitigate odor complaints
received by the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District or County Health Services Department. The
gas collection and - flaring system reduces odors
from landfill gas, composed primarily of methane
and carbon dioxide. If the County Health Services
Department determines that flaring creates a
nuisance, e.g. , noise and/or visual impacts,. other
methods of methane disposal shall be required. The
-20-
EXHIBIT E
County Health Services Department is locally
responsible for enforcing odor regulations at
landfills and shall make information available to
the County Community Development Department. The
Bay Area Air Quality Management District would also
perform inspections and enforce its own
regulations .
C. Monitoring Program: An annual monitoring report
shall be submitted to the Board by the County
Community Development Department on implementation
of and compliance with these odor control
mitigations.
3 . Significant Effect: Construction and operation of the
Keller Canyon Landfill could cause emissions of dust
resulting in air quality degradation and impacts to
downwind receptors (FEIR, p. 4 .4-13) .
a. Findina: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. These measures are: minimize the
extent of unplanted working and graded areas, apply
water or an environmentally-safe chemical soil
stabilizer to exposed earth surfaces; cover haul
trucks with tarpaulins or other effective covers;
and avoid unnecessary idling of equipment. The
landfill operator's application of water or dust
suppressants to working surfaces of the landfill,
to its unpaved roads, and to construction areas as
determined to be necessary by the County Health
Services Department, shall be a condition of the
project's Solid Waste Facilities Permit: The
County Health Services Department would be
responsible for requiring additional management
practices if problems due to dust emissions are
reported. Mitigation measures shall also become
Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval.
b. Supporting Explanation: Dust emissions related to
waste handling can be reduced by approximately 50%
by watering surfaces down. Watering should be
conducted in late morning and at the end of the day
to be most effective. The frequency of watering
should increase if wind exceeds 15 mph.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall report to the Board on
a landfill' s compliance to the dust suppression
-21-
EXHIBIT E
measures required in its Land Use Permit Conditions
of Approval.
4 . Significant Effect: Spot violations of CO and NO2
emissions standards could occur due to the grouping of
landfill vehicles/equipment during operation or while
idling at the landfill site. (FEIR, 4 .4-15)
a. Findina: This Board finds that this impact is
potentially significant but may be will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. Waste handling vehicles/equipment
would emit exhaust at the site. Large numbers of
such vehicles/equipment operating or idling in a
small area could cause spot violations of the CO
and NO2 standards . This impact is expected to be
mitigated to a level less than significant by
avoiding the unnecessary idling and grouping of
landfill equipment and by implementation of any
further mitigation measures identified as necessary
in the site-specific EIR.
b. Supporting Explanation: See Finding.
C. Monitoring Program: The mitigation measures will
be implemented through incorporation into the
conditions of project approval . The County
Community Development Department shall report to
the Board annually on compliance with these
measures required in its Land Use Permit .Conditions
of Approval .
V. NOISE
1 . Significant Effect: Noise resulting from waste handling
could disturb nearby residents and sensitive receptors
(FEIR, p. 4 .5-4) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. Landfill hours of operation will be
limited to the extent practicable to daylight hours
.in order to minimize noise impacts on residential
and recreational land uses surrounding the sites .
Operations and equipment will be muffled or
controlled to meet acceptable noise levels (shown
An Table 4 .5-2 of the Program EIR) . Some
additional measures that should be evaluated in the
-22-
EXHIBIT E
project EIR include construction of sound walls,
earth berms, and on-site truck routing. The County
Community Development Department will incorporate
appropriate noise control mitigation measures into
the project's Land Use Permit Conditions of
Approval . These conditions may include a noise
monitoring and abatement program to be implemented
by the facility operator with approval by the
County Community Development Department and County
Health Services Department. .
b. Supporting Explanation: Higher noise levels are
generally more acceptable during the day. The
construction activities in particular, should be
limited to normal working hours . Retrofitting
existing equipment with noise control features
and/or purchasing quieter new equipment for a
landfill would, according to the EIR analysis,
reduce the radius of disturbance to less than 500
feet.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall obtain information
relating to noise impacts, including complaint
reports from the Health Services Department, and
compliance of a facility to stipulated noise
requirements, and include this information in its
report to the Board.
2 . Significant Effect: Noise from waste haul trucks
entering/exiting the landfill could disturb residents
along the site access roads (FEIR, p. 4 .5-6 ) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a. level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. Limiting the hours of access to solid
waste facilities and requiring that all haul trucks
be filled with operable mufflers and be properly
maintained will reduce the likelihood of
disturbance to adjacent residences . Specified
access routes and the use of transfer stations,
which would facilitate control over self-hauler
traffic to landfills, will be identified in the
project-specific EIR. Other measures that should
be evaluated in the project EIR include noise
shielding along routes and active enforcement of
muffler and vehicle noise standards by police
services . The County Community Development
Department shall incorporate appropriate noise
control mitigation measures into the project's Land
-23-
EXHIBIT E
Use Permit Conditions of Approval. These
conditions may include a noise monitoring and
abatement program to be implemented by the facility
operator with approval by the County Community
Development Department and County Health Services
Department.
b. Supporting Explanation: Restricting truck hauler,
traffic to daylight hours, when higher noise levels
are more acceptable, would help offset the impact
from the projected increase of solid waste facility
generated noise. According to Table 4 .5-3 of the
EIR, this increased level of noise ranges from 2-5
decibels Ldn (day-night average noise level over a
24-hour period) along selected roadways leading to
alternative landfill sites .
C. Monitoring Program: The status of this requirement
shall be reported by the Community Development
Department in its annual monitoring report to the
Board.
VI . VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
1 . Significant Effect: Development of the Keller Canyon
Landfill could increase the variety and number of weedy
plant and pest wildl:.fe species . This intrusion could
adversely impact the native species populations, and
could become a potential source of diseased vectors
(FEIR, p. 4 .6-19 ) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. Implementation of a weed control .
program at the site would typically include a list
of noxious weeds, periodic monitoring for these
species, and a weed control and removal program via
physical removal, prescribed burning and/or limited
application of herbicides . Daily covering of the
landfill will help control potential pest problems .
A pest control program should be developed to be
implemented if problems occur and would include a
list of pests, methods to be used for control of
them, and a monitoring program to evaluate the
effectiveness of the program. The County Community
Development Department will ensure that a weed
control and pest control program, if needed, is
developed and implemented by making it a Land Use
Permit Condition of Approval . The Health Services
-24-
EXHIBIT E
Department would monitor the pest control program.
b. Supporting Explanation: Landfills are often
populated by non-native, invasive weeds and pests .
Proper operation of a landfill, including daily
cover and compaction of waste and a weed control
and pest control program, discourages propagation
and survival of non-native species . The use of
pesticides and/or fumigants should only occur as a
last resort and with the approval of local and
State public health and natural resource agencies .
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall report to the Board
annually on the status of weed and pest control
mitigations at landfills .
2 . Significant Effect: Landfill sites which contain or
adjoin natural waterways could impact riparian and other
vegetation through soil erosion if ,there is inadequate
revegetation of cover areas . Streambed erosion could
occur below the fill area if runoff is significantly
increased (FEIR, p. 4 . 6-20) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. , Erosion control. planting shall be.
undertaken on both intermediate and final cover
areas immediately as portions of the landfill
close. Inactive areas, even if only temporary,
shall be planted. Check dams with sedimentation
basins should be placed, if needed, in the stream
channel below the landfill footprint (fill area)-.
An erosion control and hydrology plan coordinating
these measures will be developed for each landfill
site., An erosion control/surface water monitoring
plan, approved by the County Community Development
Department, and coordinated with the County Public
Works Department and the appropriate Regional Water
Quality Control Board, will be required by the Land
Use Permit Conditions of Approval.
b. Supporting Explanation: Development of the Keller
Canyon Landfill could result in increased
stormwater runoff, increased erosion, and
subsequent sedimentation and increased turbidity in
the runoff and in the waterway below the fill area.
This process would disturb riparian and other
vegetation. Application of planted groundcover
would help to hold the soil in place.
-25-
EXHIBIT E
i
Sedimentation basins would control the rate of
release of stormwaters and reduce turbidity. An
erosion control plan would identify plant materials
and methods to be used in revegetation efforts,
identify where erosion control structures would be
located, and estimate the flow changes downstream
of the site to determine whether it could result in
significant erosion or vegetation problems.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall obtain all applicable
information on the implementation and monitoring of
the revegetation and erosion control programs at
landfills and report it to the Board annually.
3 . Significant Effect: Landfill construction activities at
the Keller Canyon Landfill would displace or could cause
the death of some wildlife in and adjacent to the
proposed fill area (FEIR, p. 4 . 6-20) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. To reduce the impact of landfill
activities on wildlife, the Keller Canyon Landfill
will be constructed and operated in phases that
limit clearing to areas needed for immediate use,
and grasses and other vegetation will be planted
after project completion to aid in accommodating
wildlife in the area. Testing of soils to be
replaced in completed areas shall be required to
determine the need for adding nutrients and/or
other soil amendments to enhance revegetation and
restoration of wildlife values . A habitat
protection and enhancement plan will be required as
part of the Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval
for the landfill .
b. Supporting Explanation: Phased construction would
limit the amount of land disturbed at any one time
to a minimum. This would reduce the acute impact
to wildlife, as habitat would be lost gradually,
thus giving the wildlife time to relocate and
regenerate. The habitat protection and enhancement
plan would be prepared by a qualified biologist in
consultation with the California Department of Fish
and Game, and where appropriate, East Bay Regional
Park District. The plan would, to the extent
possible, replace and/or enhance the wildlife
habitat lost to landfill operation.
-26-
EXHIBIT E
C. Monitoring Proctram: The County Community
Development Department would be responsible for
ensuring that this condition is met and
implemented, and would report to the Board annually
on the compliance of the landfill developer with
this plan.
4 . Significant Effect: Landfill activities at the Keller
Canyon Landfill could cause the release of toxic
materials to downstream areas resulting in degradation
of aquatic and riparian habitats (FEIR, p. 4 . 6-21 ) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. A leachate collection and recovery
system will be installed at the landfill site. A
monitoring program will assure that the system is
working properly. In addition to a leachate
collection system, a highly impermeable soil layer
and/or a synthetic plastic liner is required at all
Class II landfills . The County Community
Development Department will ensure that all new
landfills in the County are designed to the
requirements of Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 15
of the California Code of Regulations (Subchapter
15) regarding leachate collection and bottom liner
systems . If it is discovered that downstream areas
are being adversely affected, a remedial plan shall
be implemented to correct the problem.
b. Supporting Explanation: The Contra Costa CoSWMP
calls for all new landfills to be designed and
constructed to Class II standards . The leachate
collection system and liner would be expected to
reduce the potential impact of a toxic material
release to insignificance. Water quality
mitigation programs are discussed in more detail in
Section VIII of the Program EIR. The monitoring
program required by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board would be subject to sampling and
analysis of groundwater in order to provide an
early warning of toxic release to downstream areas.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall obtain monitoring
reports from the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and include this information in its annual
monitoring report to the Board.
-27-
EXHIBIT E
1
5 . Significant Effect: Dust from landfill construction and
grading activities at the Keller Canyon Landfill could
indirectly impact vegetation not removed directly by
construction (FEIR, p. 4 .6-21) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. Vegetation that is to remain on-site
(outside the fill area) will be protected by the
dust control measures in Section IV, Impact 3 to
minimize air quality impacts (to help prevent
damage to vegetation from dust deposition) . To
prevent plant life from being adversely affected by
dust settling on leaves, periodic watering, as an
extension of dust suppression mitigation, should be
used to clean the vegetation. The County will
require a Habitat Protection and Enhancement Plan
as a Land Use Permit Condition of Approval which
will give priority to the use of the site, except
where landfill operations and appurtenant
facilities are located, for the preservation and
enhancement of plant and wildlife habitat.
b. Supporting Explanation: These mitigation measures ,
adopted in Section IV, Impact 3 to minimize air
quality impacts, will also prevent damage to
vegetation caused by dust deposition.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall be responsible for
ensuring that these conditions are complied with
and report its findings to the Board annually.
6 . Significant Effect: Landfill development would result
in the removal of riparian vegetation and wetlands
(FEIR, p. 4 . 6-26 ) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. A wetland habitat enhancement plan
will be proposed and ultimately implemented by the
landfill developer. The plan will be developed in
conjunction with and submitted to the appropriate
resource management agencies for permit review,
including the California Department of Fish and
Game (DFG) , the appropriate Regional Water Quality
Control Board (Regional Water Quality Control
Board) , United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) , National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) ,
-28-
EXHIBIT E
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) . At a
minimum, the plan will provide for acre-for-acre
and habitat unit-for-habitat-unit replacement for
lost wetland. The County Community Development
Department will ensure that a habitat enhancement
and management plan is implemented, if necessary,
by incorporating it into the project's Land Use
Permit Conditions of Approval. The plan, or
variations of it, can also be implemented through
regulatory agency permits .
b. Supporting Explanation: The Keller site contains
approximately 1 .5 acres of riparian vegetation
which would be removed with development of the
landfill . A habitat enhancement plan can be
developed in conjunction with the County's
consideration of a landfill application and
reviewed through its Environmental Impact Report.
The habitat value of the on-or off-site mitigation
area selected should be increased by means of sound
management practices . Loss of riparian habitat
could be mitigated by one or more of the following
measures: constructing small marshes in upper
drainages behind check dams; diverting surface
waters to downstream reaches that are fenced to
exclude cattle and planted with riparian species;
the use of captured or diverted species to create
freshwater marshes in lower drainages; and the
enhancement of existing drainages that would be
undisturbed by proposed landfill activities .
C ., Monitoring Programs: The appropriate resource
management agencies and the County Community
Development Department shall oversee the
implementation of the plan. The County Community
Development Department shall submit an annual
report to the Board on compliance with the
provisions of this plan.
7 . Significant Effect: Development of the landfill could
cause adverse impacts to approximately 26 sensitive
plant and animal species which could potentially occur
on the site. (FEIR, p. 4 . 6-29 ) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact is
subject to mitigation to a level less than
significant by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended by the EIR. 26 sensitive
plant and animal species are identified in Appendix
E to the COSWMP EIR as potentially occurring on the
site. If any such species are found to occur on
-29-
EXHIBIT E
the site in the site specific EIR, mitigation
measures will be proposed and ultimately
implemented by the landfill developer. If required
due to the specific species found to occur at the
site, the plan will be developed in conjunction
with and submitted to the appropriate resource
management agencies for permit review, including
the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) ,
the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control
Board (Regional Water Quality Control Board) ,
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ,
National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) , and the
U.S . Army Corps of Engineers (COE) . The County
Community Development Department will propose to
the Board of Supervisors that a habitat enhancement
and management plan be incorporated it into the
project's Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval.
The plan, or variations of it, can also be
implemented through regulatory agency permits.
b. Supporting Explanation: A habitat enhancement plan
can be developed in conjunction with the County's
consideration of a landfill application and
reviewed through its Environmental Impact Report.
The habitat value of the on-or off-site mitigation
area selected should be increased by means of sound
management practices .
C. Monitoring Programs: The appropriate resource
management agencies and the County Community
Development Department shall oversee the
implementation of the plan. The County Community
Development Department shall submit an annual
report to the Board on compliance with the
provisions of this plan.
VII . GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
1 . Significant Effect: Landslide activity on fill or cut
slopes and unstable natural slopes could occur as a
consequence of site excavations and earthwork
construction, causing structural damage and endangering
lives (FEIR, p. 4 .7-12) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR:
-30-
EXHIBIT E
(1 ) Drain potential slide areas to keep slip
surfaces dry, excavate unstable earth
materials, and use landfill to buttress
landslide areas .
-(2) Implement a slope monitoring program during
operation.
(3) Perform a site specific static .and seismic
stability analysis as part of the final
design, to be approved by the County.
(4 ) Design cut slopes to consider adversely
oriented joint surfaces, existing shallow
landslide deposits and other relevant
geotechnical factors under static and seismic
conditions .
(5) Use conservative geotechnical engineering
practices and stabilization measures during
excavation of areas of landslide activity.
(6 ) Monitor slopes with adversely oriented bedding
surfaces or joint surfaces through a metering
system.
(7 ) As conditions of project approval stipulated
by Contra Costa County, undertake a Landslide
Study and a Slope Monitoring Program, using a
California Certified Engineering Geologist or
a qualified team. The Study and Program would
be incorporated into the final design for the
project.
The County Community Development Department will
ensure that the above geotechnical investigations
are conducted during project environmental review,
and that appropriate mitigation measures are
included in the project's Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval. A geotechnical inspector
responsible to the County will be present when
sensitive grading and installations are performed.
b. Supporting Explanation: Hillside and-fill/cut
slope failures in natural materials and in the
landfill can be minimized by maintaining maximum
strength of the materials and by increasing forces
that resist sliding and slope failure.
C.11 Monitoring Program: Reports on the implementation
of these measures and from the on-site monitoring
-31-
EXHIBIT E
I `
i
i
programs shall be obtained by the County Community
Development Department and included in the annual
monitoring report to the Board.
2. Significant Effect: Engineered surfaces and slopes
within the Keller Canyon Landfill footprint could be
subject to excessive fill settlement and/or localized
slope sloughing resulting from decomposition of refuse,
causing potential slope failure and rupture of seals
(FEIR, p. 4 .7-13) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. Compact refuse and cover materials to
maximum strength. Engineer landfill slopes to
provide stability under design criteria. Control
the infiltration of water through drainage
features, lateral barriers and intermediate and
final covers . Operate heavy equipment so as to
minimize vibrations. Stockpile cover soil outside
the fill area. As a condition of project approval
stipulated by the County, the landfill developer
could be required to install a network of
settlement platforms to detect and correct
settlement problems . The developer shall provide a
stability analysis of the final engineering design
of the landfill and its appurtenant improvements .
The County Community Development Department will
include the above landfill practices for mitigating
potential impacts from fill settlement in the
Development and Improvement Plan of the Land Use
Permit Conditions of Approval.
b. Supporting Explanation: The above mitigation
measures are required by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board and the County to mitigate the
potential effects from refuse decomposition. This
impact could be exacerbated by the variable density
and strength of earth materials underlying much of
the upland areas of the County.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall obtain all applicable
reports on the implementation, monitoring and
enforcement of these requirements from the
geotechnical inspector, the County Health Services
Department, and the Regional Water Quality Control
Board, and include this information in its annual
report .to the Board.
I
i
-32-
EXHIBIT E
3 . Significant Effect: Excessive stockpiling of loose soil
could result in slope instability, causing sedimentation
and possibly damaging structures and endangering lives
(FEIR, p. 4 . 7-14 ) . .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. These mitigation measures shall
include a requirement that the developer adopt and
implement a stockpile stability monitoring program.
The County Community Development Department will
include this mitigation measure in the Slope
Monitoring Program as a Land Use Permit Condition
of Approval .
b. Supporting Explanation: The landfill operator
would continually analyze the on-site stockpiles of
daily cover material to determine the maximum
allowable heights and/or slopes for stability.
This monitoring would commence at the on-set of
stockpiling.
C. Monitoring Program: The landfill operator will
make the results of this. monitoring program
available to the County Community Development
Department on demand. The County Community
Development Department will report on the status of
this program to the Board annually.
4 . Significant Effect: The shrink/swell behavior of
expansive foundation soils could deform building and
landfill structure foundations (FEIR, p. 4 . 7-15) .
a . Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. These mitigation measures shall
include a requirement that the developer adhere to
geotechnical recommendations, such as the use of
pier and grade beam foundations and/or the
replacement of native soils with compacted non-
expansive soils . The County Community Development
Department is responsible for ensuring that
adequate engineering design for a landfill or
facility's structural integrity is included in all
project-specific proposals and made a Land Use
Permit Condition of Approval . The Conditions of
Approval will require a geotechnical inspector to
be present on-site when sensitive installations are
performed.
-33-
EXHIBIT E
b. Supporting Explanation: All nine Soil Conservation
Service soil classifications in the County have
soils with highly expansive properties. Engineered
solutions to ensure that a solid waste landfill or
facility's foundation and/or structural integrity
is not compromised are necessary. The particular
solutions will be contingent on the geotechnical
studies of the site-specific Keller Canyon Landfill
proposal.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall obtain all relevant
information from the inspector, the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and the County Department of
Public Works on the compliance of a facility to
these conditions. and include it in its annual
monitoring report to the Board.
5 . Significant Effect: Highly impermeable soils could
allow water to pond beneath the landfill's structural
foundations, causing a deformation of these foundations
(FEIR, p. 4 .7-15 ) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. The developer shall be required to use
standard Uniform Building Code grading procedures
to direct drainage away from buildings . Mitigation
measures will be incorporated into the Land Use
Permit Conditions of Approval .
b. Supporting Explanation: Highly impermeable soils
occur at most of the proposed landfill/facility
areas . These types of soils could pond water,
swelling expansive soils and/or saturating and
weakening foundation soils . Directing water away
from building foundation soils with the use of such
techniques as drainage ditches/culverts and grading
to convey surface run-off water away form facility
buildings would prevent the ponding of water. The
facility developer would be required to submit a
project proposal, which describes this placement
and construction of the drainage system to be used
on the site, as part of the Development and
Improvements Plan. This would be evaluated in the
project-level. Environmental Impact Report.
C. Monitoring Program: The Contra Costa County
Community Development Department and Building
Inspection Department would oversee the
i
34-
EXHIBIT E
implementation of this site plan and the County
Community Development Department shall include
relevant information, when applicable, in its
annual monitoring report to the Board.
6 . Significant Effect: Groundshaking from off-site
earthquakes could damage the Keller Canyon Landfill's
containment and drainage features and/or cause slope
failure (FEIR, p. 4 . 7-15) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. The landfill and drainage features
will be sited and designed to withstand ground
accelerations from a maximum credible earthquake,
as required by the State for Class II landfills .
The proposed final engineering design for the
landfill, including face slope gradients, operating
components and appurtenant improvements, shall be
reviewed for resistance to the current design
earthquake standards . An emergency program for
inspecting the landfill facility, addressing the
possibility of failures and interim refuse
handling, will be developed for implementation
following a substantial earthquake. A study of the
faults that could affect slope stability and
groundwater movement at the site shall be performed
and incorporated in the final site program and
design of structures . A dam failure prevention and
warning system program, including daily monitoring,
for the sedimentation ponds will be prepared and
implemented, as a Land Use Permit Condition of
Approval. The geotechnical studies and
emergency/monitoring programs will be developed by
the landfill developer, approved by the County, and
incorporated into the Land Use Permit Conditions of
Approval..
b. Supporting Explanation: Where active fault traces
are suspected to exist, fault rupture along the
trace would be mitigated through set-back
recommendations in site-specific geotechnical
investigations . State siting criteria for Class II
and Class III solid waste facilities require that
structures be located off the trace of any active
fault. The maximum credible earthquake for a
proposed facility would be identified during
geotechnical review of the site. Seismically-
induced landsliding at proposed permanent cut areas
would be mitigated by appropriate slope gradients
j
-35-
EXHIBIT E
or subdrained concreted retaining structures,
engineering and designed according to Uniform
Building Code and the California Structural
Engineers Association standards .
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall obtain all applicable
reports on the implementation, monitoring and
enforcement of these requirements, from the
geotechnical inspector, the County Health Services
Department and the Regional Water Quality Control
Board, and include this information in its annual
report to the Board.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1 . Significant Effect: Development of the Keller Canyon
Landfill involving the excavation and stockpiling of
soil could result in soil erosion and subsequent
increased turbidity in stormwater run-off and the
sedimentation of drainageways (FEIR, p. 4 .8-10) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. This impact is expected to be fully
mitigated by the routing of drainage water through
sedimentation basins to be located at the
downstream end of the canyon proposed for
landfilling. In addition, review and approval by
the county of an erosion and sediment control plan
shall be required of the developer prior to
issuance of a grading permit. A sedimentation
basin system and sediment and erosion control plan
will be required by the County Community
Development Department as a Land Use Permit
Condition of Approval, on the basis of the
project's site-specific EIR. It will be developed
and implemented by the landfill developer, with the
approval of the County Community Development
Department, County Health Services Department and
Public Works, and the Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
b. Supporting Explanation: All stormwaters would be
routed through these basins and detained for a
sufficient time to allow the excess turbidity to
settle out. A routine maintenance plan would be
required to ensure the continued proper functioning
of this basin system. The erosion control plan
i
-36-
EXHIBIT E
would ensure, among other things, that eroded
sediments are trapped before entering the
constructed drainage channels and that stockpiled
soils are sufficiently stabilized.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall report on the status
of these mitigation measures in its annual
monitoring report to the Board.
2 . Significant Effect: Failure of the
sedimentation/detention basins when full or nearly full
would pose a hazard to downstream areas (FEIR, p. 4 .8-
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. All sedimentation/detention basins
will be designed and constructed according to Class
II requirements . The basins will be inspected
regularly by the State Department of Water
Resources for those dams over 25 feet high and
storing over 50 acre-feet of water. The County
Community Development Department will be
responsible for ensuring that a landfill
sedimentation basin system included in a project
will meet all State and County requirements by
making compliance a Land Use Permit Condition of
Approval .
b. Supporting Explanation: The
sedimentation/detention basins will be designed for
a 1,000-year, 24-hour storm intensity and will be
capable of withstanding the maximum credible
earthquake identified for the site.
C . Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department will report annually to the
Board on the implementation of this system,
including the preventive maintenance program to be
developed by the landfill operator.
3 . Significant Effect: Replacement of natural drainage
with a man-made system could result in increased
stormwater run-off, erosion and subsequent sedimentation
and increased turbidity (FEIR, p. 4 .8-10) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
-37-
EXHIBIT E
by the EIR. Sedimentation/detention basins will be
installed to control the rate of release of
stormwaters and reduce turbidity. Final site
design, sediment and erosion control, and surface
drainage system plans must be developed and
implemented by the landfill developer, with the
approval of the County Community Development
Department, County Health Services Department and
Public Works, and the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. The County's requirements will be
imposed in the project's Land Use Permit Conditions
of Approval and will be monitored by the above
agencies .
b. Supporting Explanation: The existing- natural
drainages would be replaced by man-made drainage
channels to keep stormwater from ponding over the
landfill site. This re-routing of run-off would
also help avoid the generation of leachate. Basins
would be needed to hold and control the rate of
release of these stormwaters in order to prevent
downstream erosion and increased sedimentation and
turbidity. Regular inspection and maintenance
would be conducted to ensure proper functioning of
the system. Moreover, Class II landfills are
required by State law (Subchapter 15) to be
designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to
prevent inundation or washout due to a 100-year
flood.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall report on the status
of these mitigation measures in its annual report
to the Board.
4 . Significant Effect: Landfill leachate could contaminate
surface water or groundwater with which it comes into
contact (FEIR, pp. 4 . 8-7, 4 . 8-13 ) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. To prevent surface water
contamination, rain falling on the landfill will be
isolated from the refuse by a system of slopes,
drainage benches, drain ditches and sedimentation
basins. Final grading and cover will allow proper
drainage so that water would not pond over the
landfill. Groundwater protection will be ensured
by the landfill being constructed and operated
iaccording to Subchapter 15 requirements . A minimum
-38-
EXHIBIT E
of five feet vertical separation between the
landfill base and the historic high groundwater or-
perched water elevation is required. Installation
of a low-permeability clay liner or a composite
liner (synthetic plastic) , a subdrain system, and a
leachate control and removal system will comply
with these regulations . All landfills are required
to have a groundwater monitoring program to provide
early warning in the event of leachate migration
form the landfill. The Regional Water Quality
Control Board will limit the disposal of "wet"
wastes such as sludges on a site-specific basis .
The County Community Development Department will
ensure that State and Regional Water Quality
Control Board requirements on water protection from
leachate will be complied with as conditions in a
project' s Land Use Permit.
b.' Supporting Explanation: All detention and
sedimentation basins at a landfill site would be
designed to accommodate the 1, 000-year design storm
as required for a Class II landfill. To meet
Subchapter 15 criteria, a landfill liner for Class
II sites must have a water permeability no greater
than 1 x 10-6 cm/second. The leachate collection
system would be designed to transport all excess
leachate to a point where it could be removed and
disposed of properly, according to a leachate
management plan required by the County. The
groundwater monitoring program would be developed
in concert with the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and likely involve quarterly sampling and
analysis of upgradient and downgradient wells . The
landfill operator must comply with the requirements
of the Regional Water Quality Control Board for
disposal of de-watered sewage and other utility.
sludges in landfills to prevent excess liquid
disposal. Other liquid wastes cannot be accepted
at landfills. An independent geotechnical
consultant, responsible to the County, would be
expected to be required by the Land Use Permit to
inspect regularly over the life of the landfill the
installation and condition of liners and leachate
control facilities as they are installed.
C . Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall obtain all relevant
information on the compliance of the landfill with
these requirements from the appropriate agencies
{ and include it in the annual report to the Board.
I
-39-
EXHIBIT E
5 . Significant Effect: The water supply requirements for
the Keller Canyon Landfill might not be available
ori-site, thus requiring the procurement of off-site
water (FEIR, p. 4 . 8-11) .
a., Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. A public water source for some or all
of the Keller Canyon Landfill's needs would require
a connection to Contra Costa Water Distract (CCWD)
facilities . Annexation to the CCWD service area
would require approval by the CCWD, possibly a
city, and the Local Agency Formation Commission.
The County Community Development Department
requires that the landfill developer submit a .water
service plan covering available water resources,
estimated total water needs and supplies, landfill
construction and operation, landscaping, fire
protection, employee hygiene, human consumption
water needs, and water supply sources. It is
evaluated in the project' s EIR and resulting
mitigation measures are included in the Land Use
Permit' s Conditions of Approval .
b: Supporting Explanation: The generally poor quality
of on-site water (unsuitable for drinking) would
nevertheless ba adequate for most landfill
activities such as compaction, dust control, and
fire suppression. The EIR recommends exploring the
feasibility of utilizing sub-potable supplies such
as reclaimed wastewater, on-site stormwater
retention, or connection to a non-potable public
water supply system. A connection of the latter
kind could be considered to be non-growth-inducing.
C . Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall report annually to the
Board on the compliance of the Keller Canyon
Landfill to this water service plan requirement.
IX. VISUAL QUALITY
1 . Significant Effect: On-site operational lighting could
create glare and visual disturbances to nearby off-site
land uses (FEIR, p. 4 . 9-6 ) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
E
-40-
EXHIBIT E
by the EIR. Lighting should be designed (e.g. ,
through downward oriented reflectors) and placed to
reduce glare under full operating conditions and
. should be dimmed or turned off, except for security
lighting, during late hours of darkness. Full
operational lighting may be limited to normal
operational hours of the facility. Focused
directional security and operational lighting
should be installed as part of the project.
Excessive lighting of the access and operational
areas should be avoided. The County Community
Development Department would ensure that
construction and operational lighting does not
substantially impact nearby land uses by including
the appropriate mitigation measures in Land Use
Permit Conditions of Approval. The County Health
Services Department would also specify hours of
operation in the Solid Waste Facilities Permit and
respond to any lighting complaints by nearby
residents.
b. Supporting Explanation: Construction and
operational lighting would increase ambient light.
and glare due to night lighting. Lighting and
hours of operation restrictions would be addressed
during project design and review.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall report annually on the
implementation and enforcement of these
requirements to the Board.
2 . Significant Effect: Excavation and filling activity
would substantially alter the natural topography and
appearance of the area, as well as the visual character
of the existing land use. (FEIR, pp. 4 . 9-6, 4 . 9-7 ) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. Where possible, facilities shall be
placed below surrounding ridgeiine levels . Visual
berms will be installed at the toe level and/or at
the faces of lifts; the area of active operation
will be limited to approximately 20-25 acres at any
one time, except when major modules are being
prepared and foundation improvements installed.
Covered layers of refuse will 'be graded and
contoured to replicate the form of the existing
surrounding terrain. Revegetation of completed
fill areas and areas to be inactive for more than
-41-
EXHIBIT E
90 days will be required. The County Community
Development Department will ensure that these plans
are prepared and implemented by the landfill
developer by including them in the Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval.
b. Supporting Explanation: A landscaping and
screening plan based on the applicant's project
description and project EIR mitigation measures
would be required as part of a final site plan. It
would detail the locations and configurations of
grades and contours, screen plantings, overall site
landscaping, and revegetation efforts.
C. Monitoring Program: An annual compliance report on
these conditions shall be submitted by the County
Community Development Department to the Board.
3 . Significant Effect: Construction and operation of the
landfill would result in the removal of existing
vegetation (FEIR, p. 4 . 9-7 ) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. The planting of temporary or permanent
vegetation to match the existing visual character
following placement of each portion of intermediate
or final cover on filled areas will mitigate this
impact. As a condition of approval for the
project's Land Use Permit, the landfill developer
shall prepare and implement a final landscaping
plan, as part of the site design plan, which shows .
plant species, size and locations, a maintenance
program, and any landscape mitigation measures
identified in the project-specific EIR for the
site. This plan is subject to County Community
Development Department approval.
b. Supporting Explanation: Restorative landscaping
could appear to clash with the existing visual
character of the native plantings or could be
planted in unnatural plant groupings. To avoid
these problems, trees, shrubs and broadleaf species
which are currently found in the site area or are
native to the area should be planted on filled
areas . In addition, the County would require the
planting of annual grasses as temporary cover and
perennial grasses as permanent cover which can be
used later for grazing.
j -42-
EXHIBIT E
j
s
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall submit an annual
monitoring report to the Board on the compliance of
the Keller Canyon Landfill to this requirement.
4 . Significant Effect: Keller Canyon Landfill operations
may be visible from off-site residential and
recreational areas, as well as from travel corridors
(FEIR, p. 4 . 9-7 ) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. This impact will be mitigated by
utilizing natural topography as a visual barrier
and by providing visual buffers, such as
noise/visual berms along the active landfill
operation, and by providing screening- elsewhere on
the site. Corporation yards and staging areas
should be constructed away from public view if
possible. Views from roadways, especially scenic
routes, will be screened by installing dense
plantings along the roadway or elsewhere on the
site where the screening is most effective. The
County Community Development Department shall
ensure that visual mitigation measures identified
in the project's EIR are included in its Land Use
Permit Conditions of Approval .
b. Supporting Explanation: Since the proposed Keller
Canyon Landfill is located in canyons, topography
will provide visual screening to some degree. This
natural screening can be enhanced by installing
berms and screens . Earth berms are an effective
visual buffer for screening views to a landfill .
The form of the berms could mimic the natural line
of the area' s hills . Berms would be landscaped
with perennial grasses and native trees and shrubs
as appropriate. Planting patterns could be
naturalistic. The landfill developer would be
required to prepare and implement a final
landscaping plan with the approval of the County
Community Development Department.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall submit an annual
monitoring report to the Board on the compliance of
the Keller Canyon Landfill to this requirement.
5 . Si4nificant Effect: Windblown debris and litter could
rei sult in an adverse visual impact and/or could be
I
i
-43-
EXHIBIT E
f�
carried to off-site locations. Illegal dumping near the
facility entrance could visually detract from the
appearance of the surrounding area (FEIR, . p. 4 .9-8) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the ETR. Eliminating self-haulers will reduce
littering on the site and on access roads . The
landfill operator should, if feasible, align refuse
unloading areas away from the prevailing wind
direction. Refuse will be covered at least once a
day, and could be covered more often,. depending on
wind velocity. Installation of portable fencing
near the working area and a permanent fence around
the landfill site periphery to intercept and
contain windblown debris will be required. Litter
will be collected from the litter fences and
planting screens on a daily basis and from along
access roadways as often as is deemed necessary by
the County. The County Community Development
Department will incorporate a litter control plan
generally including the required mitigation
measures into the project's Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval for all new landfill and
transfer station facilities . The County Health
Services Department has the authority to enforce
this plan.
b. Supporting Explanation: . The landfill operator will
post signs along access roads noting littering and
illegal dumping laws; signs at the entrance will
note hours of operation. Policing of the site and
entrance area will be required on a daily basis or
more often, if needed.
C. Monitoring Program: A quarterly monitoring report
shall be submitted to the Board by the County
Health Services Department on compliance with these
regulations .
X. SOCIOECONOMICS
1 . Significant Effect: Siting of the landfill could
adversely affect the value of property located in the
vicinity of the site (FEIR,, p. 4 . 10-8) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
i
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
C
1
-44-
EXHIBIT E
i
by the EIR. The mitigation measures listed in
other sections of this report, especially those
that relate to order control, dust control, litter
control, landscaping and traffic control, are
expected to reduce this impact to a less than
significant level. The County Community
Development Department will incorporate the
appropriate mitigation measures suggested in the
Prgram EIR, as well as those identified in project
specific proposal, into the Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval.
b. Supporting Explanation: In three separate studies
on the effects of landfills on surrounding property
values, the conclusions were as follows: solid
waste disposal sites have no apparent negative
effect on change in property value of single family
homes in their immediate vicinity (The Effects of
Solid Waste Disposal Sites on Property Values,
1972) ; property characteristics other than distance
to the landfill appear much more important in
explaining prices (Pennsylvania State University,
Effects of Solid Waste Disposal Sites on Community
Development and Residential Property Values, 1982) ;
and proximity to the landfill had a negligible
impact on initial sales pricing of recently
constructed homes (Property Value Impact Study,
Puente Hills Landfill, 1983) . As part of the
complaint program, a County representative should
meet with local homeowners' associations or
organize neighborhood meetings to ensure that an
appropriate response is received.
C. Monitoring Program: As stated throughout these
findings, the County Community Development
Department shall submit monitoring reports to the
Board on a regular basis regarding the
implementation, monitoring and enforcement of the
identified mitigation measures .
XI . CULTURAL RESOURCES
1 . Significant Effect: A potential historic domestic site
is located within the proposed Keller Canyon landfill
area, which would be removed if the landfill is
developed. (FEIR, 4 . 11-9)
a.. Finding: This Board finds that this impact may be
significant but, if so, is expected to be mitigated
to a level less than significant by the imposition
-45-
EXHIBIT E
of the mitigation measures recommended by the EIR.
This site lies within the proposed landfill
footprint, but has not been recorded in sufficient
detail to evaluate its potential to contribute
information of importance to regional or area
history. As the data are not sufficient to
determine the potential importance of this site,
this impact may be significant. As part of the
site specific EIR, concurrent and archival research
shall be undertaken to determine the quality and
quantity of information relating to the dates of
site occupation, and the extent, integrity, and
diversity of archeological remains . Should this
testing indicate that the site could yield
additional information of importance, than a data
recovery phase will be required. Included within
this phase, as appropriate, would be further
archival or oral history research, excavation of a
sample of the site, or combinations thereof . If
significant deposits are not encountered, the
testing phase would provide adequate data to permit
loss of the site.
b. Supporting Rationale: See Finding.
C. Monitoring Program: The evaluation of the
historical significance of the site would be
performed during the preparation of the site-
specific EIR, and therefore no monitoring program
would be required.
2 . Significant Effect: It is possible that previously
unknown, buried cultural resources exist within or
adjacent to the proposed site. (FEIR, 4 . 11-9 )
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact may be
significant but, if so, will be mitigated to a
level less than significant by the imposition of
the mitigation measures recommended by the EIR.
Unknown, buried cultural resources could be exposed
as a result of construction activities . If this
were to occur, such an impact would be significant.
Construction personnel should be alerted to the
possibility of encountering subsurface deposits
during excavation. In the event of discovery of an
historic or prehistoric deposit, work shall be
temporarily diverted from the area until an
archeologist can evaluate the resource and provide
recommendations . The County coroner shall be
notified immediately should buried human remains be
discovered.
-46-
EXHIBIT E
i
b. Supporting Rationale: See Finding.
C. Monitoring Program: During initial construction of
the landfill and subsequent phases, construction
personnel shall be instructed on indicators of
historic and prehistoric deposits. This program
shall be proposed and implemented by the developer,
subject to the approval by the County. The County
Community Development Department shall submit
monitoring reports to the Board on a regular basis
regarding the implementation, monitoring and
enforcement of the identified mitigation measures .
XI . PUBLIC SERVICES
1 . Significant Effect: The proposed landfill could
increase the risk of fire and explosion (FEIR, pp. 4 . 12-
4, 4 . 12-9 ) .
Finding, Supporting Explanation, and Monitoring
Program: See Section II . Public Health and
Safety, Impact 3 of this report.
2 . Significant Effect: Disposal of landfill leachate could
adversely impact wastewater treatment systems (FEIR, p.
4 ._12-7 ) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. The County Community Development
Department will ensure that all Regional Water
Quality Control Board requirements are met during
environmental review of proposed landfills . The
disposal means (mitigation measures) will also be
included in the landfill's Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval and may be specified in the
County Services Department's Solid Waste Facilities
Permit as well.
b. Supporting Explanation: The Regional Water Quality
Control Board requires that landfill developers
prepare and implement a disposal plan for leachate
with the appropriate wastewater treatment agency
prior to construction of the landfill . In most
cases, the disposal plan requires on-site treatment
of the leachate to meet Regional Water Quality
j Control Board standards prior to its introduction
into the wastewater system.
i
-47-
EXHIBIT E
i
i
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall obtain reports from
the Regional Water Quality Control Board and
appropriate wastewater treatment agencies on
compliance of Keller Canyon Landfill facilities to
the disposal plan, and make this information
available to the Board on an annual basis .
3. Significant Effect: Construction and operation of the
landfill would require large quantities of water which
may impact local groundwater supplies or the supplies of
a public water supply utility (the Contra Costa Water
District) (FEIR, p. 4.12-6) .
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be
mitigated to a level less than significant by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR. As previously noted, the landfill
developer would propose a water service plan,
covering available water resources, estimated total
water needs and supplies, landfill construction and
operation, landscaping, fire protection, employee
hygiene, human consumption water needs, and water
supply sources . Specific mitigation measures will
be identified in the project-specific EIR. The
County Community Development Department shall
evaluate the landfill developer's water service
plans in the project's site-specific EIR, and
include mitigation measures as Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval.
b. Supporting Explanation: The water plan would be
based on verified supply information. Water for
. operation could be obtained either from on-site
drilling of deep wells or on-site collection of
surface drainage. If on-site water is not
adequate, water for construction might be obtained
from off-site sources . Use of Contra Costa Water
District (CCWD) water would require its approval,
possibly that of a city, and the Local Agency
Formation Commission's approval.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
.Development Department shall report annually to the
Board on compliance with the water service plan
and/or its implementation requirements .
4 . Significant Effect: Traffic and litter violations in
the vicinity of the landfill would create a greater
demand for police services in the area. (FEIR, 4 . 12-5)
-48-
EXHIBIT E
I
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact would
be mitigated to a level less than significant by
the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended by the EIR. As a condition of the land
use approvals for the site, the developer shall be
required to adopt measures to ensure periodic
litter pick-up at the site entrance and adjacent
access roads to the site. Also, as mentioned in
earlier in these Findings, the developer would also
be required to provide or participate in the
widening of local access roads to reduce local
traffic congestion and improve traffic safety.
Specific mitigation measures will be proposed in
the site-specific EIR and shall be implemented by
the developer.
b. Supporting Rationale: Problems with. landfills are
likely to be internal security problems that can be
handled by security personnel on site, and by
construction of fences enclosing the site. Local
law enforcement agencies would continue to work,
where possible, on the enforcement of regulations
'governing the disposal of abandoned vehicles and
litter from improperly covered carriers or illegal
dumping, and on traffic violations .
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall submit monitoring
reports to the Board on a regular basis regarding
the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of
the identified mitigation measures.
5 . Significant Effect: Development of new landfills will
require project processing, inspection and enforcement,
which would require increased personnel and resources
for the affected agencies . (FEIR, 4 . 12-7 )
a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact would
be mitigated to a level less than significant by
the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended by the EIR. The developer shall be
required, through a levy of franchising and other
fees assessed by the affected agencies, to offset
the additional governmental costs associated with
the project.
b. Supporting Rationale: See Finding.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall submit monitoring
reports to the Board on a regular basis regarding
-49-
EXHIBIT E
I�
i
the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of
the identified mitigation measures.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH MAY NOT BE
MITIGABLE TO INSIGNIFICANT LEVELS
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors finds that the
following impacts, which could result from implementation of
the Keller Canyon Landfill General Plan Amendment, are
potentially significant from an environmental standpoint and
may not be fully mitigated. The Board of Supervisors hereby
directs the Community Development Department to address the
following mitigation measures in the subsequent tiers of
Environmental Impact Reports and other environmental
documents implementing the California Environmental Quality
Act that will emanate from the adoption of the Keller Canyon
Landfill General Plan Amendment. If the project-level tier
of environmental documents finds that the impacts are
significant and that the particular mitigation measures are
necessary to achieve substantial mitigation, the Board of
Supervisors declares its intent to adopt them as parts of the
applicable projects or program approvals if the measures are
subject to the control of the County. If the project-level
tier of environmental documents also finds that the impacts
are significant and unavoidable, the Board of Supervisors
declares its intent to evaluate the necessity for a Statement
of Overriding Considerations in the light of the evidence in
the record, if the benefits of the project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse impacts . Further, the monitoring
program--primarily an annual report on the implementation of
the mitigation measures--shall be carried out by the County
Community Development Department. All other County
departments and agencies involved in solid waste management
shall assist with the preparation of the monitoring report.
I . GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1 . Significant Effect: Development of the Keller Canyon
Landfill would involve the excavation and use of large
amounts of low permeability on-site soils for liner and
cover purposes, and would permanently alter the
topography of the landfill site (FEIR, p. 5-5) .
a.;� Finding: The following mitigation measures will
mitigate the identified potentially significant
effect, but may not reduce it to a lessthan
significant level: Upon closure, on-site soils
that have been excavated will be used in the
revegetation of the closed land-filling area. A
-50-
EXHIBIT E
i
grading plan that is designed to blend the
landfilled area with the surrounding topography
will partially mitigate this impact. Contour
grading techniques will provide a smooth transition
between the new topography of the landfill and the
natural topography of' the site: cuts and fills
will be constructed with rounded corners to
eliminate sharp angles of intersection; variable
slope gradients will provide rounded, irregular
forms that mimic natural slopes . (Also, -see the
Visual Quality section following, and under
Potentially Significant Impacts Fully Mitigated in
this findings report. ) The County Community
Development Department requires that a proposed
landfill project have an appropriate site grading
program that is sensitive to the surrounding site
area. This program will be evaluated in the
project's EIR and the resulting mitigation measures
will be included in the Development and
Improvements Plan of the Land Use Permit Conditions
of Approval in order to ensure implementation.
b., Supporting Explanation: Significant topographic
alteration will occur regardless of how well the
landfilled area is blended into the surrounding
land forms .
c.', Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall report annually, if
applicable, to the, Board on the compliance of the
landfill developer with this requirement.
II . VISUALQ UALITY
1 . Significant Effect: A landfill sited in rolling hills
would substantially change the existing visual contours
(FEIR, p. 4 . 9-6 ) .
a., Finding: The following mitigation measures will
mitigate the identified potentially significant
effect, but may not reduce it to a less than
significant level: to the extent practicable,
landfill facilities should be sited well below the
ridgeline levels, in canyons or valleys . The
highest portion of the fill should be below
surrounding ridgelines . Berms, fencing and/or
landscaping should be employed to screen landfill
operations . A portion of the Keller Canyon
Landfill site will be permanently preserved in open
space.. Upon closure, the balance of the site will
-51-
EXHIBIT E
II
be returned to open space and landscaped, thus
providing a physical and visual greenbelt. In
addition, riparian habitat will be developed and
will enhance visual character. The. County
Community Development Department will ensure that
mitigation measures identified in the project EIR
to reduce the effect of this impact are implemented
by incorporating them in the project's Land Use
Permit Conditions of Approval.
b. Supporting Explanation: Wherever a new landfill is
sited, substantial visual alteration of the site
would occur. This visual alteration can be
diminished through the above proposed measures . It
is noted that additional and/or more detailed
measures identified in the project-specific EIR
could reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level.
c.l Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall report to the Board
annually, as applicable, on compliance to the
identified conditions .
ALTERNATIVES
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires EIRs
to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the
project, or to the location of the project, which could
feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and
evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives
(Guidelines, S 15126(d) ) . For the reasons stated below,
these alternatives should be rejected in favor of the
currently proposed plan.
This Board finds that the EIR sets forth a reasonable range
of alternatives to the Keller Canyon Landfill General Plan
Amendment and the landfill project. In particular, the Board
finds that many alternative sites are sufficiently discussed
in the EIR and evaluated in documents incorporated into the
EIR. Further, the EIR includes a brief explanation why the
alternative sites were rejected. Moreover, the program EIR
and this General Plan Amendment are the first phase or tier
of a series of development approvals in which the County is
considering five potential landfill sites (the five sites
included in the CoSWMP Revision and Parts III through VII of
this Resolution) . The evaluation of alternative sites for
one or more landfills is continuing, pursuant to the adoption
of the five general plan amendments and as required by state
-52-
EXHIBIT E
i
law and the writ of mandate entered in the g
lii ation against
g
the County by the California Waste Management Board.
I . NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Finding: The Board finds that this Alternative, as described
in the CosWMP/GPA EIR, is infeasible because of the following
specific economic, social and other considerations.
Reasons: This alternative is defined as the failure to adopt
a CoSWMP revision and General Plan Amendments, which would
have the effect of maintaining the status quo with respect to
solid waste management and landfill development in the
County.,, In this alternative, no new landfills would be
developed, existing landfills would be used until their
closure, and then solid waste would be exported for disposal
to other counties . With Acme Landfill's impending closure,
waste currently going to Acme would be diverted to the two
remaining landfills in the County. These two landfills,
Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (CCSL) and West Contra Costa
Sanitary Landfill (WCCSL) , are near capacity and at the
present rate of waste acceptance are due to close in 1990-
1991 and 1993, respectively. Although the CoSWMP identifies
a 24-acre expansion at Acme Landfill,_ an application for such
an expansion was denied by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board in 1988 . Expansion of CCSL and WCCSL are also provided
for in 'the CoSWMP, if approvals can be obtained. If one or
both are granted, they would provide only a few years of
capacity for the County. In addition to new landfills, the
CoSWMP includes policies for increasing the current rate of
resource recovery. Failure to implement these provisions
under the No Project Alternative would exacerbate the demands
on the limited existing in-County capacity. After exhaustion
of in-County capacity, the County would have to export its
waste, which, though possible, would not be a certainty,
would be non-cost effective in the long run, and would
subject the County to other jurisdictions ' requirements and
politics . Adoption of this No Project Alternative would
violate the County's obligations under state law and the writ
of mandate issued to the County.
II . WASTE REDUCTION ALTERNATIVE
Finding: The Board finds that this Alternative, as described
in thelCosWMP/GPA EIR, is infeasible because of the following
specific economic, social and other considerations .
Reasons: The CoSWMP includes goals and policies for
increasing the proportion of the ,County's solid waste that is
-53-
EXHIBIT E
diverted through resource recovery. The long-term goal is to
divert 73 percent of the wastestream. In this alternative,
three specific technologies would be used in lieu of
landfilling solid waste: recycling, composting, and waste-
to-energy. Two in-depth County studies (Recycling Planning
Study, 'Skip Lacaze, 1987; Technical Memorandum No. 13,
Evaluation of Recycling, Composting and Waste Reduction,
Contra 'Costa County/Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Solid Waste Management Project Report, 1985) indicate that
between 2 and 5 percent of the total wastestream could be
reasonably reduced via residential recycling programs .
Composting the approximately 10-15 ,percent vegetative waste
of the ',residential wastestream would be equivalent to
approximately 2 percent of the wastestream. Though waste-to-
energy ,technologies could produce a 70-percent reduction by
weight ',of the wastestream that is incinerated, there are
several problems involved. Ash residue from mass
incineration is about 30 percent by weight of incoming waste
and this would have to be disposed of . Landfill disposal
would still be required for this ash residue and for non-
combustible material. In addition, waste-to-energy projects
are capital intensive, environmental issues are great, and
the current chances for siting a project in the near term are
slim. Adoption of this Alternative in place of the adoption
of this General Plan Amendment would violate the County's
obligations under State law and the writ of mandate issued to
the County.
III . SUBSTITUTE LANDFILL SITES ALTERNATIVE
Finding: The Board finds that this Alternative, as described
in the 'CosWMP/GPA EIR, is infeasible, because of the following
specific economic, social and other considerations .
Reasons: During the years 1984-1987 , there were three
landfill siting studies/evaluations performed in the County
to identify potential sites . (Contra Costa County/Central
Contra 'Costa Sanitary District Solid Waste Management Project
Report,' 1985; Southeast County Landfill Siting Study, Contra
Costa County, 1986; Delta Diablo Evaluation of Potential
Southeast County Landfill Sites, 1987 ) . These efforts
initially considered 22 sites, which were later narrowed
through a ranking system to seven sites . Four of the final
seven sites recommended to the Board of Supervisors are sites
identified in the CoSWMP, the subject of these Findings . The
reasons for dropping the other 15 sites are listed in Table
6 .3-1 of the CoSWMP EIR, and deal mostly with the sites not
meeting the County's list of criteria for new landfill
development (Table 6 . 3-2 of the EIR). . It was intended that
developers of landfills would use this information to
-54-
EXHIBIT E
• s
identify future sites in the County. During the first study,
three sites were proposed by the private sector--Kirker Pass
Waste Management Landfill (KPWML) , East Contra Costa Sanitary
Landfill (ECCSL) and Central Landfill. The Central Landfill
proposal was withdrawn in December of 1986 . In 1987, KPWML
and ECCSL completed their hearings and environmental review
with the Planning Commission. Both were unable to obtain a
majority approval by the Board of Supervisors . In 1988, the
Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill and Keller Canyon Landfill
were proposed by the private sector. They are currently
undergoing environmental review.
The Keller Canyon proposal currently undergoing
environmental review is significantly different from the
Central Landfill proposal. The Keller Canyon applicant has
under its control via land options the entire original
acreage included under the Central Landfill proposal, but the
applicant proposes to develop only a single canyon for
landfill activities under the Keller proposal as compared
with .the use of three canyons for landfilling activities as
was proposed under the Central Landfill proposal.
Furthermore, the Keller applicant has under its control
additional acreage (the "Keller Ranch" property) to the
southeast of the original Bailey Road site, which is farther
away from the City of Pittsburg and nearby residential and
commercial development. The majority of the newly proposed
Keller Canyon footprint is located on this Keller Ranch
property. (See FEIR, A-12, 13 ) . The entire Keller General
Plan area comprises about 2,700 acres, of which approximately
244 acres will be used for actual waste placement. The
closest, distance of waste placement to the single closest
residence is . 5 miles, compared with . 6 miles for the East
Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, .4 miles for the Kirker Pass
landfill, and .5 miles for the Marsh Creek Sanitary Landfill .
(See testimony of Keller Canyon Project Engineer, Jill
Shapiro, Ph.D. , at the public hearing on the Keller Canyon
General; Plan Amendment. ) The eastern portion of the Keller
Canyon site (including former Central Landfill canyons 2 and
3) is designated as a buffer area in the General Plan
Amendment for the Keller site and may not be used for
waste placement. The purpose of this buffer area is to
buffer ,nearby land uses from impacts of the landfill .
The Keller Canyon landfill, next to the Bay Pointe
Landfill, is the closest to transfer stations . This will
reduce vehicular emissions and hauling costs to this landfill
compared with the other three "active" (East Contra Costa
CountylSanitary Landfill, Kirker Pass Landfill, and Marsh
Creek Sanitary Landfill) sites . The Keller Canyon site is
also the closest to the freeway portion of Highway 4 compared
with the East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, the Kirker Pass
-55-
EXHIBIT E
Landfill, and the Marsh Creek Landfill. (FEIR, Figure 4 .3-4
at p. 4 . 3-15) Transfer vans going to the Keller Canyon site,
after leaving Highway 4, must cross only one intersection
before reaching the site. In contract, transfer vans going
to the other three "active" sites must traverse a greater
number of intersections, with a correspondingly greater
impaction local roads, traffic, and residential and
commercial development. There is no other site that is
environmentally superior to the Keller Canyon site. (See
testimony of Keller Canyon Project Engineer, Jill Shapiro,
Ph.D. , i,at the public hearing on the Keller Canyon General
Plan Amendment. )
On November, 1988, this Board passed a resolution
expressing its intention to favorably consider the Keller
CanyonlLandfill site should that landfill meet environmental
requirements and complete the public hearing process . (FEIR,
p. 6-23 ) .
i
The "substitute landfill" alternative is rejected
for the reasons set forth in the Program EIR, and because no
sites other than those included in the CoSWMP Revision are
capable of becoming operating facilities by 1992 if site-
specific studies were started now. Moreover, none of the
other sites have sponsors who have obtained control of the
land and begun the application studies.
IV. NO TRANSFER STATION ALTERNATIVE
Finding: The Board finds that this Alternative, as described
in the �CosWMP/GPA EIR, is infeasible because of the following
specific economic, social and other considerations .
Reasons: In this alterative, the CoSWMP revision and General
Plan Amendments proposed project would not include the
provision for transfer stations, and instead would rely on
direct haul of solid waste to landfill(s) and/or resource
recovery facilities . This would entail the use of low-
capacity packer trucks to haul the waste from the point of
collection to the ultimate disposal or processing point,
rather than using high-capacity transfer vehicles to haul
waste from a transfer station to the ultimate
disposal/processing location. There would be a substantially
greater number of vehicle trips needed to transport a given
amount of solid waste to its ultimate destination(s) . In the
worst case condition for traffic generation, a single
landfill would become the destination for all the solid waste
operations in the County. According to Table 6 . 3-3 in the
CoSWMP/General Plan Amendment EIR there would be almost three
times as many vehicle trips generated under this scenario
-56-
EXHIBIT E
i
than under the proposed project scenario which includes
transfer stations (1,726. trips by the year 2005 instead of
640 trips) . There would be substantially greater air
emissions and noise impacts . In addition, there could be
more public service impacts due to road maintenance and
traffic enforcement, and greater land use, visual and
property value impacts as a result of increased traffic.
Adoption of this Alternative and failure to adopt this
General Plan Amendment would violate the County's obligations
under State law and the writ of mandte issued to the County.
I
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
I
Notwithstanding the disclosure of the significant impacts and
the mitigation measures described above, pursuant to Section
15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Board of Supervisors
finds that the benefits of the Keller Canyon Landfill General
Plan Amendment outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse
environmental impacts, and the Amendment should be approved.
The Board of Supervisors further finds that there are
specific social, economic and other reasons for approving
this project, based on information in the record,
notwithstanding the substantial adverse impacts disclosed in
the Final Environmental Impact Report and described above as
significant impacts not fully mitigated. The Board also
finds that, to the extent any mitigation measures recommended
in the 'EIR were not or will not be incorporated into the
General Plan Amendment or .the Landfill Project, such
mitigation measures are infeasible with respect to the
Landfill Project, because such measures would impose
restrictions on the landfill project that would prohibit the
realization of specific economic, social, and other benefits
that this Board finds outweigh the unmitigated impacts . The
Board also finds that the alternatives set forth in the EIR
are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of
specific economic, social, and other benefits that this Board
finds outweigh the environmental benefits of the
alternatives . Further, the Board finds that the following
reasons warrant approval of the General Plan Amendment
notwithstanding any unavoidable or unmitigated impacts:
1 . State law requires the adoption of the CoSWMP
Revision, including reserved sites showing at least eight
years of landfill capacity. In order to qualify as a
reserved site, a site must be consistent with the County's
generals plan. Therefore, the adoption of this General Plan
Amendment is required for the Keller Canyon Landfill site to
qualify as a reserved site under state law.
-57-
EXHIBIT E
I
i
2 . The writ of mandate issued to the County in
California Waste Management Board v. Board of of Supervisors,
etc. , Contra Costa County Superior Court No. C89-00833,
requires the County, among other things, to adopt the CoSWMP
Revision and adopt general plan amendments for the potential
landfill sites pursuant to a detailed time schedule.
Adoption of this General Plan Amendment is required for the
County ', to comply with the writ of mandate.
3 .� Adoption of this General Plan Amendment will reduce
the need to export solid waste to other counties. This will
reducelor eliminate the environmental, traffic, and energy
impacts of hauling waste outside the County and constitutes
an environmental benefit of this project.
4 .', Adoption of this General Plan Amendment will provide
overall social benefits to the County. A number of services,
including healthcare, child day care, care for senior
citizens, and supply of food and housing all depend on an
assured system of solid waste collection and disposal. As
part of the CoSWMP Revision and implementation of the
Revision, the General Plan Amendment will help ensure the
continued provision of such services .
5 ., Adoption of this General Plan Amendment and
subsequent approval of a landfill project will provide
construction jobs over a period of several years .
6 � Adoption of this General Plan Amendment and
subsequent approval of a landfill project will forestall the
public health hazard that would result from the exhaustion of
landfill capacity in this County without a replacement
landfill site.
I
FINDINGS REGARDING MONITORING OR REPORTING
OF CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES
Section 21081 . 6 of the California Public Resources Code
requires this Board to adopt a monitoring or reporting
program regarding CEQA mitigation measures in connection with
these findings . This Board has made specific findings
regarding mitigation monitoring as it applies to various
specific impacts of the Landfill Project, in the findings
sections. set forth above. Those specific findings call for
annual reporting, based on information to be gathered by the
County Community Development Department. This annual
reporting will be done ,pursuant to the following program,
which this Board hereby adopts in fulfillment of the CEQA
mitigation monitoring requirement:
-58-
EXHIBIT E
A. The Community Development Department shall file a written
report with this Board approximately once each year,
beginning on or about the first anniversary of the approval
of this General Plan Amendment by the Board of Supervisors
and continuing until the Landfill Project is developed
pursuant to additional land use approvals that may be granted
by thelCounty. The written report shall briefly state the
status ,in implementing each mitigation measure that is
adopted as a Condition of Approval or that is incorporated
into the Landfill Project. The written report may include
information from other agencies regarding implementation of
the mitigation measures. When such information from other
agencies is included, the report shall include such
additional information, if any, as the Department deems
necessary to provide a complete report on the implementation
of mitigation measures .
i
B. Community Development staff and this Board shall review
the written report and determine whether there is any
unforeseen, unusual, and substantial delay in, or obstacle
to, implementing the adopted or incorporated mitigation
measures that requires action by Department staff .
C. The, Board may delegate its review of the mitigation
monitoring report, in this Board's sole discretion. If any
interested party requests it, the result of this review will
be provided to such party in writing.
I
D. If the staff or this Board determines that action is
required to ensure that one or more mitigation measures is
implemented, then the staff shall advise this Board of the
situation.
-59-
EXHIBIT E
1
l
i
�`�
1
t
1
\\
EXHIBIT F
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
KELLER CANYON (KELLER-BAILEY) LANDFILL
(GPA 3-89-CO)
The Contra Costa County General Plan is amended as provided below.
i
1. REFUSE DISPOSAL PLAN
a. Add to the Central Study Area Text (p. 22) :
I
"Keller Canyon (Keller-Bailey) Landfill.
i
A sanitary landfill facility, or sanitary landfill facilities, may be
developed at the location identified as a Sanitary Landfill Refuse
Disposal Facility on the accompanying Plan Map, in accordance with
Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval adopted by the Board of Super-
visors. A sanitary landfill developed in the subject location is
intended to take residential-commercial-industrial wastes (i.e. ,
wastes allowable for a Class II landfill under the terms of Subchapter
151, Chapter 3, Title 23 ,of the California Administrative Code, 1984) .
The facility is intended to serve Contra Costa County and other areas
specified by the Board of Supervisors."
A sanitary landfill at the location identified above shall provide for
the retention of the area shown on the accompanying Plan Map as a
Special Buffer Area. Said area is to be an ancillary area to provide
spatial and topographic separation from the landfill and to accommo-
date mitigation requirements such as agricultural production replac-
ement. The Special Buffer Area is expected to be used, designated (in
the Land Use Element), and zoned for agriculture, although other open
space uses.may be determined to be consistent with the purposes of the
Special Buffer Area if such uses retain the land in an open state, are
aesthetically positive, minimize 1human presence, and do not interfere
with landfill permit conditions.
b. Add the attached diagram entitled Plan Map--Keller Canyon (Keller-
Baley) Landfill to the above plan text Amendment.
I
2. LAND USE ELEMENT
a. Reclassify the Land Use Designation of the area shown on the accom-
panying Plan Map from Agricultural Preserve to General Open Space.
b. Add the Keller Canyon (Keller-Bailey) Landfill (2b) to the following
section of the Land Use Element which was adopted on December 15,
1987:
f
i
i e ,
"Adopted Refuse Disposal Facilities
The following Refuse Disposal Facilities are consistent with the Land
Use Element and their site areas are deemed to be overlays on the Land
Use Element Plan Map:
i
1.! Refuse Disposal Facilities approved prior to January 1, 1983, by
the Board of Supervisors in General Plan Components and Land Use
Permits (includes West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, and the IT
Corporation's Baker, Pacheco, and Vine Hill facilities) .
2.1 Refuse Disposal Facilities approved by General Plan Amendments
adopted subsequent to January 1, 1983, by the Board of Supervi-
sors. These are: (a) the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer
Station, adopted December 15, 1987; and (b) Bay Pointe Sanitary
Landfill, East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, Keller Canyon
Landfill, Kirker Pass, Waste Management Landfill, and Marsh Canyon
Sanitary Landfill, adopted September 19, 1989.
3. OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Add "refuse disposal" to the following statement of purpose on Page 1,
Purposes, of the Open Space and Conservation Element, indicated by under-
lining:)
I
Open Space and Conservation in this plan can mean land for orchards,
crops, livestock production, water supply, national defense, public
and private recreation, forestry, mineral extraction, refuse disposal,
agricultural industry, and even very low density residential uses,
where appropriate to location and other planning considerations.
I hereby certify that this amendment to
the Contra Costa County General Plan was
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on
October 10, 1989.
Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and County Administrator
By Deputy
FOOTNOTE:
1. Added subsequent to the distribution of the original draft amendment.
CAZ/RV/jn
169:keller.gpa
I
{
s ,
GENERAL PLAN M41MDMENT
KELLER CANYON (KFLLER-BAILEY) LANDFILL
(GPA 3-89-CO)
` _I��'•� 1 �� r^ / `•� Highways , ,t... J l f
it
PLAN MAP -- KELLER CANYON (KELLER-BAILEY) LANDFILL
•"J -_= Part of the Refuse Disposal Plan and
�' ;y �•t-•� Land Use Element of the Contra Costa
- County General Plan
E r1Y{C■ 1 i . • ' finr.lwn rJ
u� A f H K
GPITTSBURG
+ JI :79
0.
• F w � � �;,•... O
Al
.�ila TLC I CZ.' j ` �4J n6.os K
: .c j �: F ..0
I *w, f: Ttvo�lt*rY • .CST:
1 '
Ac
•
Mr
000
�wr,er.M
.• �T'r.
I —
� 341 � .:�'`��` ,wor•6 � r;
north 156.11 at
1000 20
, � - J 'Cl gO11TM• I R
�•1 00 Ir7.r3 AC �1
O
Scale in rest \ - '•f'' a
._ ff
CONCORD / IN
35
I
i
I
i
i
i
i r
KIRKER PASS LANDFILL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS AND MONITORING PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Procedures
CEOA Requirements for Findinas
Potentially Significant Impacts Which Are Considered
Mitigable to Insignificant
I . PLANNING AND LAND USE
1 . ' Loss of Grazing Land During Life of Project
2 . Effect on Surrounding Land Uses
II . PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
1 . 1Disease-Bearing Vectors
Z . Mosquitos
3 . 1 Fire and Explosion Hazard
4 . , Hazardous Materials
5 Leachate Contamination of Ground and Surface Wastes
6 . ' On-Site Effects of Landfill Gas
7 . 1, Co-Composting
III . TRANSPORTATION
1 .11 Highway 4 Congestion
2 .! Damage to Pavement Structure
a
3 .{i Congestion and Safety on Local Roads
4 .' Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
5 .1 Visual and Nuisance Effects
i
EXHIBIT G
-i-
I
IV. AI!R QUALITY
1. Landfill Gas Emissions
2 . Odor
3 .' Dust
V. NOISE
1 .' Effect on Nearby Residents
2.1 Effect on Residents Along Access Roads
VI . VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 1
1 . Weeds and Pests
2 .1 Effect of Soil Erosion on Vegetation
3 . Injury to Wildlife
4 . Effect of Leachate on Downstream Areas
5 . Effect of Dust on Vegetation
6 .' Loss of Wetlands
VII . GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
1 . Landslides
2. Settlement
3 . Stockpiling
4 .11 Soil Expansiveness
5 . Ponding
6 .' Ground Shaking
VIII . HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1 . Erosion and Sedimentation
2 . Sedimentation Basins
3 . Artificial Drainage
4 . Leachate Contamination of Ground and Surface Waters
EXHIBIT G
-ii-
5 . Water Supply
IX. VISUAL QUALITY
1 . Lighting
2 . 1 Topography and Appearance
3 . 'i Removal of Vegetation
4 . Landfill Operations
5 . Litter
X. SOCIOECONOMICS
1 . , Effect on Property Value
XI . PUBLIC SERVICES
i
1 . 1 Fire and Explosion Hazard
I
2 . 1 Wastewater Treatment
i
3 . I', Water Supply
Potentially Significant Impacts Which May Not be Mitigable to
Insignificant Levels
I . Geology and Soils
1 . , Use of On-Site Soils and Alteration of Topography
II . Visual Quality
1 . Change in Existing Visual Contours
Alternatives
I . No Project Alternative
II . Waste Reduction Alternative
III . Substitute Landfill Sites Alternative
IV. N& Transfer Station Alternative
I
Statement of Overriding Considerations
EXHIBIT G
il
-iii-
i
PROCEDURES
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County,
California (hereinafter the "Board" or the "Board of
Supervisors" ) , finds that:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , as
amended', together with the State CEQA Guidelines, requires
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
certain,; public and private sector projects requiring
discretionary actions by California's governments .
The discretionary approval powers over the proposed
CEQA project known as the proposed Rirker Pass Sanitary
Landfill General Plan Amendment (24-84-CO) reside with the
County. The County, as the Lead Agency, determined that an
EIR was required for this project and issued a Notice of
Preparation on January 25, 1989, to the State Clearinghouse
and to various public agencies (including all the cities in
the County) , organizations and individuals . As part of the
environmental review process, the County held a public
scoping session on February 15, 1989 .
The County determined that the EIR should address
the general environmental impacts associated with amending
the Contra Costa County General Plan to include this proposed
landfill site. In addition, the EIR serves as the
environmental docume.it for the proposed 1989 revision to the
County Solid Waste Management Plan ( "CoSWMP" ) .
The County determined that the California
Environmental Quality Act documentation for the CoSWMP and
the proposed General Plan Amendments, and the individual
solid waste development projects which could result from the
COSWMP and the proposed General Plan Amendments, be prepared
in stages . The first tier is a Program EIR, the subject of
these findings, on the CoSWMP and General Plan Amendments,
which analyzes the possible environmental consequences of
implementing the solid waste management policies in the
CoSWMP and adopting General Plan Amendments . The second tier
of the process will be the environmental review of individual
projects for the specific facilities proposed and designed to
fulfill the goals and policies of the CoSWMP; this level of
review 'generally will be accomplished through site-specific
Project EIR: . Together, the two tiers are intended to carry
out the, California Environmental Quality Act and implement
the State's and the County's CEQA Guidelines .
On May 15, 1989, a Draft EIR for the CoSWMP and the
proposed General Plan Amendments was published by the County
and distributed to the State Clearinghouse and the 18 cities
in the County. The County Zoning Administrator held a public
EXHIBIT G
-1-
hearing on this draft document in the City of Pittsburg on
June 20;, 1989 . The public review period ended on June 30,
1989 .
On August 2, 1989, the Final EIR for the CoSWMP and
the proposed General Plan Amendments was published,
consisting of the Draft EIR and the Response to Comments
document.
On August 7, 1989, the Contra Costa County Zoning
Administrator found that the Final EIR for the CoSWMP and the
proposed General Plan Amendments was prepared and processed
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act,
and that the EIR is adequate in its coverage of environmental
impacts;, mitigation measures, alternatives, and other
environmental effects that could result from the adoption of
the CoSWMP and the five General Plan Amendments . Further,
the Zoning Administrator transmitted the Final EIR to the
Board of Supervisors with the recommendation that it be
certified.
On August 15, 1989, the Board of Supervisors
certified that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
proposed 1989 CoSWMP Revision and the five proposed General
Plan Amendments had been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and that it had been
presented to the Board and the Board had considered the
information contained in it.
The County, as the lead agency, has determined that
a written finding, accompanied by an explanation of the
rationale for the finding, be prepared for each potentially
significant impact identified in the Final EIR. In addition,
as required by recent State legislation (Pub. Resources Code,
§21081 .',6 [AB 3180] ) , every public agency making such findings
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 Board of Supervisors finds that the impacts
described in these findings, which could result from
implementation of the proposed Kirker Pass Landfill, are
potentially significant from an environmental standpoint.
EXHIBIT G
-2-
CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS
The CEQA statute and CEQA Guidelines contain
specific requirements for findings that must be made by a
lead agency when it approves a project for which an EIR has
been prepared. These requirements are found in Public
Resources Code Sections 21081 and 21081 .5 and State CEQA
Guidelines (14 C.C.R. §15000 et seq. , "Guidelines" ) Sections
15091 and 15093. Basically, the lead agency, in this case
the Board of Supervisors, must make a finding for each
impact, either that it has been mitigated below the level of
significance, or that mitigation is infeasible and the
project's overall benefits outweigh its risks (Statement of
Overriding Considerations . )
The CoSWMP/GPA EIR is a "Program EIR" and is part
of a "Tiering" process under CEQA. Specific project EIRs
will follow at the next level of the Tiering process. At
each level of the process, the Board's findings regarding
mitigation should be appropriate to the level of
generality/specificity involved. At the present policy
level General Plan Amendments for each landfill site are
being considered. The mitigation measures are therefore
expressed in less detailed terms than will be the case at the
later specific project approval level . In addition, the
mitigation measures shall be adopted as Conditions of
Approval as part of the Lard Use Permit when a specific
landfill project is approved.
With respect to the Kirker Pass landfill, a
comprehensive project `description and a specific project EIR
have previously been prepared and approved by the County
Planning Commission (the project itself was recommended for
approval by County staff and the Planning Commission, and the
Board of Supervisors declared its intent to approve. )
Additional EIR documentation to update the prior Kirker Pass
EIR will be prepared at the project review level and
additional project--specific mitigation measures will be
determined and implemented. At the present level of the
Tiering process, the General Plan Amendment EIR treats the
previous extensive study and the substantial available data
as illustrative of a landfill development on the site.
With regard to findings and determinations required
by CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Contra Costa
CountylBoard of Supervisors hereby finds and determines as
follows:
A. A finding is made for each significant
impact identified . in the EIR (Public Resources Code (PRC)
521081, CEQA Guidelines §15091) .
EXHIBIT G
-3-
B. The finding for each impact describes
mitigation measures and indicates that these measures as
further specified and detailed, should be required or
considered at the project approval stage. This Board hereby
declares its intent to adopt each such mitigation measure,
assuming that the project-level EIR concludes that each
significant impact is as it was described in the Program EIR
and that such mitigation measures are feasible and effective.
If the project-level EIR concludes that an impact is not as
described in the Program EIR or that a mitigation measure
adopted herein is not feasible or effective, the Board shall
addressthe impact identified and described in the project-
level EIR as a significant impact and shall adopt mitigation
measures that are feasible and effective in mitigating such
impact to- a level less than significant, or, if the impact is
considered unmitigable, shall consider the appropriateness of
a Statement of Overriding Considerations . This approach is
appropriate for a Program EIR and is consistent with the
Tiering process (PRC §§21093, 21094, Guidelines §15168 ) .
C. The mitigation indicated will be
considered and required by Contra Costa County as the Lead
Agency.! In addition, where appropriate, mitigation is
indicated as being required by other public agencies (PRC
§21081,; Guidelines §15091 ) .
D. With regard to each finding, the Board of
Supervisors hereby determines that there exists substantial
evidence in the record to support such finding. (PRC
§21081 .5, Guidelines §15091)
E. Consideration has been given to each
alternative analyzed in the EIR, and findings have been made,
with supporting rationale, for rejecting each alternative.
(PRC §2,1081, Guidelines §15091 ) .
F. In light of the urgent need to increase
landfil'1 capacity in order to forestall a public health
hazard and accommodate the County's growing population and
employment base, the Board of Supervisors hereby finds and
determines that its Statement of Overriding Considerations
contained in the findings is applicable in those instances
where there may remain unavoidable significant impacts after
mitigation. (Guidelines §15093) .
i
i
'I
EXHIBIT G
-4-
II
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE
CONSIDERED MITIGABLE TO INSIGNIFICANCE
I. PLANNING AND LAND USE
1 . Significant Effect: Landfill operations at the Rirker
Pass Landfill site would remove agricultural usage
(currently grazing) from the active parts of this site
for the life of the landfill (FEIR, pp. 4 .1-24, 4 . 1-26 ) .
a.l, Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact:
Mitigation measures will include enhancing the
grazing capabilities on the remainder of the
landfill site or on another site. The County
Community Development Department shall address the
potential loss of agricultural values in the site
specific EIRs, and, where found to be appropriate,
shall ensure that the mitigation measures
identified in the EIRs to reduce this impact to a
less than significant level are implemented by
making them Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval .
b.l Supporting Explanation: The project-spec:.fic
environmental review would include on-site and/or
off-site mitigation measures, such as enhancement
of the sites's grazing capabilities . It may be
preferable to substitute other uses, such as
recreation or habitat, for grazing.
C., Monitoring Program: The status of this siting
criterion as it applies to proposed and sited
landfills shall be reported to the Board annually.
2 . Significant Effect: Surrounding residential, commercial
and recreational uses could be adversely affected by
traffic, air and water pollution, and visual impacts due
to the siting of a landfill on this site (FEIR, p. 4 . 1-
24) ..
a.;' Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: The
implementation of the mitigation measures
identified elsewhere in these Findings concerned
with traffic reduction and control, prevention of
EXHIBIT G
-5-
air and water pollution, and visual mitigation,
will help reduce these impacts to less than
significance. Most of the mitigation measures are
capable of being implemented by the County, and are
appropriate for inclusion in Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval or Solid Waste Facilities
Permits .
b.'; Supporting Explanation: Specific environmental
issues that would affect surrounding land uses can
be found in the Program EIR's sections on Air
Quality, Visual Quality, Noise and Transportation.
Impacts identified in these sections can result in
significant land use impacts to nearby land uses .
The mitigation measures identified in these
sections would be addressed in project-specific
EIRs .
c .1 Monitoring Program: The status of this siting
criterion shall be included in the annual
monitoring report to the Board, and are subject to
control by the County.
II . PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
1 . SRrnificant Effect: The Kirker Pass Landfill site has
the potential to provide food, cover and breeding ground
for disease vectors such as mosquitos, small rodents,
and certain species of birds (FEIR, p. 4 . 2-6 ) .
a., Mitigation: The following mitigation measures, to
be implemented by the County at the specific
project approval stage, will avoid, or reduce to a
less than significant level, the identified
potentially significant impact: Compaction and
daily cover of refuse will limit birds and rodents
from feeding on the refuse. The compaction of
refuse in collection vehicles and at landfills
effectively controls rodent populations in most
cases . The requirements will be included in the
landfill's Solid Waste Facilities Permit and may be
included in Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval.
The County's Health Services and Community
Development Departments shall include appropriate
provisions in the permits . If these measures prove
inadequate to control rodents and birds, additional
measures such as more frequent covering of refuse,
scaring of birds, and poisoning or trapping of
rodents/mosquitos will be used.
EXHIBIT G
-6-
11
b.l Supporting Explanation: Studies by the Los Angeles
County Sanitation Districts have shown that rats do
not survive the compaction process of the refuse
trucks or disposal operation. State law requires
landfill operators to compact and cover the waste
with a layer of soil or new waste in order to
minimize the occurrence of rats and other vectors .
C. Monitoring Program: The County Health Services
Department, as the Local Enforcement Agency for the
California Waste Management Board, enforces the
State requirements for compaction and cover of
refuse. Reports of violations are given to the
landfill operator and the State. The Community
Development Department shall report on the status
of these mitigation measures to the Board on a
yearly basis .
2 . Significant Effect: Mosquitos could breed in basins
constructed to control surface water runoff (FEIR, p.
4 .,2-6 ) .
a.' Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: Storm
runoff from the landfill will be stored in
sedimentation basins for as short a period of time
as practicable. The applicants should coordinate
the designs of the basins with the County Mosquito
Abatement District to enable easy inspection and,
if necessary, spraying of non-toxic larval
suppressant. Appropriate provisions will be
included in the landfill' s Solid Waste Facilities
Permit and/or its Land Use Permit Conditions of
Approval .
b.', Supporting Explanation: Mosquito populations could
be indirectly increased at a landfill site where
sedimentation basins and leachate collection
containment ponds would contain standing water for
periods of greater than two or three weeks .
Prevention of this larval emergence could be
suppressed by not allowing water to stand over two
weeks and/or spraying the ponds with a non-toxic
odorant/colorant such as Golden Bear 1356, which
degrades in 48 hours . The County Community
Development Department would ensure that the
applicant designs and constructs the sedimentation
basins in coordination with the County Mosquito
Abatement District. The County Health Services
EXHIBIT G
-7-
I • !
Department is responsible for determining whether
there is a need for spraying to control mosquitos .
c., Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall obtain reports from
the County Health Services Department on mosquito
problems and abatement at the Kirker Pass Landfill
and include this information in its annual report
to the Board.
3 . Skanificant Effect: Operation of the landfill and
associated equipment could cause additional risk of fire
and explosion (FEIR, p. 4 .2-7) .
a.l Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County and the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: Most of
the listed measures are specified by the Riverview
Fire Protection District. Emergency procedures
shall be developed and facility employees trained
j in fire control procedures . One 120, 000-gallon
water storage tank, a water cannon and stockpiled
soil cover will be available on-site for use in
fire suppression. The landfill must have a
100-foot firebreak around the perimeter and at
least two emergency all-weather roads maintained by
the operator. The earth-moving equipment will be
equipped with fire extinguishers and spark
arresters, and fuel shall be stored in a safe,
approved manner. The operator shall ensure that
all incoming loads are inspected for smoldering
refuse and that a small fill-area working face be
maintained. The Bay Area Air Quality Management
District requirement that all solid waste landfills
monitor landfill gas emissions and install a gas
collection system will minimize potential
accumulation of methane gas and the associated
explosion and fire hazard. A Fire Control Plan, to
be reviewed by the Fire Protection District, shall
demonstrate the means by which proposed structures
on the site will be protected from accumulation of
methane gas and associated explosion and fire
hazard. Upon final approval of the Fire Control
Plan by the Fire Protection District, the Plan will
be incorporated into the landfill's Development and
Improvements Plan, which will be required as a Land
Use Permit Condition of Approval. Compliance with
this Plan shall be subject to inspections by the
District and the County.
EXHIBIT G
-8-
b. Supporting Explanation: Fire district requirements
will be obtained through environmental review
procedures and addressed in the project-level EIR.
C., Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall obtain the inspection
and monitoring reports from the appropriate
regulatory agencies and include this information in
its annual monitoring report to the Board.
4 . Significant Effect: Residential and commercial refuse
taken to the Kirker Pass Landfill could contain
materials that are considered hazardous, which in
sufficient quantity might adversely affect air and water
quality. Health impacts associated with direct contact
with toxic materials would pertain primarily to site
workers . ( Indirect effects of the presence in landfills
of hazardous waste include intensification of leachate
toxicity and mobilization of otherwise stable inorganic
metals contained in refuse; this leachate is a threat to
surface and groundwater supplies (see Impact 5 below) . )
(FEIR, p. 4 . 2-9 )
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: The
Kirker Pass Landfill will accept only non-hazardous
municipal refuse, designated wastes allowed by the
appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board,
and inert construction/demolition materials through
the State-mandated periodic loan-checking
requirement (CCR Title 23, Chapter 3,
Subchapter 15) . Landfill structural features such
as liners, leachate, collection systems, and cover
will limit the creation of leachate and reduce the
potential for a landfill to contaminate air and
water. Further, a comprehensive waste acceptance
control program could be established as a part of
j landfill, transfer station, and collection
agreements between the County and individual
cities . This program could include the training of
franchise haulers and transfer station and landfill
employees in the proper identification, handling,
storage and disposal of hazardous wastes . Load
checking, .household hazardous waste programs, and
landfill structural requirements will be addressed
in Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval. The
County is currently working on a household
hazardous waste program to collect, recycle, and
properly dispose of hazardous waste and will begin
EXHIBIT G
-9-
its implementation in Spring of 1990. The County
Community Development Department and Health
Services Department are responsible for approving a
load inspection program for receiving waste loads
at landfills/transfer stations in the
unincorporated area. The County Health Services
Department' s Solid Waste Facilities permits pertain
to facilities countywide. In addition, the
landfill operator must submit quarterly Incoming
Waste Reports to the County Health Services
Department. The household hazardous waste and
waste acceptance control programs are subject to
County Health Services Department and Community
Development Department approval.
b.i Supporting Explanation: Despite a wide range of
existing Federal and State controls on disposal of
hazardous wastes, small quantities of this waste
frequently enter the solid waste stream.
c.l Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall obtain reports on the
status of these programs and the compliance to the
above mitigation measure, and submit this
information to the Board in the annual monitoring
report.
5 . Significant Effect: There is a potential for public
exposure to hazardous and infectious wastes through
leachate contamination of groundwater and off-site
surface water (FEIR, p. 4 . 2-9 ) .
a_. Mitigation Finding, Supporting Explanation and
Monitoring Program: See Section VIII - Hydrology
and Water Quality, Impact 4 of this report.
6 . Significant Effect: There is a potential health and
safety hazard to on-site employees of new or expanded
landfills from the potentially toxic constituents of
landfill gas (FEIR, p. 4 . 2-13) .
a.' Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County and the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: This
impact would be reduced through compliance with the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District's
requirements . Regulation 8, Rule 34 requires the
installation of a gas collection system and the
monitoring of gas emissions at all new landfills .
EXHIBIT G
=10-
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District' s Air
Risk Screening Policy (February, 1988) specifies
that a screening analysis for assessment of risk
shall be performed as part of the agency's review
of landfill permit requests . The extent of gas
emissions and the appropriate mitigation measures,
such as gas collection and flaring, will be
addressed in the Kirker Pass Landfill's site-
specific EIR. The County Community Development
Department shall be responsible for evaluating
landfill gas emissions through the CEQA process and
implementing the necessary installations and
programs in coordination with the County Health
Services Department and the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District.
i
b Supporting Explanation: The landfill operator must
install a landfill gas control and collection
system and perform the necessary testing and
reporting of landfill gas emissions. The Bay Area
Air Quality Management District's Air Risk
Screening Policy for toxic emissions, required for
an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate
entitlement, must include estimates of emissions
for each contaminant, the calculation of the
exposure of nearby receptors to ambient levels of
the contaminants, and a comparison of these ambient
levels with safety thresholds determined by Bay
Area Air Quality Management District staff .
Required installations can be Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval. If emission levels do not
meet the standards, then remedial measures can be
implemented through Solid Waste Facilities Permit
provisions to protect employee safety.
cJ Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development shall obtain air emission/compliance
information from the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District' s periodic inspections/reviews
of the gas collection and monitoring systems at
landfills and report this information to the Board
in an annual report.
7 . Significant Effect: Co-composting of vegetative
material and sewage sludge could result in distribution
of soil amendment products containing hazardous levels
of inorganic metals and disease-causing organisms (FEIR,
p. 4 . 2-10) .
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
EXHIBIT G
-11-
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: In
order to reduce this impact, the County shall
require that composting operations meet the State
Department of Health Services' regulations on land
application of sludge and distribution of sludge-
amended products . The Environmental Protection
Agency is currently investigating characteristics
of municipal sewage sludge and will issue standards
for publicly-owned treatment plants . These
standards will help to ensure production of sludge
amenable to use as a feed stock.
b. '� Supporting Explanation: Compost would be required
to be analyzed by qualified laboratories before its
use is authorized. Composting facilities may be
required to use pilot facilities to determine
whether suitable compost can be produced and under
what operating conditions . The CoSWMP recognizes
that composting of vegetative wastes, which make-up
approximately 13% of the County's solid waste, and
its conversion to a usable soil amendment could
lead to significant reduction of landfilled waste.
Should municipal sewage sludge be used with these
wastes, there could be health impacts to humans by
exposure to soil-amended products . The
Environmental Protection Agency' s Part 503
technical sludge management regulations were
released for public comment in early 1989 . These
regulations will address exposure to humans to
metals in sludge-amended soils, including aggregate
health risks posed by several exposure pathways .
Until the Federal regulations are in effect, the
State guidelines on sludge use for composting will
be followed by the County. New landfills are
expected to be required to implement pilot level
studies of composting to determine if there would
be potential problems .
C. 1 Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall report annually to the
Board on the status of co-composting of vegetative
material mitigation measures .
III . TRANSPORTATION
1 . Significant Effect: Traffic volumes generated by the
Kirker Pass Landfill would add to the current congestion
on Highway 4 in the area between Antioch and the Willow
Pass Grade (FEIR, p. 4 . 3-12) .
EXHIBIT G
-12-
S
I
a.l Mitigation Finding:- The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: The
travel patterns for transfer trucks shall be
managed to reduce or avoid truck trips to the
landfill during the peak hours, especially the AM
peak. Traffic will be minimized by the use of
transfer stations and prohibition of self-haulers
at the landfill. In addition, there are several
highway projects planned that will widen and
improve Highway 4 in this area. The County
Community Development Department shall require
necessary mitigation measures to be included in the
Land Use Permits as Conditions of Approval. The
prohibition of self-haulers at the landfill will be
made a condition of project approval.
b.', Supporting Explanation: The CoSWMP EIR finds that
if truck traffic is managed to avoid the peak
hours, there will not be a significant impact to
traffic volume on this stretch of roadway. The EIR
analysis concluded that during the AM peak hour
there would be about ten truck trips eastbound
(loaded vehicles) and seven trips westbound (empty
vehicles) . During the PM peak hour, there would be
about two truck trips eastbound and four trips
westbound. This analysis reflects the assumptions-
that
ssumptionsthat transfer stations will be used and self-
haulers prohibited from direct access to the
landfill . Peak period traffic management studies
to reduce peak period conflicts with traffic on
Highway 4 would be addressed in the site-specific
Project EIRs for the individual landfills .
c.' Monitoring Program: The Community Development
Department shall include compliance with these
conditions in its annual monitoring report to the
Board.
2. Significant Effect: The additional refuse truck
traffic, which includes vehicles weighing up to 38 tons,
will cause wear and damage to existing roadway pavements
in the vicinity of the Kirker Pass Landfill (FEIR, p.
4 .�3-12) .
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: The
EXHIBIT G
-13-
project developer will upgrade and improve the
pavement sections on the local roads impacted by
truck traffic to solid waste facilities. The
improvements shall be approved by the County
Community Development Department, and County Public
Works Department and CALTRANS if appropriate, and
will be included in the Land Use Permit's Condition
of Approval . Specific improvements for the Kirker
Pass Landfill have been identified in the previous
Kirker Pass EIR and will be incorporated into the
Project EIR..
b.i Supporting Explanation: In order to reduce this
impact to a less than significant level, the
pavement traffic index (TI) , a measure of the
durability and capacity of a road, must be adequate
to accommodate the anticipated traffic load.
Suitable TIs, in the range of 9 .0 to 10 .5 for the
immediate access roads are expected to be necessary
to comply with Caltrans' design specifications. If
a 20-year pavement life is determined to be
appropriate, a TI of 10.0-10 .5 would be required.
The landfill project's site-specific EIR would
address the pavement section improvements needed as
part of the project.
C ., Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall report annually to the
Board on the implementation of the required road
improvements .
3 . Significant Effect: The additional refuse truck traffic
would cause moderate congestion and safety impacts on
the local roads and streets in the vicinity of the
Ki',rker Pass Landfill (FEIR, p. 4 . 3-16 ) .
a.' Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: The
project developer will provide or participate in
the funding of the necessary roadway and traffic
control improvements, including truck climbing
lanes on Kirker Pass Road and Railroad Avenue,
northbound access only to the site, and
construction of an access interchange for vehicles
to the site. Road improvements will be required as
Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval. Specific
improvements for the Kirker Pass Landfill have been
identified in the previous Kirker Pass EIR and will
be incorporated into the Project EIR.
EXHIBIT G
-14-
b. Supporting Explanation: The Program EIR's analysis
of the proposed Kirker Pass Landfill site shows
that the project would not cause any roadway
segments or intersections to degrade to a critical
level of service. This assumes that transfer vans
will be used to reduce traffic to and from the
' landfills . Because the amount of landfill traffic
would be low and most of this traffic would not
occur during the peak commute periods, traffic
generated by the landfill would not present a
significant capacity problem. This traffic may
result in additional accidents in proportion to the
increased traffic. Specific improvements have been
identified in the EIR for the proposed Kirker Pass
Landfill and are included in the Draft Land Use
Permit Conditions of Approval for the site. These
mitigation measures shall be considered in more
detail in the Project EIR.
C ! Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall submit an annual
report to the Board on the status of these traffic
mitigation measures .
4 . Significant Effect: There would be an increase in
traffic hazards to bicyclists and pedestrians on the
local roadways in the vicinity of the Kirker Pass
Landfill. The presence of heavy truck traffic on roads
with significant bicycle and pedestrian activity can be
hazardous (FEIR, p. 4 . 3-17 ) .
a; Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: A plan
and program to implement a bicycle and pedestrian
path system will be required at the landfill. The
County Community Development Department will ensure
that this mitigation is implemented by making it a
Land Use Permit Condition of Approval.
b Supporting Explanation: Planned future bicycle
paths and pedestrian trails could be adversely
affected by access road improvements . It may be
necessary to accommodate bicycling or pedestrian
activities by implementing a new path system.
c� Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall include the status of
this mitigation measure in its annual monitoring
report to the Board.
EXHIBIT G
-15-
5. Significant Effect: Landfill traffic would create
potentially significant visual and nuisance impacts on
the adjacent land uses on the local haul routes used for
the Kirker Pass Landfill (FEIR, p. 4 . 3-18) .
a.� Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
j specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: This
impact will be mitigated by the use of transfer
stations, by eliminating public access to the
landfill, by controlling the hours of truck
operation, and by the use of alternate haul routes
where possible. The County Community Development
Department will incorporate restrictions on the
types of vehicles allowed, the place of origin for
such vehicles, and the hours of truck operation
into the Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval .
Alternative haul routes will be addressed in
project-specific EIRs and the one(s) chosen to best
mitigate traffic impacts will be incorporated into
the Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval as well.
b.l Supporting Explanation: This impact is related to
the visual and perceived traffic flow (safety and
capacity impacts are addressed under Section III .
1-4 above) . Where alternate haul routes are
feasible, they will be considered during subsequent
environmental review in order to minimize impacts
to nearby development.
c. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall submit an annual
monitoring report to the Board on the compliance of
the site operator with these Conditions of
Approval .
IV. AIR QUALITY
1 .. Significant Effect: Decomposing wastes in the Kirker
Pass Landfill could create substantial amounts of gas,
including relatively small amounts of reactive organic
compounds and chemical compounds considered to be toxic.
Downwind receptors could be adversely affected by these
compounds (FEIR, p. 4 .4-18) .
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County and the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
EXHIBIT G
-16-
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: Bay
Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 8,
Rule 34 requires that landfill gas emission and
mitigation be controlled and the gas disposed of
properly. The most common method of disposal is
installation of a gas collection and flaring system
to combust the gas . Installation of a gas
collection and combustion system will destroy 90%
of the reactive organic compounds and toxic
compounds . A risk screening analysis will be
conducted on the remaining fraction of these
emissions to determine whether downwind receptors
are at significant risk from exposure. A risk
analysis is required prior to Bay Area Air Quality
Management District's issuance of the Authority to
Construct and Permit to Operate a landfill. More
efficient gas collection and combustion equipment
could be specified if necessary. The mitigation
measures determined to be necessary will become
Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval . The County
Community Development Department will ensure that
the project applicant includes a gas collection
system proposal and submits a health risk
assessment as part of the landfill application.
Installation of the collecting/flaring system will
be required by the County as a Land Use Permit
Condition of Approval, as well as being a
requirement of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District. Specific improvements for the Kirker
Pass Landfill have been identified in the previous
Kirker Pass EIR and will be incorporated into the
Project EIR.
b.' Supporting Explanation: The risk screening
analysis must include estimates of emissions for
each contaminant, the calculation of the exposure
of nearby receptors to ambient levels of the
contaminants, and a comparison of these ambient
levels with safety thresholds determined by the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District staff . If the
analysis does not demonstrate that the maximum
exposure of any individual to an air toxic emitted
from the landfill would result in a chance of less
than one in a million of developing cancer, then
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District would
require that Best Available Control Technology be ,
used to control emissions . The site-specific
Project EIR will consider this impact and the
specific mitigation measures .
EXHIBIT G
-17-
C. Monitoring Program: Information from the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District on compliance of
the landfill with air emission requirements shall
be obtained by the County Community Development
Department and submitted to the Board annually.
2 . Significant Effect: Trace constituents of landfill gas
are odorous and could impact people in the area and
nearby residences or other sensitive land uses (FEIR, p.
4.14-18) .
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County and the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact:
Landfill management techniques, such as daily
covering of waste and installation of a gas
collection and flaring system, will mitigate this
impact. Exceptional problems could be mitigated by
more frequent cover and the immediate covering of
odorous loads . The mitigation measures will be
implemented through incorporation into the
conditions of project approval and through
enforcement of Bay Area Air Quality Management
District and California Waste Management Board
requirements . Specific improvements for the Kirker
Pass Landfill have been identified in the previous
Kirker Pass EIR and will be incorporated into the
Project EIR.
b. Supporting Explanation: Bay Area Air Quality
Management District Regulation 1-301 prohibits the
discharge of odorous compounds and the resulting
public nuisance, while Regulation 7 provides
procedures for evaluating odor complaints. The
covering of newly disposed refuse with compacted
soil (or other approved means) , a requirement of
the California Waste Management Board, serves to
control odors . The frequency of cover may be
increased in order to mitigate odor complaints
received by the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District or County Health Services Department. The
gas collection and flaring system reduces odors
from landfill gas, composed primarily of methane
and carbon dioxide. If the County Health Services
Department determines that flaring creates a
nuisance, e.g. , noise and/or visual impacts, other
methods of methane disposal shall be required. The
County Health Services Department is locally
responsible for enforcing odor regulations at
EXHIBIT G
-1$-
landfills and shall make information available to
the County Community Development Department. The
Bay Area Air Quality Management District would also
perform inspections and enforce its own
regulations.
c. Monitoring Program: An annual monitoring report
shall be submitted to the Board by the County
Community Development Department on implementation
of and compliance with these odor control
mitigations .
3 . Significant Effect: Construction and operation of the
Kirker Pass Landfill could cause emissions of dust
resulting in air quality degradation and impacts to
downwind receptors (FEIR, p. 4 .4-13) .
a., Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact:
Minimize the extent of unplanted working and graded
areas, apply water or an environmentally-safe
chemical soil stabilizer to exposed earth surfaces;
cover haul trucks with tarpaulins or other
effective covers; and avoid unnecessary idling of
equipment. The landfill operator's application of
water or dust suppressants to working surfaces of
the landfill, to its unpaved roads, and to
construction areas as determined to be necessary by
the County Health Services Department, shall be a
condition of the project's Solid Waste Facilities
Permit. The County Health Services Department
would be responsible for requiring additional
management practices if problems due to dust
emissions are reported. Mitigation measures shall
also become Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval.
Specific improvements for the Kirker Pass Landfill
have been identified in the previous Kirker Pass
EIR and will be incorporated into the Project EIR.
i
b Supporting Explanation: Dust emissions related to
waste handling can be reduced by approximately 50%
by watering surfaces down. Watering should be
conducted in late morning and at the end of the day
to be most effective. The frequency of watering
should increase if wind exceeds. 15 mph.
c] Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall report to the Board on
a landfill's compliance to the dust suppression
EXHIBIT G
-19-
I
measures required in its Land Use Permit Conditions
of Approval.
I
V. NOISE
I
1 . Significant Effect: Noise resulting from waste handling
could disturb nearby residents and sensitive receptors
(FEIR, p. 4 .5-4 ) .
a.,� Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact:
Landfill hours of operation will be limited to the
extent practicable to daylight hours in order to
minimize noise impacts on residential and
recreational land uses surrounding the sites .
Operations and equipment will be muffled or
controlled to meet acceptable noise levels (shown
in Table 4 . 5-2 of the Program EIR) . Some
additional measures that should be evaluated in the
j project EIR include construction of sound walls,
earth berms, and on-site truck routing. The County
Community Development Department will incorporate
appropriate noise control mitigation measures into
the project's Land Use Permit Conditions of
Approval. These conditions may include a noise
monitoring and abatement program to be implemented
by the facility operator with approval by the
County Community Development Department and County
Health Services Department. Specific improvements
for the Kirker Pass Landfill have been identified
in the previous Kirker Pass EIR and will be
incorporated into the Project EIR.
b. Supporting Explanation: Higher noise levels are
generally more acceptable during the day._ The
construction activities in particular, should be
limited to normal working hours . Retrofitting
existing equipment with noise control features and/
or purchasing quieter new equipment for a landfill
would, according to the EIR analysis, reduce the
radius of disturbance. to less than 500 feet.
ci Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall obtain information
relating to noise impacts, including complaint
reports from the Health Services Department, and
compliance of a facility to stipulated noise
EXHIBIT G
-20-
requirements, and include this information in its
report to the Board.
2 . Sianificant Effect: Noise from waste haul trucks
en',tering/exiting the landfill could disturb residents
along the site access roads (FEIR, p. 4 .5-6 ) .
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact:
Limiting the hours of access to solid waste
facilities and requiring that all haul trucks be
filled with operable mufflers and be properly
maintained will reduce the likelihood of
disturbance to adjacent residences . Specified
access routes and the use of transfer stations,
which would facilitate control over self-hauler
traffic to landfills, will be identified in the
project-specific EIR. Other measures that should
be evaluated in the project EIR include noise
shielding along routes and active enforcement of
muffler and vehicle noise standards by police
services . The County Community Development
Department shall incorporate appropriate noise
control mitigation measures into the project's Land
Use Permit Conditions of Approval. These
conditions may include a noise monitoring and
abatement program to be implemented by the facility
operator with approval by the County Community
Development Department and County Health Services
Department. Specific improvements for the Kirker
Pass Landfill have been identified in the previous
Kirker Pass EIR and will be incorporated into the
Project EIR.
b.ii Supporting Explanation: Restricting truck hauler
traffic to daylight hours, when higher noise levels
are more acceptable, would help offset the impact
from the projected increase of solid waste facility
generated noise. According to Table 4 .5-3 of the
EIR, this increased level of noise ranges from 2-5
decibels Ldn (day-night average noise level over a
24-hour period) along selected roadways leading to
alternative landfill sites .
c. Monitorinq Program: The status of this requirement
shall be reported by the Community Development
Department in its annual monitoring report to the
Board.
EXHIBIT G
-21-
VI . VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
1 . Sianificant Effect: Development of the Kirker Pass
Landfill could increase the variety and number of weedy
plant and pest wildlife species. This intrusion could
adversely impact the native species populations, and
could become a potential source of diseased vectors
(FEIR, p. 4 . 6-19) .
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact:
Implementation of a weed control program at the
site would typically include a list of noxious
weeds, periodic monitoring for these species, and a
weed control and removal program via physical
removal, prescribed burning and/or limited
application of herbicides . Daily covering of the
landfill will help control potential pest problems .
A pest control program should be developed to be
implemented 'if problems occur and would include a
list of pests, methods to be used for control of
them, and a monitoring program to evaluate the
effectiveness of the program. The County Community
Development Department will ensure that a weed
control and pest control program, %f needed, is
developed and implemented by making it a Land Use
Permit Condition of Approval. The Health Services
Department would monitor the pest control program.
b. Supporting Explanation: Landfills are often
populated by non-native, invasive weeds and pests .
Proper operation of a landfill, including daily
cover and compaction of waste and a weed control
and pest control program, discourages propagation
and survival of non-native species . The use of
pesticides and/or fumigants should only occur as a
last resort and with the approval of local and
State public health and natural resource agencies .
I
c Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall report to the Board
annually on the status of weed and pest control
mitigations at landfills.
2 . Significant Effect: Landfill sites which contain or
adjoin natural waterways could impact riparian and other
vegetation through soil erosion if there is inadequate
revegetation of cover areas. Streambed erosion could
i
EXHIBIT G
-22-
i
occur below the fill area if runoff is significantly
increased (FEIR, p. 4 . 6-20) .
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: Erosion
control planting shall be undertaken on both
intermediate and final cover areas immediately as
portions of the landfill close. Inactive areas,
even if only temporary, shall be planted. Check
dams with sedimentation basins should be placed, if
needed, in the stream channel below the landfill
footprint (fill area) . An erosion control and
hydrology plan coordinating these measures will be
developed for each landfill site. An erosion
control/surface water monitoring plan, approved by
the County Community Development Department, and
coordinated with the County Public Works Department
and the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control
Board, will be required by the Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval . Specific improvements for
the Kirker Pass Landfill have been identified in
the previous Kirker Pass EIR and will be
incorporated into the Project EIR.
b. Supporting Explanation: Development of the Ki2,ker
Pass Landfill could result in increased stormwater
runoff, increased erosion, and subsequent
sedimentation and increased turbidity in the runoff
and in the waterway below the fill area. This
process would disturb riparian and other
vegetation. Application of planted groundcover
would help to hold the soil in place.
Sedimentation basins would control the rate of
release of stormwaters and reduce turbidity. An
erosion control plan would identify plant materials
and methods to be used in revegetation efforts,
identify where erosion control structures would be
located, and estimate the flow changes downstream
of the site to determine whether it could result in
significant erosion or vegetation problems .
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall obtain all applicable
information on the implementation and monitoring of
the revegetation and erosion control programs at
landfills and report it to the Board annually.
3 . Significant Effect: Landfill construction activities at
the Kirker Pass Landfill would displace or could cause
EXHIBIT G
-23-
the death of some wildlife in and adjacent to the
proposed fill area (FEIR, p. 4 . 6-20) .
a, Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: To
reduce the impact of landfill activities on
wildlife, the Kirker Pass Landfill will be
constructed and operated in phases that limit
clearing to areas needed for immediate use, and
grasses and other vegetation will be planted after
project completion to aid in accommodating wildlife
in the area. Testing of soils to be replaced in
completed areas shall be required to determine the
need for adding nutrients and/or other soil
amendments to enhance revegetation and restoration
of wildlife values . A habitat protection and
enhancement plan will be required as part of the
Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval for the
landfill. Specific improvements for the Kirker
Pass Landfill have been identified in the previous
Kirker Pass EIR and will be incorporated into the
Project EIR.
b. Supporting Explanation: Phased construction would
limit the amount of land disturbed at any one time
to a minimum. This would reduce the acute impact
to wildlife, as habitat would be lost gradually,
thus giving the wildlife time to relocate and
regenerate. The habitat protection and enhancement
plan would be prepared by a qualified biologist in
consultation with the California Department of Fish
and Game, and where appropriate, East Bay Regional
Park District. The plan would, to the extent
possible, replace and/or enhance the wildlife
habitat lost to landfill operation.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department would be responsible for
ensuring that this condition is met and
implemented, and would report to the Board annually
on the compliance of the landfill developer with
this plan.
4 . Significant Effect: Landfill activities at the Kirker
Pass Landfill could cause the release of toxic materials
to downstream areas resulting in degradation of aquatic
and riparian habitats (FEIR, p. 4 . 6-21) .
EXHIBIT G
-24-
i
I
i
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board at the
specific project approval. stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: A
1 leachate collection and recovery system will be
I installed at the landfill site. A monitoring
I program will assure that the system is working
properly. In addition to a leachate collection
system, a highly impermeable soil layer and/or a
synthetic plastic liner is required at all Class II
landfills . The County Community Development
Department will ensure that all new landfills in
the County are designed to the requirements of
Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 15 of the
California Code of Regulations (Subchapter 15 )
regarding leachate collection and bottom liner
systems . If it is discovered that downstream areas
are being adversely affected, a remedial plan shall
be implemented to correct the problem. Specific
improvements for the Kirker Pass Landfill have been
identified in the previous Kirker Pass EIR and will
be incorporated into the Project EIR.
b. Supporting Explanation: The Contra Costa CoSWMP
calls for all new landfills to be designed and
constructed to Class II standards . The leachate
collection system and liner would be expected to
reduce the potential impact of a toxic material
release to insignificance. Water quality .
mitigation programs are discussed in more detail in
Section VIII of the Program EIR. The monitoring
program required by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board would be subject to sampling and
analysis of groundwater in order to provide an
early warning of toxic release to downstream areas .
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall obtain monitoring
reports from the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and include this information in its annual
monitoring report to the Board.
i
5 . Significant Effect: Dust from landfill construction and
grading activities at the Kirker Pass Landfill could
indirectly impact vegetation not removed directly by
construction (FEIR, p. 4 . 6-21) .
a., . Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
EXHIBIT G
-25-
I
I
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact:
Vegetation that is to remain on-site (outside the
fill area) will be protected by the dust control
measures in Section IV, Impact 3 to minimize air
quality impacts . To prevent plant life from being
adversely affected by dust settling on leaves,
1 periodic watering, as an extension of dust
suppression mitigation, should be used to clean the
vegetation. The County will require a Habitat
Protection and Enhancement Plan as a Land Use
I PermitCondition of Approval which will give
priority to the use of the site, except where
landfill operations and appurtenant facilities are
located, for the preservation and enhancement of
plant and wildlife habitat. Specific improvements
for the Kirker Pass Landfill have been identified
in the previous Kirker Pass EIR and will be
incorporated into the Project EIR.
b. Supporting Explanation: These mitigation measures,
adopted in Section IV, Impact 3 to minimize air
quality impacts, will also prevent damage to
vegetation caused by dust deposition.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall be responsible for
ensuring that these conditions are complied with
and report its findings to the Board annually.
6 . Significant Effect: Landfill development would result
in the removal of wetlands (FEIR, p. 4 . 6-26 ) .
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: a
wetland habitat enhancement plan will be proposed
and ultimately implemented by the landfill
developer. The plan will be developed in
conjunction with and submitted to the appropriate
resource management agencies for permit review,
including the California Department of Fish and
Game (DFG) , the appropriate Regional Water Quality
Control Board (Regional Water Quality Control
Board) , United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) , National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) ,
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) . At a
minimum, the plan will provide for acre-for-acre
and habitat unit-for-habitat-unit replacement for
dost wetland. The County Community Development
j
I EXHIBIT G
-26-
i
i
Department will ensure that a habitat enhancement
and management plan is implemented, if necessary,
by incorporating it into the project's Land Use
Permit Conditions of Approval. The plan, or
variations of it, can also be implemented through
regulatory agency permits. It is noted that
specific mitigation measures in the previous Kirker
Pass EIR were deemed to reduce these impacts to
less-than-significant levels and will be
incorporated into the Project EIR.
b. Supporting Explanation: A habitat enhancement plan
can be developed in conjunction with the County's
consideration of a landfill application and
reviewed through its Environmental Impact Report.
The habitat value of the on-or off-site mitigation
area selected should be increased by means of sound
management practices .
C. Monitoring Programs: The appropriate resource
management agencies and the County Community
Development Department shall oversee the
implementation of the plan. The County Community
Development Department shall submit an annual
report to the Board on compliance with the
provisions of this plan.
VII . GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
1 . Significant Effect: Landslide activity on fill or cut
slopes and unstable natural slopes could occur as a
consequence of site excavations and earthwork
construction, causing structural damage and endangering
lives (FEIR, p. 4 . 7-12) .
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact:
(1 ) Drain potential slide areas to keep slip
surfaces dry, excavate unstable earth
materials, and use landfill to buttress
landslide areas .
(2) Implement a slope monitoring program during
operation.
EXHIBIT G
-27-
(3 ) Perform a site-specific static and seismic
stability analysis as part of the final
design, to be approved by the County.
(4) Design cut slopes to consider adversely
oriented joint surfaces, existing shallow
landslide deposits and other relevant
geotechnical factors under static and seismic
conditions .
(5 ) Use conservative geotechnical engineering
practices and stabilization measures during
excavation of areas of landslide activity.
( 6 ) Monitor slopes with adversely oriented bedding
surfaces or joint surfaces through a metering
system.
(7 ) As conditions of project approval stipulated
by Contra Costa County, undertake a Landslide
Study and a Slope Monitoring Program, using a
California Certified Engineering Geologist or
a qualified team. The Study and Program would
be incorporated into the final design for the
project.
The County Community Development Department will
,insure that the above geotechnical investigations
are conducted during project environmental review,
and that appropriate mitigation measures are
included in the project's Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval. A geotechnical inspector
responsible to the County will be present when
sensitive grading and installations are performed.
Specific improvements for the Kirker Pass Landfill
have been identified in the previous Kirker Pass
EIR and will be incorporated into the Project EIR.
b. Supporting Explanation: Hillside and fill/cut
slope failures in natural materials and in the
landfill can be minimized by maintaining maximum
strength of the materials and by increasing forces
that resist sliding and slope failure.
C. Monitoring Program: Reports on the implementation
of these measures and from the on-site monitoring
programs shall be obtained by the County Community
Development Department and included in the annual
monitoring report to the Board.
2 . Significant Effect: Engineered surfaces and slopes
within the Kirker Pass Landfill footprint could be
EXHIBIT G
-28-
subject to excessive fill settlement and/or localized
slope sloughing resulting from decomposition of refuse,
causing potential slope failure and rupture of seals
(FEIR, p. 4 . 7-13) .
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: Compact
refuse and cover materials to maximum strength.
Engineer landfill slopes to provide stability under
design criteria. Control the infiltration of water
through drainage features, lateral barriers and
intermediate and final covers . Operate heavy
equipment so as to minimize vibrations . Stockpile
cover soil outside the fill area. As a condition
of project approval stipulated by the County, the
landfill developer could be required to install a
network of settlement platforms to detect and
j correct settlement problems . The developer shall
provide a stability analysis of the final
engineering design of the landfill and its
appurtenant improvements . The County Community
Development Department will include the above
landfill practices for mitigating potential impacts
from fill settlement in the Development and
Improvement �)lan of the Land Use Permit Conditions
of Approval . Specific improvements for the Kirker
Pass Landfill have been identified in the previous
Kirker Pass EIR and will be incorporated into the
Project EIR.
b.' Supporting Explanation: The above mitigation
measures are required by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board and the County to mitigate the
potential effects from refuse decomposition. This
impact could be exacerbated by the variable density,
and strength of earth materials underlying much of
the upland areas of the County.
C . Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall obtain all applicable
reports on the implementation, monitoring and
enforcement of these requirements from the
geotechnical inspector, the . County Health Services
Department, and the Regional Water Quality Control
Board, and include this information in its annual
report to the Board.
3 . Significant Effect: Excessive stockpiling of loose soil
could result in slope instability, causing sedimentation
EXHIBIT G
-29-
and possibly damaging structures and endangering lives
(FEIR, p. 4 .7-14 ) .
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: Adopt
and implement a stockpile stability monitoring
program. The County Community Development
Department will include this mitigation measure in
the Slope Monitoring Program as a Land Use Permit
Condition of Approval.
b. Supporting Explanation: The landfill operator
would continually analyze the on-site stockpiles of
daily cover material to determine the maximum
allowable heights and/or slopes for stability.
jThis monitoring would commence at the on-set of
stockpiling.
c.', Monitoring Program: , The landfill operator will
make the results of this monitoring program
available to the County Community Development
Department on demand. The County Community
Development Department will report on the status of
this program to the Board annually. Specific
improvements for the Kirker Pass Landfill have been
identified in the previous Kirker Pass EIR and will
be incorporated into the Project EIR.
4 . Significant Effect: The shrink/swell behavior of
expansive foundation soils could deform building and
landfill structure foundations (FEIR, p. 4 . 7-15 ) ,
i
a., Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: Adhere
to geotechnical recommendations, such as the use of
pier and grade beam foundations and/or the
replacement of native soils with compacted non-
expansive soils . The County Community Development
Department is responsible for ensuring that
adequate engineering design for a landfill or
facility's structural integrity is included in all
project-specific proposals and made a Land Use
Permit Condition of Approval. The Conditions of
Approval will require a geotechnical inspector to
be present on-site when sensitive installations are
performed. Specific improvements for the Kirker
EXHIBIT G
-30-
Pass. Landfill have been identified in the previous
Rirker Pass EIR and will be incorporated into the
Project EIR.
b. Supporting Explanation: All nine Soil Conservation
Service soil classifications in the County have
soils with highly expansive properties . Engineered
solutions to ensure that a solid waste landfill or
facility's foundation and/or structural integrity
is not compromised are necessary. The particular
solutions will be contingent on the geotechnical
studies of site-specific proposals .
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall obtain all relevant
information from the inspector, the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and the County Department of
Public Works on the compliance of a facility to
these conditions and include it in its annual
monitoring report to the Board.
5 . Significant Effect: Highly impermeable soils could
allow water to pond beneath the landfill's structural
foundations, causing a deformation of these foundations
(FEIR, p. 4 .7-15) .
a.1 Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County. at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: Use
standard Uniform Building Code grading procedures
to direct drainage away from buildings . Mitigation
measures will be incorporated into the Land Use
Permit Conditions of Approval .
b. Supporting Explanation: Highly impermeable soils
occur at most of the proposed landfill/facility
areas . These types of soils could pond water,
swelling expansive soils and/or saturating and
weakening foundation soils . Directing water away
from building foundation soils with the use of such
techniques as drainage ditches/culverts and grading
to convey surface run-off water away form facility
buildings would prevent the ponding of water. The
facility developer would be required to submit a
project proposal, which describes this placement
and construction of the drainage system to be used
on the site, as part of the Development and
Improvements Plan. This would be evaluated in the
project's Environmental Impact Report.
EXHIBIT G
-31-
C. Monitoring Programs The Contra Costa County
Community Development Department and Building
Inspection Department would oversee the
implementation of this site plan and the County
Community Development Department shall include
relevant information, when applicable, in its
annual monitoring report to the Board.
6 . Significant Effect: Groundshaking from off-site
earthquakes could damage the Kirker Pass Landfill's
containment and drainage features and/or cause slope
failure (FEIR, p. 4 . 7-15) .
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: The
landfill and drainage features will be sited and
designed to withstand ground accelerations from a
maximum credible earthquake, as required by the
State for Class II landfills . The proposed final
engineering design for the landfill, including face
slope gradients, operating components and
appurtenant improvements, shall be reviewed for
resistance to the current design earthquake
standards . An emergency program for inspecting the
landfill facility, addressing the possibility of
failures and interim refuse handling, will be
developed for implementation following a
substantial earthquake. A study of the faults that
could affect slope stability and groundwater
movement at the site shall be performed and
incorporated in the final site program and design
of structures . A dam failure prevention and
warning system program, including daily monitoring,
for the sedimentation ponds will be prepared and
implemented, as a Land Use Permit Condition of
Approval. The geotechnical studies and emergency/
monitoring programs will be developed by the
landfill developer, approved by the County, and
incorporated into the Land Use Permit Conditions of
Approval . Specific improvements for the Kirker
Pass Landfill have been identified in the previous
Kirker Pass EIR and will be incorporated into the
Project EIR.
b. Supporting Explanation: Where active fault traces
are suspected to exist, fault rupture along the
trace would be mitigated through set-back
recommendations in site-specific geotechnical
investigations . State siting criteria for Class II
EXHIBIT G
-32-
and Class III solid waste facilities require that
structures be located off the trace of any active
fault. The maximum credible earthquake .for a
proposed facility would be identified during
geotechnical review of the site. Seismically-
induced landsliding at proposed permanent cut areas
would be mitigated by appropriate slope gradients
or subdrained concreted retaining structures,
engineering and designed according to Uniform
Building Code and the California Structural
Engineers Association standards.
C.! Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall obtain all applicable
reports on the implementation, monitoring and
enforcement of these requirements, from the
geotechnical inspector, the County Health Services
Department and the Regional Water Quality Control
Board, and include this information in its annual
report to the Board.
VIII . HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1 . Significant Effect: Development of the Kirker Pass
Landfill involving the excavation and stockpiling of
soil could result in soil erosion and subsequent
increased turbidity in stormwater run-off and the
sedimentation of drainageways (FEIR, p. 4 . 8-10) .
a.I Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: This
impact is expected to be fully mitigated by the
routing of drainage water through sedimentation
basins to be located at the downstream end of the
canyon proposed for landfilling. In addition,
review and approval by the county of an erosion and
sediment control plan shall be required of the
developer prior to issuance of a grading permit. A
sedimentation basin system and sediment and erosion
control plan will be required by the County
Community Development Department as a Land Use
Permit Condition of Approval, on the basis of the
project' s site-specific EIR. It will be developed
and implemented by the landfill developer, with the
approval of the County Community Development
Department, County Health Services Department and
Public Works, and the Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
EXHIBIT G
-33-
b. Supporting Explanation: All stormwaters would be
routed through these basins and detained for a
sufficient time to allow the excess turbidity to
settle out. A routine maintenance plan would be
required to ensure the continued proper functioning
of this basin system. The erosion control plan
would ensure, among other things, that eroded
sediments are trapped before entering the
constructed drainage channels and that stockpiled
soils are sufficiently stabilized.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall report on the status
of these mitigation measures in its annual
monitoring report to the Board.
2 . Significant Effect: Failure of the sedimentation/
detention basins when full or nearly full would pose a
hazard to downstream areas (FEIR, p. 4 . 8-11 ) .
a.l' Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: All
sedimentation/detention basins will be designed and
constructed according to Class II requirements .
The basins will be inspected regularly by the State
Department of Water Resources for those dams over
25 feet high and storing over 50 acre-feet of
water. The County Community Development Department
will be responsible for ensuring that a landfill
sedimentation basin system included in a project
will meet all State and County requirements by
making compliance a Land Use Permit Condition of
Approval . Specific improvements for the Kirker
Pass Landfill have been identified in the previous
Kirker Pass EIR and will be incorporated into the
Project EIR.
b. Supporting Explanation: The sedimentation/
detention basins will be designed for a 1,000-year,
24-hour storm intensity and will be capable of
withstanding the maximum credible earthquake
identified for the site.
c. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department will report annually to the
Board on the implementation of this system,
including the preventive maintenance program to be
developed by the landfill operator.
EXHIBIT G
-34-
3 . Significant Effect: Replacement of natural drainage
with a man-made system could result in increased
stormwater run-off, erosion and subsequent sedimentation
and increased turbidity (FEIR, p. 4 . 8-10) .
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact:
Sedimentation/detention basins will be installed to
control the rate of release of stormwaters and
reduce turbidity. Final site design, sediment and
erosion control, and surface drainage system plans
must be developed and implemented by the landfill
developer, with the approval of the County
Community Development Department, County Health
Services Department and Public Works, and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board. The County's
requirements will be imposed in the project's Land
Use Permit Conditions of Approval and will be
monitored by the above agencies .
b. Supporting Explanation: The existing natural
drainages would be replaced by man-made drainage
channels to keep stormwater from ponding over the
landfill site. This re-routing of run-off would
also help avoid the generation of leachate. Basins
would be needed to hold and control the rate of
release of these stormwaters in order to prevent
downstream erosion and increased sedimentation and
turbidity. Regular inspection and maintenance
would be conducted to ensure proper functioning of
the system. Moreover, Class II landfills are
required by State law (Subchapter 15) to be
designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to
prevent inundation or washout due to a 100-year
flood.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall report on the status
of these mitigation measures in its annual report
to the Board.
4 . Significant Effect: Landfill leachate could contaminate
surface water or groundwater with which it comes into
contact (FEIR, pp. 4 . 8-7, 4 . 8-13) .
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
EXHIBIT G
-35-
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: To
prevent surface water contamination, .rain falling
on the landfill will be isolated from the refuse by
j a system of slopes, drainage benches, drain ditches
and sedimentation basins . Final grading and cover
will allow proper drainage so that water would not
pond over the landfill. Groundwater protection
will be ensured by the landfill being constructed
and operated according to Subchapter 15
requirements . A minimum of five feet vertical
separation between the landfill base and the
historic high groundwater or perched water
elevation is required. Installation of a low-
permeability clay liner or a composite liner
(synthetic plastic) , a subdrain system, and a
leachate control and removal system will comply
with these regulations . All landfills are required
to have a groundwater monitoring program to provide
early warning in the event of leachate migration
form the landfill . The Regional Water Quality
Control Board will limit the disposal of "wet"
wastes such as sludges on a site-specific basis .
The County Community Development Department will
ensure that State and Regional Water Quality
Control Board requirements on water protection from
leachate will be complied with as conditions in a
project's Land Use Permit. Specific . improvements
for the Kirker Pass Landfill have been identified
in the previous Kirker Pass EIR and will be
incorporated into the Project EIR.
b. Supporting Explanation: All detention and
sedimentation basins at a landfill site would be
designed to accommodate the 1, 000-year design storm
as required for a Class II landfill . To meet
Subchapter 15 criteria, a landfill liner for Class
II sites must have a water permeability no greater
than 1 x 10-6 cm/second. The leachate collection
system would be designed to transport all excess
leachate to a point where it could be removed and
disposed of properly, according to a leachate
management plan required by the County. The
groundwater monitoring program would be developed
in concert with the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and likely involve quarterly sampling and
analysis of upgradient and downgradient wells . The
landfill operator must comply with the requirements
of the Regional Water Quality Control Board for
disposal of de-watered sewage and other utility
sludges in landfills to prevent excess liquid
disposal. Other liquid wastes cannot be accepted
EXHIBIT G
-36-
at landfills . An independent geotechnical
consultant, responsible to the County, would be
expected to be required by the Land Use Permit to
{ inspect regularly over the life of the landfill the
installation and condition of liners and leachate
control facilities as they are installed.
i
c.1 Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall obtain all relevant
f information on the compliance of the landfill with
these requirements from the appropriate agencies
and include it in the annual report to the Board.
5. Significant Effect: The water supply requirements for
the Kirker Pass Landfill might not be available on-site,
thus requiring the procurement of off-site water (FEIR,
p. 4 . 8-11 ) .
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measure's, to be implemented by the County and the
Contra Costa Water District at the specific project
approval stage, will avoid, or reduce to a less
than significant level, the identified potentially
significant impact: A public water source for some
or all of the Kirker Pass Landfill's needs would
require a connection to Contra Costa Water District
(CCWD) facilities . Annexation to the CCWD service
arca would require approval by the CCWD, possibly a
city, and the Local Agency Formation Commission.
The County Community- Development Department
requires that the landfill developer submit a water
service plan covering available water resources,
estimated total water needs and supplies, landfill
construction and operation, landscaping, fire
protection, employee hygiene, human consumption
water needs, and water supply sources . It is
evaluated in the project's EIR and resulting
mitigation measures are included in the Land Use
Permit's Conditions of Approval.
b.! Supporting Explanation: The generally poor quality
of on-site water (unsuitable for drinking) would
nevertheless be adequate for most landfill .
activities such as compaction, dust control, and.
fire suppression. The EIR recommends exploring the
feasibility of utilizing sub-potable supplies such
as reclaimed wastewater, on-site stormwater
retention, or connection to a non-potable public
water supply system. A connection of the latter
kind could be considered to be non-growth-inducing.
r
1
EXHIBIT G
-37-
I
i
i
c Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall report annually to the
Board on the compliance of proposed sited landfills
to this water service plan requirement.
IX. VISUAL QUALITY
1 . Significant Effect: On-site operational lighting could
create glare and visual disturbances to nearby off-site
land uses (FEIR, p. 4 . 9-6 ) .
a! Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact:
Lighting should be designed (e.g. , through downward
oriented reflectors) and placed to reduce glare
under full operating conditions and should be
dimmed or turned off, except for security lighting,
during late hours of darkness . Full operational
lighting may be limited to normal operational hours
of the facility. Focused directional security and
operational lighting should be installed as part of
the project. Excessive lighting of the access and
operational areas should be avoided. The County
Community Development Department would ensure that
construction aid operational lighting does not
substantially impact nearby land uses by including
the appropriate mitigation measures in Land Use
Permit Conditions of Approval . The County Health
Services Department would also specify hours of
operation in the Solid Waste Facilities Permit and
respond to any lighting complaints by nearby
residents .
b. Supporting Explanation: Construction and
operational lighting would increase ambient light
and glare due to night lighting. Lighting and
hours of operation restrictions would be addressed
during project design and review.
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall report annually on the
implementation and enforcement of these
requirements to the Board.
2 . Significant Effect: Excavation and filling activity
would substantially alter the natural topography and
appearance of the area (FEIR, pp. 4 . 9-6, 4 . 9-7 ) .
EXHIBIT G
-38-
a.,1 Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: Visual
berms will be installed at the toe . level and/or at
the faces of lifts; the area of active operation
will be limited to approximately 20-25 acres at any
'one time, except when major modules are being
prepared and foundation improvements installed.
Covered layers of refuse will be graded and
contoured to replicate the form of the existing
surrounding terrain. Revegetation of completed
fill areas and areas to be inactive for more than
90 days will be required. The County Community
E Development Department will ensure that these plans
are prepared and implemented by the landfill
developer by including them in the Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval.
b. Supporting Explanation: A landscaping and
screening plan based on the applicant's project
description and project EIR mitigation measures
would be required as part of a final site plan. It
would detail the locations and configurations of
grades and contours, screen plantings, overall site
landscaping, and revegetation efforts .
C. Monitoring Program: An annual compliance report on
these conditions shall be submitted by the County
Community Development Department to the Board.
3 . Significant Effect: Construction and operation of the
landfill would result in the removal of existing
vegetation (FEIR, p. 4 . 9-7 ) .
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: The
planting of temporary or permanent vegetation to
match the existing visual character following
placement of each portion of intermediate or final
cover on filled areas will mitigate this impact.
As a condition of approval for the project's Land
Use Permit, the landfill developer shall prepare
and. implement a final landscaping plan, as part of
the site design plan, which shows plant species,
size and locations, a maintenance program, and any
landscape mitigation measures identified in the
project-specific EIR for the site. This plan is
i
EXHIBIT G
-39-
subject to County Community Development Department
approval.
b. Supporting Explanation: Restorative landscaping
could appear to clash with the existing visual
character of the native plantings or could be
planted in unnatural plant groupings . To avoid
these problems, trees, shrubs and broadleaf species
which are currently found in the site area or are
native to the area should be planted on filled
areas . In addition, the County would require the
planting of annual grasses as temporary cover and
perennial grasses as permanent cover which can be
used later for grazing.
c Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall submit an annual
monitoring report to the Board on the compliance of
a proposed or sited landfill to this requirement.
4 . Significant Effect: Landfill operations may be visible
from off-site residential and recreational areas, as
well as from travel corridors (FEIR, p. 4 . 9-7 ) .
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: This
impact will be mitigated by utilizing natural
topography as a visual barrier and by providing
visual buffers, such as noise/visual berms along
the active landfill operation, and by providing
screening elsewhere on the site. Corporation yards
and staging areas should be constructed away from
public view if possible. views from roadways ,
especially scenic routes, will be screened by
installing dense plantings along the roadway or
elsewhere on the site where the screening is most
effective. The County Community Development
Department shall ensure that visual mitigation
measures identified in the project's EIR are
included in its Land Use Permit Conditions of
Approval.
b. Supporting Explanation: Since the proposed Kirker
Pass Landfill is located in canyons, topography
will provide visual screening to some degree. This
natural screening can be enhanced by installing
berms and screens . Earth berms are an effective
visual buffer for screening views to a landfill.
The form of the berms could mimic the natural line
EXHIBIT G
-40-
of the area's hills . Berms would be landscaped
with perennial grasses and native trees and shrubs
as appropriate. Planting patterns could be
naturalistic. The landfill developer would be
required to prepare and implement a final
landscaping plan with the approval of the County
Community Development Department.
c.1 Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall submit an annual
monitoring report to the Board on the compliance of
a proposed or sited landfill to this requirement.
5 . Significant Effect: Windblown debris and litter could
result in an adverse visual impact and/or could be
carried to off-site locations . Illegal dumping near the
facility entrance could visually detract from the
appearance of the surrounding area (FEIR, p. 4 . 9-8) .
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact:
Eliminating self-haulers will reduce littering on
the site and on access roads . The landfill
operator should, if feasible, align refuse
unloading areas away from the prevailing wind
direction. Refuse will be covered at least once a
day, and could be covered more often, depending on
wind velocity. Installation of portable fencing
near the working area and a permanent fence around
the landfill site periphery to intercept and
contain windblown debris will be required. Litter
will be collected from the litter fences and
planting screens on a daily basis and from along
access roadways as often as is deemed necessary by
the County. _ The County Community Development
Department will incorporate a litter control plan
generally including the required mitigation
measures into the project's Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval for all new landfill and
transfer station facilities. The County Health
Services Department has the authority to enforce
this plan.
b. Supporting Explanation: The landfill operator will
post signs along access roads noting littering and
illegal dumping laws; signs at the entrance will
note hours of operation. Policing of the site and
entrance area will be required on a daily basis or
i
more often, if needed.
i
i EXHIBIT G
-41-
I
i
i
i
c.; Monitoring Program: A quarterly monitoring report
shall be submitted to the Board by the County
Health Services Department on compliance with these
regulations .
X. SOCIOECONOMICS
1 . Significant Effect: Siting of the landfill could
adversely affect the value of property located in the
vicinity of the site (FEIR, p. 4 . 10-8) .
a.', Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: The
mitigation measures listed in other sections of
this report, especially those that relate to order
control, dust control, litter control, landscaping
and traffic control, are expected to reduce this
impact to a less than significant level. The
County Community Development Department will
incorporate the appropriate mitigation measures
suggested in the CoSWMP EIR, as well as those
identified in project-specific proposals, into the
Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval.
b. Supporting Explanation: In three separate studies
on the effects of landfills on surrounding property
values, the conclusions were as follows : solid
waste disposal sites have no apparent negative
effect on change in property value of single family
homes in their immediate vicinity (The Effects of
Solid Waste Disposal Sites on Property Values ,
1972) ; property characteristics other than distance
to the landfill appear much more important in
explaining prices (Pennsylvania State University,
Effects of Solid Waste Disposal Sites on Community
Development and Residential Property Values, 1982) ;
and proximity to the landfill had a negligible
impact on initial sales pricing of recently
constructed homes (Property Value Impact Study,
Puente Hills Landfill, 1983) . As part of the
complaint program, a County representative. should
meet with local homeowners, associations or
organize neighborhood meetings to .ensure that an
appropriate response is received.
C. Monitoring Program: As stated throughout these
Findings, the County Community Development
Department shall submit monitoring reports to the
EXHIBIT G
-42-
i
I
Board on a regular basis regarding the
implementation, monitoring and enforcement of the
identified mitigation measures .
XI . PUBLIC SERVICES
1 . Significant Effect: The proposed landfill could
increase the risk of fire and explosion (FEIR, pp. 4 . 12-
4,1 4 . 12-9 ) .
Mitigation Finding, Supporting Explanation, and
Monitoring Program: See Section II. Public Health
and Safety, Impact 3 of these Findings .
2 . Significant Effect: Disposal of landfill leachate could
adversely impact wastewater treatment systems (FEIR, p.
4 . 12-7 ) .
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board at the
specific project approval stage, will avoid, or
reduce to a less than significant level, the
identified potentially significant impact: The
County Community Development Department will ensure
that all Regional Water Quality Control Board
requirements are met during environmental review of
proposed landfills . The disposal means (mitigation
measures ) will also be included in the landfill' s
Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval and may be
specified in the County Services Department' s Solid
Waste Facilities Permit as well.
b. Supporting Explanation: The Regional Water Quality
Control Board requires that landfill developers
prepare and implement a disposal plan for leachate
with the appropriate wastewater treatment agency
prior to construction of the landfill. In most
cases, the disposal plan requires on-site treatment
of the leachate to meet Regional Water Quality
Control Board standards prior to its introduction
into the wastewater system.
I
c! Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall obtain reports form
the Regional Water Quality Control Board and
appropriate wastewater treatment agencies on
compliance of a landfill facilities to the disposal
plan, and make this information available to the
Board on an annual basis .
I
EXHIBIT G
i
-43-
I
3. Sianificant Effect: Construction and operation of the
landfill. would require large quantities of water which
may impact local groundwater supplies or the supplies of
a �public water supply utility (the Contra Costa Water
District) (FEIR, p. 4 . 12-6 ) .
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County and the
Contra Costa Water District at the specific project
approval stage, will avoid, or reduce to a less
{ than significant level, the identified potentially
significant impact: As previously noted, the
j landfill developer would propose a water service
plan, covering available water resources, estimated
total water needs and supplies, landfill
construction and operation, landscaping, fire
protection, employee hygiene, human consumption
water needs, and water supply sources . Specific
mitigation measures will be identified in the
project-specific EIR. The County Community
Development Department shall evaluate the landfill
developer's water service plans in the project' s
site-specific EIR, and include mitigation measures
as Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval .
b. Supporting Explanation: The water plan would be
based on verified supply information. Water for
operation could be obtained either from on-site
drilling of deep wells or on-site collection of
surface drainage. If on-site water is not
adequate, water for construction might be obtained
from off-site sources . Use of Contra Costa Water
District (CCWD) water would require its approval,
possibly that of a city, and the Local Agency
Formation Commission' s approval .
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall report annually to the
Board on compliance with the water service plan
and/or its implementation requirements .
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH MAY NOT BE
MITIGABLE TO INSIGNIFICANT LEVELS
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors finds that the
following impacts, which could result from implementation of
the Rirker Pass Landfill General Plan Amendment, are
potentially significant from an environmental standpoint and
may not be fully mitigated. The Board of Supervisors hereby
directs the Community Development Department to address the
following mitigation measures in the subsequent tiers of
EXHIBIT G
-44-
i
Environmental Impact Reports and other environmental
documents implementing the California Environmental Quality
Act that will emanate from the adoption of the Kirker Pass
Landfill General Plan Amendment. If the project-level tier
of environmental documents finds that the impacts are
significant and that the particular mitigation measures are
necessary to achieve substantial mitigation, the Board of
Supervisors declares its intent to consider them for adoption
as parts of the applicable projects or program approvals if
the measures are subject to the control of the County. If
the project-level tier of environmental documents also finds
that the impacts are significant and unavoidable, the Board
of Supervisors declares its intent to evaluate the necessity
for a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the light of
the evidence in the record, if the benefits of the project
outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts . Further, the
monitoring program--primarily an annual report on the
implementation of the mitigation measures--shall be carried
out by the County Community Development Department. All
other County departments and agencies involved in solid waste
management shall assist with the preparation of the
monitoring report.
I . GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1 . Significant Effect: Development of the Kirker Pass
Landfill would involve the excavation and use of large
amounts of low permeability on-site soils for liner and
cover purposes, and would permanently alter the
topography of the landfill site (FEIR, p. 5-5) .
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific approval stage, will mitigate the
identified potentially significant effect, but may
not reduce it to a less than significant level :
Upon closure, on-site soils that have been
excavated will be used in the revegetation of the
closed land-filling area. A grading plan that is
designed to blend the landfilled area with the
surrounding topography will partially mitigate this
impact. Contour grading techniques will provide a
smooth transition between the new topography of the
landfill and the natural topography of the site:
cuts and fills will be constructed with rounded
corners to eliminate sharp angles of intersection;
variable slope gradients will provide rounded,
irregular forms that mimic natural slopes . (Also,
see the Visual Quality section following, and under
Potentially Significant Impacts Fully Mitigated in
this findings report. ) The County Community
EXHIBIT G
-45-
i •
Development Department requires that a proposed
landfill project have an appropriate site grading
program that is sensitive to the surrounding site
area. This program will be evaluated in the
project's EIR and the resulting mitigation measures
will be included in the Development and
Improvements Plan of the Land Use Permit Conditions
of Approval in order to ensure implementation.
b. Supporting Explanation: Significant topographic
alteration will occur regardless of how well the
landfilled area is blended into the surrounding
land forms .
C. Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall report annually, if
applicable, to the Board on the compliance of the
landfill developer with this requirement.
II . VISUAL QUALITY
1 . Significant Effect: A landfill sited in rolling hills
would substantially change the existing visual contours
(FEIR, p. 4 . 9-6 ) .
a. Mitigation Finding: The following mitigation
measures, to be implemented by the County at the
specific approval stage, will mitigate the
identified potentially significant effect, but may
not reduce it to a less than significant level: to
the extent practicable, landfill facilities should
be sited well below the ridgeline levels, in -
canyons or valleys . The highest portion of the
fill should be below surrounding ridgelines .
Berms, fencing and/or landscaping should be
employed to screen landfill operations . A portion
of the Kirker Pass Landfill site will be
permanently preserved in open space. Upon closure,
the balance of the site will be returned to open
space and landscaped, thus providing a physical and
visual greenbelt. In addition, riparian habitat
will be developed and will enhance visual
character. The County Community Development
Department will ensure that mitigation measures
identified in the project EIR to reduce the effect
of this impact are implemented by incorporating
them in the project's Land Use Permit Conditions of
Approval.
b: Supporting Explanation: Wherever a new landfill is
sited, substantial visual alteration of the site
EXHIBIT G
-46-
{
would occur. This visual alteration can be
diminished through the above proposed measures . It
is noted that additional and/or more detailed
I measures identified in the project-specific EIR
could reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level .
C.1 Monitoring Program: The County Community
Development Department shall report to the Board
annually, as applicable, on compliance to the
identified conditions .
ALTERNATIVES
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires EIRs
to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the
project, or to the location of the project, which could
feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and
evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives (CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15126 (d) ) . For the reasons stated below,
these alternatives should be rejected in favor of the
currently proposed plan.
I . NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Finding: This Alternative, as described in the CosWMP/GPA
EIR, is infeasible because of the following specific
economic, social and other considerations .
Reasons: This alternative is defined as the failure to adopt
a CoSWMP revision and General Plan Amendments, which would
have the effect of maintaining the status quo with respect to
solid waste management and landfill development in the
County. In this alternative, no new landfills would be
developed, existing landfills would be used until their
closure, and then solid waste would be exported for disposal
to other counties. With Acme Landfill's impending closure,
waste currently going to Acme would be diverted to the two
remaining landfills in the County. These two landfills,
Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (CCSL) and West Contra Costa
Sanitary Landfill (WCCSL) , are near capacity and at the
present rate of waste acceptance are due to close in 1990-
1991 and 1993, respectively. Although the CoSWMP identifies
a 24-acre expansion at Acme Landfill, an application for such
an expansion was denied by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board in 1988 . Expansion of CCSL and WCCSL are also provided
for in the CoSWMP, if approvals can be obtained. If one or
both are granted, they would provide only a few years of
capacity for the County. In addition to new landfills, the
CoSWMP includes policies for increasing the current rate of
EXHIBIT G
-47-
I
r
resource recovery. Failure to implement these provisions
under the No Project Alternative would exacerbate the demands
on the limited existing in-County capacity. After exhaustion
of in-County capacity, the County would have to export its
waste, ,which, though possible, would not be a certainty,
would be non-cost effective in the long run, and subject to
other jurisdictions' requirements and politics .
II . WASTE REDUCTION ALTERNATIVE
Finding: This Alternative, as described in the CosWMP/GPA
EIR, is infeasible because of the following specific
economic, social and other considerations .
Reasons: The CoSWMP includes goals and policies for
increasing the proportion of the County's solid waste that is
diverted through resource recovery. The long-term goals is
to divert 73 percent of the wastestream. In this
alternative, three specific technologies would be used in
lieu of landfilling solid waste, viz . , recycling, composting,
and waste-to-energy. Two in-depth County studies (Recycling
Planning Study, Skip Lacaze, 1987; Technical Memorandum
No. 13, Evaluation of Recycling, Composting and Waste
Reduction, Contra Costa County/Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District Solid Waste Management Project Report, 1985)
indicate that between 2 and 5 percent of the total
wastestream could be reasonably reduced -via residential
recycling programs . Composting the approximately 10-15
percent vegetative waste of the residential wastestream would
be equivalent to approximately 2 percent of the wastestream.
Though waste-to-energy technologies could produce a 70-
percent reduction by weight of the wastestream that is
incinerated, there are several problems involved. Ash
residue from mass incineration is about 30 percent by weight
of incoming waste and this would have to be disposed of .
Landfill disposal would still be required for this ash
residue and for non-combustible material. In addition,
waste-to-energy projects are capital intensive, and
environmental issues are great, and the current chances for
siting a project in the near term are slim.
III . SUBSTITUTE LANDFILL SITES ALTERNATIVE
Finding: This Alternative, as described in the CosWMP/GPA
EIR, is infeasible because of the following specific
economic, social and other considerations .
Reasons : During the years 1984-1987, there were three
landfill siting studies/evaluations performed in the County
to identify potential sites . (Contra Costa County/Central
EXHIBIT G
-48-
1 •
I
I
Contra Costa Sanitary District Solid Waste Management Project
Report,, 1985; Southeast County Landfill Siting Study, Contra
Costa County, 1986; Delta Diablo Evaluation of Potential
Southeast County Landfill Sites, 1987 ) . These efforts
initially considered 22 sites, which were later narrowed
through ranking system to seven sites . Four of the final
seven sites recommended to the Board of Supervisors are sites
identified in the CoSWMP, the subject of these Findings. The
reasons, for dropping the other 15 sites are listed in Table
6 . 3-1 of the CoSWMP EIR, and deal mostly with the sites not
meeting the County's list of criteria for new landfill
development (Table 6 .3-2 of the EIR) . It was intended that
developers of landfills would use this information to
identify future sites in the County. During the first study,
three sites were proposed by the private section--Kirker Pass
Waste Management Landfill (KPWML) , East Contra Costa Sanitary
Landfill (ECCSL) and Central Landfill. The Central Landfill
proposal was withdrawn in December of 1986 . In 1987 , KPWML
and ECCSL completed their hearings and environmental review
with the Planning Commission. Both were unable to obtain a
majority approval by the Board of Supervisors . In 1988, the
Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill and Keller Canyon Landfill
were proposed by the private sector. They are currently
undergoing environmental review. This alternative was
rejected because no sites other than those now proposed to be
included in the CoSWMP are capable of becoming operating
facilities by 1992 if site-specific studies were started now.
Moreover, none of the other sites have sponsors who have
obtained control of the land and begun the application
studies .
IV. NO TRANSFER STATION ALTERNATIVE
Finding: This Alternative, as described in the CosWMP/GPA
EIR, is infeasible because of the following specific
economic, social and other considerations .
Reasons: In this alterative, the CoSWMP revision and General
Plan Amendments proposed project would not include the
provision for transfer stations, and instead would rely on
direct haul of solid waste to landfill(s) and/or resource
recovery facilities . This would entail the use of low-
capacity packer trucks to haul the waste from the point of
collection to the ultimate disposal or processing point,
rather than using high-capacity transfer vehicles to haul
waste from a transfer station- to the ultimate disposal/
processing location. There would be a substantially greater
number of vehicle trips needed to transport a given amount of
solid waste to its ultimate destination(s) . In the worst
. case condition for traffic generation, a single landfill
would become the destination for all the solid waste
EXHIBIT G
-49-
i
f�
operations in the County. According to Table 6 . 3-3 in the
CoSWMP/,General Plan Amendment EIR there would be almost three
times as many vehicle trips generated under this scenario
than under the proposed project scenario which includes
transfer stations (1,726 trips by the year 2005 instead of
640 .trips) . There would be substantially greater air
emissions and noise impacts. In addition, there could be
more public service impacts due to road maintenance and
traffic enforcement, and greater land use, visual and.
property value impacts as a result of increased traffic.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Notwithstanding the disclosure of the significant impacts and
the mitigation measures described above, pursuant to Section
15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Board of Supervisors
finds that the benefits of the Kirker Pass Landfill General
Plan Amendment outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse
environmental impacts, and the Amendment should be approved.
The Board of Supervisors further finds that there are
specific social, economic and other reasons for approving
this project, based on information in the record,
notwithstanding the substantial adverse impacts disclosed in
the Final Environmental Impact Report and described above as
significant impacts not fully mitigated. The Board also
. finds that, to the extent any mitigation measures recommended
in the EIR were not or will not be incorporated into the
General Plan Amendment or the Landfill Project, such
mitigation measures are infeasible with respect to the
Landfill Project, because such measures would impose
, restrictions on the landfill project that would prohibit the
realization of specific economic, social, and other benefits
that this Board finds outweigh the unmitigated impacts . The
Board also finds that the alternatives set forth in the EIR
are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of
specific economic, social, and other benefits that this Board
finds outweigh the environmental benefits of the
alternatives . Further, the Board finds that the following
reasons warrant approval of the General Plan Amendment
notwithstanding any unavoidable or unmitigated impacts :
1 . State law requires the adoption of the CoSWMP
Revision, including reserved sites showing at least eight
years of landfill capacity. In order to qualify as a
reserved site, a site must be consistent with the County's
general plan. Therefore, the adoption of this General Plan
Amendment is required for the Kirker Pass Landfill site to
qualify as a reserved site under state law.
2 : The writ of mandate issued to the County in
California Waste Management Board v. Board of of Supervisors,
EXHIBIT G
-50-
a
• i
etc. , Contra Costa County Superior Court No. C89-00833,
requires the County, among other things, to adopt the CoSWMP
Revision and adopt general plan amendments for the potential
landfill sites pursuant to a detailed time schedule.
Adoption of this General Plan Amendment is required for the
County, to comply with the writ of mandate.
3 Adoption of this General Plan Amendment will reduce
the need to export solid waste to other counties. This will
reduce or eliminate the environmental, traffic, and energy
impacts of hauling waste outside the County and constitutes
an environmental benefit of this project.
4 . Adoption of this General Plan Amendment will provide
overall social benefits to the County.. A number of services,
including healthcare, child day care, care for senior
citizens, and supply of food and housing all depend on an
assured system of solid waste collection and disposal. As
part of the CoSWMP Revision and implementation of the
Revision, the General Plan Amendment will help ensure the
continued provision of such services .
5 . Adoption of this General Plan Amendment and
subsequent approval of a landfill project will provide
construction jobs over a period of several years .
6 . Adoption of this General Plan Amendment and
subsequent approval of a landfill project will forestall the
public health hazard that would result from the exhaustion of
landfill capacity in this County without-,a replacement
landfill site.
FINDINGS REGARDING MONITORING OR REPORTING
OF CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES
Section 21081 . 6 of the Public Resources Code requires this
Board to adopt a monitoring or reporting program regarding
CEQA mitigation measures in connection with these findings.
This Board has made specific findings regarding mitigation
monitoring as it applies to various specific impacts of the
Landfill Project, in the findings sections set forth above.
Those specific findings call for annual reporting, based on
information to be gathered by the County Community
Development Department. This annual reporting will be done
pursuant to the following program, which this Board hereby
adopts in fulfillment of the CEQA mitigation monitoring
requirement:
A. The Community Development Department shall file a written
report with this Board approximately once each year,
beginning on or about the first anniversary of the approval
EXHIBIT G
-51-
4
of this General Plan Amendment by the Board of Supervisors
and continuing until the Landfill Project is developed
pursuant to additional land use approvals that may be granted
by the; County. The written report shall briefly state the
status' in implementing each mitigation measure that is
adopted as a Condition of Approval or that is incorporated
into the Landfill Project. The written report may include
information from other agencies regarding implementation of
the mitigation measures . When such information from other
agencies is included, the report shall include such
additional information, if any, as the Department deems
necessary to provide a complete report on the implementation
of mitigation measures.
B. Community Development staff and this Board shall review
the written report and determine whether there is any
unforeseen, unusual, and substantial delay in, or obstacle
.to, implementing the adopted or incorporated mitigation
measures that requires action by Department staff .
C. The Board may delegate its review of the mitigation
monitoring report, in this Board's sole discretion. If any
interested party requests it, the result of this review will
be provided to such party in writing.
D. If the staff or this Board determines that action is
required to ensure that one or more mitigation measures is
implemented, then the staff shall advise this Board of the
situation.
j EXHIBIT G
-52-
1
i
i
EXHIBIT H
i
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
KIRKER PASS WASTE MANAGEMENT LANDFILL
(GPA 24-84-CO)
The Contra Costa County General Plan is amended as provided below.
1. REFUSEIDISPOSAL PLAN
i
a. Add to the Eastern Study Area Text (p. 29) :
"Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill.
I
A sanitary landfill facility, or sanitary landfill facilities, may be
developed at the location identified as a Sanitary Landfill Refuse
Disposal Faciltiy on the accompanying Plan Map,. in accordance with the
Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval adopted by the Board of
Supervisors. A sanitary landfill developed in the subject location is
intended to take residential-commercial-industrial wastes (i.e. ,
wastes allowable for a Class II landfill under the terms of Subchapter
15, Chapter 3, Title 23 of the California Administrative Code, 1984) .
The facility is intended to serve Contra Costa County and other areas
specified by the Board of Supervisors."
b. Add the attached diagram entitled Plan Map--Kirker Pass Waste Manage-
ment Landfill to the above plan text Amendment.
2. LAND USE ELEMENT
Add the Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill (2b) to the following section
of the Land Use Element which was adopted on December 15, 1987:
"Adopted Refuse Disposal Facilities
The following Refuse Disposal Facilities are consistent with the Land
Use Element and their site areas are deemed to be overlays on the Land
Use Element Plan Map:
1. Refuse Disposal Facilities approved prior to January 1, 1983, by
the Board of Supervisors in General Plan Components and Land Use
Permits (includes West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, and the IT
Corporation's Baker, Pacheco, and Vine Hill facilities) .
2., Refuse Disposal Facilities approved by General Plan Amendments
adopted subsequent to January 1, 1983, by the Board of Supervi-
sors. These are: (a) the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer
Station, adopted December 15, 1987; and (b) the Bay Pointe
Sanitary Landfill, East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, Keller
Canyon Landfill, Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill, and Marsh
Canyon Sanitary Landfill, adopted September 19, 1989.
I
3. OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Add "refuse disposal" to the following statement of purpose on Page 1,
Purposes, of the Open Space and Conservation Element, indicated by under-
lining:
Open. Space and Conservation in this plan can mean land for orchards,
crops, livestock production, water supply, national defense, public
and private recreation, forestry, mineral extraction, refuse disposal,
agricultural industry, and even very low density residential uses,
where appropriate to location and other planning considerations.
I hereby certify that this amendment
to the Contra Costa County General Plan
was Adopted by the Board of Supervisors
on October 10, 1989.
Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of
Supe ' ors affid Count inistrator
By a
Dep ty
RV:jll4:kir.gpa
i
I
' GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
KIRKER PASS WASTE MANAGEMENT LANDFILL
(GPA 24-84-CO )
i
PLAN MAP -- KIRKER PASS WASTE MANAGEMENT LANDFILL
Part of the Refuse Disposal Plan and
Land Use Element ( Plan Map Overlay) of
the Contra Costa County General Plan
w . •I 11 EN If RUST EfI ' • .n, H.no,,.n
j.� ,►C i 160 eG.
` Mulligan I
1 1. 0"AS t
t 6.13 AC
29 A%; .60 AC E1woRTNr
115 13 AC
a
} i .0
35
• Kirker
0N �
.\ O> u l
Q A
loop R
IIT 64 AC
r
2 NI E WILSON
1 2 N --
N I + ., INIWI" INIE �.ie► wC
/v•• EIwONTNY
i / O ,.• .. ---- _ .193 of AC ..51.30 AC Q'i •`- •• • ,% ELWORTN♦ ..
t?5.sG Arc
♦ o d{
� En
2 / < s •Kirker Pala
— Krernnlr
l northe`° ••
TII BUR♦
LQ�Q Z�Q� .113.98 AC •• ELWORTMY
' —�-- l
Scale in Feet , W ,o
N
J w
•�� General Plan Amendment Area
Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill Project
I hereby certify that this
amendment to the Contra Costa
County General Plan was
Adopted by the Board of
Supervisors on October 1.0, 1939.
i
Phil Batchelor, Clerk or the Board
of Supervisors and County
Administrator
13y: 0/rm 0ZA4-,j
v
Deputy
l
�\
,,
1
1
,`
1
i
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
I
FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE MARSH CANYON
LANDFILL SITE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT ( "CEQA" ) AND ADOPTION OF A
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 4-89-CO
(MARSH CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL)
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County (this
"Board" ) , California, adopts the following findings regarding
the Marsh Canyon landfill site general plan amendment .
I . INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A'. The General Plan Amendment
Contra Costa County ( ''County" ) is required by state
law and by court order to prepare a Solid Waste Management Plan
including reserve capacity at one or more landfill sites . This
general plan amendment is proposed in order to comply, with the
County' s obligations pursuant to state law and court order to
adopt an adequate solid waste management plan including reserve
capacity at landfill sites designated in the County General
Plan.
The County is required to adopt landfill site general
plan amendments pursuant to the California Solid Waste
Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972 , California
Government Code sections 66780 et seq. This Act requires the
County to prepare a County Solid Waste Management Plan
( "CoSWMP" ) , and the County is currently seeking the required
approvals from cities within the county for the 1989 revision
to the CoSWMP . This 1989 revision is required to comply with
state law and with the provisions of the court order in
California Waste Management Board v. Board of Supervisors ,
Contra Costa County Superior Court No . 89-00833 (the
"Litigation" ) . This litigation was initiated against the
County to require submission of a final revised CoSWMP, and the
court order requires the County to carry out certain tasks set
forth in a schedule for the 1989 CoSWMP revision. This
schedule requires this Board to adopt general plan amendments
for five landfill sites . The proposed Marsh Canyon site, the
subject of this General Plan Amendment , is one of those five
sites .
EXHIBIT I 1
Previously, the County has :i.denti.f.ied existing
landfills iin the General Plan, but has not shown proposed sites
in the General Plan because site-specific General Plan
Amendments were processed along with specific development
applications for each landfill project , such as use permits or
conditionall use permits. State law now requires that proposed
landfill slites be shown in the County General Plan, so the five
general plan amendments were initiated by the County. These
General Plan Amendments are the following:
1 . A General Plan Amendment for the proposed Bay
Pointe Sanitary Landfill , located southwest of West Pittsburg,
one mile south of Highway 4 , west of Bailey Road, and east of
the Concord Naval Weapon Station (the "Bay Pointe Sanitary
Landfill")'. (County File No . 5-89-CO)
r
2 . A General Plan Amendment for the proposed Keller
Canyon (Ke'ller-Bailey) Sanitary Landfill located south of
Pittsburg,, generally east of Bailey Road and northwest of
Kirker Pass Road (the "Keller-Bailey Landfill" ) . (County File
No . 3-89-CO)
i
1. A General Plan Amendment for the proposed East
Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill , located south of Antioch, south
of the existing Contra Costa Waste Sanitary Landfill , and west
of Fredickson Lane (the "East Contra Costa Landfill " ) . (County
File No . 6-85-CO)
4 . A General Plan Amendment for the proposed Kirker
Pass Sanitary Landfill , located off Kirker Pass Road
approximately one mile northeast of Concord and 1 . 5 miles
southwest of Pittsburg (the "Kirker Pass Landfill " ) . (County
File No . 24-84-CO)
5 . A General Plan Amendment for the proposed Marsh
Canyon Sanitary Landfill located west of Byron, approximately
one mile southwest of the intersection of Marsh Creek Road and
Deer Valley Road (the "Marsh Canyon Landfill" ) . The Marsh
Canyon. Landfill site consists of approximately 1 , 680 acres , of
which 320 acres would be used for landfill . The remainder of
the site will be kept as open space. (County File No . 4-89-CO) .
The five general plan amendments referred to above are
collectively referred to as the "Five General Plan
Amendments . " The general plan amendment for the Marsh Canyon
Landfill , the subject of these findings , is referred as this
"General Plan Amendment . "
EXHIBIT 'I 2
:At this time, this Board is considering only general
plan amendments for the five proposed landfill sites . This
Board is not presently considering specific applications to
develop any of the landfill sites , any other specific land use
application relating to the landfill sites , or any
Project-level EIRs . Specifically, this Board is not now
considering any specific land use approval or Project-level EIR
for the Marsh Canyon Landfill . One or more of the owners. of
the five proposed sanitary landfill sites will submit. or may
have submitted applications for use permits and other land use
development approvals which may be required for development of
each particular site . In some cases, the applications may have
been submitted but are not ready for or capable of,
consideration by this Board at this time . This Board is
required by state law and by court order to adopt this General
Plan Amendment (and all of the Five General Plan Amendments) at
this time, and cannot delay adoption of this Amendment until
specific development applications and Project-level EIRs are
ready for consideration. As stated above, the Marsh Canyon
Landfill• `Site general plan amendment approved -by this Board is
hereinafter referred to as this ''General Plan Amendment . " The
future development of the Marsh Canyon Landfill , pursuant to
this General Plan Amendment and other land use approvals which.
may be granted in the future is hereinafter referred to as the
''Landfill Project . "
Although this Board is currently approving only the
Five General Plan Amendments , the environmental impact report
( "EIR" ) for the Five General Plan Amendments is intended to
serve as a program EIR for each of the Five General Plan
Amendments and the 1989 CoSWMP revision. Subsequent land use
approvals for one or more specific sanitary landfill sites
would be processed in conjunction with preparation of an
additional site-specific EIR. The CEQA Guidelines authorize
- the use of -program EIRs for a series of actions that can be
characterized as one large project, along with preparation of
subsequent EIRs on specific projects . The Guidelines also
authorize lead agencies such as the County to incorporate
general mitigation measures developed in a program EIR into
subsequent actions in the program of land use approvals .
The EIR recommends mitigation measures for an overall
project including the 1989 CoSWMP revision and the Five General
Plan Amendments . These measures include general mitigation
measures for all of the proposed sites and certain specific
mitigation measures for each individual proposed landfill
sites . Many of these mitigation measures are designed to be
incorporated into specific development plans and specific
. development plans for each of the landfill sites have not yet
been submitted to this Board. As this General Plan Amendment
changes the designation of one ^ of the proposed landfill sites
EXHIBIT I 3
i
1,and does..-not.,. nclude any specific .authoriz.at_ion to develop the
proposed site, and as this Board will be presented with future
specific development proposals for one or more of the proposed
sites , some conditions of approval and mitigation measures
cannot be imposed in connection with this General Plan
Amendment but must instead be imposed in connection with future
land use approvals .
Bi The Environmental Impact Report .
i
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , as
amended, together with the State CEQA Guidelines, requires the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for certain
public and private sector projects requiring discretionary
actions by' California ' s governments .
The discretionary approval power over the General Plan
Amendments resides with the County. The County, as the Lead
Agency, determined that an EIR was required for this project
and issued a Notice of Preparation on January 25 , 1989 , to the
State Clearinghouse and to various public agencies ( including
all the cities in the County) , organizations and individuals .
.As part of the environmental review process, the County held a
public scoping session on February 15 1989 .
The County determined that the EIR should address the
general environmental impacts amending the Contra Costa County
General Plan to include any or all of the five landfill sites
included in the CoSWMP . In addition, the EIR serves as the
environmental document for the proposed 1989 revision to the
County Solid Waste Management Plan ( "CoSWMP" ) .
The County determined that the California
Environmental Quality Act documentation for the CoSWMP and the
proposed Five .General Plan Amendments and the individual solid
waste development projects which could result from the CoSWMP
and the proposed General Plan Amendments be prepared in
stages . The first tier is a Program EIR, the subject of these
findings, on the CoSWMP and Five General Plan Amendments , which
analyzes the possible environmental consequences of
implementing the solid waste management policies in the CoSWMP
and adopting General Plan Amendments . The second tier of the
process will be the environmental review of individual projects
for the specific facilities proposed and designed to fulfill
the goals and policies of the CoSWMP; this level of review
generally will be accomplished through site-specific Landfill
Project EIRs . Together , the two tiers are intended to carry
out the California Environmental Quality Act and implement the
State ' s and the County' s CEQA Guidelines .
i
i
EXHIBIT I 4
i
i
I
i
I
On May 15, ..1989 , a..Draft .EIR._for_...the -CoSWMP and the
proposed General Plan Amendments was published by the County
and distributed to the State Clearinghouse and the 18 cities in
the Countyl. The County Zoning Administrator held a public
hearing on( this draft document in the City of Pittsburg on
June 20, 11
989 . The public review period ended on June 30 , 1989 .
On August. 2 , 1989 , the Final EIR for the CoSWMP and
the proposed Five General Plan Amendments was published,
consisting' of the Draft EIR and the Response to Comments
document .
On August 7, 1989 ; the Contra Costa County Zoning
Administrator found that the Final EIR for the CoSWMP and the
proposed Five General Plan Amendments was prepared and
processed in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, and that the EIR is adequate in its . coverage of
environmental impacts , mitigation measures , alternatives , and
other environmental effects that could result from the adoption
of the CoSWMP -and the Five -General Plan Amendments . Further ,
the Zoning Administrator transmitted the Final EIR to the Board
of Supervisors with the recommendation that it be certified.
On August 15 , 1989 , the Board of Supervisors certified
that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed
1989 CoSWMP Revision and the Five proposed General Plan
Amendments had been completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and that it had been, presented to the
Board and the Board had considered the information contained in
it .
The County, as the lead agency, has determined that a
written finding, accompanied by an explanation of the rationale
for the .finding, be prepared for each potentially significant
impact identified in the Final EIR. In addition, as required .
by recent State legislation (Pub . Resources Code,
section 21081. 6 [AB 3180 ] ) ,, every public agency making such
findings must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the
changes to a project which it has adopted or made a condition
of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant
impacts to the environment . This monitoring program is
adopted, as set forth below in the findings .
For purposes of these Findings , the "EIR" consists of
the draft EIR, the Final EIR including the response document
dated August 1989 , the initial study for the Five General
Amendments and the CoSWMP revisions , all notices of
preparation, completion, and other notices relating to the EIR,
and all appendices , exhibits , supplements , and documents
incorporated by reference into the EIR. Without limiting the
foregoing, and as stated on page C&R-398 of the Final EIR
EXHIBIT I 5
1
"Response-Document, the EIR includes _and consists in part of
1) the Sollid Waste Management Project Report done by the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District in cooperation with
Contra Cos;ta County in February 1985, 2) the Southeast County
Landfill Siting Study, prepared for Contra Costa County by a
consultant in June 1986, and 3) the Final Report of the
Landfill Siting Task Force adopted by the County Board of
Supervisors on July 21 , .1987 . . This Board finds that these
reports are properly incorporated into the EIR pursuant to the
CEQA Guidelines .
In the alternative, to the extent that the
aforementioned reports are not already duly incorporated into
the EIR, this Board hereby determines that these reports are
part of the EIR and are incorporated in full into the EIR as
technical addenda . This Board hereby finds (to the extent
these reports are not already properly a part of this EIR) that
these reports represent a technical change to the EIR and that
these reports do not constitute a subsequent change in any
project, a substantial change in circumstances ,' .or new
information of substantial information. This Board is
authorized to make such a technical change or addendum pursuant
to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines , and interpretive California court
decisions .
C. Mitigation Measures - General Finding.
These findings contain numerous specific findings
based on mitigation measures set forth in the EIR, which is a
program EIR. The impacts and mitigation measures for this
Landfill Project will be analyzed in more detail in one or more
subsequent- project-level EIRs once final or specific
development plans for the Landfill Project are considered.
With respect to each finding set forth in these
findings relating to mitigation measures and incorporation of
mitigation measures into the Landfill Project , this Board makes
the following additional findings :
( i) it is infeasible to impose many of the
general mitigation measures at the Program EIR and general plan
amendment stage because the measures relate to specific
development plans;
( ii) if the project-specific EIR concludes
that the impacts and recommended mitigation measures in each
category are identical , then those mitigation measures will be
imposed as conditions of approval and thus incorporated into
the Landfill Project at the time specific development plans are
approved;
EXHIBIT I 6
i •
( iii) if the .pr.oject-spec.ific .EIR concludes
that the impact in a certain category is not significant, then
the mitigation measure may not be required to be imposed; and
( iv) if the project-specific EIR determined
that the impact remains potentially significant but that
different {or additional mitigation measures are feasible and
will be required to mitigate the impact to a level of
insignificance, then the new or additional feasible mitigation
measures to reduce project impacts will be imposed or
incorporated into the Project as conditions of approval .
D. Description Of The Record.
The record before this Board relating to this General
Plan Amendment includes , without limitation, the following:
1 . The application for this General Plan
Amendment , together with all documents , files and reports on
this General Plan -Amendment and on each of the other Five
General Plan Amendments maintained by the County Community
Development Department;
2 . All Staff Reports on the Five General Plan
Amendments (the "Staff Reports" ) ;
3 . All documentary and oral evidence received
and reviewed by the Zoning Administrator , the Planning
^ommission and this Board before and during the public hearings
-in the Approvals , the Draft EIR, and the Five General Plan
Amendments;
4 . All documentary and oral evidence received
and reviewed by this Board during the public hearings on the
EIR and on the Five General Plan Amendments;
5 . The Final EIR, including all notices
relating to the EIR and all documents and reports incorporated
by reference into the EIR; and
6 . The court order in the Litigation referenced
above; and
7 . All matters of common knowledge, such as :
(a) the County General Plan, (b) the County Zoning Code,
(c) other County policies and regulations , (d) the County Solid
Waste Management Plan and revisions to it, and (e) applicable
state law.
The discussions and findings which follow for each
category of possible environmental impact recite some of the
i
EXHIBIT -I 7
background ..information relating .to this General Plan
Amendment . These findings are each based on all of the facts
and the entire record before this Board, including without
limitation the information which is recited in the discussion
in each particular category of these findings .
This Board intends that any finding or determination
required or permitted to be made by this Board shall be deemed
made if it appears in any portion of this document, and that
all of the text included in this document constitutes findings
and determiinations by this Board, whether or not any particular
caption, sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect .
Although the discussions of facts in category below
may be primarily or entirely based on the Final EIR, this Board
intends that each finding herein is based on the entire record,
including written and oral testimony to the Planning Commission
and this Board. The omission of any relevant fact from the
summary discussions below is not an indication by this Board
that a particular finding is not based in part on the omitted
fact . Thi's' Boar s findings as set forth herein are based on
all of the facts in the record before this Board.
II . FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
DETERMINED IN THE INITIAL STUDY NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
This Board adopts and makes the following findings
regarding those certain potential environmental impacts of the
General Pllan Amendment and the Landfill Project which were
determined in the initial study not to be potentially
significant adverse environmental impacts .
A. Facts .
1 . The initial study on this project contains
an explanation for its conclusions following each of the
questions appearing in the initial study. On the basis of
those explanations , the initial study concludes that the Five
General Plan Amendments , including this General Plan Amendment ,
will have an insignificant impact on beach, river or stream
erosion or, siltation, will not alter air movement or change
climate locally or regionally, alter the course of flood
waters, change the amount of surface water in any .water body,
or substantially reduce the amount of water otherwise available
for public� water supplies .
2 . This General Plan Amendment and the Landfill
Project ar,e not expected to reduce the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants , introduce new. species of
plants or act as a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species , reduce the numbers of any unique, rare or
EXHIBIT I 8
endangered animals, introduce new animals, ..:or cause a
deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat .
3 . This General Plan Amendment and the Landfill
Project will not interfere with emergency response plans, alter
the location, distribution density or growth rate of human
population, affect existing parking facilities , or cause
significant alterations to water-borne, rail or air traffic .
4 . This General Plan Amendment and the Landfill
Project will not have a potentially significant impact on
police protection, schools or demand for park or recreation
facilities , and will not affect unique ethnic cultural values
or restrict existing religious or sacred uses .
B . Findings .
Biased upon the EIR, the initial study, and the entire
record, the Board finds that :
( i) With respect to the categories of
impacts set forth above, this General Plan Amendment and the
Landfill Project will not have a potentially significant
adverse impact on the environment .
( ii) Because these impacts were determined
to be insignificant in the initial study, no mitigation
measures are required to be adopted pursuant to CEQA relating
to the foregoing insignificant impacts , no analysis of these-
impacts is required in an environmental impact report , and no
finding is required regarding these impacts .
( iii) To the extent that any of the above
impacts are potentially significant , despite the conclusions of
the impact of the initial study as stated above, these impacts
will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the numerous
mitigation measures and conditions of approval which have been
or will bel incorporated into or imposed upon this Landfill
Project either in connection with this General Plan Amendment
or in connection with future land use approvals .
-( iv) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the!, above impacts are significant and cannot be
mitigated to insignificance, despite the conclusions of the
initial study as stated above, the environmental , economic ,
social andlother benefits of this General Plan Amendment
outweigh and override any significant impact, as more fully
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V,I below) .
EXHIBIT I 9
III . POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE CONSIDERED-
MITIGABLE TO INSIGNIFICANCE
A. Planning And Land Use .
1 . General Plan designations .
a. Facts .
( i) Impact no . 1 set forth on
page 4 . 1-13 of the EIR relates to general plan designations .
The existing County land use designation for this General Plan
Amendment site is inconsistent with a landfill use.
( ii) As mitigation, the identified
landfill sites in the CoSWMP require general plan amendments in
order to make them consistent with a landfill use, as
recommended in the EIR.
( iii) California Planning law requires
waste disposal sites to be shown in the general plans of
counties oir cities having jurisdiction. The County, however ,
has not pre-designated future landfill sites in its General
Plan. By intent , new sites are to be added, when necessary,
through the amendment process . All five of the sites
identified for landfills in the CoSWMP are within the
unincorporated area of the County and, therefore, are subject
to the County General Plan. This General Plan Amendment would
address the Refuse Disposal Plan, and the Land Use and Open
Space/Conservation Elements of the County General Plan. This
Amendment would enable findings of General Plan consistency to
be made foIr the Marsh Canyon Landfill when the County Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors consider land use permits
and other planning entitlements .
b. Findings .
I
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that!:
( i) Impact of this General Plan
Amendment relating to general plan designations has been
mitigated to a level of insignificance by the adoption of this
General Plan Amendment , as recommended in the EIR. This
mitigations measure, in effect , constitutes this General Plan
Amendment .
( ii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any general plan designation impacts of this General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project are not insignificant or.
mitigated to insignificance, the environmental , economic ,
EXHIBIT I 10
social _andLother benefits .of. the_.Landfill Project o�verr ide any
such significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (section VI below) .
( iii) This mitigation measure has. been
fully implemented by adoption of the General Plan Amendments ,
and no further implementation is necessary. This miay be noted
on the annual monitoring report to be submitted to this Board
as required pursuant to section VII below.
2 . Transfer station designations .
a . Facts .
( i) The possible inconsistency with
general: plan land use designations of applications for transfer
stations or resource recovery facilities is listed as impact
no . 2 on page 4 . 1-14 of the EIR. In the unincorporated area of
the County, applicants for transfer stations and resource
recovery facilities within land use designations other than
Heavy Industrial or Agricultural , with appropriate zoning,
would- be in conflict with both the current and the Preliminary
Draft County General Plans .
( ii ) As mitigation, the EIR, recommends
that any solid waste facility proposed on a site wLich is
inconsistent with the applicable jurisdiction' s gemeral plan
must apply for and receive a general plan amendment in order to
facilitateits siting.
( iii ) None of the land use designations
outlined in either the County' s current or the PreRiminary
Draft County General Plan specifically identify solid waste
transfer or major resource recovery facilities as allowable
uses , but Chapter 418-4 of the County Ordinance Code allows
waste disposal facilities to be considered in the Eleavy
Industrial' zone, and in agricultural areas zoned A-2 or A-3
under the. Land Use Permit procedures . A general plan amendment
would be required to allow a solid waste facility to be
considered at a particular location in a general plan land use
element category which allows H-I , A-2 , or A-3 zoning. The
Community. Development Department shall require a proponent of a
solid waste facility site which is inconsistent with the
General Plan to apply for and receive general plan amendment
before accepting an application for a Land Use Permd t .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this
Board finds that :
EXHIBIT I 11
( i) Applications for transfer stations
or resource recovery facilities are not a part of this General
Plan Amendment , and this impact identified in the EIR does not
apply to this General Plan Amendment . Accordingly, no
mitigationjmeasure or findings are required to be imposed or
adopted with respect to this impact at this time.
( ii) In the alternative, to the extent
that this impact is a part of this General Plan Amendment , this
impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
incorporation into any application for transfer stations or
resource recovery facilities of general plan amendments as
required. This mitigation measure is incorporated into the
Landfill Project by operation of state law requiring
consistency of zoning designations with the general plan, and
because this Board will require general plan amendments where
necessary.
( iii) In the alternative, this
mitigation measure will be incorporated into the Landfill
Projectas conditions of approval of final development plans
for landfill , transfer , or resource recovery facilities . It is
not feasible or ,appropriate to incorporate into this General
Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
transfer station or resource recovery facilities because this
General Plan Amendments set forth general designations for one
landfill site, and does not constitute approval of any
development plan for any particular site, or any development
plan for a transfer station or resource recovery facility.
( iv) In the alternative, and to the
extent that any solid waste facility is located within a city
rather than an unincorporated area of the County,
implementation of this mitigation measure is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of that city, and not this
Board . Any required general plan amendment can and should be
approved by such a city. To the extent that any changes in the
Landfill Project may be required as a result of such a general
plan amendment in such a city, such a city has the authority to
require those changes .
(v) In the alternative, to the extent.
that this impact of the General Plan Amendment is not
insignificant, mitigated to insignificance, or within the
jurisdictilon of another agency, the environmental , economic ,
social , and other benefits of this General Plan Amendment
override any such signficant impacts , as more fully stated in
the Statement of Overriding Considerations (section VI below) .
(vi ) The status of this requirement
shall be reported by the Community Development Department in
its annual monitoring report to the Board.
EXHIBIT I 12
3 . Loss of .grazing uses.
a. Facts .
( i) According to Impact 3 discussed at
page 4 . 1-24 of the EIR, landfill operations at the landfill
site would remove agricultural usage (currently grazing) from
at least parts of the Sites for the life of the landfill .
( ii) Mitigation measures would include
enhancing the grazing capabilities on the remainder of the
landfill site or on another site .
( iii ) If landfill operations on the
sites identified in the CoSWMP were to occur , existing
agricultural (grazing) use currently on the active portion of
the landfill site( s) would be displaced. The project-specific
environmental review would include on-site and/or off-site
mitigation measures , such as enhancement of the sites ' s grazing
capabilities .; In .some cases , it may be preferable to
substitute other uses, such as recreation or habitat, for
grazing. The County Community Development Department shall
address the potential loss of agricultural values in the
site-specific EIRs , and, where found to be appropriate, shall
ensure that the agricultural values ' mitigation measures
identified in that EIRs to reduce this impact to a less than
significant level are implemented- by making them land use
permit conditions of approval .
( iv) Loss of grazing uses is not listed
in the EIR, as an unavoidable significant impact.
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this board
finds that
( i ) This mitigation measure will be
incorporated into the Landfill Project as a condition of
approval of a development plan for subsequent permit . It is
not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this General
Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to loss of
grazing .use because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for a landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for any particular
site .
( ii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of this General Plan Amendment relating
to grazing use are not insignificant or mitigated to a level of
insignificance, the environmental , economic, social , and
EXHIBIT I 13
other...benef..its .of.. the. .Landf i.l.l Pr.oj.ect .and :.this General Plan
Amendment override any such significant impacts, as more fully
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(section VI , below) .
( iii ) The status of this mitigation
measure as it applies to proposed and sited landfills shall be
reported to the Board annually.
4 . Incompatability with surrounding uses .
a. Facts .
( i ) Impact 4 is discussed in the EIR.
on page 4 . 1-24 through 25 . Surrounding residential , commercial
and recreational uses could be adversely affected by the siting
of a landfill on this site.
( ii) The implementation of the
mitigation,-measures identified elsewhere in these findings
concerned with traffic reduction and control , prevention of air
. and water pollution, and visual mitigation., will help reduce
these impacts to a level of insignificance .
( iii ) . Specific environmental issues that
would affect surrounding land uses can be found in the Program
EIR' s sectlions on Air Quality, Visual Quality, Noise and
Transportation. Impacts identified in these sections can
result in significant land use impacts to nearby land uses .
The mitigation measures identified in these sections would be
addressed in project-specific EIRs . Most of the mitigation
measures are capable of being implemented by the County, and
are appropriate for. inclusion in Land Use Permit Conditions of
Approval or Solid Waste Facilities Permits .
( iv) Incompatability of this landfill
site with surrounding uses is not set forth in the EIR as an
unavoidable adverse impact to the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Biased upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds thatl:
I
( i ) Landfill Project impacts relating
to incompatibility with surrounding uses will be mitigated to a
level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they will be included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
EXHIBIT I 14
In the .,alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
surrounding use compatability, because this General Plan
Amendment sets forth general designations for the landfill
site, and does not constitute approval of any development plan
for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that. any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social, and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding) Considerations ( section VI , below) .
( iv) The status of this mitigation
measure shall be included in the annual monitoring report to
the Board, and is subject to control by the County.
5 . Loss of Development Potential .
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 5 as discussed in the EIR
on page 4 . 1-25 is the loss of development potential of landfill
sites for residential or commercial purposes . This would be of
particular concern for the Bay Pointe Keller Canyon sites , and
to some degree, the Kirker Pass site, according to the EIR.
The EIR does not list the Marsh Canyon site as of particular
concern regarding loss of development potential .
( ii ) The EIR concludes that this impact
is not significant .
( iii) Loss of development potential is
not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of
the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
I
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to loss of development potential are insignificant, no
mitigation measures are required, and no further findings are
required.
EXHIBIT I 15
( ii) In the...alternative, . to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in ;the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
6 . Loss of State Designated Important Farmlands .
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 5 as discussed in the EIR
is the loss of state designated important farmlands .
( ii) The EIR recommends as a mitigation .
measure that project level environmental review shall examine
the possibility for offsite enhancement , and that, after final
cover, they, landfill sites . could be- used for agricultural
purposes if the county determines such uses to be the best use
of the si e .
( iii) Loss of state designated important
farmland is not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse
impact of the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Biased upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to loss ofistate designated important farmlands will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the
mitigation measures recommended or described in the EIR, These
mitigation'imeasures are incorporated into this Landfill Project
because they will be included in any subsequent land use
developmen'It applications and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact use compatability, because this General Plan
Amendment sets forth general designations for the landfill
site, and does not constitute approval of any development plan
for this site.
EXHIBIT I 16
( iii) In the . alternat_ive, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated Ito a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment hand the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to 'the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , jelow, and is subject to control by the County.
7 . Inconsistency with U. S . Navy Explosive
Safety Easement .
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact 7 as discussed on
page 4 . 1-26 of the EIR is the possible inconsistency of the Bay
Pointe andlKeller Canyon landfill sites with the Concord Naval
Weapons Station explosive safety easement requirements . The
EIR states that this is most likely with regard to the Bay
Pointe site.
. ( ii ) This inconsistency is not set
forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that'.
i
( i ) This impact is analyzed in the EIR
as potentially significant only with respect to the Bay Pointe
and KellerlCanyon landfill sites . With respect to this General
Plan Amendment , this impact either does not exist or is
insignificant . This .Board is not required to impose any
mitigation measures or adopt any findings for this General Plan
Amendment because of this impact .
In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to this posssible inconsistency will
be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of
the mitigation measures recommended or described in the EIR.
These mitigation measures are incorporated into this Landfill
Project beicause they will be included in any subsequent land
use development applications and approvals .
( iii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
EXHIBIT I 17
Project _as . conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact use compatability, because this General Plan -
Amendment (sets forth general designations for the landfill
site, and does not constitute approval of any development plan
for this site.
( iv) In the alternative, to the .extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits ' of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations .(section VI of these findings , below) .
i
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report tojthe Board as set forth in section .VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
8 . Incompatability With Surrounding Uses .
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 8 discussed on page 4 . 1-27
of the EIR relates to potential Incompatability with
surrounding uses . There could be significant land use impacts
resulting from increased traffic and noise, and decreased
safety and air quality along the access routes to both the
existing Contra Costa landfills and the out-of-County sites if
they are used for the diversion of County solid waste .
( ii ) As mitigation, the EIR recommends
that use oif the existing Acme transfer station (or other
transfer station that may be placed into operation during the
diversion period) by collection trucks and self-haulers would
reduce truck traffic going to landfill sites . The scheduling
of truck tIIraffic to avoid peak periods would also help reduce
to less-than-significant levels the traffic, noise, safety and
air quality impacts due to truck traffic . In addition,
specific environmental review for waste diversion projects
would identify additional and/or more specific mitigation
measures for these impacts .
I ( iii ) If the County chooses to
temporarily divert part or all of its solid waste to County
landfillsjand/or out-of-County landfills , the land use impacts
along access routes could be significant . By requiring
collection trucks and self-haulers to use the Acme transfer
'EXHIBIT I 18
station.,.. or .other available transf.er ..s.tati.on., traffic will be
substantially reduced along access routes to the landfill
sites. This vehicle routing plus the scheduling of transfer
truck movement to off-peak hour times will reduce impacts to
existing-- traffic volumes , noise levels , and air pollution and
safety hazards . Further measures to reduce these impacts may
be found in other sections of the Environmental Impact Report
(Air Quality, Noise Transportation, and Socio- economics) as
well as in project-specific EIRs . The County Community
Development Department would provide for the implementation of
the identified mitigation measures by making them Conditions of
Approval for any County-issued permit for a diversion project .
( iv) Alameda and Solano counties 'are
proposing versions of these mitigation measures in their import
conditions of approval .
(v) This impact is not set forth in
the EIR as� an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that:
( i) This impact relates to access
roads to interim diversion sites , not to the Marsh Canyon
landfill site. With respect to the Marsh Canyon landfill site,
this impact does not exist or is insignificant .
( ii) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to this impact will be mitigated to a
level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they will be included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( iii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is notlfeasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
EXHIBIT I 19
.mitigated. t.o ..a level .of .insi.gnif.icance, the... environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
1 9 . Other unrelated impacts .
a . Facts .
( i) The EIR discusses a number of
impacts relating to interim measures or other components of the
County Solid Waste Management Plan. These are planning and
land use impact 9 ( land use impacts from increased traffic) ,
impact 10 -I( incompatability with surrounding land uses) ,
impact 11 ( incompatability with surrounding uses) , impact 12
( reduction of solid waste storage problems) , and impact 13
(collection of recycled materials) , discussed at pages 4 . 1-28
through 30 of the EIR.
( ii) Of these impacts, impact 12 and
impact 13 Ire benefits of .the CoSWMP in general . This General
Plan Amendment will facilitate implementation of the CoSWMP,
and accordingly these impacts are environmental benefits of
this General Plan Amendment .
( iii) These impacts are not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) None of these impacts relate to
the Marsh Canyon Landfill Site. With respect to this General
Plan Amendment, these impacts either do not exist or are
insignificant . This Board is not required to impose any
mitigationlmeasures or adopt any findings for this -General Plan
Amendment because of this impact .
( ii) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to these impacts will be mitigated to
a level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
EXHIBIT I 20
f
they .wi l :be included .in any. subsequent land -use development
applications and approvals .
( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
B . . PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
1 . Vectors .
a . Facts .
( i) Public Health Impact 1 relates to
disease vector , as discussed on page 4 . 2-6 of the EIR. This
landfill -sites haves. the potential to provide food, cover and
breeding ground for disease vectors such as mosquitos , small
rodents , and certain species of birds .
( ii) Compaction and daily cover of
refuse would limit birds and rodents from feeding on the
refuse. The compaction of refuse in collection vehicles and at
landfills 'effectively controls rodent populations in most
cases . If these measures prove inadequate to control rodents
and birds ,) additional measures such as more frequent covering
of refuse,, scaring of birds , and poisoning or trapping of
rodents/mosquitos would be used.
( iii) Studies by the Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts have shown that rats do not survive the
compaction process of the refuse trucks or disposal operation.
State law requires landfill operators to compact and cover the
waste with a layer of soil or new waste in order to minimize
EXHIBIT I 21
',I
the occurrence of rats and other ve.ct.ors . ._. The requirements are
included in a landfill ' s. Solid Waste Facilities Permit and may
be included in Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval . The
County' s Health Services and Community Development Departments
shall include appropriate provisions in their respective
permits .
( iv) The County Health Services
Department , as the Local Enforcement Agency for the California
. Waste Management Board, enforces the State requirements for
compaction and cover of refuse. Reports of violations are
given to the landfill operator and the State.
(v) Mosquitos could breed in basins
constructed to control surface water runoff .
(vi) In order to mitigate mosquito
impacts , storm runoff from the landfill should be stored in
sedimentation basins for short periods such as two weeks . The
applicants should coordinate the designs of the basins with the
County Mosquito Abatement District to enable easy inspection
and spraying of larval suppressant .
(vii ) Mosquito populations could be
indirectly increased at a landfill site where sedimentation
basins and leachate collection containment ponds would contain
standing water for periods of greater than two or three weeks .
Prevention of this larval emergence could be suppressed by not
allowing water to stand over two weeks and/or spraying the
ponds with a non-toxic odorant/colorant such as Golden
Bear 1356, which degrades in 48 hours . The County Community
Development Department would ensure that the applicant designs
and constructs the sedimentation basins in coordination with
the CountylMosquito Abatement District . The . County Health
Services Department (HSD) . is responsible for determining
whether there is a need for spraying to control mosquitos .
Appropriate provisions would be included in the landfill ' s
Solid Waste Facilities Permit and/or its Land Use Permit
Conditions of Approval .
(viii ) This impact is not set forth in
the EIR as' an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that':
( i ) Landfill Project impacts relating
to disease vectors and mosquitos will be mitigated to a level
EXHIBIT I 22
of insignificance by the imposition .:of . the. m tigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
(ii) In the alternative., these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans.
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , ,below, and is subject to control by the County.
2 . Fire Hazard.
.a. Facts .
( i) Impact 2 discussed on page 4 . 2-7
of the EIR relates to fire hazard. Operation of a landfill and '
equipment could cause additional risk of fire.
( ii ) The following typical mitigation
measures would be expected to reduce this impact to a less than
significant level . Most of these measures are specified by the
appropriate fire district, which would be the Riverview Fire
Protection District or the East Diablo Fire Protection District
(District) . Emergency procedures shall be developed and
facility employees trained in fire control procedures . One
120 , 000-gallon water storage tank, a water cannon and
stockpiled soil cover will be available on-site for use in fire
suppression. The landfill must have a 100-foot firebreak
around the perimeter and at least two emergency all-weather
roads maintained by the operator . The earthmoving equipment
would be equipped with fire extinguishers and spark arresters ,
and fuel shall be stored in a safe, approved manner . The
EXHIBIT I 23
operator shall ens:ure.,that .all .incomi.ng...loads are inspected for
smoldering- refuse and that a small fill-area working face be
maintained. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) requirement that all solid waste landfills monitor
landfill gas emissions and install a gas collection system
would minimize potential accumulation of methane gas and the
associated explosion and fire hazard. As part of a Fire
Control Plan, to be reviewed by the Fire Protection District,
it should be required to demonstrate the means by which
proposed structures on the site will be 'protected from
accumulation of methane gas and associated. explosion and fire
hazard.
( iii) Fire district requirements will be
obtained through environmental review procedures and addressed
in the project-level EIRs . A Fire Control Plan, including the
above mitigation measures , would be submitted by the. landfill
applicant hand subject to District and County staff approval .
Upon final approval of the Fire Control Plan by the Fire
Protection' -District, the Plan would be incorporated into the
landfill ' s Development and Improvements Plan, which will be
required as a Land Use Permit Condition of Approval .
Compliance with this Plan shall be subject to inspections by
the District and the County.
( iv) Fire hazard impacts are not set
forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to fire hazards will be mitigated to a level of insignificance
by the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or
described lin the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
EXHIBIT I 24
( iii). In the alternative, implementation
of these mitigation measures are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
but not Board. Any required mitigation measures can and should
be imposed by BAAQMD.
( iv) In the alternative, implementation
of the mitigation measures set forth is within the
responsibility of the East Diablo Volunteer Fire Protection
District , and not this Board. Any required mitigation measures
can and should be imposed by the District .
(v) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
(vi) The status of the aforementioned
mitigationl measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
3 . Hazardous Materials and Special Wastes .
( i) Impact 3 discussed on page 4 . 2-9
through 4 . 2-12 of the EIR relates to hazardous materials and
special wastes . Residential and commercial refuse taken to a
landfill/transfer station at this site could contain materials
that are considered hazardous, which of sufficient quantity
might adversely affect air and water quality.
( ii ) The following mitigation measures
would be expected to reduce this impact . A new landfill or
transfer station would accept only non-hazardous municipal
refuse, designated wastes allowed by the appropriate Regional
Water Quality Control Board, and inert construction/demolition
materials through the State-mandated periodic load-checking
requirement (CCR Title 23 , Chapter 3 , Subchapter 15) . Transfer
stations would be required, as is the case for the approved
Acme Transfer Station, to provide for the acceptance of
household hazardous waste collection and transfer as a
condition of Land Use Permit approval . Landfill structural
features such as liners , leachate, collection systems, and
cover would limit the creation of leachate and reduce the .
potential for a landfill to contaminate air and water .
Further , a comprehensive waste acceptance control program could
be established as a part of landfill , transfer station, and
EXHIBIT I 25
�c.o-llec.tion..agreements -between..the..County..and individual
cities . This program would include the training of franchise
haulers and transfer station and landfill employees in the
proper identification, handling, storage and disposal of
hazardous wastes .
( iii) Despite a wide range of existing
Federal and State controls on disposal of hazardous wastes,
small quantities of this waste frequently enter the solid waste
stream. Health impacts associated with direct contact with
toxic materials would pertain primarily to site workers .
Indirect effects of the presence in landfills of hazardous
waste include intensification of leachate toxicity and
mobilization of otherwise stable inorganic metals contained in
refuse. This leachate is a greater threat to surface and
groundwater supplies (see next finding, below) . Load checking,
household hazardous waste programs , and landfills structural
requirements would be addressed in Land Use Permit Conditions
of Approval . The County is currently working on a household
hazardouslwaste program to collect , recycle, and. properly
dispose ofhazardous waste and will begin its implementation
in Springl of 1990 . The County Community Development Department
and Health Services Department are responsible for approving a
load inspection program for receiving waste loads at
landfills/itransfer stations in the unincorporated area . The
County Health Services Department ' s Solid Waste Facilities
permits pertain to facilities countywide. In addition, the
landfill operator must submit quarterly Incoming Waste Reports
to the County Health Services Department . The household
hazardous waste and waste acceptance control programs are
subject t Health Services Department and Community Development
Department approval .
( iv) Landfill Project impacts relating
to hazadous materials and special wastes are is not set forth
in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
(v) The imposition of a waste
acceptance control program as a mitigation measure could
increase the incidence of inappropriate disposal of hazardous
wastes which otherwise would have been delivered to a
landfill Mitigation measures which would reduce the incidence
of such inappropriate disposal to a level of insignificance are
recommended elsewhere in the EIR, and have been or will be
incorporated into the Landfill Project , as discussed elsewhere
in these findings .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
EXHIBIT I 26
( i) Landfill Proj.e.c.t ..impacts relating
to hazardous materials and special wastes will be mitigated to
a level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they will be included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals . These mitigation measures are also
incorporated into this Landfill Project by operation of law,
because they are required by state law.
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans.
It is not 'feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impacit, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment Mand the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
OverridingiConsiderations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, ibelow, and is subject to control by the County.
(v) Like the impact discussed above,
the impact) of the recommended mitigation measure is
insignificlant or mitigated to a level of insignificance . In
the alternative, the impact of. the recommended mitigation
measure, if not mitigated to insignificance, is overridden, as
stated above.
4 . Leachate .
a . Facts .
i
( i) Impact 4 is discussed on
page 4 . 2-112 of the EIR. There is a potential for public
exposure to hazardous and infectious wastes through leachate
contamination of groundwater and off-site surface water .
( ii) Most mitigation of Leachate
impacts will be provided by regulation of landfill design by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The various
EXHIBIT I 27
� � s
mitigation measures recommended in .the EIR-under the discussion
of hydrology and water quality may also mitigate Leachate
impacts .
( iii) This impact is not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to this impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance
by the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or
described in the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is notjfeasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific. mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute' approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii) In the alternative, implementation
of these mitigation measures is within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and
other state agencies , and not this Board. Any required
mitigation measures can -and should be approved the Board or
other state agencies . To the extent that any changes in the
project may be required as a result of such mitigation
measures, the Board and other state agencies have the authority
to require those changes .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill, Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the. Statement of
overridingConsiderations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
EXHIBIT I 28
repor..t ..to _.the Board as set forth in section,.,VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
5 . Landfill gas .
a. Facts .
( i ) Impact 5 is discussed on
page 4 . 2-13 of the EIR. There is a potential health and safety
hazard to on-site employees of new or expanded landfills from
the potentially toxic constituents of landfill gas .
( ii) This impact would be reduced
through compliance to the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District ' s requirements . Regulation 8, Rule 34 requires the
installation of a gas collection system and the monitoring of
gas emissiions at all new landfills . The BAAQMD ' s Air Risk
Screening Policy (February 1988) specifies that a screening
analysis for assessment of risk shall be performed as part of
the agency' s review of landfill permit requests . The extent of
gas emissions and the appropriate mitigation measures , such as
gas collection and flaring, would be addressed in the
individual landfill ' s site-specific EIRs .
The landfill operator must install
a landfill gas control and collection system and perform the
necessary testing and reporting of landfill gas emissions . The
BAAQMD ' s Air Risk Screening Policy for toxic emissions ,
required for an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate
entitlement , must include estimates of emissions for each
contaminant , the calculation of the exposure of nearby
receptors to ambient levels of the contaminants , and a
comparison of these ambient levels with safety thresholds
determined' by BAAQMD staff . Required installations can be Land
Use Permit Conditions of Approval . If emission levels do not
meet the standards , then remedial measures can be implemented
through Solid Waste Facilities Permit provisions to protect
employee safety. The County Community Development Department
shall be rlesponsible for evaluating landfill gas emissions
through the CEQA process and implementing the necessary
installations and programs in coordination with the County
Health Services Department and the Bay Area. Air Quality
ManagementllDistrict .
( iv) Landfill gas impacts are not set
forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Bused upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
EXHIBIT 1 29
(i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to landfill gases will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans.
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this. site .
( iii) In the alternative, implementation
of the above recommended mitigation measure is within the
responsibility .and jurisdiction of the state and the Bay Area
Air Quality Management Board, and not this Board. Any required
mitigation can and should approved by the State and the
District . ITo the extent that any changes in the Landfill
Project may be required as a result of such mitigation, the
State and the District have the authority to require those
changes .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated ito a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
,overridingConsiderations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report, to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
6 . Transfer station impacts .
A . Facts .
( i) Impacts of transfer stations are
discussed on page 4 . 2-14 of the EIR. Transfer stations could
recreate the vector , fire, hazardous waste, leachate and
landfill g impacts associated with landfills .
EXHIBIT I 30
Mitigation measures are expected
to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level .
( iii) The impacts of transfer stations
are not set forth in the EIR a"s an unavoidable adverse impact
of the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) The impacts of transfer stations
relate to the interim measure set forth in the CoSWMP and to
the siting of such transfer stations, not to this General Plan
Amendment . With respect to this General Plan Amendment, the
impact of transfer stations either does not exist or is
insignificant . Accordingly, no mitigation measures are
required to be incorporated into this General Plan Amendment ,
and no further findings are necessary.
( ii ) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to transfer stations will be mitigated
to a lever of insignificance by the imposition of the
mitigation measures recommended or described in the EIR. These
mitigation measures are incorporated into this Landfill. Project
because they will be included in any subsequent land use
development applications and approvals .
( iii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this 'General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social, and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
OverridingConsiderations (section VI of these findings, below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
EXHIBIT I 31
I
.7 . Waste-to-energy facilities .
a. Facts .
( i) The impact of waste-to-energy
facilities is discussed on page 4 . 2-15 of the EIR.
Waste-to-energy facilities would have the potential for
explosions in their processing and storage areas causing safety
impacts to plant personnel .
( ii) Regular inspections of incoming
waste, explosive gas warning/detection systems , shielding
between waste areas with explosion potential and facility
personnel , and installation of pressure relief features in
incinerator chambers would be expected to reduce this impact to
a less than significant level .
( iii) The impacts of waste-to-energy
facilities are not set forth in the EIR as an . unavoidable
.adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Bused upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that'.
( i) The impact of waste-to-energy
facilities relate to the siting and installation of such
fa.cilitiesj, not to this General Plan Amendment . With respect
to this General Plan Amendment, such impacts either do not
exist or are insignificant . No mitigation measures need to be
incorporated into this General Plan Amendment as a result of
this impact , and no further findings are necessary.
( ii) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to waste-to-energy facilities will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the
mitigation measures recommended or described in the EIR. These
mitigation, measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project
because they will be included in any subsequent land use
development applications and approvals .
( iii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
EXHIBIT I 32
( iv) In _.the .al.ternat.ive, to the extent
that this impact is not insignificant, implementation of the
recommended mitigation measure is within the responsibility of
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and. not this
Board. Any required mitigation measure can and should be
approved by the District . To the extent that any changes in
the Landfill Project may be required as a result of such
mitigation measures , the District has the authority to require
those changes .
(v) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(vi ) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
8 . Composting impacts .
a . Facts .
( i ) The impacts of composting are
discussed on pages 4 . 2-16 through 17 of the EIR. Co-composting
of vegetatiive material and sewage sludge could result in
distribution of soil amendment products containing hazardous
levels of inorganic metals and disease-causing organisms .
( ii ) In order to reduce this impact ,
the County shall require that composting operations meet the
State Department of Health Services ' regulations on land
application of sludge and distribution of sludge-amended
products . The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
currently investigating characteristics of municipal sewage
sludge and will issue standards for publicly-owned treatment
plants . These standards will help to ensure production of
sludge amenable to use as a .feed stock .
( iii) The impact of composting is not
set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project,
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds than:
EXHIBIT I 33
(i) The impact of .c.omposting relates
to the initiation of installation of composting facilities, and
not to thils General Plan Amendment . With respect to this
General Plan Amendment , the impact of composting is either does
not exist or is insignificant . No mitigation measures need to
be incorporated into this General Plan Amendment as a result of
this impact, and no further findings are necessary.
( ii) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to composting impacts will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the
mitigation measures recommended or described in the EIR. These
mitigation measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project
because they will be included in any subsequent land use
development applications and approvals .
( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
(iv) In the alternative, implementation
of the recommended mitigation measures is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the U. S . Environmental
Protection Agency, and not this Board. Any required mitigation
measures can and should be approved by the agency. To the
extent the changes in the Landfill Project may be required as a
result of such mitigation measures , the agency has the
authority to require those changes .
(v) In the alternative, to the extent
that any Of the impacts of . the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated !ito a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(vi) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these.
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
EXHIBIT I 34
I�
9 . Waste-to-energy pl-ant emissions .
a . Facts .
( i) The EIR discusses potentially -
significant emissions of waste-to-energy plants on
page 4 . 2-115 . Waste-to-energy facilities could result in
emissions of conventional and toxic air pollutants .
( ii) The impact of emissions from
waste-to-energy plants is not set forth in the EIR as an
unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) The impact of emissions from air
waste-to-energy plants relates to the siting and installation
of such plants , and not to this General Plan Amendment . With
respect to this General Plan Amendment , this impact either does
not exist or is insignificant . Accordingly, no mitigation
measures are required to be incorporated into this General Plan
Amendment , and no further findings are necessary.
1 ( ii) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to emissions from waste-to-energy
facilities will be mitigated to a leve]. of insignificance by
the imposition of the mitigation measures. recommended or
described in the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( iii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iv) In the alternative, implementation
of any mitigation measures in within the responsibility of
other agencies such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District , �and not this Board. Any required mitigation measures
can and should be approved by the District and other agencies .
To the extent that any changes in the Landfill Project may be
required as a result of such mitigation measures ; the District
and other agencies have the authority to require those changes .
EXHIBIT I 3-5
i
I
i
(v) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings, below) .
(vi) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
C. Transportation.
1 . Impact on Highway 4 .
a. Facts .
( i) The impact on Highway 4 is
discussed as Impact 1 on page 4 . 3-12 of the EIR. Traffic
volumes generated by any of the five landfill sites would add
to the curjrent congestion on Highway 4 in the area between
Antioch and the Willow Pass Grade.
i
( ii) The travel patterns for transfer
trucks can be managed to reduce or avoid truck trips to the
landfill during the peak hours especially .the AM �peak . Traffic
would be minimized by the use of transfer stations and
prohibition of self-haulers at the landfill . In addition,
there arelseveral highway projects planned that will widen and
improve Highway 4 in this area .
( iii ) If truck traffic is managed to
avoid thepeakhours , there will not be a significant impact to
traffic volume on this stretch of roadway. During the AM peak
hour there, would be about ten truck trips eastbound ( loaded
vehicles) Jand seven trips westbound (empty vehicles) . During
the PM peak hour, there would be about two truck trips
eastbound and four trips westbound. This analysis reflects the
assumptions that transfer stations will be used and
self-haulers prohibited from direct access to the landfill .
Peak period traffic management study to reduce peak period
conflicts with traffic on Highway 4 would be addressed in the
site-specific Landfill Project EIRs for the individual
landfills . The County Community Development Department would
require nelcessary mitigation measures to be included in the
land use permits as Conditions of Approval . The prohibition of
self-haulers at the landfill would also be expected to be made
a condition of project approval .
EXHIBIT I 36
( iv) _The impact of .the ..Landfill Project
on Highway 4 is not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable
adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b. Findings . .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to Highway 4 impacts will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigatedjto a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , 'Isocial , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
I
j ( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to 'the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
i
2 . Pavement deterioration.
i
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact 2 is discussed on
page 4 . 3-12 through 4 . 3-14 of the EIR. The additional refuse
truck traffic, which includes vehicles weighing up to 38 tons,
would cause wear and damage to existing roadway pavements in
the vicinity of landfills and transfer stations .
EXHIBIT I 37
.( ii) As . stated .in _the EIR, the project
developer would upgrade and improve the pavement sections on
the local roads impacted by truck traffic to solid waste
facilities .
In order to reduce this impact to
a less than significant level , the pavement traffic index (TI ) ,
a measure of the durability and capacity of a road, must be
adequate toI accommodate the anticipated traffic load. Suitable
TIS , in the range of 9 . 0 to 10 . 5 for the immediate access roads
are expected to be necessary to comply with Caltrans' design
specifications . If a 20-year pavement life is determined to be
appropriate, a TI of 10 . 0-10 . 5 would be required. The landfill
project ' s site-specific EIRs would address the pavement section
improvements needed as part of the project . The improvements
would be approved by the County Community Development
Department Iand County Public Works Department and CALTRANS if
appropriate, and included in the Land Use Permit ' s Condition of
Approval . The improvements called for in this study would be
constructed by, the developer .
( iv) Pavement deterioration is not set
forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
i
b . Findings .
Based upon. the EIR and the entire record, this Board .
finds that':
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to pavement deterioration will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
EXHIBIT 1 38
-economic, social , and. other :benefits .of the :General, Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
3 . Local traffic impacts .
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 3 is discussed on
page 4 . 3-14 through 4 . 3-16 of the EIR. The additional refuse
truck traffic would cause moderate impacts on the local roads
and streets in the vicinity of landfills and transfer stations .
( ii) The project developer would
provide o� participate in the funding the necessary roadway and
traffic control improvements .
( iii) The Program EIR' s analysis of the
site shows i that the project would not cause any roadway
segments or intersections to degrade to a critical level of
service . For landfills, this assumes that transfer vans will
be used to reduce traffic to and from the landfills . Because
the amount of landfill traffic would be low and most of this
traffic would not occur during the peak commute periods , the
traffic generated by a landfill would not present a significant
capacity problem. This traffic may result in additional
accidents in proportion to the increased traffic . The specific
improvements needed for the site would be identified during
subsequent project environmental review. Road improvements
would be required as Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval .
( iv) Local road impacts are not set
forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to traffic; on local roads will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
EXHIBIT II 39
be include,d ..in _any- subsequent land us.e .develo:pment applications
and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
,constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated1to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
4 . Pedestrian and bicycle safety.
a. Facts .
( i ) Impact 4 is discussed on
page 4 .3-1117 of the EIR. There could be an increase in traffic
hazards tolbicyclists and pedestrians on the local roadways in
the vicinity of each solid waste facility.
( ii ) A plan and program to implement a
bicycle and pedestrian path system would be required at each
landfill/transfer station site to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level .
( iii ) The presence of heavy truck
traffic on roads with significant bicycle and pedestrian
activity can be hazardous . -Planned future bicycle paths and
pedestrianjtrails also could be affected by access road
improvements . It may be necessary to accommodate bicycling or
pedestrian activities by implementing a path system. The
project developer would include a bicycle/pedestrian path in
the roadway improvement program for the site if it is
determined to be necessary for mitigating potential safety
hazards .
EXHIBIT I 40
(.iv) The impacts of..the .Landfill
Project on bicycle and pedestrian safety are not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of. the Landfill
Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to bicycle and pedestrian safety will be mitigated to a level
of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding -Considerations . (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report tolthe Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , jbelow, and is subject to control by the County.
5 . Traffic impacts on adjacent uses .
1 .
1 a . Facts .
( i ) Impact 5 is discussed on
page 4 . 3-118 of the EIR. There would be potentially significant
traffic impacts to the adjacent land uses on the local haul
routes used for each site.
EXHIBIT I 41
II
(ii) This. .impact would .be mitigated by
the use of transfer stations, by eliminating public access to
the landfill , by controlling the hours of truck operation, and
by the use of alternate haul routes where possible .
( iii) This impact is related to the
visual and perceived traffic flow. The impact will vary with
each site depending on the level of current and anticipated
development . By reducing the amount of vehicular traffic on
haul routes to landfills through the use of transfer stations
and the prohibition of self-haulers, the visual impact will be
greatly reduced. Controlling the hours of operation for the
remaining truck traffic will help further reduce this impact .
Where alternate haul routes are feasible, they would be
considered during environmental review in order to minimize
impacts toi residential development, schools , medical facilities
and public areas such as parks . The County Community
Development Department would incorporate restrictions on the
types of vehicles allowed, the place of origin for such
vehicles ,. and the hours of truck operation into the Land Use
Permit Conditions of Approval . Alternative haul routes would
be address Ied in project-specific EIRs and the one(s) chosen to
best mitigate traffic impacts would. be written in the Land Use
Permit Conditions of Approval as well .
( iv) The impact of traffic generated by
landfills on adjacent land uses is not set forth in the EIR as
an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that:
II
( i ) Landfill Project impacts relating
to the effect of traffic on adjacent land uses will be
mitigated ',to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the
mitigation measures recommended or described in the EIR. These
mitigation measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project
because they will be included in any subsequent land use
development applications and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project asl conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is notlfeasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impaicts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general deisignations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
EXHIBIT I 42
I
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any off the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
6 . Interim measures .
a . Facts .
( i ) The impact of various interim
. .measures is discussed in the EIR on pages 4 . 3-19 through
4 . 3-21 . These include the impact of interim diversions to the
Richmond and Antioch sites , the impact of possible expansion of
existing landfills, and the impact of exporting solid wastes
out of the County.
( ii) These various impacts of the
proposed interim measures are not set forth in the EIR as an
unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that:
( i ) These impacts relate to interim
measures which may be a part of the CoSWMP, and do not relate
to this General Plan Amendment . With respect to this General
Plan Amendment , these impacts either do not exist or are
insignificant . Accordingly, no mitigation measures need to be
incorporated into this General Plan Amendment as a result of
these impacts , and no further findings are necessary.
( ii ) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to traffic impacts of interim measures
will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
impositionlof the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIR,. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
EXHIBIT I 43
( ii) In the -alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
. It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,_
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill. Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall -be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
Di. Air Quality.
1 . Generation of dust .
i
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 1 is discussed on
pages 4 . 4-i14 through 4 . 4-15 of the EIR. Decomposing wastes in
a landfilllwould create substantial amounts of gas , which
includes relatively small amounts of reactive organic compounds
(ROG) and 'chemical compounds considered to be toxic . Downwind
receptors could be adversely affected by these compounds .
Construction and operation of a landfill could cause emissions
of dust resulting in air quality degradation and impacts to
downwind receptors .
( ii) Dust emissions are mitigable with
the followjing measures : minimizing the extent of un- planted
working and graded areas, application of water or an
environmentally-safe chemical soil stabilizer to exposed earth
surfaces; covering of haul trucks with tarpaulins or other
effective covers; and avoiding of unnecessary idling of
equipment .
( iii) Dust emissions related to waste
handling can be reduced by approximately 50o by watering
surfaces down. Watering should be conducted in late morning
and at the end of the day to be most effective . The frequency
EXHIBIT I 44
of ,.water.ing should .increase if wind exceeds. .15 mph. The
landfill operator ' s application of water or dust suppressants
to working surfaces of the landfill , to its unpaved roads , and
to construction areas as determined to be necessary by the
County HSD, shall be a condition of the project ' s Solid Waste
Facilities Permit . The HSD would be responsible for requiring
additional management practices if problems due to dust
emissions are reported. Mitigation measures may also become
Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval .
( iv) Dust generation impacts are not
set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) Landfill Project impacts relating
to dust generation will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into. this Landfill. Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, isocial , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
EXHIBIT I 45
2 . Vehicle emissions .
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 2 is discussed on
pages 4 . 4-14 through 4 . 4-15 of the EIR. Air pollutants would
be emitted by waste haul trucks , although these emissions would
not exceed) significant thresholds established by the Bay Area
Air Qualitiy Management District .
( ii) Although the emissions would not
exceed significant thresholds , the EIR suggests as mitigation
that emissions would be reduced by choosing a landfill close to
a transfer station and by avoiding unnecessary idling of
equipment .
( iii) The impact of emissions from waste
haul trucks is not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable
adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that:
i
( i) Because emissions will not exceed
established significant thresholds, this impact is not
significant, and this Board is not required to impose any
mitigation) measures or adopt any additional findings relating
to this impact .
( ii) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to waste haul truck emissions will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance by avoiding unnecessary
`idling of landfill equipment . This mitigation measure is
incorporated into this Landfill Project because it will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( iii ) In the alternative, this
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as! a condition of approval of later development plans .
It is not !feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
EXHIBIT I 46
t
i
.economic social , and -other benefits .of the-General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) In the alternative, to the extent
that the proposed mitigation of choosing a landfill site closer
to a proposed .transfer station applies to this General Plan
Amendment ! this mitigation measure is rejected. With respect
to this landfill site, that recommended mitigation measure is
identical to the no-project alternative, and is rejected for
the same reasons as the no-project alternative is rejected.
(vi) The status of the aforementioned
adopted mitigation measure shall be included in the annual
monitoring report to the Board as set forth in section VII of
these findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
3 . CO levels along access routes .
a . Facts
( i) Impact 3 is discussed on
page 4 . 4-15 of the EIR. Although increased truck traffic on
access roads may adversely affect CO levels, no violations of
CO standards are projected. The EIR concludes that no
mitigation of this impact is required.
( ii) This impact is not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) This impact is insignificant , and
this Board is not required to adopt any mitigation measures or
adopt any further findings .
( ii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigatedlto a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
EXHIBIT I ' 47
( iii) The status of .the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
4 . Gases .
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 4 is discussed on
page 4 . 4-18 of the EIR. Decomposing landfill waste can. create
substantial amounts of gas .
( ii) Installation of a gas collection
and combustion system would destroy 90% of the reactive organic
compounds Band toxic compounds . A risk screening analysis would
be required to be conducted on the remaining fraction of these
emissions to determine whether downwind receptors are at
significant risk from exposure . More efficient gas collection
and combustion equipment could be specified if necessary.
( iii ) Bay Area Air Quality. Management
District (!BAAQMD) Regulation 8 , Rule 34 requires that landfill
gas emission and mitigation be controlled and the gas disposed
of properly. The most common method of disposal is
installation of a gas collection and flaring system to combust
the gas . A risk analysis is required prior to BAAQMD ' s
issuance of the Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate a
landfill . ' It must include estimates of emissions for each
contaminant , the calculation of the exposure of nearby
receptors to ambient levels of the contaminants , and a
comparisonof these ambient levels with safety thresholds
determined by the BAAQMD staff . . If the analysis does not
demonstrate that the maximum exposure of any individual to an
air toxic ;emitted from a landfill would result in a chance of
less than one in a million of developing cancer , then the
BAAQMD would require Best Available Control Technology be used
to control emissions . The site-specific Landfill Project EIRs
for individual landfills consider this impact and the specific
mitigationlmeasures . The mitigation measures determined to be
necessary will become land use permit conditions of approval .
The County' Community Development Department would ensure that
project applicants include a gas collection system proposal and
submit a health risk assessment as part of their landfill
applications . Installation of the collecting/flaring system at
all new landfills would be required by the County as a Land Use
Permit Condition of Approval , as well as being a requirement of
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District .
I
EXHIBIT I 48
( iv) Gas emissions- are not set forth in .
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to gas emissions will be mitigated to a level of insignificance
by the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or
describedin the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
(ii ) In. the alternative, these
mitigationmeasures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project asl conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute) approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii) In the alternative, implementation
of this mitigation measure is within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ,
and not th'!is Board. Any required mitigation measure can should
be appraised by the District . To the extent that any changes
in the Landfill Project may be required as a result of such
mitigation measures , the District has the authority to require
those changes .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any off the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, asocial , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
overridingConsiderations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
EXHIBIT I i_ 49
ill
f
5 . Gas Odors .
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 5 is discussed on
page 4 . 4-18 of the EIR. Trace constituents of landfill gas are
odorous and could impact people in the area and nearby
residences or other sensitive land uses .
( ii) Landfill management techniques,
such as daily covering of waste and installation of a gas
collection) and flaring system, would mitigate this impact .
Exceptionall problems could be mitigated by more frequent cover
and the immediate covering of odorous loads .
( iii) BAAQMD Regulation 1-301 prohibits
the discharge of odorous compounds and the resulting public
nuisance, while Regulation 7 provides procedures for evaluating
odor complaints . The covering of newly disposed refuse with
compacted soil -(or other approved means) , a requirement of the
California Waste Management Board, serves to control odors .
The frequency of cover may be increased in order to mitigate
odor complaints received by the BAAQMD or County HSD . The gas
collection and flaring system reduces odors from landfill gas ,
composed primarily of methane and carbon dioxide. If the
County HSDidetermines that flaring creates a nuisance, e . g. ,
noise and/or visual impacts , other methods of methane disposal
shall be required. The mitigation measures can be implemented
through incorporation into the conditions of project approval
and through enforcement of BAAQMD and California Waste
Management Board requirements . The County Health Services
Departmentlis responsible for enforcing odor regulations at
landfills and shall make this information available to the
County Community Development Department . The Bay Area Air
Quality Management District would also perform inspections and
enforce itis own regulations .
( iv) Gas odors are not set forth in the
EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to gas odors will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by
the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or
described in the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
EXHIBIT I 50
i
i
(.ii) In _the .alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not ifeasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and . does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii) In the altnerative, implementation
of the recommended mitigation measures is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, and not this Board. Any required
mitigation measure can and should be imposed by the District .
To the extent that any changes in the Landfill Project may be
required as a result of such mitigation measures, the District
has the authority to require those changes .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any o'f the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
6 . Air Quality Impacts of Waste-to-Energy
Facilities .
a . Facts .
I
( i ) The air quality impact of
waste-to-energy facilities is discussed as Impact 1 on
page 4 . 4-26 of the EIR. Waste-to-energy facilities could emit
significant amounts of both criteria and non-criteria (toxic)
air pollutants .
( ii) The Bay Area Air Quality
Management District would specify mitigation measures .
( iii) The BAAQMD requires major
stationary sources of criteria air pollutants to comply with
New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration
regulations . Under these regulations, any facility that emits
any criteria pollutant above specified thresholds must use the
EXHIBIT I 51
Best ,Available Control Technology (.BACT) to. .reduce these
emissions ! In addition, the BAAQMD ' s Air Toxics Risk Screening
Policy requires that application for an Authority to Construct
and a Permit to Operate a facility include a risk screening
analysis of toxic air pollutants . Contra Costa County is a
non-attainment area for two of the five non-criteria
.pollutants, viz . , carbon monoxide (CO) and photochemical
oxidants (ozone) . Therefore, all potential new sources of
criteria pollutants must be found to be consistent with the
1982 BAAQMD Bay Area Quality Plan. To accomplish this , BACT
may be required. For toxic air emissions, a health risk
screening would be conducted for all landfill proposals
(screenings are currently being reviewed by the BAAQMD) . The
County Community Development Department shall be responsible
for ensuring that the application and permitting process for
these BAAQMD requirements are part of all waste-to-energy
proposalsland that BAAQMD- required BACT is included as a
condition- of project approval .
( iv) This impact is not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
I
b . . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) This impact relates to
waste-to-energy facilities , and not this General Plan
Amendment ., With respect to this General Plan Amendment, this
impact does not exist or is insignificant . Accordingly, this
Board is not required to impose any mitigation measures or
adopt anyjfurther findings .
I
( ii ) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to these impacts will be mitigated to
a level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they willlbe included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General P1an .Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
EXHIBIT I 52
( iv) In_ the. ,alternative, implementation
of the recommended mitigation measures is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, and not this Board. Any required
mitigation measures can and should be imposed by the District .
To the extent that any changes in the Landfill Project may be
required as a result of such mitigation measures, the District
has the authority to require those changes .
(v) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendmentland the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(vi ) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to ,the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
E . Noise .
i
1 . Equipment Noise .
a. Facts .
1
( i) Impact 1 is discussed at
pages 4 . 5�4 through 4 . 5-6 of the EIR. Noise resulting from
waste handling could disturb nearby residents and sensitive
receptors .1
( ii ) In order to reduce . this impact to
a less than significant level , landfill/transfer station hours
of operation should be limited to the extent practicable to
daylight hours in order to minimize disruption to residential
and recreational land uses surrounding the sites . Operations
and equipment should be muffled or controlled to meet
acceptable noise levels . Some additional measures that might
be contained in project EIRs include construction of sound
walls , earth berms , and on-site truck routing.
( iii) Higher noise levels are generally
more acceptable during the day. The construction of a
facility, in particular , should be limited to normal working
hours as they were for the Acme transfer station, due to the
higher levels of noise. Retrofitting existing equipment with
noise control features and/or purchasing quieter new equipment
for a landfill would, according to the EIR analysis , reduce the
EXHIBIT I 53
radius -of .-disturbance to less than 500 feet.. . .The County
Community Development Department would incorporate appropriate
noise control mitigation measures into the project ' s Land Use
Permit Conditions of Approval . These conditions may include a
noise monitoring and abatement program to be implemented by
the facility operator with approval by the County Community
Development Department and County Health Services Department .
( iv) Equipment noise impacts are not
set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to equipment noise impacts will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance 'by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constituteiapproval of any development plan for this. site .
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement. of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring_
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
EXHIBIT I 54
2 . Roadway Noise.
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 2 is discussed on
page 4 . 5-6 of the EIR. Waste haul trucks .entering/exiting
landfills, transfer stations , waste-to-energy, or other
processing facilities could disturb residents along the site
access roads .
( ii) Limiting the hours of access to
solid waste facilities and requiring that all haul trucks be
filled with operable mufflers and be properly maintained would
reduce the likelihood of disturbance to adjacent residences .
Specified access routes and the use of transfer stations , which
would facilitate control over self-hauler traffic to landfills ,
would be identified in project-specific EIRs .
( iii) Restricting truck hauler traffic
to daylight hours, 1.when higher noise levels-are more
acceptable, would help offset the impact from the projected
increase of solid waste facility generated noise . This
increased level of noise ranges from 2-5 decibels Ldn
(day-night average noise level over a 24-hour period) along
selected roadways leading to alternative landfill sites . Other
measures that might be recommended in project EIRs include
noise shielding along routes and active enforcement of muffler
and vehicle noise standards by police services . The County
Community Development Department shall incorporate appropriate
noise control mitigation measures into the conditions of
project approval . These conditions may include a noise
monitoring and abatement program to be implemented by the
facility operator with approval by the County Community
Development Department .and County Health Services Department .
( iv) Noise impacts along roadways are
not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of
the Landf i;11 Project .
b. Findings .
Biased upon the EIk and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) Landfill Project impacts relating
to roadway noise will be mitigated to a level of insignificance
.by the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or
described in the EIR. , These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
EXHIBIT I 55
( ii) In the .alternatve, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It. is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general delsignations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated ito a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment hand the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement .of
overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the- annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
3 . Impacts of Interim Measures .
a . Facts .
( i ) The EIR discusses noise impacts of
interim measures on pages 4 . 5-8 through 9 . Diversions to
existing landfills and export to other counties may increase
noise levels resulting from waste haul trucks . The EIR
recommends certain mitigation measures for these impacts .
( ii ) These impacts , of interim measures
are not 'set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact
of the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record,. this Board
finds thatl:
( i) These impacts relate to interim
disposal measures , and not to this General Plan Amendment .
With respect to this General Plan Amendment, these -impacts
either do not exist or are insignificant . Accordingly, this
Board is not now required to impose mitigation measures or
adopt any further findings .
( ii) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to noise impacts of interim measures
EXHIBIT I 56
will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIRE. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general deisignations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent.
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , (social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment land the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
F . Vegetation And Wildlife.
1 . Weeds and pests .
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact 1 is discussed on
page 4 . 6-1I9 of the EIR. Landfill development could increase
the variety and number of weedy plant and pest wildlife species .
l ( ii ) Implementation of a weed control
program atlthe site would typically include a list of noxious
weeds , periodic monitoring for these species, and a weed
control and removal program via physical removal , prescribed
burning and/or limited application of herbicides . Daily.
covering of the landfill would help control potential pest
problems . A pest control program should be developed to be
implemented if problems occur and would include a list of
pests , methods to be used for control of them, and a monitoring
program to evaluate the effectiveness of the program.
EXHIBIT I 57
( iii) Landfills are .o.ften populated by
non-native, invasive weeds and pests . This intrusion could
adversely impact the native species populations, especially
when a landfill is close to regionally significant open spaces
like regional parks , and could become a potential source of
diseased vectors . Proper operation of a landfill , including
daily cover and compaction of waste and a weed control and pest
control program, does not provide for a suitable habitat for
propagation or survival of non-native species . The use of
pesticides and/or fumigants should only occur as a last resort
and with the approval of local and State public health and
natural resource agencies . The County Community Development
Department would ensure that a weed control andpest control
program, if needed, is developed and implemented by making it a
Land Use Permit Condition of Approval . The Health Services
Department would monitor the pest control program.
( iv) Impacts relating to weeds and
pests are not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse .
. impact -of the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) Landfill Project impacts relating
to weeds and pests will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project asconditions of approval of later development plans .
It is notifeasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings, below) .
EXHIBIT I 58
I
0
( iv) The status of .the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
.findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
2 . Riparian impacts .
a. Facts .
( i ) Impact 2 is discussed on
pages 4 . 6-19 and 20 of the EIR.. Landfill sites located within
or adjacenit to natural waterways could impact riparian and
other vegetation through soil erosion if there is inadequate
revegetation of cover areas . Stream erosion could occur below
the fill area if runoff is significantly increased.
( ii ) Erosion control planting should be
undertaken on both intermediate and final cover areas
immediately as portions of the landfill close . Inactive areas ,
even if only.-temporary, should be planted. Check dams with
sedimentatjion basins should be placed, if needed, in the stream
channel below the landfill footprint (the fill area) . An
erosion control and hydrology plan coordinating these measures
would be developed for each landfill site .
( iii ) Landfill development could result
in increased stormwater runoff , increased erosion, and
subsequentisedimentation and increased turbidity in the runoff
and in the waterway below the fill area. This process would
disturb riparian and other vegetation. Application of planted
groundcover would help to hold the soil in place .
Sedimentat%ion basins would control the rate of release of
stormwaters and reduce turbidity. An erosion control plan
would identify plant materials and methods to be used in
revegetation . efforts , identify where erosion control structures
would be located, and estimate the flow changes downstream of
the site to determine whether it could result in significant
erosion or vegetation problems . An erosion control/surface
water monitoring plan, approved by the County Community
Development Department , and coordinated with the County Public
Works Department and the appropriate Regional Water Quality
Control Board, would be required by the Land Use Permit
Conditions' of Approval .
( iv) Riparian impacts are not set forth
in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
EXHIBIT I 59
I
I
( i) Landfill .Project impacts relating
to riparian areas and vegetation will be mitigated to a level
of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
. General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigatedlto a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
overriding' Considerations ( section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
3 . Construction activities and wildlife.
a. Facts .
( i ) Impact 3 is discussed on
-pages 4 . 6-'20 and 21 of the EIR. Landfill construction
activities! would displace or cause the death of some wildlife
in and adjacent to. the proposed fill areas .
( ii ) In order to reduce the impact of
landfill activities on wildlife, the landfill would be
constructejd and operated in phases that limit clearing to areas
needed fora immediate use, and grasses and other vegetation
would be planted after project completion to aid in
accommodating wildlife in the area .
( iii ) Phased construction would limit
the amountof land disturbed at any one time to a minimum.
This would reduce the acute impact to wildlife, as habitat
would be dost gradually, . thus giving the wildlife time to
EXHIBIT I 60
relocate and regenerate. Testing of .s.oils _.to be replaced in
completed areas should be required to determine the need for
adding nutrients and/or other soil amendments to enhance
revegetation and restoration of wildlife values . A habitat
protection and enhancement plan would be required as part of
the Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval for any landfill .
This plan would be prepared by a qualified biologist in
consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game,
and where appropriate, East Bay Regional Park District . The
plan would, to the extent possible, replace and/or enhance the
wildlife habitat lost to landfill operators .
( iv) Construction impacts upon wildlife
are not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact
of the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Bused upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) Landfill Project impacts relating
to construction impacts upon wildlife will be mitigated to a
level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they will be included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigationmeasures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, .and is subject .to control by the County.
EXHIBIT I 61
4.. .Toxic materials .
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 4 is discussed on
page 4 . 6-21 of the EIR. Landfill activities could cause the
release of toxic materials to downstream areas resulting in
degradation of aquatic and riparian habitats .
( ii) To reduce this impact to a less
than significant level , a leachate collection and recovery
system would be installed at each approved landfill site. A
monitoring program would assure that the system is working
properly. If it is discovered that downstream areas are being
adversely affected, a remedial plan shall be implemented to
correct the problem.
( iii ) In addition to a leachate
collection system, a highly impermeable soil layer and/or a
synthetic -Iplastic liner is required at all Class II landfills .
The Contra Costa CoSWMP calls for all new landfills to be
designed and constructed to Class II standards . The
combination of these two requirements would be expected to
reduce thei potential impact of a toxic material release to
insignificance . Water quality mitigation programs are
discussed in more detail in Section VIII of the Program EIR.
The County Community Development Department would ensure that
all new landfills in the County are designed to the
requirements of Title 23 , Chapter 3 , Subchapter 15 of the
California) Code of Regulations (Subchapter 15) regarding
leachate collection and bottom liner systems . The monitoring
program relqu. ed by the RWQCB would be subject to sampling and
analysis of groundwater wells in order to provide an early
warning of toxic release to downstream areas .
( iv) The impact of possible toxic
releases upon downstream areas is not set forth in the EIR as
an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Bused upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that!:
( i ) Landfill Project impacts relating
to possible releases of toxic materials into downstream areas
will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIR. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
EXHIBIT I 62
( ii) In the -alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated1to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, . sociai , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the .Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
5 . Grading and vegetation.
a . , Facts .
( i ) Impact 5 is discussed at
page 4 . 6-21 of the EIR. Landfill construction and grading
activities could indirectly impact vegetation not removed
directly by construction.
( ii ) Vegetation that is to remain
on-site (outside the fill area) would be protected by .the dust
control meiasures to minimize air quality impacts (to help
prevent damage to vegetation from dust deposition) . To prevent
plant life from being adversely affected by dust settling on
leaves , pelriodic watering, as an extension of dust suppression
mitigationl, should be used to clean the vegetation.
( iii) The County would require a Habitat
Protection and Enhancement Plan as a Land Use Permit Condition
of Approval which would give priority to the use of the site,
except where landfill operations and appurtenant facilities are
located, for the preservation and enhancement of plant and
wildlife habitat .
( iv) Construction impacts upon
surrounding vegetation are not set forth in the EIR as an
unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
EXHIBIT I 63
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to construction and surrounding vegetation will be mitigated to
a level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in .the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they will be included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii). In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated �to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendmentjand the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to �the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , �below, ~and is subject to control by the County.
6 . Impacts of other landfills .
a . Facts .
( i) Vegetation and wildlife impacts
relating too specific landfills are discussed at pages 4 . 6--23
through 4 . 6-30 of the EIR. With some exceptions , these impacts
relate to sites other than the Marsh Canyon Landfill . Findings
regarding impacts specific to this site are set forth below.
( ii ) The impacts relating to other
sites are East ,Contra Costa impacts 1 through 4 listed on
pages 4 . 6-23 through 4 . 6-25 , Kirker Pass impacts 1 and 2 listed
on. pages 4�. 6-26 through 4 . 6-28 , Keller Canyon impacts l and 2
listed on pages 4 . 6-28 through 4 . 6-29 , and Bay Pointe impacts 1
through 5 set forth on pages 4 . 6-29 through 4 . 6-30 .
EXHIBIT I 64
i
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) These impacts relate to other
sites and other general plan amendments, and not to this
General Plan Amendment . With respect to this General Plan
Amendment, these impacts do not exist or are insignificant .
Accordingly, this Board is not required to impose mitigation
measures o'r adopt any further findings with respect to these
impacts .
( ii) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to these impacts will be mitigated to
a level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. . These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they will 'Ibe included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( iii ) In the alternative, these
mitigationmeasures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project ass conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is notifeasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General PlI,an Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan -Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute, approval of any. development plan for this site.
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated �to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, ,social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
7 . Marsh Canyon-woodland and wetlands .
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 1 of the Marsh Canyon
Landfill is set forth on page 4 . 6-25 of the EIR. Development
EXHIBIT I 65
J
..of this site may require removal of a large .amount of oak
woodland and some wetlands .
( ii) As mitigation, an estimate of
woodland and wetland habitat areas that would be removed should
be addressed in the Landfill Project EIR in connection with
specific development plan approvals . A .habitat enhancement
plan should be considered, and the goals and objectives of this
could include compensating provisions for wetland habitat
values and reduction of oak woodlands .
( iii) Reduction or removal of some
wetlands and oak woodlands is set forth in the EIR as an
unavoidable adverse impact of this Landfill Project .
b . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) This Board' s findings regarding
the loss of some wetland and oak woodland are set forth in
section v1 below, and in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (section VI , below) .
( ii) Although the loss of some wetland
and oak woodland may be unavoidable, other Landfill Project
impacts relating to vegetation and wildlife will be mitigated
to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the
mitigation measures recommended or described in the EIR. These
mitigation measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project
because they will be included in any subsequent land use
development applications and approvals .
I
( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iv) To the extent that any of the
impacts of the Landfill Project or this General Plan Amendment
on surrounding uses are not insignificant or mitigated to a
level of insignificance, the environmental , economic, social ,
and other benefits of the General Plan Amendment and the
Landfill Project override any such significant impacts , as more
fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(section VI of these findings , below) .
. EXHIBIT I 66
• s
(v) The status of -the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
8 . Interim measure impacts .
a. Facts .
( i) Impacts of interim measures
pursuant to the CoSWMP are discussed on pages 4 . 6-31 through 35
of the EIR. Impact one is the possible impact of diversion
sites on sensitive plant or animal species, described in the
EIR as highly unlikely. Impact one. of the possible Acme
Landfill eixpansion is reduction in seasonal wetlands, impact
two is the impact on plant and wildlife species , and impact
three is the impact upon marsh and other aquatic habitat . None
of these impacts relate to this landfill site .
( ii) These impacts are not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) These impacts relate to interim
measures and not to this General Plan Amendment . With respect
to this General Plan Amendment , these impacts either do no
exist or are insignificant . Accordingly, the Board is not
required to impose mitigation measures on this General Plan
Amendment because of these impacts, and no further findings are
required.
( ii) Landfill Project impacts relating
to these impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance
by the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or
described ,in the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
EXHIBIT I 67
s s
general designations for the landfill site, _:and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or.
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report toithe Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
G. Geology, Soils and Seismicity.
1 . Landslides .
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 1 is discussed on
page 4 . 7-12 of the EIR. Landslide activity on fill or cut
slopes and unstable natural slopes could occur as a consequence
of site excavations and earthwork construction, causing
structural damage and endangering lives .
( ii ) The following mitigation measures
would be expected to reduce these impacts to less than.
significant levels :
( 1) Potential slide areas would
be drained to keep slip surfaces dry, and unstable earth
materials would be excavated and landfill used to buttress
landslide areas .
(2) A slope monitoring program
would be P
implemented during operation.
, P
(3) The applicant would perform a
site-specific static and seismic stability analysis as part of
the finalldesign, approved by the County.
(4) Cut slopes would be designed
to consider adversely oriented joint surfaces , existing shallow
landslide deposits and other relevant geotechnical factors
under static and seismic conditions .
EXHIBIT I 68
(5) Use of conservative
geotechnicial engineering practices and stabilization measures
during excavation of areas of landslide activity.
(6) Monitor slopes with adversely
oriented bedding surfaces or joint surfaces through a metering
system.
( 7) As conditions of project
approval previously stipulated by Contra Costa County, a
Landslide Study and a Slope Monitoring Program would be ,
undertaken by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, or
by a qualified team. The Study and Program would be
incorporated into the final design for the project .
Some of the recommended mitigation measures can be imposed as
conditions of approval , and some are required by the Water
Resources (Quality Control Board. In addition, some of the
recommended mitigation measures have been previously required .
( iii) Hillside and fill/cut slope
failures in natural materials and in the landfill can be
minimized by maintaining maximum strength of the materials and
by increasing forces that resist sliding and slope failure .
,The County Community Development Department would ensure that
the above (geotechnical investigations are conducted during
project environmental review, and that appropriate mitigation
measures are included in the project ' s Land Use Permit
Conditionslof Approval . A geotechnical inspector responsible
to the County would be present when sensitive grading and
installations are performed.
( ii ) Landslide impacts are not set
forth in tlhe EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this 'Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to landslides will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by
the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or
.described in the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals . This includes the mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR, the mitigation measures which have
previously been required, and the mitigation measures which may
be required by the Water Resources Quality Control Board.
EXHIBIT I 69
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is no0easible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development pian for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent.
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigatedto a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
2 . Settlement .
a . Facts ..
( i ) Impact 2 is discussed on
page 4 . 7-13 of the EIR. Engineered surfaces and slopes within
the 1andf ll footprint could be subject to excessive fill
settlement and/or localized slope sloughing resulting from
decomposition of refuse, causing potential slope failure and
rupture of seals .
( ii ) This impact would be expected to
be reduced to a less than significant level through the
following measures . The refuse and cover materials would be
compacted 'to maximum strength . The landfill slopes would be
engineered to provide stability under design criteria . The
infiltration of water would be controlled through drainage
features , lateral barriers and intermediate and final covers .
Heavy equipment would be operated so as to minimize
vibrations . Cover soil would be stockpiled outside the fill
area . As a condition of project approval previously stipulated
by the County, the landfill developer could be required to
install a network of settlement platforms to detect and correct
settlement problems . The developer would provide a stability
analysis of the final engineering design of the landfill and
its appurtenant improvements .
EXHIBIT I 70
( iii) The above mitigation measures are
required by the RWQCB and the County to mitigate the potential
effects from refuse decomposition. This impact could be
exacerbated by the variable density and strength of earth
materials underlying much of the upland areas of the County.
The County Community Development Department would include the
above landfill practices for mitigating potential impacts from
fill settlement in the Development and Improvements Plan of the
Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval .
( iv) Impacts relating to settlement and
sloughing are not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable
adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board .
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to settlement and sloughing will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals . ,
In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigatedito a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to 'ithe Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
EXHIBIT I 71
3 . Slope instability and stockpiling.
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 3 is discussed on
page 4 . 7-14 of the EIR. Excessive stockpiling of loose soil
could result in slope instability, causing sedimentation and
possibly damaging structures and endangering lives .
( ii ) A stockpile stability monitoring
program would reduce this impact to a less than significant
level .
( iii) The landfill operator would
continually analyze the on-site stockpiles of daily cover
material to determine the maximum allowable heights and/or
slopes for stability.. This monitoring would commence at the
on-set of stockpiling. The County Community Development
Department would include this mitigation measure in the Slope -
Monitoring Pr_ogram as . a Land Use Permit Condition of
Approval .Monitoring Program: The landfill operator will make
the results of this monitoring program available to the County
Community Development Department on demand.
( iv) Slope instability impacts are not
set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
b. Findings . '
Biased upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds thati.
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to slope instability resulting from stockpiling will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the
mitigationlmeasures recommended or described in the EIR. These
mitigationlmeasures are incorporated into this Landfill Project
because they will be included in any subsequent land use
development applications and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as, conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not 'feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitut6 approval of any development plan for this site .
EXHIBIT -I 72
I
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
4 . Soil cover and off-site impacts .
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact 4 is discussed on
page 4 . 7-14 of the EIR. Adequate amounts of -general cover
materials for low permeability soils for final cover might not
be available on a landfill project site, causing off-site
quarrying impacts such as excavation slope instability and
depletion of mineral resources at the source of borrow
materials .
( ii) To reduce these impacts to less
than significant levels, the following mitigation measures
would be considered for implementation by the County. The
RWQCB requires that on-site cover soil be compacted to decrease
its permeability and, if necessary, it can be amended with
additional compacted soil or other material such as bentonite.
If supplies are not available on-site, low permeability
materials1would be imported to provide cover . The Program EIR
originated these additional measures : soils .that meet
Subchapter 15 permeability requirements should be selected and
stockpiled for use as a final cover; soil borrow source areas
should *.evaluated with respect to State mineral resource
zoning programs and regional resource classification and
designation plans to resolve questions of resource supply and
demand; slope stability of stockpiled soils should be
addressed., Consideration also may be given to cover
substituts , such as commercial landfill foam.
( iii) The site geotechnical
investigations , including soil borings, required by the
landfill developer during the application process would
determine the amount of soil cover material available on the
site . Proposals to use cover substitutes or to excavate
off-site soils for cover would be subject to environmental
review. The County Community Development Department would
EXHIBIT I 73
_ require that an adequate supply of landfill cover material that
meets the RWQCB permeability standard be available before it
issues a Band Use Permit for a landfill . The proper hauling
and storing of this material would be addressed in project-
specific EIRs and would become part of the conditions of
project approval .
( iv) Impacts resulting from inadequate
soil cover and relating to off-site areas are not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds than:
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to these impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance
by the..amposition ,of the .mitigation .measures . recommended or
described in the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general d6signations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute'I approval of any development plan for this site.
I _
In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level. of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , isocial , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment land the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual_ monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
EXHIBIT I 74
I
i
1
5 . Shrinking and swelling of soils .
a. Facts .
( i ) Impact 5 is discussed on
page 4 . 7-15 of the EIR. The shrink/swell behavior of expansive
foundation soils could deform building and landfill structure
foundations .
( ii) This impact would be expected to
be, reduced to a less than significant level by adherence to
geotechnical recommendations , such as the use of pier and grade
beam foundations and/or the replacement of native soils with
compacted non-expansive soils .
( iii ) All nine Soil Conservation Service
soil classifications in the County have soils with highly
expansive iproperties . Engineered solutions to ensure that a
solid waste landfill or facility's foundation and/or structural
integrity his not compromised are necessary. The particular
solutions will be contingent on the geotechnical studies of
site- specific proposals . The County Community Development
Department is responsible for ensuring that adequate
engineering design for a landfill or facility' s structural
integrity be included in all project-specific proposals and
made a Land Use Permit Condition of Approval . The Conditions
of Approval would be expected to require a geotechnical
inspector Ito be present on-site when sensitive installations
are performed.
( iv) Impacts resulting from shrinking
and swelling behavior are not set forth in the EIR as an
unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds than:
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to shrinking and swelling of expansive soils will be mitigated
to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the
mitigation measures recommended or described in the EIR. These
mitigation measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project
because they will be included in any subsequent land use
development applications and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
EXHIBIT 1 75
�I
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General 'Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below)..
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
. report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
6 . Ponding. of .water .
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact 6 is discussed on
page 4 . 7-15 of the EIR. Highly impermeable soils could allow
water to pond beneath solid waste facility building
foundations, causing a deformation of these foundations .
( ii) Use of standard Uniform Building
Cade grading procedures to direct drainage away from buildings
would reduce this impact to a ' less-than-significant level .
( iii) Highly impermeable soils occur at
most of the proposed landfill/facility areas . These types of
soils .could pond water , swelling . expansive soils and/or
saturating and weakening foundation soils . Directing water
away from building foundation soils with the use of such
techniques as drainage ditches/culverts and grading to convey
surface run-off water away from facility buildings would
prevent the ponding of water . The facility developer would be
required to submit a project proposal , which describes the
placement and construction of the drainage system to be used on
the site, as. part of the Development and Improvements Plan.
This would be evaluated in the Landfill Project ' s Environmental
Impact Report . . Mitigation measures would be incorporated into
the Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval .
( iv) Water- ponding is not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
EXHIBIT I 76
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to water ponding will be mitigated to a level of insignificance
by the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or
described �in the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporatIed into this Landfill Project because they will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations _ for. the. landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment ;and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigationlmeasures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, .and is subject to control by the County.
7 . Groundshaking .
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 7 is discussed on
page 4 . 7-15 of the EIR. Groundshaking from off-site
earthquakes could damage the landfill ' s containment and
drainage features and/or cause slope failure .
The following measures would be
expected to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant
level . The landfill and drainage features would be designed to
withstand ground accelerations from a maximum credible
earthquake, as required by the State for Class II landfills .
The proposed final engineering design for the landfill ,
EXHIBIT I 77
I
including face -slope gradients, operating components and
appurtenant improvements , shall be reviewed for resistance to
the current design earthquake standards . An emergency program
for inspecting the landfill facility, addressing the
possibility of failures and interim refuse handling, would be
developed for implementation following a substantial
earthquake . A study of the faults that could affect slope
stability and groundwater movement at the site sh�.11 be
performed and incorporated in the final site program and design
of structures . A dam failure prevention and warning system
program, including daily monitoring, for the sedimentation
ponds wound be prepared and implemented, as a Land Use Permit .
Condition of Approval .
( iii ) Where active fault traces are
suspected to exist, fault rupture along the trace would be
mitigated through set-back recommendations in site-specific
geotechnical investigations . State siting criteria for Class
II and Class III solid waste facilities require that structures
be located off the trace of any active fault . The maximum
credible earthquake for a proposed facility would be identified
during geotechnical review of the site . Seismically-induced
landsliding at proposed permanent cut areas would be mitigated
by appropriate slope gradients or subdrained concrete retaining
structuresil, engineered and designed according to Uniform
Building Ciode and the California Structural Engineers
Association standards . The above-referenced geotechnical
studies and emergency/monitoring programs would be developed by
the landfill developer , approved by the County, and
incorporated into the Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval .
j
( iv) The impact of groundshaking is not
set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Bused upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds thatl:
( i ) Landfill Project impacts relating
to groundshaking will be mitigated to a level of insignificance
by the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or
described in the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will be
included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
EXHIBIT I 78
i
I
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general delsignations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation, measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report tolthe Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, 'below, and is subject to control by the County.
8 . East Contra Costa-coal mine impacts .
a . Facts
( i) Impact 8 discussed on page 4 . 7-16
of the EIR relates to coal mine ventilation shafts and the East
Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill site . This impact does not
relate to this General Plan Amendment .
( ii) . This impact is not set forth in
the EIR asl an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill .
Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that .
( i ) This impact relates to the East
Contra Costa landfill , and does not relate to this General Plan
Amendment .) With respect to this General Plan Amendment , this
impact either does not exist or is insignificant . Accordingly,
this Boards is not required to impose mitigation measures or
adopt further findings as a result of this impact.
( ii ) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to this impact will be, mitigated to a
level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
EXHIBIT I 79
they will be included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate, to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general deIsignations for the landfill site, and does not
constitutelapproval of any development plan for this site.
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding� Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
9 . Marsh Canyon--soil cover .
a. Facts .
( i ) Impact 9 is discussed on
page 4 . 7-17 of the EIR. Adequate amounts of low permeability
soils for daily and intermediate cover might not be available
on the project site.
( ii) The estimated daily and
intermediate cover requirements could be satisfied by using
inert manmade materials such as foam, pending approval from the
Central Valley Water Quality Control Board and agencies with
jurisdiction over the solid waste facilities . In addition, the
structural strength of foam should be determined in preliminary
engineering calculations . -
( iii ) Impacts relating to the adequacy
of soils for daily and intermediate cover are not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
I
EXHIBIT _I 80
I
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Landfill Project impacts relating
to the adequacy of soil for daily and intermediate cover will
be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of
the mitigation measures recommended or described in the EIR.
These mitigation measures are incorporated into this Landfill
Project because they will be included in any subsequent land
use development applications and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii ) . In the alternative, to the extent
that any o,f the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant. or
mitigatedlto a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , 'lsocial , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment land the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
I
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to !the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , lbelow, and is subject to control by the County.
10 . Interim measure and other impacts .
a . Facts .
( i) Impacts 10 , 11 , and 12 are
discussed on pages 4 . 7-18 through 4 . 7-19 of the EIR. These
impacts relate either to interim waste disposal measures or to
other components of the CoSWMP, and do not relate to this
General Plan Amendment .
( ii) These impacts are not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
EXHIBIT I 81
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that .
( i ) These impacts relate to interim
measures or other components of the CoSWMP, and not to this
General' Pian Amendment . With respect to this -General Plan
Amendment , these impacts either do not exist or are
insignificant . Accordingly, this Board is not required to
impose any further mitigation measures or make further findings
as a result of this 'impact .
( ii) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to these impacts will be mitigated to
a level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures rIecommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they will be included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( iii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits -of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings, below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report toithe Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
EXHIBIT I 82
I
H. Hydrology and Water Quality
1 . Leachate.
CA : Facts .
( i) Impact 1 is discussed on
page 4 . 8-7 of the EIR. Landfill leachate could contaminate
surface water or groundwater with which it comes into contact .
( ii) The following measures would be
expected to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level . To prevent surface water contamination, rain falling on
the landfill would be isolated from 'the refuse by a system of
slopes, drainage benches , drain ditches and sedimentation
basins . Final grading and cover would allow proper drainage so
that water would not pond over the landfill . Groundwater
protection would be ensured by the landfill being constructed
and operated according to applicable requirements . A minimum
of five feet vertical separation between the landfill base and
the historic high groundwater or perched water elevation is
required. Installation of a low-permeability clay liner or a
composite liner (synthetic plastic) , a subdrain system, and a
leachate control and removal system would comply with these
regulations . All landfills would be required to have a
groundwater monitoring program to provide early warning in the
event of leachate migration from the landfill . The RWQCB would
limit the disposal of "wet'' wastes such as sludges on a
site-specific basis .
( iii) All detention and sedimentation
basins at a landfill site would be designed to accommodate the
1 , 000-year design storm as required for a Class II landfill .
To meet Subchapter 15 criteria, a landfill liner for Class II •
sites must have a water permeability no greater than 1 x 10-6
cm/second. The leachate collection system would be designed to
transport all excess leachate to a point where it could be
removed and disposed of properly, according to a leachate
management plan required by the County. The groundwater
monitoringlprogram would be developed in concert with the RWQCB
and likely involve quarterly sampling and analysis of
upgradienti and downgradient wells . The landfill operator shall
comply with the requirements of the RWQCB for disposal of
de-wateredlsewage, and other utilities ' sludges in landfills to
prevent excess liquid disposal . Other liquid wastes shall not
be accepted at the landfill . The County Community Development
Department1would ensure that State and RWQCB requirements on
water protection from leachate will be complied with as
conditions in a project ' s Land Use Permit . An independent
geotechniclal consultant , responsible to the County, would be
expected to be required by the Land Use Permit to inspect
EXHIBIT I 83
regularly over the life of the landfill the :installation and
condition of liners and leachate control facilities as they are
installed.
( iv) These impacts are not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable - adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that:
( i ) Project impacts relating to these
impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIR. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impaclt , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , ,social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigationlmeasures shall be included in the annual monitoring
. report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
2 . Alteration of Site Drainage.
a. Facts . ,
( i) Impact 2 as discussed on
page 4 . 8-10 of. the EIR. Landfill development could result in
replacement of natural canyon areas with engineered fill ,
altering existing drainage patterns . Without mitigation,
EXHIBIT I 84
implementation of the Landfill. Project .could ..:result in
increased storm water runoff, increased erosion and subsequent
sedimentation and turbidity in the storm water runoff .
( ii ) Mitigation measures will include
manmade drainage channels, detention and sedimentation basins ,
design in accordance with class II landfill requirements , and
regular inspection and maintenance, 'as required by the State of
California.
( iii ) The alteration of site drainage is
not set forth in the EIR as .an unavoidable adverse impact of
the Landf ill l Project .
b . Findings.
Biased upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that:
( i ) Project impacts relating to
alteration of site drainage will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These; mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as- conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any Of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
EXHIBIT I 85
I
3.. Reduction of Groundwater Recharge.
a. . Facts .
( i) Impact 3 is discussed on
page 4 . 8-10 of the EIR. Landfilling in .canyon areas could
eliminate potential groundwater recharge, although the site
does not have substantial groundwater recharge potential . Deep
groundwater is not affected by local recharge. The EIR
concludes that this impact is not significant .
0
Groundwater recharge impacts are
not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of
the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) The impacts of this Landfill
Project relating to groundwater recharge are not significant .
Accordingly, this Board is not required to impose any ,
mitigation Imeasures relating to this impact , and no further
findings are required.
( ii) In the alternative, project
impacts relating to groundwater recharge will be mitigated to a
level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they will be included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitutejapproval of any development plan for this site.
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings, below) .
EXHIBIT I 86
I
III
(v) The status of .the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
4 . Erosion Potential .
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 4 is discussed on
page 4 . 8-10 through 11 of the EIR. Landfill development
involving the excavation and stockpiling of soil could result
in soil erosion and subsequent increased turbidity in run-off
and the sedimentation of drainageways .
( ii) This impact would be expected to
be fully mitigated by the routing of drainage water through
sedimentation basins to be located at the downstream end of the
canyon proposed for landfilling. In addition, review and
approval by the County of an- erosion and sediment control plan
shall be required of the developer prior to issuance of a
grading permit .
( iii ) All stormwaters would be routed
through these basins and detained for a sufficient time to
allow the excess turbidity to settle out . A routine
maintenance plan would be required to ensure- the continued
proper functioning of this basin system. The erosion control
plan would ensure, among other things , that eroded sediments
are trapped before entering the constructed drainage channels
and that stockpiled soils are sufficiently stabilized. A
sedimentation basin system and sediment and erosion control
plan would be required by the County Community Development
Department as a Land Use Permit Condition of Approval , on the
basis of the project ' s site-specific EIR. It .would be
developed and implemented by the landfill developer , with the
approval of the County Community Development Department ,
County HSD and Public Works , and the RWQCB .
i ( iv) Erosion potential is not set forth
in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that ;
( i ) Project impacts relating to
erosion potential will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
EXHIBIT I 87
recommended or - described in the EIR. Thes.e :.mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii) In .the alternative, these
mitigationjmeasures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the •Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
OverridinglConsiderations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigationjmeasures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
5 . Flood Hazards .
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact 5 is discussed on
page 4 . 8-11 of the EIR. Failure of the sedimentation/detention.
basins when full or nearly full would pose a hazard to
downstreamareas .
( ii) In order to reduce this impact to
a less- than-significant level , all sedimentation/detention
basins would be designed and constructed according to Class II
requirements . The basins would be inspected regularly by the
State Department of water Resources for those dams over 25 feet
high and storing over 50 acre-feet of water .
I
( iii) The sedimentation/detention basins
should be designed for a 1 , 000-year , 24-hour storm intensity
and should', be capable of withstanding the maximum credible
earthquake identified for the site . The County Community .
Development Department would be responsible for ensuring that a
landfill sedimentation basin system included in a project would
EXHIBIT I 88
-meet al.l. .St-ate and County- requirements by .making -compliance a
Land Use Permit Condition of Approval .
( iv) Impacts relating to flood hazard
and sedimentation basin failure are not set forth in the EIR as
an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill . Project .
i
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that : .
( i) Project impacts relating to these
impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIR. These .mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use. development applications and approvals .
'In -the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not 'feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
i
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated 'to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , lsocial , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment ,�and the .Landfill Project override any such
significant .impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report tolthe Board as .set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
6 . Water Consumption.
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact 6 is discussed on
pages 4 . 81,11 through 12 of the EIR. The water supply
requirements for a landfill might not be available on-site,
thus requiring the procurement of off-site water .
II
I
EXHIBIT I 89
( ii ) A public water.-.sour_ce for some or
all of a landfill ' s needs would require a connection to Contra
Costa Water District (CCWD) facilities . Annexation to the CCWD
service area would require approval by the CCWD, possibly a
city, and 'the Local Agency Formation Commission.
( iii) The generally poor quality of
on-site water (unsuitable for drinking) would be adequate for
most landfill activities such as compaction, dust control , and
fire suppression. The EIR recommends exploring the feasibility
of utilizing sub-potable supplies such as reclaimed wastewater ,
on-site stormwater retention, or connection to a non-potable
public water supply systems . A connection of the latter kind
could be considered to be non-growth-inducing. The County
Community ,Development Department requires that the landfill
developer ,' submit a water service plan covering available water
resources .! estimated total water needs and supplies, landfill
construction and operation, landscaping, fire protection,
employee hygiene, human consumption water needs, and water
supply sources . It will be evaluated in the project ' s EIR and
resulting mitigation measures will be included in the Land Use
Permit ' s Conditions of Approval .
( iv) Water supply impacts are not set
forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project.
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that:
( i ) Project impacts relating to water
supply will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the. mitigation measures. recommended or described
in the EIR. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not , feasible or appropriate' to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
EXHIBIT I 90
i
mitigated to -a level of insignificance., the...-environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding (Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status 'of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
7 . Impacts of Interim Measures and Other
Components of the County Solid Waste
Management Program.
I
a. Facts .
( i ) The EIR discusses impacts of
transfer stations , interim measures , and other components of
the County Solid Waste Management Program on pages 4 . 8-14
through 4 .18-19 . These impacts include tranfer station impacts
on water quality ( Impact 7 on page 4 . 8-15) , transfer station
flooding impacts ( Impact 8 on page 4 . 8-16) , construction
activity impacts ( Impact 9 on page 4 . 8-16) , impacts of
recycling (page 4 . 8-17) and impacts of program components
relating to energy facilities , hazardous wastes , and special
wastes (page 4 . 8-18) .
( ii ) These impacts relate to transfer
stations , interim measures , and other components of the CoSWP,IP,
and do not relate to this General Plan Amendment .
I
( iii ) These impacts are not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
i
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) These impacts relate to other
components of the CoSWMP, not to this General Plan Amendment .
With respect to this General Plan Amendment , these impacts
either dolnot exist or are insignificant . Accordingly, no
mitigation measures are required to be adopted as a result of
this impact, and no further findings are required.
( ii) In the alternative, Landfill
Project impacts relating to these impacts will be mitigated to
a level of, insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
EXHIBIT I 91
.measur_es .riecommended or described in the EI.R.. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because .
they will be included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not. feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated 'to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment land the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
I'!. Visual Quality.
1 . Change in Visual Character of the Existing
I Land Use .
a . Facts
I
( i ) Impact is discussed on. page 4 . 9-6
of the EIR�. The landfill site would be cited rolling grassland
hills currently used for grazing. The visual character of the
existing 1'and use would change, and the EIR concludes that this
change is an unavoidable adverse impact of the Project .
( ii ) With respect to this General Plan
Amendment, and the Marsh Canyon Landfill , this impact may be
reduced because this site is less visable to a smaller number
of people when compared to other sites , due to the reduced
number of roadways and residences nearby from which this site
is visable.
EXHIBIT I 92
I
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) The findings of this Board
relating to the unavoidable impact of topographical change are
set forth in section v, below.
( ii) Although the change in topography
may be an unavoidable impact of this Landfill Project , other
.project impacts relating to visual quality will be. mitigated to
a level ofi insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they willlbe included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project asi conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general deIsignations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute, approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii) In the alternative, to the, extent
that any olf the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigatedilto a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding) Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report tolthe Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
2 . Glare and Light .
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 2 is set forth on
page 4 . 9-6 of the EIR. A solid waste facility' s on-site
operationall lighting could create glare and visual disturbances
to nearby off-site land uses .
EXHIBIT I 93
(ii) To mitigate the. effects of this
impact , lighting should be designed (e. g. , through
downward-oriented reflectors) and placed to reduce glare under
full operating conditions and should be dimmed or turned off,
except for security lighting, during late hours of darkness .
Full operational lighting may be limited to normal operational
hours of the facility. Focused directional security and
operational lighting should be installed as part of the
project . Excessive lighting of the access and operational
areas should be avoided.
( iii ) Construction and operational
lighting would increase ambient light and glare due to night
lighting. Lighting and hours of operation restrictions would
be addressed during project design and review. The County,
Community Development Department would ensure that construction
and operational lighting of a solid waste facility does not
substantially impact nearby land uses by including the
appropriate mitigation measures in Land Use Permit Conditions
of -Approval . The County HSD could also specify hours of
operation �in the Solid Waste Facilities Permit and respond to
lighting complaints by nearby residents .
( iv) Impacts relating to night lighting
are not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact
of the Landfill Project .
b . . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that:
( i) Project impacts relating to night
lighting impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance
by -the imposition- of the mitigation measures recommended or
described in the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will be
included i{n any subsequent land use development applications .
and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is notifeasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Pllan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
I
EXHIBIT I1 94
i
Plan Amendment on surrounding .uses ..are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
2 . Appearance of Excavation and Filling.
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 3 is discussed at
page 4 . 9-6 of the EIR. Excavation and filling activity at a
landfill site would substantial alter the natural topography
- and -appearance of the area.
( ii ) To mitigate this impact , visual
berms could be installed at the toe level and/or at the faces
of lifts; the area of active operation could be limited to
approximately 20-25 acres at any one time, except when major
modules are being prepared and foundation improvements
installedi Covered layers of refuse could be graded and
contoured to replicate the form of the existing surrounding
terrain. �Revegetation of completed fill areas and areas to be
inactive for more than 90 days could be required.
( iii ) A landscaping and screening plan
based on the applicant ' s project description and project EIR
mitigation measures would be required as part of a final site
plan. It *uld detail the locations and configurations of
grades and contours , screen plantings , overall site
landscaping, and revegetation efforts . The County Community
Development Department would ensure that these plans are
prepared and implemented by the landfill developer by including
them in the Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval .
( iv) Although visual quality impact 1 ,
discussed above is set forth as an unavoidable adverse impact ,
this impact is not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable
adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
EXHIBIT I 95
( i) Project .impacts relating to this
impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIR. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute) approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated �to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv). The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall. be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
4 . Removal of Vegetation .
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact 4 is discussed at page
4 . 9-7 of the EIR. Construction and operation of a landfill
would result in the removal of existing vegetation. This may
clash with existing visual characteristics .
( ii) The planting of temporary or
permanent vegetation to match the existing visual character
following placement of each portion of intermediate or final
cover on filled areas would mitigate this impact .
( iii) Restorative landscaping may appear
to clash with the existing visual character of the native
plantings or may be planted in unnatural plant groupings .
Thus , trees, shrubs and broadleaf species which are currently
found in the site area or are native to the area should be
planted onlfilled areas . In addition, the County would require
the planting of annual grasses as temporary cover and perennial
EXHIBIT I 96
grasses as-permanent cover which .can ..be used .later- for
grazing. As a condition of approval for the project ' s Land Use
Permit, the landfill developer shall be required to prepare and
implement a final landscaping plan, as part of the site design
plan, which shows plant species, size and locations , a
maintenance program, and any landscape mitigation measures
identified in the project-specific EIR for the site. This plan
will be subject to County Community Development Department
approval .
( iv) Visual impacts resulting from
removal of existing vegetation are not set forth in the EIR as
an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds than:
( i) Project impacts :relating to visual
impacts resulting from removal of existing vegetation will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the
mitigation measures recommended or described in the EIR. These
mitigation measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project
because they will be included in any subsequent land use
development applications and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of apprcval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board. as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
EXHIBIT I 97
i •
5 . Visibility of Landfill Operations .
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 5 is discussed at
page 4 . 9-7 of the EIR. Landfill operations may be visible from
, off-site residential and recreational areas, as well as from
travel corridors .
f ( i) This impact can be . mitigated by
utilizing natural topography as a visual barrier and by
providing usual buffers , such as noise/visual berms along the
active landfill operation, and by providing screening elsewhere
on the site. Corporation yards and staging areas should be
constructed away from public view if possible. Views from
roadways, iespecially scenic routes , would be screened by
installing) dense plantings along the roadway or elsewhere on
the site where the screening is most effective.
( iii) Since all of the proposed
landfills are located in canyons , topography will provide
visual screening to some degree. This natural screening can be
enhanced by installing berms and screens . Earth berms are an
effective 'visual buffer for screening views to a landfill . The
form of the berms could mimic the natural line of the area ' s
hills . Berms would be landscaped with perennial grasses and
native trees and shrubs as appropriate. Planting patterns
could be laturalistic . The County Community Development
Department) will ensure that visual mitigation measures to be
identified) in the project-level EIR are included in its Land
Use Permit) Conditions of Approval . The landfill developer
would be required to prepare and implement a final landscaping
plan with1the approval of the County Community Development
Department).
( iv) Visibility of landfill operations
is not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of
the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Project impacts relating to
visibility of landfill operations will be mitigated to a level
of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
EXHIBIT I 98
( ii ) In- the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to 'the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
6 . Windblown Debris and Dumping.
a . Facts .
( i) Impact 6 is discussed on
page 4 . 9-8 of the EIR. Windblown debris and litter from a
solid waste facility could result in an adverse visual impact
and/or could be carried to off-site locations . Illegal dumping
near a facility entrance could visually detract from the
appearance of the surrounding area .
( ii) The following mitigation measures
would reduce these impacts . Eliminating self-haulers to new
landfills would reduce littering on their sites and on access
roads . The landfill operator might be able to align refuse
unloading ,areas away from the prevailing wind direction.
Refuse would be covered at least once a day, and could be
covered more often, depending on wind velocity. Installation
of portable fencing near the working area and a permanent fence
around the landfill site periphery to intercept and contain
windblown debris would be required. Litter would be collected
from the 11itter fences and planting screens on a daily basis
and from along access roadways as often as in deemed necessary
by the County. The landfill operator would post signs along
access roads noting littering and illegal dumping laws; signs
at the entrance would note hours of operation. Policing of the
site and entrance area would be required on a daily basis or
more often, if needed. The landfill operator would implement a
EXHIBIT Il 9'9
program to limit uncovered loads , possibly including a higher
charge for these loads to help off-set the cost of monitoring
litter collection. Litter- control rules should be periodically
published in newspaper advertisements or mailed flyers .
( iii ) The County Community Development
Department would incorporate a litter control plan generally
including the above mitigation measures into the project ' s Land
Use Permit Conditions of Approval for all new landfill and
transfer station facilities . The County HSD would have the
authority to enforce this plan.
( iv) The impact of windblown debris ,
litter , and illegal dumping is not. set .forth in the EIR as an
unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that'
( i ) Project impacts relating to
windblown debris , litter , and illegal dumping will be mitigated
to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the
mitigation measures recommended or described in the EIR. These
mitigation measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project
because they will be included in any subsequent land use
development applications and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not ',feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated �to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , lsocial , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below)..
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report tofthe Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
EXHIBIT I 100
i
I
I
7 . Impacts of other Landfill Sites .
a. Facts .
( i ) The EIR on pages 4 . 9-8 through
4 . 9-11 discusses several potential impacts of other proposed
landfill sites . These include impact 7 (Bay Pointe) , impact 8
(Canyon) , impact 9 (East Contra Costa) and impacts 10 and 11
(Kirker Pass) . These impacts relate specifically to the
referenced other sites .
( ii) These impacts are not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b. Findings .
Based. upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that:
( i ) These impacts relate to other
landfill sites , and not to this general plan amendment . With
respect tol, this general plan amendment , these impacts either do
not exist 'or are insignificant . Accordingly, this board is not
required to impose any mitigation measures in this general plan
amendment relating to these impacts of other sites , and no
further findings with respect to this general plan amendment
are necessary as a result of these impacts of other sites .
( ii ) In the alternative, Project
impacts relating to these impacts will be mitigated to a level
of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( iii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated 'Ito a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
EXHIBIT I 101
Amendment land the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) . .
(v). The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
8 . Marsh Canyon Impacts .
a . Facts .
(-i ) Impact 12 on page 4 . 9-11 of the
.EIR related to visual impacts of the Marsh Canyon Landfill .
The proposed landfill could cause adverse visual impacts to
nearby resIlidential and recreational areas . The majority of the
sites , however , will be kept in open space, as about 320 acres
of the 1 , 6180 acre site would be used for a proposed landfill if
further development approvals are granted .
1 ( ii ) Mitigation measures recommended by
the EIR in a detailed visual study as part of the project
level EIR to determine potential impacts , and implementation of
siting criteria and screening to diminish or eliminate offsite
residential and recreational views of the site.
( iii ) Although visual quality . impact 1
is set forth as an unavoidable adverse impact , this specific
impact of this site is not set forth in the SIR as an
unavoidablie adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) Project impacts relating to
specific visual impacts of the Marsh Canyon site relating to
nearby residential and recreational views will be mitigated to
a level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they willlbe included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
EXHIBIT I 102
i
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project. or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
9 . impacts of Interim Measures .and Other
Components of the County Solid Waste
Management Plan.
a . Facts .
( i ) The EIR discusses various impacts
of interim measures and other components of the coswamp on
pages 4 . 12 through 4 . 9-14 . These include impact 13 ( interim
facilities) , impact 14 (visual impact of solid waste) ,
impact 151 (night lighting at interim facilities) , and impact 16
( litter from resource recovery or composting operations
generally) . Mitigation measures are recommended for these
impacts .
( ii ) Visual quality impact 6 , discussed
above, specifically discusses litter as a result of landfill
sites and related activities .
( iii ) These impacts are is not set forth
in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project :
b .. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) These impacts relate to interim
measures and other components of the CoSWMP and not to this
General Plan Amendment . With respect to this General Plan
Amendment ; these impacts either do not exist or are
insignificant . Accordingly, this board is not required to
EXHIBIT I 103
i
impose any mitigation measures or adopt any further findings
with regard to these impacts .
( ii) In the alternative, with respect
to litter , the findings of this board relating to litter
impacts of landfill sites generally are set forth above in the
findings on visual quality impact 6 .
( iii) In the alternative, project
impacts relating to these impacts will be mitigated to a level
of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be includeId in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( iv) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project asl conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
(v) In the alternative, to the extent
that any o;f the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
(vi ) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report tolthe Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , jbelow, and is subject to control by the County.
S. Socioeconomics .
1 . Transportation Costs , Transfer Station
Costs , and Total System Costs .
a. Facts .
( i) On pages 4 . 10-4 through 4 . 10-8 ,
the EIR evaluates three socioeconomic impacts which are
determined not . to be significant . Impact l is a possible
increase in transportation costs due to longer hauling
distances to landfill sites . Impact 2 is an increase in costs
EXHIBIT I 104
due to the introduction of transfer stations into the solid
waste disposal process . Impact .3 is an increase in total
systems costs .
( ii) These impacts relate to
implementation of the CoSWMP, but not specifically to this
General Plan Amendment or to the siting of a particular
landfill .
( iii) These impacts are not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findinqs .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record,. this Board
finds that :
( i) These impacts are insignificant .
This board is not required to impose any mitigation measures or
adopt any finding with respect to these impacts .
( ii ) In the alternative, these impacts
relate to general provisions of the CoSWMP, not to this General
Plan Amendment . With respect to this General Plan Amendment ,
these impacts either do not exist or are insignificant .
Accordingly, this board is not required to impose any
mitigation measures or adopt any findings for this General Plan
Amendmentias a result of these impacts .
In the alternative, project
impacts relating to these impacts will be mitigated to a level
of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development- applications
and approvals .
( iv) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated ,into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
{ (v) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not. insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
EXHIBIT I 105
I
I
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(vi ) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
2 . Property Values .
a. Facts .
( i ) Impact 4 is discussed on
pages 4 . 10-8 through 4 . 10-11 of the EIR. The siting of a solid
waste facility could adversely affect the value of property
located in' the vicinity of the site.
( ii ) The mitigation measures listed in
other sections of this report , especially those that relate to
odor control , dust control , litter control , landscaping and
traffic control are expected to reduce this impact to an
insignificant level .
( iii) In three separate studies on the
effects of landfills on surrounding property values , the
conclusions were as follows : solid waste disposal sites have
no apparent negative effect on change in property value of
single family homes in their immediate vicinity (The Effects of
Solid Waste Disposal Sites on ProPerty Values , 1972) ; property
characteristics other than distance to the landfill appear much
more important in explaining prices (Pennsylvania State
University, Effects of Solid Waste Disposal Sites on Community
Development and Residential Property Values , 1982) ; and
proximity to the landfill had a negligible impact on initial
sales pricing of recently constructed homes (Property Value
Impact Study, Puente Hills Landfill , 1983 ) . As part of the
complaint program, a County representative could meet with
local homeowners ' associations or organize neighborhood
meetings to ensure that an appropriate response is received .
The County Community Development Department would incorporate
the appropriate mitigation measures suggested in the EIR, as
well as those identified in project-specific proposals , into
the Land Use Permit conditions of approval for a project .
( iv) The EIR concludes that , if
necessary mitigation measures are incorporated into final
development plans for landfills , which will be considered by
the County at a later date, property values would not be
affected by the proposed landfill sites .
EXHIBIT I 106
(v) The CEQA guidelines . state that,
while economic or social effects of a project may be used to
determine the significance of physical changes caused by the
project , economic or social effects of a project shall not be
treated as significant effects in the environment . Decreases
or increases in propertyvalues are economic effects .
(vi ) The impact of this Landfill
Project on property values is not set forth in the EIR as an
unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) This impact is not a potentially
significant adverse environmental impact of this project , but
is a potential economic impact which will be mitigated. The
EIR is not required to evaluate this impact, and this board is
not required to impose mitigation measures or adopt findings
with regard to this impact . This economic impact , while it may
relate to other environmental impacts analyzed in the EIR and
discussedlelsewhere in these findings , is not in itself an
adverse impact of this project for CEQA purposes .
In the alternative,. project
impacts relating to property values will be mitigated to a
level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation
measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project because
they willlbe included in any subsequent land use development
applications and approvals .
( iii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
EXHIBIT I 107
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the .County.
K. Cultural Resources
1 . Impacts of Other Sites .
At pages 4 . 11-6 through 4 . 11-9 , the EIR discusses
specific cultural resources impacts of particular landfill
sites . Impact 1 (east Contra Costa site) , Impact 2 (east
Contra Costa site) , Impact 4 (east Contra Costa site) and
Impact 6 (Keller Canyon site) all relate to other proposed
landfill sites , and not the this General Plan Amendment .
b .. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) These impact relates to other
.landfill sites , and not to this General Plan Amendment . With
respect to this General Plan Amendment , these specific impacts
either do not exist or are not significant . Accordingly, this
Board is not required to impose mitigation measures or adopt
any further findings for this General Plan Amendment as a
result of these specific impacts which could result from
development of other sites .
( ii ) In the alternative, project
impacts relating to these impacts will be mitigated to a level
of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development. applications
and approvals .
( iii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
EXHIBIT I 108
economic , social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation) measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , ibelow, and is subject to control by the County.
2 . Marsh Canyon Impacts .
a. Facts .
( i) Impact 3 is discussed at
page 4 . 11-17 of the EIR. A historic homestead lies within the
proposed Marsh Canyon Project Area, and could be eliminated by
the proposed landfill . As mitigation, the EIR recommends
concurrent field and archival research .
( ii ) Impact 5 is discussed on
page 4 . 11-18 of the EIR. A number of prehistoric and historic
archaeological sites are known to exist immediately surrounding
.the proposed Marsh Canyon Landfill . The sites could be subject
to indirect impact, although the sites lie outside the areas of
direct impact . As mitigation, the EIR recommends limiting
access toloff project areas , a strict prohibition against
artifact collecting or vandalism, limiting construction vehicle
movement and consultation with an archeologist prior to
conducting) any off project activities .
( iii ) Impact 5 regarding off-site
prehistoric and historic archaeological sites , is not set forth
in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
i
( iv) Impact 3 relating to the historic
homestead,i is set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse
impact of 1the Landfill Project
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that:
i
( i ) The findings of this Board
relating to the listed unavoidable adverse impact on the
homestead 'are set forth in section iv, below, and in the
Statement hof Overriding Considerations , section vi , below.
EXHIBIT .I 109
I
i
Although the impact of this
project oni one homestead is an unavoidable adverse impact,
project impacts relating to other cultural resources will be
mitigated ;to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the
mitigationlmeasures recommended or described in the EIR. These
mitigation measures are incorporated into this Landfill Project
because thiey will be included in any subsequent land use
development applications and approvals .
( iii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute', approval of any development plan for this site .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigatedlto a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, �social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment Mand the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
overriding,, Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) The .status of the aforementioned
mitigation_ !, measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth it section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
3 . Unknown Cultural Resources .
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact 7 is discussed on
page 4 . 11-I9 of the EIR. Previously unknown cultural resources
at potentilal landfill., transfer station, or resource recovery
facilities; could be impacted during construction.
( ii) In order to reduce this impact ,
the following measures would be taken. If an historic site is
discovered during construction, work would temporarily cease to
allow a sine evaluation. Concurring field and archival
research would be undertaken by an historic archaeologist to
determine the quality and quantity of information relating to
site occupation, and the extent , integrity, and diversity of
archaeological remains . Should this testing phase indicate
that the site could yield additional information of importance
to area history, then a date recovery phase may be warranted.
EXHIBIT I 110
This phase could include further archival or oral history
research, excavation of a sample of the site, or combinations
thereof . If significant deposits are not encountered, the
testing phase could be considered adequate mitigation.
Project-related indirect impacts to known sites, in the vicinity
of the proposed facility sites can be mitigated by 1) limiting
employee access to off-project areas and enforcing a strict
prohibition against artifact collecting or vandalism; 2)
limiting construction vehicle movement to road surfaces that
have beenlsubject to previous survey; and 3) consulting an
archaeologist prior to conducting any off-project activities
(road construction, drainage control , pit construction) that
may not have been subject to previous archaeological surveys .
( iii ) Historic areas have been found
within aniadjacent to some of the propose landfill site areas .
These have been surveyed and mitigation measures identified in
the project EIRs .
( iv) The cultural resources referenced
under the ', discussion of Impact 7 are unknown. It is unknown
whether this impact is unavoidable or can be mitigated.
Mitigation measures which could be imposed as a result of
excavation or testing during project development , assuming
further development approvals are granted, could mitigate this
impact to, a level of insignificance .
( iv) This impact is set forth in the
EIR as anjunavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project ,
although a number of mitigation measures are recommended, both
under Impact 7 generally, and under Impact 5 , regarding sites
located near the Marsh Canyon Project Area.
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
i
( i ) This impact , while it may or may
not be significant , is not unavoidable . In the alternative,
this impact is not now know to be, and cannot be determined to
be, unavoidable .
Project impacts relating to this
impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance - by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIR. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they. will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
EXHIBIT I 111
( iii ) In the alternative, these
mitigationjmeasures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as'', conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site.
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any o the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overridinq Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County. In
particular , on-site mitigations shall be approved in
conjunction with the Regional Clearinghouse of Sonoma State
University; and a qualified archaeologist shall oversee their
implementation. The County Community Development Department
shall report annually to the Board on the applicability of
cultural resource findings and mitigation measures as .they
apply to p,Iroposed and sited solid waste projects .
I
L. Public Services .
1 . Fire risk .
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact one is discussed on
page 4 . 12-4 of the EIR. Landfills and transfer stations could
increase the risk of fire .
( ii ) Mitigation measures are set forth
in the EIR' s discussion of public health and safety impacts .
The EIR concludes that fire risk impacts will not be
significant after mitigation.
( iii) This impact is not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
j
i
I
EXHIBIT II 112
I
11
I
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) Project impacts relating to this
impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIR. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated; to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , *cial , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
i
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to ,' the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
2 . Police services .
a . Facts .
( i ) Landfills and transfer stations
could have impacts on police services relating to traffic and
litter violations . Internal security problems can be handled
by on-site security personnel and construction of fences..
Enforcement of regulations and periodic litter pickup
requirements at site entrances could mitigate the impact of
increased littering.
( ii) This impact is not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
EXHIBIT II 113
i
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that i.
( i) Project impacts relating to this
impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition' of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIR',. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as' conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not 'feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitutelapproval of any development plan for this site .
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social, and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment !and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overridingl Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
(.iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigationimeasures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to ',the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , ;below, and is subject to control by the County.
3 . Water supplies .
a . Facts .
( i ) Impact three is discussed on
page 4 . 12-�6 of the EIR. Landfill sites will require off-site
sources ofwater , and extension of water lines . As mitigation,
the developer can prepare a water service plan, water can be
obtained from either on-site drilling or collection, and the
various mitigation measures previously discussed relating to
water supply can be imposed .
( ii ) This impact is not set forth in
the EIR asl an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
EXHIBIT I 114
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) Project impacts relating to this
impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the. EIR, both under the discussion of public services impact
three and under the discussion of hydrology and water quality
impact six. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of. approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated 'to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, Isocial , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment 'and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
( iv) The status of .the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report tollthe Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
i
i
4 . Leachate disposal .
a . Facts .
l ( i ) Impact four is discussed on
page 4 . 127 of the EIR. Disposal of landfill leachate could
adversely dmpact wastewater treatment systems .
( ii ) The RWQCB requires that landfill
developers prepare and implement a .disposal plan for leachate
with the appropriate wastewater treatment agency prior to
construction of the landfill . In most cases, the disposal plan
would require on-site treatment of the leachate to meet RWQCB
standardsl,prior to its introduction into the wastewater system.
i
EXHIBIT I , 115
( iii) The County Community Development
Department would ensure that . all RWQCB requirements are met
during environmental review of proposed landfills . The
disposal means (mitigation measures) would also be included in
the landfilll ' s Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval and may
be specified in the County Services Department ' s Solid Waste
Facilities Permit as well .
( iv) This impact is not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
Biased upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that:
( i ) Project impacts relating to this
impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
.in the EIR. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project asi conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not 'Ifeasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plian Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
_his impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
- Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigatedto a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic „social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendmentland the Landfill Project override any such
significantimpacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
i
EXHIBIT III 116
5 . Kirker Pass utility lines .
a . Facts .
( i) Impact five discussed on
page 4 . 12-7 of the EIR relates to utility lines on the Kirker
Pass site.l This impact does not relate to any other landfill
site or tol this General Plan Amendment .
( iii) This impact is not set forth in
the EIR as, an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the .EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i) This impact does not relate to
this General Plan Amendment . With respect to this General Plan
Amendment , this impact either does not exist or is
insignificant . This Board is not required to impose mitigation
measures or adopt any further findings with respect to this
General Plan Amendment as a result of this impact .
( ii) In the alternative, Project
impacts relating to this impact will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the. EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( iii) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute approval of any development plan for this site .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
overriding considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
EXHIBIT I 117 .
(v) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings, below, and is subject to control by the County.
6 . Personnel impacts.
a. Facts .
( i) Impact six is discussed on
page 4 . 12-7 of the EIR. Development of solid waste projects ,
including landfills , will require increased personnel and
resources from affected agencies . These impacts will be
mitigated through the levy of fees on the various solid waste
projects .
( ii ) _ This impact is not set forth in
the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact. of the Landfill
Project .
b . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds thatl:
( i ) Project impacts relating to this
impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended or described
in the EIR;'. These mitigation measures are incorporated into
this Landfill Project because they will be included in any
subsequent land use development applications and approvals .
( ii) In the alternative, these
mitigationjmeasures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as! conditions of approval of later development plans .
It isnot feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
general designations for the landfill site, and does not
constitute; approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, :'social , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment !and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding" Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) .
EXHIBIT I 118
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
- mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , ', below, and is subject to control by the County.
7 . Impacts of interim measures and other
components of the Plan.
a. Facts .
( i) On pages 4 . 12-8 through 4 . 12-10 ,
the EIR discusses various impacts of interim measures and other
components of the CoSWMP . These include impact seven ( interim
measures) ', impact eight . (transfer stations) , impact nine
(composting facility fire danger) , impact ten (waste-to-energy
facility fire danger) , and impact eleven (abandoned vehicles) .
These impacts do not relate to this landfill site or this
General Plan Amendment .
( ii ) These impacts are not set forth in
the EIR . as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill
Project .
b. Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( i ) These impacts relate to other
aspects of the CoSWMP, and not to thi ; General Plan Amendment .
With respect to this General Plan Amendment , these specific
impacts either do not exist or are insignificant . Accordingly,
this Board is not required to impose any mitigation measures or
adopt further findings for this General Plan Amendment as a
result oflthese specific impacts of other aspects of the CoSWMP
plan.
( ii ) In the alternative, Project
impacts relating to these impacts will be mitigated to a level
of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR. These mitigation measures
are incorporated into this Landfill Project because they will
be included in any subsequent land use development applications
and approvals .
( ii ) In the alternative, these
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill
Project as conditions of approval of later development plans .
It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this
General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to
this impact , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth
EXHIBIT I�1 119
i
I
general designations for the landfill site and does not
constitute' approval of any development plan for this site .
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General
Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or
mitigatedto a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , Isocial , and other benefits of the General Plan
Amendment ',and the Landfill Project override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding', Considerations ( section VI of these findings, below) .
( iv) The status of the aforementioned
mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring
report to the Board as set forth in section VII of these
findings , below, and is subject to control by the County.
M. Growth Inducing Impacts .
1 Facts .
i
( i) The EIR discusses the potential
growth inducing effects of the General Plan Amendment and the
Landfill Project on pages 5-1 through 5-3 . The addition of
alternate 'landfill sites is a necessary public service, and the
connectionbetween the capacity of landfill sites and
corresponding future development is less direct than the
connection between most public service facilities and future
development .
( ii) Lack of solid waste facilities
would at some point preclude growth and development , so removal
of this obstacle through implementation of this General Plan
Amendment ,! could be considered technically growth inducing.
( iii) Access roads and sewer line
extensions, if constructed pursuant to development plans to be
approved later pursuant to this General Plan Amendment , could
have growth inducing impacts .
( iv) Growth inducing impacts are not
set forthi!in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the
Landfill Project .
2 . Findings .
I
Based upon the EIR and the entire record_ , this Board
finds that :
( i) The growth inducing impacts of
this General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project are
I
'I
EXHIBIT I 120
I
I
insignificant . This Board is not required to impose mitigation
measures or make further findings with respect to growth
inducing impacts .
( ii) In the alternative, to the extent
that any growth inducing impacts of this General Plan Amendment
or the Landfill Project are not insignificant, the
environmental , economic , social , and other benefits of the
General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project override any
such significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Consideration (Section VI of these findings ,
below) .
'I
N. Cumulative Impacts .
1 . Facts .
( a) Certain impacts of the General Plan
Amendmentievaluated in the EIR, while not significant in
themselves , may be cumulatively significant when considered
with other planned projects in the vicinity. Cumulative
impacts of the Five General Plan Amendments and the CoSWMP
revision together are analyzed at pages 5 . 3-5 . 8 of the EIR.
(b) The EIR analyzes cumulative impacts of
the CoSWMP revision as a whole, including this General Plan
Amendment .' Impacts which are cumulatively significant with
respect to the CoSWMP revision may not be cumulatively
significant with respect to this General Plan Amendment alone .
(c) The cumulative impacts include
increases ,in traffic volumes along access roads to new
facilities , increases in truck traffic on Highway 4 , cumulative
air quality impacts resulting from increased traffic ,
cumulative increases in demand on public services , cumulative
loss of open space and agricultural lands and the cumulative
effect of ;loss of riparian and wetland habitat .
(d) As mitigation, the EIR recommends
several possible measures , which could include general plan and
zoning ordinance enactments to favor high-density development
and urban infilling by both the County and cities within the
County; imposition of more stringent pollutant controls on
vehicles; 1transportation system management measures ;
restrictions on the use of packaging materials ; and County
support of coordinated infrastructure and land use planning .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
EXHIBIT I 121
i
I
j
(a) The cumulative impacts analyzed in the
EIR as significant on a cumulative basis with respect to the
CoSWMP provision, are not significant on a project-specific or
cumulative'' basis with respect to this General Plan Amendment .
(b) In the alternative, these impacts may
be potentially significant on a cumulative basis with respect
to this General Plan Amendment , but are not significant on a
project-specific basis . These potentially significant
cumulative impacts will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of mitigation measures
recommended or described in the EIR, both with respect to
cumulative impacts and with respect to particular
project-specific impacts . These mitigation measures are
incorporated into or will be incorporated into this General
Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project because they will be
included in subsequent land use development applications and
approvals , if such subsequent applications are approved.
I
(c) The imposition of more stringent
vehicle pollution controls is within the jurisdiction of
federal and state agencies governing air quality standards ,
including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District , and not
this County. Such changes can and should be adopted by such
other stage and federal agencies .
(d) Adoption of general plans and zoning
ordinances that favor high-density development and urban
infilling by cities with the County is within the jurisdiction
and responsibility of those cities, not this County. Those
cities have the authority to 'adopt such enactments , and can and
should adopt such enactments .
(e) The mitigation measures calling for
County adoption of general plans and zoning ordinances ,
transportation system management measures , restrictions on the
use of packaging materials , and support for coordinated
infrastructure are incorporated into this General Plan
Amendment and will be incorporated into the Landfill Project by
operation of existing County ordinances and policies.
Provisions in the proposed County general plan will promote
infilling to reduce. consumption of open land and wildlife
habitat , transportation system management measures are required
by the County for final development plan approval of project ,
the County is encouraging restrictions on the use of packaging
and increased use of returnable beverage containers through
policies implemented by its solid waste commission, and the
County coordinates infrastructure and land use planning through
its participation in the Measure C financing and coordination
program for developments . Although the County is considering
steps regarding disposal diapers , hearings by this Board and
I
EXHIBIT I 122
the Solid Waste Commission have indicated that health concerns
and legal considerations may make a prohibition of disposal
diapers infeasible.
(f) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of th6 cumulative impacts of the Landfill Project or this
General Plan Amendment are not insignificant or mitigated to a
level of insignificance, the environmental , economic, social ,
and other benefits of the General Plan Amendment and the
Landfill Project override any such significant impacts , as more
fully staged in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V,I of these findings , below) .
(g) The status of mitigation measures
incorporated or adopted as referenced above shall be included
in the annual monitoring report to the Board as set forth in
Section VI;I of these findings , below.
IV. FINDINGS REGARDING UNAVOIDABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE
ADVERSE IMPACTS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 , this Board
adopts and makes the following findings regarding those certain
environmental impacts of the General Plan Amendment and the
Landfill Project discussed in the Final EIR which may be
determined to be significant , unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts of this General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project .
A. Vegetation And Wildlife .
1 . Facts .
I
(a) Landfill development would result in
the removal of wetlands and oak woodlands from the landfill
site. This is listed in the EIR as an unavoidable impact of
this Project , although a habitat enhancement plan may
compensate for the loss of some or all of this habitat .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
(a) To the extent that this impact is
significant , this impact is mitigated to a level of
insignificance by mitigation measures which are incorporated
into thisiGeneral Plan Amendment or will be incorporated into
this Landfill Project during subsequent development approvals .
These mitigation measures will reduce the impact of this
-
Landfill Project on vegetation and wildlife by providing a
EXHIBIT II 123
I
I
I�
i
habitat enhancement plan which can provide for replacement or
compensation for removal of wetlands and oak woodlands .
(b) In the alternative, to the extent that
this unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of this
Landfill Project is not mitigated to a level of insignificance,
despite the mitigation measures which are incorporated into
this General Plan Amendment or will be incorporated during
subsequentdevelopment approvals for the Landfill Project
(should such approvals be granted) , the environmental ,
economic, social and other benefits of this Landfill Project
override this potentially significant adverse impact as more
fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section VII , below) .
(c) As discussed in Section V, below,
regarding alternatives to this Landfill Project , the
above-desciribed impact of the General Plan Amendment and this
Landfill Project would similarly be an unavoidable and
irreversible impact under the alternatives to the General Plan
Amendment and this Landfill Project , except under the
No-Project alternative, which alternative is rejected as more
fully described in Section V below.
(d) This Board is not required to adopt
findings for this General Plan Amendment in connection with any
potentially unavoidable impacts upon vegetation and wildlife of
the Kirker` Pass or East Contra Costa landfill sites , because
the specific impacts of those sites listed as unavoidable in
the EIR do, not relate to this General Plan Amendment ,
I
B. Geology And Soils - To o ra h
1 . Facts .
( a) Development of the proposed landfill
would alter the topography of the proposed landfill area . This
impact is listed as unavoidable, although it can be mitigated
to some extent by contour grading and other mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR.
i 2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) To the extent that this impact is
otherwise ''significant, this impact is mitigated to a level of
insignificance by mitigation measures which are incorporated
into this ;General Plan Amendment or will be incorporated into
this Landfill Project during subsequent development approvals.
I
EXHIBIT I 124
ili � •
f
These mitigation measures , which include contour grading, will
reduce the impact of this Landfill Project on topography and
visual impact by masking the appearance of the landfill .
(b) In the alternative, to the extent that
this unavo'idable . and irreversible adverse impact of this
Landfill Project is not mitigated to a level of insignificance,
despite the mitigation measures which are incorporated into
this General Plan Amendment or will be incorporated during
subsequent development approvals for the Landfill Project
(should such approvals be granted) , the environmental ,
economic, (social and other benefits of this Landfill Project
override this potentially significant adverse impact as more
fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section VjI , below) .
(c) As discussed in Section V, below,
regarding '',alternatives to this Landfill Project , the
above-described impact of the General Plan Amendment and this
Landfill Project would similarly be an _unavoidable and
irreversible impact under the alternatives to the General Plan
Amendment 'and this Landfill Project , except under the
No-Project, alternative, which alternative is rejected as more
fully described in Section V below.
i
G. Visual Quality.
i
1 . Facts .
( a) The landfills would be sited on rolling
hills and ',would change the . existing visual character . This is
listed as ;an unavoidable impact in the EIR.
i
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire. record, this Board
finds that:
(a) To the extent that this impact is
otherwise i significant , this impact is mitigated to a level of
insignificance by mitigation measures which are 'incorporated
into thislGeneral Plan Amendment or will be incorporated into
this Landfill Project during subsequent development approvals .
These mitigation measures will reduce the impact of this
Landfill Project on surrounding views by masking the appearance
and operation of the landfill .
i
(b) In the alternative, to the extent that
this unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of this
Landfill Project is not mitigated to a level of insignificance,
despite the mitigation measures which are incorporated into
EXHIBIT Ii 125
I
this General Plan Amendment or will be incorporated during
subsequent development approvals for the Landfill Project
(should such approvals be granted) , the environmental ,
economic, ;social and other benefits of this Landfill Project
override this potentially significant , adverse impact as more
fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V,I , below) .
(c) ' As discussed in Section V. below,
regarding alternatives to this Landfill Project, the
above-descjribed impact of the General Plan Amendment and this
Landfill Project would similarly be an unavoidable and
irreversible impact under •the alternatives to the General Plan
Amendment �and this Landfill Project, except under the
No-Project; alternative, which alternative is rejected as more
fully described in Section V below.
D. Cultural Resources .
I
1 . Facts .
( a) Previously unknown cultural resources
at potential landfill and transfer station locations could be
directly i'Impacted during construction. This impact is listed
as unavoidable, although .the EIR recommends a series of
mitigation measures regarding the discovery of previously
unknown historical or prehistoric resources during construction.
(b) Development of Marsh Canyon Landfill
pursuant to this General Plan Amendment and subsequent
development approvals which may be granted would result in the
destruction or removal of a historic homestead site . This
impact is ;'listed as unavoidable .
i
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
. finds that :
i
( a) The impact on unknown cultural
resources �is not significant, because the significance of these
resourcesiis unknown, and because they are located near the
site, butjMot within the actual area of proposed landfill
operation.] In the alternative, this impact is mitigated to a
level of insignificance, by the recommended mitigation measures .
(b) To the extent that the impact on the
homestead lis otherwise significant , this impact is mitigated to
a level of insignificance by mitigation measures which are
incorporated into this General Plan Amendment or will be
incorporated into this Landfill Project during subsequent
EXHIBIT I 126
i
I
I
development approvals . These mitigation measures, which
include field research, testing phases , or excavation of a
sample of the site, will . reduce the impact of this Landfill
Project on' this homestead by determining the significance of
the site, and evaluating the feasibility of preservational
removal of: particular significant portions of the site.
(c) In the alternative, to the extent that
this unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of this
Landfill Project is not mitigated to a level of insignificance,
despite the mitigation measures which are incorporated into
this General Plan Amendment or will be incorporated during
subsequentjdevelopment approvals for the Landfill Project
(should such approvals be granted) , the environmental ,
economic, social and other benefits of this Landfill Project
override this potentially significant , adverse impact as more
fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations '
(Section VII , below) .
El. Other Unavoidable Impacts .
1 . Facts .
( a) All other unavoidable adverse impacts
designatedl� in the EIR relate to interim measures or to other
components of CoSWMP, not to this General Plan Amendment and
the Landfill Project .
I
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds thati:
i
( a) These other unavoidable impacts do not
relate to this General Plan Amendment . With respect to this
General Plan Amendment , these other impacts either do not exist
or are insignificant . Accordingly, this Board is not required
to impose mitigation measures or adopt findings for this
General Plan Amendment as a result of these impacts of other
aspects ofithe CoSWMP .
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
I
The EIR discusses four (4 ) alternatives to the General
Plan Amendment and to the . overall 1989 CoSWMP revision of which
General Plan Amendment is a part . One of these alternatives is
a discussion of numerous possible alternate sites for a
landfill , 'including the site which is the subject of this
General P1'an Amendment and the other sites which are the
subject ofthe Five General Plan Amendments . The alternatives
I
EXHIBIT I 127
I
i
r
to the General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project analyzed
in this EIR are the following:
1 . The no-project amendment , pursuant to which this
General Plan Amendment would not be adopted.
21. A waste reduction alternative, pursuant to which
waste reduction technologies would be implemented, but
additional landfill sites including the site subject to this
General Plan Amendment would not be approved.
3 . A range of substitute landfill sites evaluated in
several studies which are incorporated into the EIR. The
analysis in these studies , and the reasons why most of the
twenty (201) alternate sites originally evaluated are rejected,
are summarized it the EIR.
i
4 . A no transfer station alternative, pursuant to
which this General Plan Amendment could be adopted, but the
transfer stations which are proposed as a part of the 1989
CoSWMP revision would not be implemented.
With respect to the scope of the alternatives
evaluate0n the EIR, this Board finds that the EIR sets forth
a reasonable range of alternatives to the General Plan
Amendment ',and the Landfill Project . Specifically, this Board
finds that numerous alternate sites are adequately discussed in
the EIR and evaluated in documents incorporated into the EIR.
In addition, the EIR contains a brief explanation of why the
numerous alternate sites enumerated were rejected. In
addition, ''this program EIR and this General Plan Amendment are
the first )„phase of a series of development approvals pursuant
to which the County is considering five ( 5) possible landfill
sites, the five sites covered by the Five General Plan
Amendments , as possible alternative landfill disposal sites .
Unlike situations where a local government is considering one
site at a ',particular location, the evaluation of alternative
sites for 'a landfill is ongoing, pursuant to the adoption of
the Five General Plan Amendments , and as required by the
provisions of state law and the court order entered as judgment
in the Litigation against the county referenced in section
I .A. , above, of these findings .
A. The "No Project” Alternative.
1 . Facts .
(a) This alternative is defined as the
failure to adopt a CoSWMP revision and General Plan Amendments ,
which would have the effect of maintaining the status quo with
respect to solid waste management and landfill development in
EXHIBIT I 128
the County. In this alternative, no new landfills would be
developed, existing landfills would be used until their
closure, and then solid waste would be exported for disposal to
other counties . With Acme Landfill ' s impending closure, waste
currentlygoing to Acme would be diverted to the two remaining
landfills in the County.
(b) These two landfills , Contra Costa
Sanitary Landfill (CCSL) and West . Contra Costa Sanitary
Landfill (WCCSL) , are near capacity and at the present rate of
waste acceptance are due to close in 1990-1991 and 1993 ,
respectively. Although the CoSWMP identifies a 24-acre
expansion 4t Acme Landfill , an application for such an
expansionjwas denied by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board in 11988 . Expansion of CCSL and. WCCSL are also provided
for in the CoSWMP, .if approvals can be obtained. If one or
both are granted, they would provide only a few years of
capacity for the County. This General Plan Amendment, in
conjunction with the other provisions of the CoSWMP, is
necessaryto provide additional waste disposal capacity.
(c) 'In addition to new landfills, the
CoSWMP includes policies for increasing the current rate of
resource recovery. Failure to implement these provisions under
the No Project Alternative would exacerbate the demands on the
limited existing in-County capacity. After exhaustion of
in-County capacity, the County would have to export its waste,
which, though theoretically possible, would not be a certainty,
would be non-cost effective in the long run, and subject to
other juriii sdictions ' requirements and politics .
. I
(d) Adoption of the no project alternative
would be contrary to the county' s obligations pursuant to state
law, and contrary to the county' s obligations pursuant to the
Litigation referenced above .
(e) As stated elsewhere in these findings ,
many of the environmental impacts of this General Plan
Amendment �and, the Landfill Project have been or will be
mitigated1to a level of insignificance, and this General Plan
Amendment and this Landfill Project will provide many benefits ,
including environmentally sound disposal of solid wastes , and
the resulting economic and social benefits to the entire county.
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that the no project alternative is
infeasible and less desirable than this General Plan Amendment ,
and rejects the no project alternative for the following
reasons :
EXHIBIT I 129
i
. (a) Adoption of the no project alternative
is illegal , contrary to the county' s obligation to adopt a
solid waste management plan pursuant to state law, and contrary
to the county' s obligations pursuant to the court order in the
Litigation referenced above.
j (b) Mitigation measures incorporated into
this General Plan Amendment , or which will be incorporated into
future development approvals as conditions of approval , have
substantially mitigated or will substantially mitigate most of
the environmental effects of the General Plan Amendment and the
Landfill Project , thereby diminishing or obviating the
perceived 'mitigating benefits of approving the no project
alternative.
(c) Approval of the no project alternative
would enti%rely eliminate sound planning for disposal of future
solid washes in the county, resulting in severe economic and
social disjlocation.
(d) The environmental , social , economic and
other benefits derived from this General Plan Amendment and the
Landfill Project as discussed in the Statement of overriding
Considerations would not be obtained.
B'. Waste Reduction Alternative.
1 . Facts .
(a) The CoSWMP includes goals and policies
for increasing the proportion of the County' s solid waste that
is diverted through resource recovery. The long-term goal is
to divert X73 percent of the wastestream. In this alternative,
three specific technologies would be used in lieu of
landfilling solid waste, viz . , recycling, composting, and
waste-to-energy. Two in-depth County studies indicate that
between 2 and 5 -percent of the total wastestream could be
reasonably reduced via residential recycling programs .
Composting the approximately 10-15 percent vegetative waste of
the residential wastestream would be equivalent to
approximatiely 2 percent of the wastestream. Though waste-to-
energy technologies could produce a 70-percent reduction by
weight of Ithe wastestream that is incinerated, there are
several problems involved. Ash residue from mass incineration
is about 30 percent by weight of incoming waste and this would
have to bdisposed
e
required f�orrthisash fresidue fand forpnon-combusstill be
tible
.material . In addition, waste-to-energy projects are capital
intensive, the environmental issues are great, and the current
chances for siting a project in the near term are slim. Waste
reduction 'technologies pursuant to this alternative would have
EXHIBIT I 130
a limitedeffect on extending the life of the existing
landfills in the county, or on extending the life of expansions
of those landfills . A waste to energy program as part of this
alternative would require a minimum of five ( 5) years to be
implemented, a time schedule which extends beyond the scheduled
closure dates for existing landfill .
(b) Reduction in the amount of solid waste
entering t!he waste stream does not eliminate the need, or the
legal requirement , for identification of alternate landfill
sites, and the legal need and justification for adoption of
this General Plan Amendment .
(c) Many of the waste reduction programs
can be implemented together with the General Plan Amendment as
a part of the 1989 CoSWMP revision.
i
I 2 . Findings .
This Board finds that the waste reduction alternative
is infeasible and less desirable than the General Plan
Amendmentiand the Landfill Project, and rejects the waste
reductionlalternative as an alternative to this General Plan
Amendment ;'for the following reasons :
( a) This Board is legally required to adopt
this General Plan Amendment , and cannot legally adopt the Waste
Reduction alternative in its place.
(b) Although the waste reduction
alternative includes many components which can be incorporated
into the CoSWMP, as a separate alternative to this Project the
waste reduction alternative will not eliminate the need for
alternate landfill sites in the county.
(c) Mitigation. measures incorporated into
the General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project or which
will be adopted as conditions of approval to subsequent
development approvals has substantially mitigated or will
substantially mitigate most of the environmental effects of the
General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project, thereby
diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating benefits of
approvinglthis alternative .
(d) , Because this alternative does not
include the General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project ,
the environmental , social , economic and other benefits derived
from the General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project as
discussediin the Statement of Overriding Considerations would
not be obtained.
EXHIBIT I 131
II
C. Alternate Landfill Sites .
1 . Facts .
(a) During the years 1984-1987 , there were
three landfill siting studies performed in the County to
identify potential sites. These efforts initially considered
22 sites , 'which were later narrowed through a ranking system to
seven sites . Four of the final seven sites recommended to the
Board of Supervisors are sites identified in the CoSWMP, the
subject of these Findings . The reasons for dropping the other
15 sites are listed in Table 6 . 3-1 of the CoSWMP EIR, and deal
mostly with the sites not meeting the County' s list of criteria
for new landfill development (Table 6 . 3-2 of the EIR) . It was
intended that developers of landfills would use this
information to identify future sites in the County.
(b) During the first study, three sites
were proposed by the private sector -- Kirker Pass Waste
Management Landfill (KPWML) , East Contra Costa Sanitary
Landfill (ECCSL) and Central Landfill . The Central Landfill
proposal was withdrawn in December of 1986 . In 1987, KPWML and
ECCSL completed their hearings and environmental review with
the Planning Commission . Both were unable to obtain a majority
approval by the Board of Supervisors . In 1988, the Marsh
Canyon Sanitary Landfill and Keller Canyon Landfill were
proposed by the private sector . They are currently undergoing
environmental review. This alternative was rejected because no
sites other than those now proposed to be included in the
COSWMP are capable of becoming operating facilities by 1992 if
site-specific studies were started now. However , none of the
other sites have sponsors who have obtained control of the land
and begun the application studies .
(c) The referenced studies, the 1985 Solid
Waste Management Project report , the Southeast County Landfill
Siting Study prepared in June 1986 , and the Final Landfill
Siting Task Force Report adopted in 1987 , are incorporated into
the EIR, and .fully and completely analyze twenty (20) proposed
sites, including the site of the Five General Plan Amendments
and the site which is governed by this General Plan Amendment .
(d) In addition, the EIR contains an
explanation of the reasons why each of these sites is
infeasible as an alternative to- this General Plan Amendment .
With respect to these specific sites , the EIR sets forth the
following conclusions :
( i ) The Christie Road site has
insufficient capacity to meet minimum solid waste disposal
needs fora landfill site in the county.
EXHIBIT I 132
( ii) The Cummings Skyway -site has a
significantly reduced capacity, because of the rerouting of
Highway 4 .
The Ozol site conflicts with a
nearby naval jet refueling facility.
( iv) New development is encroaching
upon the Big Canyon site, making development of a landfill site
there infeasible .
i
(v) Access to the Kirker Pass site is
superior to two (2) unnamed sites near Kirker Pass Road, making
adoption of those sites infeasible .
(vi) Access to a site south of Antioch
at the end of Briones Valley Road is infeasible, because of the
high potential cost of road improvements and because access to
the Marsh Canyon Landfill site is superior .
(vii ) The cost of road improvements to a
site at the end of Camino Tassajara Road is prohibitive and
access to the Kirker Pass site is superior .
(viii) The cost of road improvements to a
site on the east of Camino Tassajara Road, south of Highland
Road, is prohibitive, and access to the Kirker Pass site is
superior .
( ix) Access to a proposed site west of
Camino Tas,sajara Road, and east of Doherty Road is prohibitive
due to thelcost of road improvements , and access to the Kirker
Pass site its superior .
j (x) Use of the Sand Quarry site is
incompatible with two proposed reservoirs , and the site will be
highly visible due to low rolling terrain, as the Sand Quarry
site is not a canyon landfill site .
(xi ) The Vasco Road site is located at
an extreme' distance from waste generation sources , creating a
significant cost to reach the site, and is located too close to
archaeological sites .
(xii ) The Camino Vaqueros site is too
close to the proposed Kellogg Reservoir , has a relatively small
capacity, and possible access problems .
(xiii ) The Armstrong Road site is very
remote and difficult to access , with a significant cost to
reach the isite.
EXHIBIT I 133
(xiv) The Briones Valley site is located
too close ,to future residential development, and would be
highly visible due to low rolling terrain rather than a canyon
landfill site configuration.
(xv) The proposed Altamont site is
located at an extreme distance from waste generation sources,
creating a significant cost to reach the site, .and is located
in close proximity to archaeological sites .
j (xvi) The Refuse Canyon Naval Station
site is infeasible because it is located on naval property.
The complete explanation of these conclusions is set forth in
the 1985 , 1986 , and 1987 reports referenced above . These
reports are incorporated into the EIR pursuant to. CEQA
Guideline � 15150 .
(e) The county is still considering the Bay
Point , Bailey Road, Kirker Pass , East Contra Costa and Marsh
Canyon sites , and this evaluation of these alternative sites
will continue after the adoption of the Five General Plan
Amendments including this General Plan Amendment .
I
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that the substitute landfill
alternative, and each of the alternatives evaluated (excluding
the sitesisubject to the Five General Plan Amendments) is
infeasible and less desirable than the General Plan Amendment
and the Landfill Project, and rejects the substitute landfill
alternative and those sites not included in the Five General
Plan Amendments , for the following reasons :
I
( a) Mitigation measures incorporated into
the General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project or which
will be adopted as conditions of approval to subsequent
development approvals have substantially mitigated or will
substantially mitigate most of the environmental effects of the
General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project , thereby
diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating benefits of
approving 'this alternative or any of the alternative sites .
I .
(b) The alternative sites are infeasible
for the various reasons set forth below:
( i ) The Christie Road is infeasible
because it lacks sufficient capacity.
i
EXHIBIT I 134
i
I
i
II
• 0
( ii) The Cummings Skyway site is
infeasiblelbecause it will have a significantly reduced
capacity due to the rerouting of Highway 4 .
( iii ) The Ozol site is infeasible
because its use as a landfill conflicts with a nearby naval jet
refueling facility.
( iv) The Big Canyon site is infeasible
because new development of other uses is encroaching upon that
site.
(v) The two unnamed sites located near
Kirker Pass Road are infeasible because access is poor , and
access to the Kirker Pass site is superior .
(vi ) The site of' south of Antioch at
the end of Briones Valley Road is infeasible because road
improvements are prohibitively expensive and because access to
the Marsh Canyon landfill is superior .
(vii) The site at the end of Tassajara
Road is infeasible because of the high cost of road
improvements and because access to the Kirker Pass site is
superior .
j (viii ) - The site east of Tassajara Road is
infeasible', because 'of the high cost of road improvements and
because access to the Kirker Pass site is superior .
( ix) The site west of Camino Tassajara
Road and east of Doherty Road is infeasible because the cost of
road improvements is prohibitive and access to the Kirker Pass
site is superior .
(x) The Sand Quarry site is infeasible
because it is incompatible with two proposed reservoirs and
because the site will be more highly visible, as it is located
on low-rolling terrain and not in a canyon.
I
(xi ) The Vasco Road site is infeasible
because itlis located at an extreme distance from
waste-generating sources and because it is located too close to
archaeological sites .
(xii) The Caminos Vaqueros site is
infeasiblelbecause it is too close to a proposed reservoir ,
because it' has a relatively small capacity, and because of
possible access problems .
EXHIBIT I 135
i
(xiii) The Armstrong Road is infeasible
because itI is remote and difficult and expensive to obtain
access to ;the site.
I
(xiv) The Briones Valley site is
infeasible because it is located too close to future
residential development and because it would be more highly
visible, as it is located on rolling terrain and not in a
canyon.
(xv) The Altamont site is infeasible
because it is located at an extreme distance from
waste-generation sources and is close to archaeological sites .
(xvi) The Refuse Canyon Naval Station
site is infeasible because it is located on naval property and
is not available for landfill purposes .
(xvii ) In addition, each of these sites
is infeasible because the County is bound by court order to
adopt the ;Five General Plan Amendments .
i
(c) Because the various alternate sites
listed above which are not the subject of the Five General Plan
Amendments are infeasible, adoption of the substitute landfill
alternative would eliminate the environmental , social , economic
and other benefits derived from the General Plan Amendment and
the Landfill Project as discussed in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations .
(d) The county is required pursuant to the
court order in the Litigation referenced above to adopt general
plan amendments for five ( 5) sites , including the site governed
by this General Plan Amendment . Adoption of the Substitute
Landfill Alternative would be contrary to the county' s
obligations pursuant to the court order in the Litigation.
D . No Transfer Station Alternative .
i
1 . Facts .
j
(a) In this alternative, the CoSWMP
revision and General Plan Amendments would not include the
provision for transfer stations , and instead rely on direct
haul of solid waste to landfill(s) and/or resource recovery
facilities . This would entail the use of low-capacity packer
trucks to haul the waste from the point of collection to the
ultimate disposal or processing point,. rather than using
high-capacity transfer vehicles to haul waste from a transfer
station to the ultimate disposal/processing location. There
EXHIBIT I 136
I.
would be a substantially greater number of vehicle trips needed
to transport a given amount of solid waste to its ultimate
destination(s) . In the worst case condition for traffic
generation, a single landfill would become the destination for
all the solid waste operations in the County. According to
Table 6 .3 ,3 in the CoSWMP/General Plan Amendment EIR, there
would be almost three times as many vehicle trips generated
under this scenario than under the proposed project scenario
which includes transfer stations ( 1 , 726 trips by the year 2005
instead of 640 trips) . There would be substantially greater
air emissions and noise impacts . In addition, there could be
more public service impacts due to road maintenance and traffic
enforcement, and greater land use, visual and property value
impacts as a result of increased traffic .
(b) The county is required by state law and
pursuant to the court order in the Litigation to adopt the Five
General Plan Amendments .
I
2 . Findings .
I
This Board finds that the no transfer station
alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the General
Plan Amendment , and rejects the no transfer station alternative
for the following reasons :
(a) The County is legally obligated to
adopt thelFive General Plan Amendments , and accordingly cannot
adopt this alternative in their place. This alternative is
contrary to the County' s obligations purst?.ant to state law and
pursuant to the court order in the Litigation.
(b) Mitigation measures incorporated into
the General Plan Amendment , or which will be incorporated into
future development approvals as conditions of approval, has
substantially mitigated or will substantially mitigate most of
the environmental effects of the General Plan Amendment and the
Landfill Project , thereby diminishing or obviating the
perceived mitigating benefits of approving this alternative .
(c) This alternative would result in
adverse environmental impacts , including additional traffic ,
greater air emissions , and greater public services impacts .
Increased traffic could result in adverse land use, visual and
property value impacts . For these reasons, this alternative is
infeasible and undesirable .
i
1
EXHIBIT I 137
VI . STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 , this Board
adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding
Considerations regarding the unavoidable environmental, impacts
of. the Project, as discussed above, and the anticipated
environmental , economic, social and other benefits of the
General Plan Amendment and Landfill Project . To the extent
that any impacts of the General Plan Amendment and the Landfill
Project may be significant adverse impacts, this Board finds
that such impacts are overridden by the benefits of the General
Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project as set forth below.
A. Generally.
This Board finds that, to the extent that any impacts
( including cumulative_ impacts) attributable to this Landfill
Project or to the General Plan Amendment remain unmitigated,
such impacts are overridden by, and acceptable in light of , the
environmental , social , economic and other overriding
considerations set forth herein because these benefits outweigh
the significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts
of the Landfill Project . This Board also finds that , to the
extent that any mitigation measures which were recommended in
the EIR were not or will not be incorporated into the General
Plan Amendment or the Landfill Project , such mitigation,
measures are infeasible with respect to the Landfill Project ,
because such measures would impose limitations and restrictions
on the development of the Landfill Project so as to prohibit
the attainment of specific social , economic and other Benefits
of the Landfill Project which this Board finds outweigh the
unmitigated impacts of the Landfill Project . This Board
further finds that the alternatives to the General Plan
Amendmentland the Landfill Project set forth in the EIR are
infeasible because such alternatives would prohibit the
attainment of specific social , economic and other benefits of
the Landfill Project which this Board finds outweigh the
environmental benefits of the alternatives . Specifically, this
Board finds that the following social , economic and other
considerations warrant approval of the General Plan Amendment
notwithstanding any unavoidable or unmitigated impacts :
1 . The General Plan Amendment is necessary to
comply with state law.
The General Plan Amendment is required so the County
may comply with state law governing solid waste management and
landfill sites . Pursuant to the California Solid Waste
Management Resource Recovery Act of 1972, California Government
Code section 66780 et seq. , the County is required to prepare
and update', a county solid waste management plan ( "CoSWMP'' ) . In
EXHIBIT 1i 138
I
I
i
addition, California law requires that the CoSWMP show eight
years of assured capacity in reserved waste disposal sites
which are 'identified in both the CoSWMP and in the County
General Plan. The County cannot demonstrate eight years of
capacity without providing new landfill sites , and no new site
is current',ly_ included in the County General Plan. Accordingly,
general plan amendments are required for these landfill sites .
On March 1 , 1989 , the California Attorney General , on
behalf of the California Waste Management Board, filed suit
against this Board because, among other things, the County had
not yet adopted a CoSWMP revision which included future
landfill disposal sites . California Waste Management Board v.
Board of Supervisors , Contra Costa County Superior Court
No . 89-00833 (the ''Litigation'' ) . This General Plan Amendment
is necessary for the County to comply with its legal obligation
to provide' adequate disposal sites in the County.
2 . The General Plan Amendment is necessary to
comply with court order .
1
The General Plan Amendment is necessary for the County
to comply with the provisions of the court order . The
provisionslof this order relating to landfill sites and
landfill site general plan amendments are binding ,on the County.
This Litigation was initiated against the County to
require compliance with California Government Code
section 661780 . 5 requiring submission of the final revised
county waste management plan. The court order requires the
County to 'carry out certain tasks set forth in a schedule for
the 1989 CoSWMP Revision and landfill general plan amendments .
This schedule requires this Board to adopt general plan
amendments! for the various landfill sites set forth in the
General Plan Amendment . Pursuant to the court order , this
Board is under a legal obligation to adopt the General Plan
Amendment ,', and may be subject to sanctions or other remedies
for failure to adopt the General Plan Amendment .
3 . Environmental and waste management benefits .
The General Plan Amendment is an integral part of the
County' s 1989 CoSWMP revision, and adoption of this General
Plan Amendment is required in order to implement the 1989
revision. 1 The purpose of the 1989 revision is to establish
goals and 'policies to produce the amount of solid waste
generated in the County, to recycle as much of the solid waste
as possible, to utilize the energy and nutrient value of solid
waste where possible, and to properly dispose of remaining
solid wastie . Implementation of these goals and policies will
be a substantial environmental benefit to the entire county and
i
I
EXHIBIT I 139
region, and adoption of this General Plan Amendment is
necessary 'to fully implement these goals .
The proposed CoSWMP revision requires new landfills to
be constructed to Class II standards . Class II landfills are
required to have liners , leachate collection systems, and other
features to protect the environment and provide for proper
waste management . According to the EIR, the CoSWMP requirement
of Class II standards will provide a higher level of
environmental protection at new landfill sites in the County,
and this is a substantial environmental benefit of the General
Plan Amendment .
In addition, the collection policy in the CoSWMP calls
for mandatory subscription to solid waste .collection service,
replacing ',the current option in some areas to either subscribe
to collection service or dispose of solid waste individually.
The EIR states that mandatory collection is a beneficial and
environmental impact because it reduces solid waste storage
problems and results in a more healthful , attractive
community., This policy also reduces traffic associated with
individual solid waste transport and disposal . This is an
environmental benefit of the proposed CoSWMP, and this General
Plan Amendment is necessary to fully implement the CoSWMP so
the reduction of solid waste storage problem is an
environmental benefit of this General Plan Amendment .
Similarly, the CoSWMP encourages recycling, composting
and wastelto energy or waste processing programs , all of which
reduce overall solid waste and are a beneficial environmental
impact of !the CoSWMP. As this .General Plan Amendment is
necessarylto full implementation of the CoSWMP, the collection
of recycled materials and reduction in the solid waste frame is
an environmental benefit of this General Plan Amendment .
4 . Reduced export of solid waste to other
counties .
Existing landfills in Contra Costa County are expected.
to close at different times , based on their remaining capacity,
beginning ,with the Acme Landfill in 1989 and concluding with
the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill in or about 1991 .
Because of these closures , the County will be required to
export solid waste to other counties until new landfill sites
can be developed. Adoption of this General Plan Amendment will
reduce orleliminate the County' s need to export solid waste to
other counties . This will reduce or eliminate the energy,
environmental and traffic impacts of transferring waste outside
of the County and is an environmental benefit of the project .
I
EXHIBIT I 140
ll
I
5 . Overall economic benefit to the County.
The provision of adequate solid waste storage, and
accordingly the CoSWMP revision and this General Plan
Amendment, are necessary to the continued economic development
of the County and preservation of existing jobs and
businesses. The failure to reserve adequate landfill capacity
will adversely affect existing businesses by making it more
difficult to operate, and will discourage or prevent other
businesses ' from locating in the County.
6 . Overall social benefits to the County.
The provision of adequate solid waste storage, and
accordingly the CoSWMP revision and this General Plan
Amendment, lprovide great social benefits to the County. The
provision of a number of services , including adequate
healthcare, child daycare, care for senior citizens , and supply
of food and housing, all depend upon a reliable and assured
source of adequate and environmentally sound solid waste
storage . Because this General Plan Amendment is a part of the
1989 CoSWMP revision and is necessary to implement that
revision, these social benefits throughout the County are a
benefit ofia this General Plan Amendment .
7 . Provision of construction jobs .
This General Plan Amendment , and development of one or
more landfill sites pursuant to subsequent land use approvals
which may be granted, will provide construction jobs over a
period of several years .
Bl. Vegetation And Wildlife .
With respect to any unavoidable impacts of the
Landfill Project and the General Plan Amendment on vegetation
and wildlife ( including removal of wetlands or oak woodland
vegetation) , this Board finds that the aforementioned
environmental , social , economic and other considerations
warrant approval of the General Plan Amendment and the Landfill
Project notwithstanding the fact that these impacts of the
Landfill Project and the General Plan Amendment may not be
avoided despite the numerous mitigation measures and conditions
of approval which are imposed or will be imposed on the
Landfill Project and the development of the General Plan
Amendment site pursuant to subsequent development approvals .
This Board finds that these impacts also cannot be avoided
except by approval of the No Project Alternative, which
alternative would eliminate the Landfill Project benefits as
set forth above, and which alternative would not achieve
compliancewith either state law or governing court orders .
EXHIBIT I 141
C. Geology And Soils .
With respect to any unavoidable impacts of the
Landfill Project and the General Plan Amendment on geology and
soils ( including alteration of topography at landfill sites) ,
this Board finds that the aforementioned environmental , social ,
economic and other considerations warrant approval of the
General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project notwithstanding
the fact that these impacts of the Landfill Project and the
General Plan Amendment may not be avoided despite the numerous
mitigation measures and conditions of approval which are
imposed or will be imposed on the Landfill Project and the
development of the General Plan Amendment site pursuant to
subsequent development approvals . This Board finds that these
impacts also cannot be avoided except by approval of the No
Project Alternative, which alternative would eliminate the
Landfill Project benefits as set forth above, and which
alternative would not achieve compliance with either state law
or governing court orders .
D. Visual Quality.
With respect to any unavoidable impacts of the
Landfill Project and the General Plan Amendment on visual
quality ( including any adverse changes in existing visual
character � of landfill sites) , this Board finds that the
aforementioned environmental , social , economic and other
considerations warrant approval of the General Plan Amendment
and the Landfill Project notwithstanding the fact that these
impacts of the Landfill Project and the General Plan Amendment
may not be avoided despite the numerous mitigation measures and
conditions of approval which are imposed or will be imposed on
the Landfill Project and the Development of the General Plan
Amendmentsite .pursuant to subsequent development approvals .
This Board finds that these impacts also cannot be avoided
except by ' approval of the No Project Alternative, which
Alternative would eliminate the Landfill Project benefits as
set forth above, and which alternative would not achieve
compliance with either state law or governing court orders .
E. Cultural Resources .
With respect to any unavoidable impacts of the
Landfill Project and the General Plan Amendment on cultural
resources ( including the possible elimination of historic
homesteads on the East Contra Costa sanitary landfill and the .
Marsh Canyon sanitary landfill sites) , this Board finds that
the aforementioned environmental , social , economic and other
considerations warrant approval of the General Plan Amendment
and the Landfill Project notwithstanding the fact that these
impacts of the Landfill Project and the General Plan Amendment
i
i
EXHIBIT I 142
i
may not be', avoided despite the numerous mitigation measures and
conditions', of approval which are imposed or will be imposed on
the Landfill Project and the development of the General Plan
Amendment sites pursuant to subsequent development approvals .
This Board finds that these impacts also cannot be avoided
except by approval of the No Project Alternative, which
Alternative would eliminate the Landfill Project benefits as
set forth above, and which alternative would not achieve
compliancelwith either state law or governing court orders .
I
F'. Cumulative Impacts .
With respect to any unavoidable cumulative impacts of
the Landfill Project and the General Plan Amendment, this Board
finds that' the aforementioned environmental, social , economic
and other considerations warrant approval of the General Plan
Amendment and the Landfill Project notwithstanding the fact
that these impacts of the Landfill Project and the General Plan
Amendment may not be avoided despite the numerous mitigation
measures and conditions of approval which are imposed or will
be imposed on the Landfill Project and the development of the
General Plan Amendment sites pursuant to subsequent development
approvals . 1 This Board finds that these impacts also cannot be
avoided except by approval of the No Project Alternative, which
Alternative would eliminate the Landfill Project benefits as
set forth above, and which alternative would not achieve
compliancewith either state law or governing court orders .
G�. Other Environmental Impacts .
With respect to any other impacts of 'the Landfill
Project and the General Plan Amendment which are unavoidable
adverse impacts , notwithstanding the conclusions in the final
EIR that other impacts are either insignificant or mitigated to
a level ofjinsignificance, this Board finds that the
aforementioned environmental , social , economic and other
considerations warrant approval of the General Plan Amendment
and the Landfill Project notwithstanding the fact that these
impacts ofl, the Landfill Project and the General Plan Amendment
may not belavoided despite the numerous mitigation measures and
conditionsjof approval .which are imposed or will be imposed on
the Landfill Project and the development of the General Plan .
Amendment site pursuant to subsequent developmental approvals .
This Board finds that these impacts also cannot be avoided
except by approval of the No Project Alternative, which
alternative would eliminate the Landfill Project benefits as
set forth ''above, and ,which alternative would not achieve
compliance) with either state law or governing court orders .
EXHIBIT I 143
i
I
VII . FINDINGS REGARDING MONITORING OR REPORTING OF CEQA
MITIGATION MEASURES
Section 21081 . 6 .of the California Public Resources
Code requires this Board to adopt a monitoring or reporting
program regarding CEQA mitigation measures in connection with
these findings . This Board has made specific findings
regarding mitigation monitoring as it applies to various
specific impacts of the Landfill Project, in the findings
sections set forth above . Those specific findings call for
annual reporting, based on information to be gathered by the
County Community Development Department . This annual reporting
will be done pursuant to the following program, which this
Board hereby adopts in fulfillment of the CEQA mitigation
monitoring requirement :
i
A. The Community Development Department shall file a
written report with this Board approximately once each year ,
beginning 'on or about the first anniversary of the approval of
this General Plan Amendment by the Board of Supervisors and
continuing until the Landfill Project is developed pursuant to
additional land use approvals which may be granted by the
County. The written report shall briefly state the status in
implementing each mitigation measure which is adopted as a
Condition of Approval or which is incorporated into the
Landfill Project . The written report may include information
from other agencies regarding implementation of the mitigation
measures . ; When such information from other agencies is
included, ' the report shall include such additional information,
if any, as the Department deems necessary to provide a complete
report on , the implementation of mitigation measures .
B . Community Development staff and this Board shall
review the written report and determine whether there is any
unforeseen, unusual and substantial delay in, or obstacle to ,
implementing the adopted or incorporated mitigation measures
which requires action by Department staff .
C. The Board may delegate its review of the
mitigation monitoring report , in this Board ' s sole discretion.
If any interested party requests it , the result of this review
will be provided to such party in writing.
D. If the staff or this Board determines that action
is required to ensure that one or more mitigation measures is
implemented, then the staff shall advise this Board of the
situation!
j
EXHIBIT I � 144
i
VIII . GENERAL
This Board makes the following general findings and
determinations and intends them to be generally applicable to
this General Plan Amendment and to all findings and
determinations as a whole contained herein.
A. In addition to the foregoing specific findings ,
this Board hereby incorporates by reference the applicable
portions of the County Staff reports and studies, oral and
written evidence submitted into the record, oral and written
evidence submitted into the record, the EIR, resolutions and
conditions of approval , all relating to the General Plan
Amendment .'
B . This Board intends that the foregoing findings
and determinations be considered as an integrated whole and,
whether or not any subdivision of these findings and
determinations fails to cross-reference or incorporate by
reference any other subdivision of these findings and
determinations , that any finding and/or determination required
or permitted to be made by this Board with respect to any
particular subject matter of the General Plan Amendment shall
be deemed made if it appears in any portion of these findings
and determinations . All of the foregoing constitute findings
and determinations by this Board whether or not any particular
sentence or clause states such.
C. Each and all of the findings and determinations
containedherein are based upon the competent and substantial
evidence, ;both oral and written, contained in the entire record
relating to the General Plan Amendment and the Landfill
Project, including, without limitation, that evidence presented
in hearings on the General Plan Amendment and the EIR before
the Planning Commission, the Zoning Administrator and the Board
of Supervisors . The findings and determinations constitute the
independent findings and determinations of this Board in all
respects and are fully and completely supported by competent
and substantial evidence in the record as a whole .
i
EXHIBIT Ii 145
i
i
���
i
'�
1
I
i
it
���
II
• EXHIBIT J
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
MARSH CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL
(GPA 4-89-CO)
The Contra Costa County General Plan is amended as provided below.
1. REFUSE DISPOSAL PLAN
a. Add to the Eastern Study Area Text (p. 29) :
"Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill.
A sanitary landfill facility, or sanitary landfill facilities, may be
developed at the location identified as a Sanitary Landfill Refuse
Disposal Facility on the accompanying Plan Map, in accordance with
Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval adopted by the Board of
Supervisors. A sanitary landfill developed in the subject location is
intended to take residential-commercial-industrial wastes (i.e. ,
wastes allowable for a Class II landfill under the terms of Subchapter
151, Chapter 3, Title 23 of the California Administrative Code, 1984) .
The facility is intended to serve Contra Costa County and other areas
specified by the Board of Supervisors."
1
b. Add the attached diagram entitled Plan Map--Marsh Canyon Sanitary
Landfill to the above plan text Amendment.
2. LAND USE ELEMENT
Add the Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill (2b) to the following section of the
Land Use Element which was adopted .on December 15, 1987:
"Adopted Refuse Disposal Facilities
The following Refuse Disposal Facilities are consistent with the Land
Use Element and their site areas are deemed to be overlays on the Land
Use Element Plan Map: '
1.� Refuse Disposal Facilities approved prior to January 1, 1983, by
the Board of Supervisors in General Plan Components and Land Use
Permits (includes West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, and the IT
Corporation's Baker, Pacheco, and Vine Hill facilities) .
2.: Refuse Disposal Facilities approved by General Plan Amendments
adopted subsequent to January 1, 1983, by the Board of Supervi-
sors. These are: (a) the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer
Station, adopted December 15, 1987; and (b) the Bay Pointe
Sanitary Landfill, East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, Keller
i Canyon Landfill, Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill, and Marsh
Canyon Sanitary Landfill, adopted September 19, 1989.
3. OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Add "refuse disposal" to the following statement of purpose on Page 1,
Purposes, of the Open Space and Conservation Element, indicated by under-
lining:
Open Space and Conservation in this plan can mean land for orchards,
crops, livestock production, water supply, national defense, public
and private recreation, forestry, mineral extraction, refuse disposal,
agricultural industry,, and even very low density residential uses,
where appropriate to location and other planning considerations.
I
i
i
I hereby certify that this amendment
to the Contra Costa County General Plan
was Adopted by the Board of Supervisors
j on October 10, 1989.
i
Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of
jSupervisorsnd Coun Administrator
By o
D ty
CAZ/jn
169:marshcyni.gpa
4
i
I
I
�I
SII
i
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
MARSH CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL
(GPA 4-89-CO)
PL AN ;•IAP -- MARSH CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL
Part of the Refuse Disposal Plan and
Landfill Use Element ( Plan Map Overlay)
of the Contra Costa County General Plan
I G�wocwtry•., � , ,
I �
•03 a I YT
Ai'fy ACi ...022� �.OA,�1N fT •l
\ I I \ •].•M'•K CAA!lw l.0 C.i' • i1.0 .,. •]AC
• p v
t,lE AC '• -
36— iii■ �� I o 32 v7 —
u
.• I � o
•• y( _ _ • A •I AA:AO
l-00
ISIE � .-Cx1
1 I •S•,e ,
,.
porch
1000' •~ • GIwOCwIM •, -000
;I ••�� S
•C'! �•` .. Scale In Feet I
•I•
I ••�
� � t IJO Af.. uuw•w♦
100 AC • 1 \ ••. •`
• .1 so . ..
.�
•Aq I rol.Er� .•.•• Ac
'4210 311 AC
SVC&Wok ow-
•10 4-.%;• WAtA/TAM •�.� I `
520 AC
IVABbl 2139
General Plan Amendment Area
Sanitary Landfill Refuse Disposal acilit.�
Thereby certify that this
amendment to the Contra Costa
county General Plan was
Adopted by the Board of
Supervisors on October 10, 19(39.
Phil Batchelor, Clerk of tihe f;oard
of Supervisor!-, and County
Administrator
By:
D
Uvpu
I
I