The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 10171989 - 2.7 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on October 17, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder and McPeak NOES: Supervisor Torlakson ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None RESOLUTION NO. 89/683 SUBJECT: Ratification of changes ) to Resolution No. 89/656 and Re- ) adoption of 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: On October 10, 1989 the Board adopted Resolution No. 89/656, by which it approved the First Combined Amendment of the County General Plan by including the five following potential landfill sites in the County General Plan:Bay Pointe Sanitary Landfill (5- 89-CO) , East ,Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (6-85-CO) , Keller Canyon Landfill (3-89-CO) , Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill (24-84-CO) ; and Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill (4-89-CO) . In said Resolution, among other things, the Board also reaffirmed 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 adopted environmental findings as to each of the potential sites . Further, the Board directed the staff to determine whether those findings need to be changed and to determine whether such changes . require Board ratification. The Director of Community Development and the County Counsel have advised the Board that the exhibits to Resolution No. 89/656 should be changed in several places, to clarify various references, to add certain findings that had been inadvertently omitted from several of the exhibits, and to correct several minor technical errors. Therefore, upon the recommendation of the Director of Community Development and the County Counsel, and having considered the proposed changes, the Board hereby modifies each of the exhibits to Resolution No. 89/656 by substituting the pages attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, respectively. Further, the Board hereby re-adopts Resolution No. 89/656 in its entirety, as amended by this Resolution. The Board directs the Clerk to insert the substitution pages into the appropriate exhibits of a copy of Resolution No. 89/656 and to distribute copies- of--th .s Rzsolution as set -fvrLh -re ow-- Further, w-:Further, the Board directs the Director of Community Development to file with the County Clerk a Notice of Determination concerning this action. Orig. Dept: Community Development Directs rlereby ser*that this is a true and coo eMof cc: County Administrator an action taken and entered on Me mUuW of the County Counsel Board of Sudate ehown. �� Public Works Director ATTESTED: � �-yd.:j 9 , (- q 0 Management Board PHIL BATCHELOR,Clark ofthe eoaro California Waste Mana g o Supervis County A inistrator La By ,Deouty 89/683 • • i�",?G"1��4 � I BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA i. 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 judgment and peremptory writ of mandate in California Waste Management Board v. Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County Superior Court No. C89-00833 (the "Litigation" ) . This litigation was initiated against the County to require submission of a final revised CoSWMP, and the courts judgment and peremptory writ require 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 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 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 the court judgment and peremptory writ 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 maylbe 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 ( iii) if the project-specific 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 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 Amendment (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 EIR; and 6 . The judgment and peremptory writ of mandate 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 Mate law. The discussions and findings which follow for each category of possible environmental impact recite some of the EXHIBIT C 7 III . POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE CONSIDERED MITIGABLE TO INSIGNIFICANCE i i 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 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) The 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 1 � • 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 site 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 0 • ♦ j 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 seq. , the County is required to prepare and update a county solid waste management plan ( "CoSWMP" ) . In 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 currently 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 . C89-00833 (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. EXHIBIT C 139 ' 2 . The General Plan Amendment is necessary to 1 comply with court order . I The General Plan Amendment is necessary for the County to comply with the provisions of the judgment and peremptory writ of mandate in the Litigation. 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 judgment 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 judgment , 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 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 pa-rticular 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. EXHIBIT C 146 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 ithese 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 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. M. Growth Inducing Impacts . 1 . Facts . ( i) The EIR discusses the potential growth inducing effects of the General Plan Amendment and the EXHIBIT C 120 LandfillProject 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,1l could be considered technically growth inducing. ( iii) Access roads and sewer line extensions, if constructed pursuant to development plans to be approved 1!ater 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) Although landfill sites are necessary to serve existing development , businesses , and homes , and although the EIR does not list growth-inducing impacts as unavoidable significant impacts , the growth inducing impacts of this General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project are potentially significant . ( ii) To the extent that any growth inducing impacts of this General Plan Amendment or the Landfill Project are potentially significant , 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) . ( iii) Growth-inducing impacts which are related to development plans for specific landfill sites are not ripe for consideration at this time, because this Board is not considering final or site-specific development plans for any landfill sites at this time, and is only considering the Five Generial Plan Amendments pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines authorizing Program EIRs and tiering of EIRs . Any, growth-inducing impacts which arise from final development plans for specific landfill sites, and any mitigation measures which may reduce such impacts , will be evaluated in the project-specific EIR for each landfill site . EXHIBIT C1 121 N. Cumulative Impacts . 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 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; 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 aforementioned potential cumulative 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 Pian Amendment and the Landfill Project because they will be EXHIBIT C 122 included in subsequent land use development applications and approvals , if such subsequent applications are approved. (b) 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 state and federal agencies . (c) 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 . I (d) 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 projects , and 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 studies which are currently underway involving the Solid Waste Commission, the County Health Department , and this Board' s Internal Operations Committee. The County coordinates infrastructure and land use planning through its participation in the Measure C financing and coordination program for developments . (e) 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) . (f) Cumulative impacts which are related to development plans for specific landfill sites are not ripe for consideration at this time, because this Board is not considering final or site-specific development plans for any landfill sites at this time, and is only considering the Five EXHIBIT C 123 General Plan Amendments pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines authorizing program EIRs and tiering of EIRs . Any cumulative impacts which arise from final development plans for specific landfill sites , and any mitigation measures which may reduce such impacts , will be evaluated -in the project-specific EIR for each landfill site . (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. I i EXHIBIT C1 123 -A ��, t ,� D �� controlled by the U.S. Department of Defense, and is subject to the terms of the easement. b. i 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 . 1-18, 24; App. A-12113) 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 impacts 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. To the extent that the foregoing mitigation measures were judged in the project EIR to not be capable of avoiding or mitigating the growth-inducing impacts of the Keller Canyon landfill to less than a significant level, the Board of Supervisors finds that the Statement of -7- EXHIBIT E • Overriding Considerations in these findings shall be applicable. 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 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. . 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 -8- EXHIBIT E described as mitigation measures to be implemented in response to Significant Impact No. 2 set forth above, which is incorporated herein by this i reference. C. Monitoring Program: The status of this siting criterion shall be included in the annual -8a- EXHIBIT E I 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. Findinca: This Board finds that this impact is potentially significant but will be mitigated to a level less than significant by the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended by the EIR. b. Supporting Explanation: 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. 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 in Table 4 .5-2 of the Program EIR) . Some additional measures that should be evaluated in the -22- EXHIBIT E i of the mitigation measures recommended by the EIR. b. Supporting Rationale: 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. 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. 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. b. Supporting Rationale: 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. -46- EXHIBIT E 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 . i 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 Control Board standards prior to its introduction into the wastewater system. -47- EXHIBIT E 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 j 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 Se mitigated to a level less than significant by the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended by the EIR. . b. Supporting Rationale: 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. C. - Monitoring Program: The County Community Development Department shall submit monitoring reports to the Board on a regular basis regarding -49- EXHIBIT E I 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. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development Department shall report to the Board annually, as applicable, on compliance to the identified conditions . GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS Development of the Keller Canyon site could be potentially growth inducing, in that failure of the County to site a landfill at the Keller Canyon site and other proposed sites could eventually become an obstacle to growth and development. The improvement of access roads and extension of sewer lines to some landfill sites could also have growth inducing effects . (FEIR, pp. 5-1 - 5-3) . a. Finding: This Board finds that the potential growth inducing impacts of development of the Keller Canyon site are not significant. Even if such inpacts were judged to be significant in the project EIR, any growth inducing impacts of the Keller Canyon project would be subject to mitigation to less than a significant level through the following mitigation measures: The new County General Plan provides for orderly growth in accordance with the requirements of the state planning law. Regulation of land use and growth by the County pursuant to the General Plan will avoid or reduce any growth-inducing impact that a landfill might exert. In addition, under Measure C, the County and the cities are required to manage growth in relation to transportation -52- EXHIBIT E i infrastructure, thereby avoiding or reducing any growth-inducing effect that a landfill might otherwise exert. To the extent that the foregoing mitigation measures were judged in the project EIR to not be capable of avoiding or mitigating the growth-inducing impacts of the Keller Canyon landfill to less than a significant level, the Board of Supervisors finds that the Statement of Overriding Considerations in these findings shall be applicable. b. ; Supporting Rationale: Unlike water or sewer lines and access roads, landfill capacity does not provide a clear quantitative threshold beyond which a landfill could be considered growth inducing. There is, however, a potential connection between landfill capacity and the County's ability top accomodate growth. The EIR does not state that the absence of such an inhibiting factor would create a significant environmental impact. Development of the Keller Canyon site would not require the construction of new roads, but only the widening of a small portion (less than 3/4 mile) of the existing Bailey Road. (FEIR, p. 4 . 3-8) . The remaining access roads would be contained within the site boundaries. Furthermore, the Keller site presently adjoins the City of Pittsburg's limits and development of the site would not create additional infrastructure. C. Monitoring Program: The project EIR will further assess whether any mitigation measures should be imposed and, if any such measures are required as part of the project approval, they shall be incorporated into the monitoring program described in these findings . CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Certain' impacts of the Keller Canyon General Plan Amendment, while not significant in themselves, may cumulatively have significant impacts assuming the eventual development of other potential projects and developments described in the EIR. These potential cumulative impacts include increases in traffic volumes along Highway 4, cumulative air quality impacts resulting from increased traffic, cumulative increases in demand for public services, cumulative loss of open space, agricultural lands and the cumulative impact of loss of riparian and wetland habitat. (FEIR, 5 . 3 - 5 . 8 ) . -52 a- EXHIBIT E i • a. Findina: This Board finds that that the potential cumulative impacts of eventual development of the Keller Canyon site may be significant, but if they are found to be significant in the project EIR, they are subject to mitigation to a level less than significant by the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended by the EIR, including those mitigation measures described herein regarding traffic impacts, air quality impacts, impacts on demand for public services, loss of agricultural lands, and loss of wetlands and riparian vegetation as they pertain to the Keller site. General, non- site specific mitigation measures may include one or more of the following measures: adoption of City and County General Plans and zoning ordinances favoring high density development and contiguous patterns of urban development; imposition of more stringent air pollutant controls by the Bay Area Air Quality Management Board; transportation management systems imposed by the County, the cities, the BAAQMD and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission; restrictions by the County and cities on the use of certain materials and commodities and other measures to reduce the volume of urban solid waste streams; and the coordination of infrastructure and land use planning at County and regional levels . Certain of these mitigation measures are outside of the scope of the County's authority or require coordination with other agencies . The project EIR will further analyze cumulative impacts and will recommend additional detailed mitigation measures as appropriate. To the extent that the foregoing mitigation measures do not avoid, or reduce to a less than significant level, the cumulative impacts of the Keller Canyon project, the Board of Supervisors finds that the statement of Overriding Considerations shall be applicable. b. Monitoring Program: The project EIR will further assess whether any mitigation measures should be imposed and, if any such measures are required as - part of the project approval, they shall be incorporated into the monitoring program described in these findings . 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 -52b- EXHIBIT E 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 -520- EXHIBIT 520-EXHIBIT E Landfill, and the Marsh Creek Landfill. (FEIR, Figure 4 . 3-4 at p. 413-15) 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 impact on 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. , 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 Canyon Landfill site should that landfill meet environmental requirements and complete the public hearing process . (FEIR, p. 6-23) . 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 . This program EIR and this General Plan Amendment are the first phase in a series of development proposals pursuant to which the County is considering five (5) possible landfill sites covered by the Five General Plan Amendments, as possible alternative 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 ordered judgment in the Litigation against the County referenced in these findings . i With respect to alternative landfill sites, 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 the following alternative sites, the EIR sets forth the following conclusions: - The Christie Road site has insufficient capacity to meet minimum solid waste disposal needs for a landfill site in the county. The Cummings Skyway site has a significantly -56- EXHIBIT E reduced capacity, because of the rerouting of Highway 4 . The Ozol site conflicts with a nearby naval jet refueling facility. - New development is encroaching on the Big Canyon site, making development of a landfill site there infeasible. - Access to the Kirker Pass site is superior to two ( 2) unnamed sites near Kirker Pass Road. - 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 . - The cost of road improvements to a site at the end of Camino Tassajara Road is prohibitive. - The cost of road improvements to a site on the east of Camino Tassajara Road, south of Highland Road, is prohibitive. Access to a proposed site west of Camino Tassajara Road, and east of Doherty Road, is prohibitive due to the cost of road improvements . - 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. - 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 . The Vaqueros site is too close to the Kellogg Reservoir, has a relatively small capacity, and possible access problems. The Armstrong Road site is very remote and difficult to access, with a significant cost to reach the site. 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 type configuration. - The proposed Altamont site is located at an extreme distance from waste generation sources, creating a significant cost the reach the site, and -56a - EXHIBIT E i f is located in close proximity to archeological sites . 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 in the finding on alternate landfill sites . These reports are incorporated into the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15150 . The County is still considering the Bay Pointe, Keller Canyon, Kirker Pass, East Contra Costa and Marsh Canyon sites, and this evaluation of these alternative sites will continue after adoption of the Five General Plan Amendments, including this General Plan Amendment. 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 b- EXHIBIT E KIRKER PASS LANDFILL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS AND MONITORING PROGRAM TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Procedural History CEQA Requirements for Findings 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. Disease-Bearing Vectors 2. Mosquitos 3. Fire and Explosion Hazard 4 . Hazardous Materials 5. Leachate Contamination of Ground and Surface Wastes 6. On-Site Effects of Landfill Gas 7 . Co-Composting III. TRANSPORTATION 1. Highway 4 Congestion 2. Damage to Pavement Structure 3. Congestion and Safety on Local Roads 4. Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety 5. Visual and Nuisance Effects EXHIBIT G - -i- i IV. AIR QUALITY 1 . Landfill Gas Emissions 2. Odor 3.1 Dust V. NOISE 1 .14 Effect on Nearby Residents 2 .I Effect on Residents Along Access Roads VI . VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 1 . Weeds and Pests i 2! Effect of Soil Erosion on Vegetation 3: Injury to Wildlife 41 Effect of Leachate on Downstream Areas 5: Effect of Dust on Vegetation 6 Construction of Landfill Interchange VII . GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 1: Landslides 2. Settlement 3. Stockpiling 4 . 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. Topography and Appearance 3 . Removal of Vegetation 4 . Landfill Operations 5 . Litter X. SOCIOECONOMICS 1 . Effect on Property Value i XI . CULTURAL RESOURCES XII . PUBLIC SERVICES I 2.I Fire and Explosion Hazard 3. Wastewater Treatment 4 . Water Supply 4. Increased Personnel 5.' Police Services Potentially Significant Impacts Which May Not be Mitigable to Insignificant Levels I . Vegetation and Wildlife 1 . Removal of Wetlands II. Geology and Soils 1.; Use of On-Site Soils and Alteration of Topography i II . Visual Quality 1 . Change in Existing Visual Contours Growth Inducing Impacts Cumulative Impacts EXHIBIT G -iii- i t Alternatives I . No Project Alternative II . Waste Reduction Alternative III . Substitute Landfill Sites Alternative i IV. No Transfer Station Alternative Statement of Overriding Considerations I, I i EXHIBIT G -iv- 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 sited. 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 managment 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 Wastel 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 Managmeent 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 provisons of the court order in California Waste Managment Board v. Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County Superior Court No. 89- 00831 (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. Previously, 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) EXHIBIT G -1- 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 KirkeriPass Road (the "Keller-Baily 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. 24-84-00) 5. A General Plan Amendment for the proposed Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfi11. 1ocated 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, lof 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. " 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, and 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 EXHIBIT G -2- 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 thelfuture 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" )I 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 authoirze 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 alos 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. i 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 proposed landfill sites 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 be imposed in connection with this General Plan Amendment but must instead be imposed in connection with future land use approvals . EXHIBIT G -3- B. 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 Kirker 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 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 4nd 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 . 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 -4 - 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, 521081 .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 -4 a- 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 Guideiines ( 14 C.C.R. §15.000 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 Land Use Permit when a specific landfill project .is approved. These findings describe numerous mitigation measures set forth in the EIR, which is a Program EIR. The impacts and mitigation measures for the Kirker Pass Landfill project will be analyzed in more detail in a subsequent project-level EIR when final, specific development plans for the landfill project are considered. It is appropriate to impose general mitigation measures at the program stage and specific mitigation measures at the project stage. Some impacts and corresponding mitigation measures, while discussed in the Program EIR, have.not been. included in these findings because it will not be possible to formulate and impose specific mitigation measures until the Project EIR stage. These impacts include, but are not limited to, relocation of the power lines traversing the property (which depends on a detailed design of the project) , and sufficiency of soil cover (which will require further identification of resources at the site) . The initial study on this project contains an explanation for its conclusions following each of the questions appearing in the study. On the basis of those explanations, the initial study concludes that the landfill EXHIBIT G -4 tr General Plan Amendments, including the Kirker Pass General Plan Amendment, will have an insignificant impact on a number of environmental resources. These insignificant impacts are identified int he initial study, which is incorporated by reference in the Program EIR and in these findings . 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. f 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: 1. A finding is made for each significant impact identified in the EIR (Public Resources Code (PRC) §210810, CEQA Guidelines §15091) . 2. 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 address the 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 ) . 3. The mitigation indicated will be considered and required by Contra Costa County as the Lead Agency. In addition, where appropriate, mitigation is EXHIBIT G -4c- indicated as being required by other public agencies (PRC §21081; Guidelines §15091 ) . 4 . 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) 5. Consideration has been given to each alternative analyzed in the EIR, and findings have been made, with supporting rationale, for rejecting each alternative. (PRC §21081, Guidelines §15091) . 6 . 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) . EXHIBIT G i —4d — 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 while idling at the landfill site (FEIR, p. 4 .4-15) . 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 impact, the identified potentially significant impact: This impact 'is expected to be mitigated to a level less than significant by avoiding the unnecessary idling and grouping of landfill equipment and, if necessary, by the implementation of any further mitigation measures identified as necessary in the site-specific EIR. b. Supporting Explanation: Waste hauling and handling vehicles/equipment would emit exhaust as the site. Large numbers of such vehicles/equipment operating or idling in a small area could cause spot violations of the CO and Nets standards. C. Monitoring Program: The mitigation measures will be implemented through incorporation into the conditions of. project approval. The County Community Development Department shall be responsible for ensuring that these conditions are complied with and report its findings to the Board of Supervisors annually. V. NOISE 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 EXHIBIT G -20- I in Table 4 . 5-2 of the Program EIR) . Some additional measures that should be evaluated in the 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. C.; Monitoring Program: The County Community Development Department shall obtain information i relating to noise impacts, including complaint reports from the Health Services Department, and compliance of a facility to stipulated noise i i EXHIBIT G -20 a- 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, 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. 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: The construction of a landfill interchange has the potential to adversely impact Hess Creek south of Kirker Pass Road (FEIR, p. 4 .6-27) . 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 impact, the identified potentially significant impact: a runoff diversion wall should be constructed at• the downstream boundary of the construction zone, so that all runoff from this zone is contained behind the wall and not allowed to enter the creek-bed below. A sump at one end of the wall may be necessary to hold excessive runoff if the construction is in progress during the rainy season. At the conclusion of the tunnel-underpass construction, all soil disturbed during the construction period should be stabilized with plantings and, if necessary, a terraced support wall should be installed to prevent downstream siltation. EXHIBIT G -26- b.1 Supporting Explanation: Several hundred feet of streambed would be eliminated by the construction activities and location of the interchange. A shallow sump would be installed upstream of the proposed construction zone to collect off-season flow. The stream would be bypassed with either a temporary culvert or a diaphragm pump with a discharge hose. At the point of downstream discharge, the flow could be dissipated to avoid additional erosion/siltation problems. C.; Monitoring Programs: The County Community Development Department shall be responsible for ensuring that these conditions are complied with and report to the Board annually. 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 i -27- i Board on a regular basis regarding the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of the identified mitigation measures . XI. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Significant Effect: Previously unknown cultural resources at the Kirker Pass Landfill site could be impacted during construction. (FEIR, p. 4 . 11-9 ) al 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 impact, the identified potentially significant impact: Construction personnel should be alerted to the possibility of encountering subsurface deposits during construction. In the event of a discovery, work should be diverted from the area until an archeologist can evaluate the resource and provide recommendations. The County Coroner should be notified immediately should buried human remains be discovered. b. Supporting Explanation: It is possible that previously unknown, buried cultural resources exist within or adjacent to the proposed Kirker Pass Landfill site. C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development Department shall report annually to the Board of Supervisors on the applicability of cultural resource findings and mitigation measures as they apply to proposed and sited solid waste projects. XII. PUBLIC SERVICES 1 . Significant Effect: The proposed landfill could increase the risk of fire and explosion (FEIR, pp. 4 . 12- 4, 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 ) . EXHIBIT G -43- 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. 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. . 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. 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 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 EXHIBIT G -44 - 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: Requirements for inspection and enforcement will require increased personnel and resources from affected agencies. (FEIR, p. 4 .12-7) 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 impact, the identified potentially significant impact: Requirements for increased. personnel for inspection and enforcement will be mitigated through the levying of fees on the various solid waste projects to offset the additional governmental costs associated with landfills and other waste management projects. i bl Supporting Explanation: Development of solid waste projects, including landfills, will require increased personnel and resources from affected j agencies. C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development Department shall report annually to the Board of Supervisors on the status of the monitoring measures including personnel requirements . 5 . Significant Effect: The Kirker Pass Landfill could have impacts on police services relating to traffic and litter violations. (FEIR, p. 4 . 12-5) EXHIBIT G -44a- 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 impact, the identified potentially significant impact: 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 and adjacent access roads could mitigate the impact of increased littering. 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 Kirker 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 -44b - i Environmental other Impact Reports and p p h r e nvironmental 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. VEGETATION AND SOILS 1. 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 mitigate the identified potentially significant effect, but may not reduce it to a less than significant level: 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 (RWQCB) , United Stated 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-unit habitat unit replacement for lost wetland. The County Community Development Department will ensure that a habitat enhancement and management plan in implemented, if necessary, by incorporating it into the project' s Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval. The plan, or variations of it, can also EXHIBIT G -45- 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 EIR. The habitat value of the on-or off-site mitigation area selected should be increased by means of sound management practices. i 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 Program: 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 of Supervisors on compliance with the provisions of this plan. II. 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 EXHIBIT G -46- i GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS Unlike water or sewer lines and access roads, landfill capacity does not provide a clear quantitative threshold limit beyond which a landfill could be considered growth- inducing. There is however, a potential connection between landfill capacity and the County' s ability to accommodate growth! Failure _to provide a landfill site such as the Kirker Pass Landfill could at some point limit growth and development. The COSWMP/General Plan Amendments EIR estimated that the capacity of the Kirker Pass Landfill would provide 16 years of site life, based ont eh County's current rate of solid waste generation. This exceeds the 8 years of disposal capacity required by the California Waste Management Board. However, this site life is within the 20 year time frame of the proposed County General Plan, and therefore would accommodate growth already anticipated and planned for by the County. In addition, the Kirker Pass Landfill site has a substantially lower capacity and site life then the other four sites for which General Plan Amendments have been proposed. Thus, to the extent that a landfill might be deemed growth-inducing, the Kirker Pass Landfill would be the least growth-inducing of the five candidate sites. A landfill may also be growth-inducing if its construction and use require major extension of roads, water lines or sewer lines through undeveloped lands, thereby making possible the development of those lands. However, the Kirker Pass Landfill does not require substantial road extensions which could open up new areas to development, and may not require a water main extension. Mitigation Finding: The Board of Supervisors finds that the following mitigation measures will avoid, or reduce to a less than significant level, any growth-inducing impacts of the Kirker Pass Landfill: The new County General Plan provides for orderly growth in accordance with the requirements of state planning law. Regulation of. land use and growth by the County pursuant to the General Plan will avoid or reduce any growth-inducing effect that a landfill might otherwise exert. In addition, under Measure C, the County and the cities are required to manage growth in relation to the transportation infrastructure in order to qualify for funding, thereby avoiding or reducing any growth-inducing effect that a landfill might otherwise exert. To the extent that the foregoing mitigation measures do not avoid, or reduce to a less than significant level, the growth-inducing impacts of the Kirker Pass Landfill, the EXHIBIT G -47a - Board orf Supervisors finds that the Statement of Overriding Considelrations in these findings shall be applicable. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The COSWMP/General Plan Amendments EIR describes a number 'of potential cumulative impacts arising from COSWMP facilities, including one or more landfills, in combination with other facilities and developments expected to occur in the County. These impacts would not be significant for the Kirker 'iPass Landfill alone, but this Landfill would make a small contribution to the overall magnitude of these cumulative impacts . The cumulative impacts described in the EIR are: i Significant increases in traffic volumes along access roads to new facilities, including one or more landfills and transfer stations, causing traffic congestion. An increase in heavy truck traffic on Highway 4 . Landfill truck traffic could comprise about six percent of total truck volume. Air pollutant emissions from traffic, leading to adverse air quality impacts. Increased demand on public services, especially fir protection services. Loss of open space and grazing land due to development of one or more landfills as well as other COSWMP solid waste facilities, together with other development in the County. Loss of riparian and wetland habitat due to development of one or more landfills as well other COSWMP solid waste facilities, together with other development in the County. Mitigation Finding: The Board of Supervisors finds that the following mitigation measures will avoid, or reduce to a less than significant level, the cumulative impacts described in the EIR. These mitigation measures involve actions of the cities4s well as the County, in addition to actions of regional and state agencies. To the extent that these mitigation measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of public agencies other than the County, they can and should be adopted by such other agencies: I EXHIBIT G -47b - I 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.i 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. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development Department shall report to the Board annually, as applicable, on compliance to the identified conditions. EXHIBIT G -47c - i The County will, and the cites should, adopt and implement general plans and zoning ordinances that favor high density development and urban in-filling to reduce the consumption of open land and wildlife habitat. The County will support efforts to coordinate infrastructure and land use planning on County and regional levels.1 The BAAQMD and the Air REsources Board should enforce stringent stationary source and vehicular air pollution controls. The County will, and the cities, the BAAQMD and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission should, implement transportation system management (TSM) measures such as car an van pooling, parking lots at transit stops, and exclusive car pool and bus lanes. The County will, and the cities should, implement, to the degree feasible, measures to reduce the volume of the urban solid waste stream. To the extent that he .forgoing mitigation measures do not avoid, or reduce to a less than significant level, the cumulative impacts of the Kirker Pass Landfill, together with other COSWMP facilities and other anticipated County development, the Board of Supervisors finds that the Statement of Overriding Considerations in these findings shall be applicable. 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 EXHIBIT G -48 - i r r f 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-a6re 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 jncludes policies for increasing the current rate of EXHIBIT G -48a- 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 initiallly 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. _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". This program EIR and this General Plan Amendment are the first phase in a series of development proposals pursuant to which the County is considering five (5) possible landfill sites covered by the Five General Plan Amendments, as possible alternative 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 ordered judgment in the Litigation against the County 'referenced in these findings. With respect to alternative landfill sites, 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 the following alternative sites, the EIR sets forth the following conclusions: - The Christie Road site has insufficient capacity to meet minimum solid waste disposal needs for a landfill site in the county. EXHIBIT G -49 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. - New development is encroaching on the Big Canyon site, making development of a landfill site there infeasible. - Access to the Kirker Pass site is superior to two (2) unnamed sites near Kirker Pass Road. 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. The cost of road improvements to a site at the end of Camino Tassajara Road is prohibitive. - The cost of road improvements to a site on the east of Camino Tassajara Road, south of Highland Road, is prohibitive. Access to a proposed site west of Camino Tassajara Road, and east of Doherty Road, .is prohibitive due to the cost of road improvements. - 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. 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. The Vaqueros site is too close to the Kellogg Reservoir, has a relatively small capacity, and possible access problems. The Armstrong Road site is very remote and difficult to access, with a significant cost to reach the site. 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 type configuration. -50 - EXHIBIT E The proposed Altamont site is located at an extreme distance from waste generation sources, creating a significant cost the reach the site, and is located in close proximity to archeological sites. 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 in the finding on alternate landfill sites. These reports are incorporated into the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15150. The County is still considering the Bay Pointe, Keller Canyon, Kirker Pass, East Contra Costa and Marsh Canyon sites, and this evaluation of these alternative sites will continue after adoption of the Five General Plan Amendments, including this General Plan Amendment. 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 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. -50a- EXHIBIT E 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, -50b- EXHIBIT E r • • �' ��a o �� 0 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �1989 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIAQq 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. i ,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 seg. 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 judgment and peremptory writ of mandate in California Waste Management Board v. Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County Superior Court No. C89-00833 (the "Litigation" ) . This litigation was initiated against the County to require submission of a final revised CoSWMP, and the court ' s judgment and peremptory writ require 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 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 the court judgment and peremptory writ 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 ( iii) if the project-specific. 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 EIR; and 6 . The judgment and peremptory writ of mandate 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 lawi. The discussions and findings which follow for each category of possible environmental impact recite some of the EXHIBIT I 7 I 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 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 Marsh Canyon 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) The 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, i EXHIBIT Ii 10 •a I 3 . Loss of grazing uses . a. Facts . i ( 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 site 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 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 currently 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. C89-00833 (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 . The General Plan Amendment is necessary for the County to comply with the provisions of the judgment and peremptory writ of mandate in the Litigation. 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 judgment 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 this judgment, 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 . i ;The General Plan Amendment is an integral part of the County' sJ989 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 EXHIBIT I 139 f 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 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 . EXHIBIT 1 140 general designations for the landfill site, and does not constitute approval of any development plan for this site . E ( 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 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) Although landfill sites are necessary to serve existing development , businesses, and homes , EXHIBIT 1 120 and although the EIR does not list growth-inducing impacts as unavoidable significant impacts , the growth inducing impacts of this General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project are potentially significant . 1 _ ( ii ) To the extent that any growth inducing impacts of this General Plan Amendment or the Landfill Project are potentially significant , 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) . ( iii) Growth-inducing impacts which are related to development plans for specific landfill sites are not ripe for consideration at this time, because this Board is not considering final or site-specific development plans for any landfill sites at this time, and is only considering the Five General Plan Amendments pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines authorizing Program EIRs and tiering of EIRs . Any growth-inducing impacts which arise from final development plans for specific landfill sites , and any mitigation measures which may reduce such impacts , will be evaluated' in the project-specific EIR for each landfill site . N. Cumulative Impacts . 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 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 . EXHIBIT I 121 (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; ltransportation 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 aforementioned potential cumulative 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. (b) 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 state and federal agencies . (c) 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 . (d) 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 Amendments and will be incorporated into the Landfill Project by operationof existing County ordinances and policies . Provisions in the proposed County general plan will promote infilling to reduce consumption of open land and wildlife EXHIBIT I 122 habitat , transportation system management measures are required by the County for final development plan approval of projects , and 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 studies which are currently underway involving the Solid waste Commission, the County Health Department, and this Board ' s Internal Operations Committee. The County coordinates infrastructure and land use planning through its participation in the Measure C financing and coordination program for developments. (e) 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) . (f) Cumulative impacts which are related to development plans for specific landfill sites are not ripe for consideration at this time, because this Board is not considering final or site-specific development plans for any landfill sites at this time, and is only considering the Five General Plan Amendments pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines authorizing program EIRs and tiering of EIRs . Any cumulative impacts which arise from final development plans for specific landfill sites, and any mitigation measures which may reduce such impacts, will be evaluated in the project-specific EIR for each landfill site. (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 I ' 122-A U�K /0/q ; THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on October 10, 1989 by the following vote: f 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 outa 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 jthe 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) , identified as 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 P1anni-c: 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 -VTan 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 gay 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 *d incorporated herein by this reference. A copy of the Plan map diagram and text reflecting this amendment, on file in the office of the Clerklof the Board, shall be endorsed approved by the Clerk. PART IV -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. C. The Board here'�y acacip i s the amendme�r� to 'chi_: Cvu^ty Genera'. 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 IV - 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 a Is 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 aspart 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 in the office of the Clerk of the Board, shall be endorsed approved by the Clerk. Part VI - Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill (24-84-CO) : 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. I B. The Board1hereby 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 in the office of the..Clerk ,nf thn 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 i Part or portion thereof remain in full force and effect, irrespective of such invalidity. Part X - CEQA Notice. The Director of Community Development is hereby directed to file with the County Clerk a Notice of Determination concerning this adoption and thf related CEQA actions. encl : Exhibits A-J General Plan Amendment and Related CEQA Findings for the Five Proposed Landfill Sites I tweby certify that this is a true and correct copy of cc: County Administrator an add taken and ani on the minute of the Director of Community Development Board of&*wvieon on the dale etiown. Director of Public Works A►TTEMW October 10, 1989 County Counsel PH&BATCHELOR4 quit of ow ecard California Waste Management Board of wwwwo and Adviidaa r Ern- L _'^ RG:vpl/cjc4/89-2ac.res RESOLUTION NO. 89/656 4 f I I I 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 (includingiall 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 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, S 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 i I 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 th,am 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 1project-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 Sta"',.ion. 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 I 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 an 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 1,.,e 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 (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 Department 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 annual report. 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 peak hours especially the AM peak. Traffic would be minimized by the use of transfer stations and prohibition of self-. 9 EXHIBIT A haulers at the landfill. In addition, there are several highway projects planned that will widen and I Highway 4 in this area. f 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 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 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. 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 landfill . b. Supporting Rationale: 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- . i 10 EXHIBIT A 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. 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 Itraffic 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 I s 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 . i 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 i 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 stipulated 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 average noise level over a 24-hour period) along selected 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 . i 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 i I t a C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development 1Department 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. 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 . 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. i 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 i i i � • 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 , 0 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 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 pt-ogram 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 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 I 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 an 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 i L f i 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 developer, 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 r i i 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 I I i 0 installation and condition of liners and leachate �ontrol 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 ;ould 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 i i uses . a. Mitigation: To mitigate the effects of this impact, jlighting 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 Proaram: 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 i f i 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 jactive 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 Com.)Aunity 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 mitigationmeasureswould 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 las 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 an 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 i 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 jRegional 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 4 I 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 i I measures in the subsequent tier of Environmental Impact Report and otherjenvironmental 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 manageraient 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 i 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 than significant 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 F 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-pert-ent 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 I 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) . i i 41 EXHIBIT A l 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 f � • 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 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 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 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 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 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 4s 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 j t 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 j 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 Sanitar,; Landfill, adopted September 19, 1989. 3. OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT Add "refuse disposal" to the following statement of purpose on ?age 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 suppl,7, ;rational 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 Senerai Plan was Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 10, 1989. Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the 33oard of Supervisors and Coun y Administrator By —O/vm 011 EL d o Depu y CAZ/jn 169:baypoint.gpa i I GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DAY POINTE SANITARY LANDFILL (GPA 5-89-CO) AA1CM ET A J �. J. n i 67 45 Ac �c j "A AVMA C• r1 v� •�• /' J~ �y '•12 T1 AC /ARIA •At- 23.53 AC 91.06 , AC ALVES .' �,�• Ir htm RASCH (T 83 AD A4 6 J—T •, �— :lr��-�— ., —/'U jou • 14 * L , PLAN MAP -- BAY POINTE SANITARY LANDFILL r6� RIDGE Part of the Refuse Disposal Plan and ;E �o Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan c.�MA• 'LAND • • r ' Cfl AEVERNA2 AIVt A2 00 A • �iQufny'°'„ ,I o g u ` ( CLWORTMT ..r U`�•' t • r� T6.TT AC 21 r 2 �� r 23 o s: north p� % ► _ ' / , 0 1000 2000 Scale in Feet yo�28 ofjs o .oA moo\ I S � I 1 o� � .. 27 W e ■ELLER Tlev1 General Plan Amendment Area and Area Reclassified .� from Agricultural Preserve to General Open Space Sanitary Landfill Refuse Disposal Facility 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, Clark of the Bor,r(i of Supervisors and County Administrator By: c Depu y i f I BOARD OF SUPERVISORS k 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 judgment and peremptory writ of mandate in California Waste Management Board v. Board of Supervisors , Contra Costa County Superior Court No. C89-00833 (the "Litigation" ) . This litigation was initiated against the County to require submission of a final revised CoSWMP, and the courts judgment and peremptory writ require 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 . MMIBIT C 1 .. .Previously, the County.;has .ident.i£i.ed existing landfillsfin 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 pian amendments were initiated by the County. These General Pian Amendments are the following: I . 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 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 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 the court judgment and peremptory writ to adopt this General Plan Amendment (and all of the Five General Phan 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 maybe granted in the future is hereinafter referred to as the "Landfill Project . " I 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 Ifor 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 authorizellead 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 .:and :do.es-. 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 be imposed in connection with this General Plan Amendment but must instead be imposed in connection with future land use approvals . B. The Environmental Impact Report . f 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 Pian 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 Soiid 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 , Ion 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 E.IR 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 , 11989 . 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 lin 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 supervilsors 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 recentlState legislation (Pub . Resources Code, section 2+081 . 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, is set forth below in the findings . For purposes of these Findings , the "EIR" consists of the draftlEIR, 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 foregoing1 and as stated on page C&R-398 of the Final EIR EXHIBIT C 5 Response ,Document, the_ EIR includes-.and con..s.ists 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 Guidilines . Ian 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 ( iii) if the project-specific EIR concludes that the impact in a certain category is not significant , then the mitigation measure may not be required to beimposed; 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 EIR; and I 6 . The judgment and peremptory writ of mandate in the Litigation referenced above; and i 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 background- information relating_to .this General Plan Amendments 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 . i 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, includingwritten 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 i I This Board adopts and makes the following findings regardingthose 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 havejan 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 . i 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 EXHIBIT "C 8 i endanger ed..::anima1s, 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 . Based upon the EIR, the initial study, and the entire record, the Board finds that : i ( i) With respect to the categories of impacts sett forth above, this General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project will not have a potentially significant adverse impact on the environment . i i 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 . I ( iii) To the extent that any of the above impacts arse 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 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) . i i EXHIBIT C 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 . 1-1;3 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 s4tes in the CoSWMP require general plan amendments in order to make them consistent with a landfill use, as recommended in the EIR. i ( 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 pr;e-designated future landfill sites in its General Plan. Byintent, 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 Amendment1would 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) The 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 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 .f acilities 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 : i EXHIBIT C 11 i 0 . ( 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 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 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 Project as 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 jurisdiction 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 Ci 12 i l 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 site 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 in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (section VI , below) . i 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 . 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 . ib . 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 Cj 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 . 1-25 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) Landfill Project impacts relating to loss of development potential are insignificant, no mitigation measures are required, and no further findings are required. EXHIBIT C 15 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) . 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 i (iii) In the :alternatve, 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 . f ( 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 i .Proj.ect .:as-__c.onditions 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 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 I 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 existingtraffic 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 inproject-specificEIRs . The County Community Development Department would provide for the implementation of the identified mitigation measures by making them Conditions of Approval f'or any County-issued permit for a diversion project . I ( 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 ascan unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project . i b . Findings . Bused upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board finds thati: I ( 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 . I ( 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 I i EXHIBIT C 19 .mi,tigat.ed 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 tolthe Board as set forth in section VII of these findings, 'below, and is subject to control by the County. I 9 . Other unrelated impacts . a . Facts . ( i) The EIR discusses a number of impacts relating to interim measures or other components of the County Soiid Waste Management Plan. These are planning and land use impact 9 ( land use impacts from increased traffic) , impact 10 ( incompatability with surrounding .land uses) , impact 11 i ( 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. I ( ii ) Of these impacts , impact 12 and impact 13iare 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 . I 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 Ci 20 .they ,w.ill ..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 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) . I j (v) 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. B. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 1 . Vectors . i a. Facts . I ( 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, aind 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 . Ifi 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/mo,squitos would be used. i ( 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 lawirequires landfill operators to compact and cover the waste with a layer of soil or new waste in order to minimize I EXHIBIT CI 21 the ;occur rence of .rats and .other. vectors . _.She 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. i (v) Mosquitos could breed in basins constructed to control surface water runoff . i (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 . i (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 . i b . Findings . I Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board finds that : i ( i ) Landfill Project impacts relating to disease vectors and mosquitos will be mitigated to a level I EXHIBIT C 22 ":of-.ins gnif icance by .the imposition _of. :the.:mitigat on 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 P1an .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 mitigatedto a level of insignificance, the environmental, economic, : social , 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) . i ( 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 . 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 (Distric0 . 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 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 Pian,- to be reviewed by the Fire Protection District, it shouldibe xequired 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. i ( 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 Distriict 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 describediin 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 notfeasible or appropriate to incorporate into this General Pian 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 i • ( iii) In the :alternat.ive, .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 . 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) . i (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 ( 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 sitation 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 sluch 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 ,.agr;eements -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 inciude 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, householdihazardous waste programs , and landfills structural requirements would be addressed in Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval . The County is currently working on a household hazardousiwaste . 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 Iwaste 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 . i b. Findings . Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board finds that : I EXHIBIT -Cl 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 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. 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, isocial , 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 , lbelow, 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 alternlative, the impact of the recommended mitigation measure, i!f not mitigated to insignificance, is overridden, as stated above . 4 . Leachate . a . Facts . ( 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 contaminatlion 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 mit:igation ..: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 notfeasible 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 , ithe 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 Ito a level of insignificance, the environmental , economic , social , 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) . i (v) - The status of the aforementioned mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring i I i I EXHIBIT C j '28 I report :to t-he 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 . 2-1:3 of the EIR. There is a potential health and safety hazard to Ion-site employees of new or expanded landfills from the potentiially 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 individuals landfill ' s site-specific EIRs . ( iii) The landfill operator must install a landfill!, gas control and collection system and perform the necessary itesting and reporting of landfill gas emissions . The BAAQMD ' s Alir Risk Screening Policy for toxic emissions , required for an Authority to Construct" and Permit to Operate entitlement , must include estimates o 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 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 P�roj ect . b . Findings . Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board finds thatj: 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 notfeasible 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. I ( 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 . I 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 o:- 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 . verriding Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) . I (v) 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, elow, and is subject to control by the County. 6 . Transfer station impacts . a . Facts . ( i ) Impacts of transfer stations are discussed ion page 4 . 2-14 of the EIR. Transfer stations could recreate the vector , fire, hazardous waste, leachate and landfill g;as 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 than: ( 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 of1transfer 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 . 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. 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 ,jand 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 . Biased 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. impac!t, and no further findings are necessary. i ( ii) In the alternative, Landfill Project impacts relating to waste-to-energy facilities will be mitigated ito 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 b'y 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 Overridings Considerations (section VI of these findings , below) . (vi) The status of ...the aforementioned mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring report to lthe 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 of;::composting relates to the initiation of installation of composting facilities , and -not to this General Plan Amendment . With respect to this General Pian 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 ofjsuch mitigation measures , the agency has the authoritylto require those changes . (v) In the alternative, to the extent that any of the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General Plan Amenament 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. I 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 . 2-115 . 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 ( 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 describedlin 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 , land 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 otheriagencies have the authority to require those changes . EXHIBIT C 35 (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 (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, below, and is subject to control by the County. C. Transportation. 1 . Impact on Highway 4 . i a . Facts . ( i ) The impact on Highway 4 is discussedias 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 minimi-Zed 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) land seven trips westbound (empty vehicles) . During the PM peak hour , there would be about two truck trips eastbound land 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 conflictslwith 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 notfeasible 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 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) . ( 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 . 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 viciniity of landfills and transfer stations . i I 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 ' s1site-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 . i ( iv) Pavement deterioration is not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project . jb . Findings . I 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 economic.., .,social , _and other .benef.i.ts.._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 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 . i ( 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 I ( 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 -be included in any .subsequent land use .deve.lopment 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 Plllan 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 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 4 . Pedestrian and bicycle safety. a. Facts . ( i) Impact 4 is discussed on page 4 . 3-1,7 of the EIR. There could be an increase in traffic hazards to bicyclists 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 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 thati: ( i) Landfill Project impacts relating to bicycle and pedestrian safety will be mitigated to a level of insignilficance 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 these impacts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth general designations for the landfill site, and does not constitutj 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 tolthe 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 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 remainingltruck 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 . j ( iv) The impact of traffic generated by landfills ion 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 tothe 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 ( 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 ( 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) . i ( 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 , lbelow, 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 . 47114 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; jcovering of haul trucks with tarpaulins or other effective covers; and avoiding of unnecessary idling of equipment . ( iii ) Dust emissions related to waste handling clan 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. ng..should increase if wind .:.exceeds_:3.5 .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 emissionslare 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 . 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. I EXHIBIT C 45 2 . Vehicle emissions . a. Facts . - ( i) Impact 2 is discussed on pages 4 . 414 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 than: ( 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 mitigatedito 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 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 , EXHIBIT C 46 r. economic, soc.ial , .and .other benefit,s.,: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. I ( 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 mitigatedjto a level of insignificance, the environmental , economic , isocial , 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) . I i EXHIBIT C 47 ( iii) The status 'of :ahe 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 . I a. Facts . i ( i) Impact 4 is discussed on page 4 . 4-18 of the EIR. Decomposing landfill waste can create substantial amounts of gas . i ( 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 emissionslto 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 . IA 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 ^ach 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 toxiclemitted from a landfill would result in a chance of less thanlone 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 ( iv) .Gas emizs.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 describediin 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 notfeasible 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. i ( 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 . Exceptionall problems could be mitigated by more frequent cover and the immediate covering of odorous loads . I ( 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 I 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 andtor 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 ( ii) In the alternat.ive, ..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 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 I 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, lbelow, and is subject to control by the County. i 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 . I ( 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 -Avail_abl-e 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 screeninglwould 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 conditionjof project approval . ( iv) This impact is not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Landfill Project . I i j 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 rlecommended 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 -alternat.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 toithe Board as set forth in section VII of these findings, lbelow, and is subject to control by the County. E. Noise. 1 . Equipment Noise . a. Facts . ( i ) Impact 1 is discussed at pages 4 . 54 through 4 . 5-6 of the EIR. Noise resulting from waste handling could disturb nearby residents and sensitive receptors1 ( 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 red u-s of .disturbance to less 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 notifeasible or appropriate to incorporate into this General Pian 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) . 1 ( 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 th6 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 . 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 ghat might be recommended in project EIRs include noise shi4lding 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 . I ( 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 0 ( ii) In the .:alternat.ive, 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 constituti approval of any development plan for this site. ( iii) In the alternative, to the extent that any If the impacts of the Landfill Projector 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 significarit impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations ( section VI of these findings , below) . I ( iv) The status of the aforementioned mitigationmeasuresshall 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 3 . Impacts of Interim Measures . I a . Facts . j ( i) The EIR discusses noise impacts of interim measures on pages 4 . 5-8 through 9 . Diversions to existing landfills and export to other count:i.es may increase noise levels resulting from waste haul trucks . The EIR recommends certain mitigation measures for these impacts . I ( ii) These impacts of interim measures are not sit 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 doInot 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 .insignificance by the imposition 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 significanIt 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 an1d/or limited application of herbicides . Daily covering off 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 toy 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 I 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 Departments 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 arelnot 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 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 approals . ( 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 oaf 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 ( iv) The. status of _.t-he -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 revegetaton 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. I ( 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 revegetati"on 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 moniltoring plan, approved by the County Community Development Department , and coordinated with the County Public Works Department and the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Boiard, 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 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 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. 3 . Construction activities and wildlife . a. Facts . ( i ) Impact 3 is discussed on pages 4 . 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 constructed and operated in phases that limit clearing to areas needed ford 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 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 relocate.And regenerate. Testing :of soils.::-tao 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 planlwould 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 . I 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 will1be 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 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 , jsocial , 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 , 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 6ollection 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 miltigated to a level of insignificance by the impositions 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 notlfeasible. or appropriate to incorporate into this General Plllan 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) . I ( iv) The status of the aforementioned mi.tigation :measur.es . 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. 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 kiy construction. 1 ( 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 0 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 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 applicatioI ns and approvals . ( ii) In the alternative, these mitigationmeasures 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 land the Landfill Project override any such significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of OverridingiConsiderations ( section `i7I 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. 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 .i6-30 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. Cii) 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 , an'd Bay Pointe impacts 1 through 5 set forth on pages 4 . 6-�29 through 4 . 6-30 . EXHIBITC 64 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 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 will1be 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 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. ( 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 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) . (v) 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. 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 .,6-2`5 o-fl,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. I ( 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 is the loss of upland grassland habitat , which may constitute a loss of foraging habitat to raptor birds . Monitoring of the site through the nesting season, together with cooperative agreements with the California Department 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 evaluai:ed. (vi) Impact one, loss of approximately 56 acres of oak woodland, is set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable 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 VI below, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (section VI , below) . ( 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 me'asur-es ..are incorporated into this .:Landfil.I .Project because they willfbe included in any subsequent land use development applications and approvals . ( iii) In the alternative, these mitigationmeasures 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) . (v) 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 . Interim measure impacts . i 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 ( 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 do 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 describediin 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 notlfeasible or appropriate to incorporate into this General Pian Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to these impacts, because this General Plan Amendment sets forth general designations for the landfill site, and does not constituti 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 mitigatedjto a level of insignificance, the environmental , economic, isocial , 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) . (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. F (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 . I ( 5) Use of conservative geotechnical engineering practices and stabilization measures during excavation of areas of landslide activity. ( 6) Monitor slopes with adversely oriented bidding 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 . I 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 it 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 CountylCommunity 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 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 mitigationmeasures 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 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. Asia 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 cif the final engineering design of the landfill and its appurtenant improvements . i ( 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 Perrlit 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 . ( 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. incor:pox-ate 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) . 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. 3 . Slope instability and stockpiling. I 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 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 . 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,lto 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 Pian 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) . i ( 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. i 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 materialslfor low permeability soils for final cover might not be available on a landfill project site,. causing off-site quarryinglimpacts 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 kthat on-site -cover .soil ..be .;compacted;. to decrease its permeability and, if necessary, it can be amended with additionai compacted soil. or other material such as bentonite. If supplies are not available on-site, low permeability materialslwould 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 belevaluated 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 coven 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 ( 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 do 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 C 74 s � ,Gener-al Rl.an Amendment specificmitigation-,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 off the impacts of the Landfill Project or this General Plan Amendment on surrounding uses are not insignificant or mitigated lto a level of insignificance, the environmental , economic, jsocial , 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 Overridings 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. 5 . Shrinking and swelling of soils . a . Facts . I ( i) Impact 5 is discussed on page 4 . 7-1i5 of the EIR. The shrink/swell behavior of expansive foundation soils could deform building and landfill structure foundations . I ( 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 compactedlnon-expansive soils . i ' ( iii) All nine Soil Conservation Service soil classlifications in the County have soils with highly expansivelproperties . 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 integrityibe 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 inspectorlto 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 unavoidablle adverse impact of the Landfill Project . EXHIBIT C 75 b. Findings . Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board finds that : f ( 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 . 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 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 mitigatedito 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 tothe 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 . i ( 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 -soils_could :pond ..water , swelling--expansive-soils and/or saturating and weakening foundation soils . Directing water away fromlbuilding 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 . i 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 describedlin 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 notlfeasible 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 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) . i ( iv) The status of the aforementioned mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring EXHIBIT C 77 report -to ithe Board as set forth in �ection -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 . 7-1!5 of the EIR. Groundshaking from off-site earthquakes could damage the landfill ' s containment and drainage features and/or cause slope failure. f ( 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 , includingiface slope gradients, operating components and appurtenant improvements , shall be reviewed for resistance to the currenIt 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 land 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 i ( 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 approprd ate 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 b. Findings . Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board finds than: ( 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 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. 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 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. 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 b.e. made. In addi.tion., . the.:excavation of depressions 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, inspection by an independent geologist or registered mining engineer can determine the existence of abandoned air shafts , with further exploration, if any, ventilation shafts are exposed. IThe geotechnical engineer could then develop mandatory recommendations for review and approval by the County. ( iii ) 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 landfiill 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 notfeasible 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, lsocial ,, and other benefits of the General Plan EXHIBIT C 80 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) . j (-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 n,,-)t 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 .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 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. 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 f Project .sas—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. 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 int(. 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 ( 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 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 . 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 Ci 84 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. 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, 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 i P.roject...as. .conditions of approval of Eater :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 , 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 . 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 . ( 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 EXHIBIT C 86 i me zur.es__dr_e _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 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. ( 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 4 are t,rappe'd ,bef:or:e,....entering the constructed. ,drainage channels and that stockpiled soils are sufficiently stabilized. A sedimentation basin system and sediment and erosion control . plain 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 HSDand Public Works , and the RWQCB . ( 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. EXHIBIT C 88 5 . _Flood. Hazar.ds . a . Facts . ( i) Impact 5 is discussed on page 4 . 8-111 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 . 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 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. 1 EXHIBIT C 89 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 (secti,on 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 .B-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 i 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 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 ( ii) These impacts -relate to transfer stations, interim measures , and other components of the CoSWMP, and do not relate to 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) 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 Landf=ill 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 92 I . Visual Quality. 1 . Change in Visual Character of the Existing Land Use . a . Facts . ( 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 Ci 93 i economi.c,�.._s.ocial ,. .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 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 . 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) Project impact.s . 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 P1an:.Amendrnent 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 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 EXHIBIT C 95 I ( iii) A . andscaping-,and .screening plan based on t!he applicant ' s project description and project EIR mitigation measures would be required as part of a final site plan. Itjwould 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 : ( 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 A ..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 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 .It ..i.s .not ..•f.easible or appropriate .to incor.po.rate 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 . 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 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 . ( 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 J1 EXHIBIT C1 98 I 1 would :be r.equi.r:ed to -prepare .and .implement_a.-.final .landscaping . plan with the 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 and/or.;-could :be carried to-of f-.site. 1:ocations . 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 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 . ( 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 . EXHIBIT C 100 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 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 (Kicker 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 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 in this general plan amendment relat-ing 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 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 . 1 ( 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 . Pacts . ( 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 . j EXHIBIT C 102 i 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. a . Facts . ( 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 . EXHIBIT C 103 i ( 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 recow.nended 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 , 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 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. J . 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 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 t - 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) . (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 EXHIBIT C : 106 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 complaintiprogram, 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 to ,other 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 Ci 107 ( iii) In the alternative, these mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Landfill Project asl conditions of approval of later development plans . It is not1feasible 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. 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 . ( 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 EXHIBIT C , 108 I 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. ( 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 CI 109 1 1 i ( 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 to off 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 . (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 forth in 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 . 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 110 ( 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, 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) . (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 ( 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 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 .0 112 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 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 113. I� 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) . v haforementioned ( i ) The status of the 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 . 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 . EXHIBIT C 114 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, 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 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 leachc.te 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 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 .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 . 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 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 . EXHIBIT C 119 I I f b. Findings . Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board finds that :1 ( 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 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. M. Growth Inducing Impacts . 1 . Facts . ( i) The EIR discusses the potential growth inducing effects of the General Plan Amendment and the EXHIBIT C 120 i Landfill Project on pages 5-1 through 5-3 . The addition of alternate landfill sites is a necessary public service, and the connectionlbetween 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) Although landfill sites are necessary to serve existing development , businesses , and homes , and although the EIR does not list growth-inducing impacts as unavoidable significant impacts , the growth inducing impacts of this General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project are potentially significant . ( ii) To the extent that any growth inducing impacts of this General Plan Amendment or the Landfill Project are potentially significant , 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 ( iii) Growth-inducing impacts which are related toydevelopment plans for specific landfill sites are not ripe for consideration at this time, because this Board is not considering final or site-specific development plans for any landfill sites at this time, and is only considering the Five General Plan Amendments pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines authorizing Program EIRs and tiering of EIRs . Any growth-inducing impacts which arise from final development plans for specific landfill sites , and any mitigation measures which may reduce such impacts , will be evaluated in the project-specific EIR for each landfill site . I EXHIBIT C 121 N.( Cumulative Impacts . 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 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; 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 aforementioned potential cumulative 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 Pian Amendment and the Landfill Project because they will be EXHIBIT C 122 included in subsequent land use development applications and approvals , if such subsequent applications are approved. (b) 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 state and federal agencies . (c) 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 . _ (d) 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 projects , and 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 studies which are currently underway involving the Solid Waste Commission, the County Health Department , and this Board ' s Internal Operations Committee. The County coordinates infrastructure and land use planning through its participation in the Measure C financing and coordination program for developments . (e) 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) . (f) Cumulative impacts which are related to development plans for specific landfill sites are not ripe for consideration at this time, because this Board is not considering final or site-specific development plans for any landfill sites at this time, and is only considering the Five EXHIBIT C 123 General Plan Amendments pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines authorizing program EIRs and tiering of EIRs . Any cumulative impacts which arise from final development plans for specific landfill sites, and any mitigationimeasures. which may reduce such impacts , will be evaluated in the project-specific EIR for each landfill site . (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-A 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 • a 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 EXHIBIT C 125 Landfill Project would similarly be .an unavoidable and irreversible impact under the alternatives to the General Plan Amendment jand this Landfill Project, except under the No-Projects alternative, which alternative is rejected as more fully desc-ribed .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 i EXHIBIT C 126 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 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 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 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. i 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 EXHIBIT C 129 .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 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 : (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 I EXHIBIT C 130 solid wastes in the county, resulting in. s.evere 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 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. 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 ofthe 1989 CoSWMP revision. i EXHIBIT C 131 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 benefits 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.. EXHIBIT C 132 (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 Big 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 133 (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 MarshiCreek Landfill site is superior . i (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 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 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. EXHIBIT C 134 The complete explanation of these conclusions is set forth in the 1985, 1 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 (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 itis 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 . I EXHIBIT C 136 (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 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 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 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 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 find's that the following social , economic and other considerations warrant approval of the General Plan Amendment notwithstanding any unavoidable or unmitigated impacts : i 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 seg. , the County is required to prepare and updateia county solid waste management plan ( "CoSWMP" ) . In 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 currently 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. C89-00833 (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 i EXHIBIT C 139 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 judgment and peremptory writ of mandate in the Litigation. The provisions of this order relating to landfill sites and landfill site general plan amendments are binding on the County. i This Litigation was initiated against the County to require compliance with California Government Code section 66180 . 5 requiring submission of the final revised county waste management plan. The judgment 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 . j Pursuant to the judgment, 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. IThe 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 . i i 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 I4 standards will provide a higher level of environmental protection at new landfill sites in the County, and this ids a substantial environmental benefit of the General Plan Amendment . Iln addition, the collection policy in the CoSWMP calls for mandatory subscription to solid waste collection service, replacingfthe 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 environmental impact because it reduces solid waste storage problems and results in a more healthful , attractive community.1 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 wasteto 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 jto full implementation of the CoSWMP, the collection of recycleid materials and reduction in the solid waste frame is an environ mental. benefit of this General Plan Amendment . i 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 ,I 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 C 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 . f 7 . Provision of construction jobs . I 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 . BI. Vegetation And Wildlife. Wjith 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 vegetationl) , 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 Boardlfinds 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 . I C. Geology And Soils . I. Wllth respect to any unavoidable impacts of the Landfill Project and the General Plan Amendment on geology and soils ( inciluding alteration of topography at landfill sites) , this Boardlfinds 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 mitigationlmeasures and conditions of approval which are imposed orlwill be imposed on the Landfill Project and the development of the General Plan Amendment site pursuant to subsequentldevelopment 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 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 Amendmentjsite pursuant to subsequent development approvals . This Board finds that these impacts also cannot be avoided except byeapproval of the No Project Alternative, which Alternative would eliminate the Landfill Project benefits as set forthabove, and which alternative would not achieve compliance with either state law or governing court orders . E. Cultural Resources . I 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 Amendment1sites pursuant to subsequent development approvals . This Board finds that these impacts also cannot be avoided except byiapproval 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 . i E . 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 .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 forthJabove, and which alternative would not achieve compliance, with either state law or governing court orders . Gi. 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 aforementiloned 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 conditionsl of approval which are imposed or will be imposed on the Landfi111 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 byjapproval of the No Project Alternative, which alternative would eliminate the Landfill Project benefits as set forthlabove, and which alternative would not achieve compliance; with either state law or governing court orders . I VII . FINDINGS REGARDING MONITORING OR REPORTING OF CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES Slection 21081 . 6 of the California Public Resources Code requilres this Board to adopt a monitoring or reporting program regarding CEQA mitigation measures in connection with these findlings . This Board has made specific findings regarding 'mitigation monitoring as it applies to various specific impacts of the Landfill Project , in the findings sections stet 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 : AI. The Community P P Development Department shall file a written report with this Board approximately once each year , EXHIBIT C 144 .beginning on or about the first anniversary of the approval of this Generlal 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, asIthe Department deems necessary to provide a complete report on ithe 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 . Ci. The Board may delegate its review of the mitigation1monitoring report , in this Board' s sole discretion. If any intlerested 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 I i 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. Al. In addition to the foregoing specific findings , this Board1hereby incorporates by reference the applicable portions off 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 . BI: This Board intends that the foregoing findings and deterinations 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 or permitted to be made by this Board with respect to any particularlsubject 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 EXHIBIT C 146 i I I i i I • . EXHIBIT D GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT EAST CONTRA COSTA SANITARY LANDFILL (GPA 6-85-CO) . The Contra Costa County General Plan is amended, as provided below. 1. REFUSE DISPOSAL PLAN i a. Adi to the Eastern Study Area Text (p. 29) : "East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill. A I anitary 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 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." b. Add the attached diagram entitled Plan Map--East Contra Costa Sanitary Laidfill to the above plan text amendment. 2. LAND USE ELEMENT Add thel 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: 1.1 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. 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 j 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 Coun dministrator e By Dep ty RV:jll4:eccsan.gpa II 1 i R GENERAL PLAN AMFIMM NT EAST CONTRA COSTA SANITARY L[UMFILL (GPA 6-85-CO) )e r a ak r 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 a • f '� '/CROSRr ilJ I / • I.(WEIT d�O •G 1 11....r 34 i-�� m� v 1 •f 1 I S E rwrll It 1i r,•- o o SIC er kln I ter," = •f 1' Ed F 0:) Lane M, • ., A-1-C AC 9 AC raviue/ t- .' •. ,�� ,' 0 1000 2000 ' l Scale _.. Feet . '� - + iii .--�: - -•. �� _.. �---1'��*- - - --- -- ' -- - 41NOC-10 • I 200 ACG -+ I .:� w V' r l i •L O � ti i General Plan Amendment Area Sanitary Landfill Refuse Disposal Facility 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 thea board of Supervisor:, and COUnty Administrator e By: (L d A— Depu—tV t I i i s 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 i I -1- EXHIBIT E Environmental Quality Act and implement the State's and the County'is 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 .16 [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 I CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS i 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 S§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, S 21081 . 5, Guidelines S 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 i 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. i 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 i 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 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 . Sianificant 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., 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 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.!i 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 represented in the project application. The implementation of this mitigation measure is -6- EXHIBIT E controlled by the U.S. Department of Defense, and is subject to the terms of the easement. b. 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 . 1-18, 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 impacts 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. To the extent that the foregoing mitigation measures were judged in the project EIR f to not be capable of avoiding or mitigating the growth-inducing impacts of the Keller Canyon landfill to less than a significant level, the Board of Supervisors finds that the Statement of -7- EXHIBIT E Overriding Considerations in these findings shall be applicable. 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 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 I -8- ' EXHIBIT E 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 s -8a- EXHIBIT E 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 I rodents/mosquitos will be used. I 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) . -9- EXHIBIT E 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 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. I 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 ) . al 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 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 !i 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 jControl 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 l 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 . Sianificant Effect: Residential and commercial refuse taken to the Keller Canyon Landfill could contain materials that are considered hazardous, which in sulfficient 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 oflhazardous 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. -11- EXHIBIT E 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. Supportincr 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 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., 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 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 t 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: 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 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 f -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 .i3-12) . a.l 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. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development Department shall report annually to the Board on the implementation of the required road -16- EXHIBIT E improvements . 3 . Sianificant 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 . Sianificant 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.1 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) . aj 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 . -18- EXHIBIT E 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 i 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 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. 4114-18) . 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. 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.j 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 measures are: minimize the extent of unplanted working and graded areas, apply water or an environmentally-safe chemical soil j 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. Finding: This Board finds that this impact is potentially significant but will be mitigated to a level less than significant by the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended by the EIR. b. i Supporting Explanation: 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. 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 . I 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. 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 in Table 4 .5-2 of the Program EIR) . Some additional measures that should be evaluated in the -22- EXHIBIT E 0 I 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. Supportinct 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 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. 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 i vegetation. Application of planted groundcover would help to hold the soil in place. I -25- EXHIBIT E 1 � • 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 j 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 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. I 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 f Board and include this information in its annual monitoring report to the Board. -27- EXHIBIT E 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. Supportinct 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 4 Department will ensure that a habitat enhancement and management plan is implemented, if necessary, by incorporating it into the project's Land Use i 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. Supportinct 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 j 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 i 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.'i Monitoring Program: Reports on the implementation of these measures and from the on-site monitoring i -31- EXHIBIT E 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 sliope sloughing resulting from decomposition of refuse, causing potential slope failure and rupture of seals (FSEIR, p. 4 . 7-13) . a. Finding: This Board finds that this impact will be mitigated to a level less than significant by the j 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 1 the infiltration of water through drainage 1 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 I 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. -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 -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 -35- EXHIBIT E s � 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 j routed through these basins and detained for a I 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 -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.1 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. 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) . t 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 f 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 according 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 i installation and condition of liners and leachate ' control -facilities as they are installed. i c. Monitoring Program: The County Community 1 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. -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.1 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 District (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 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. 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 -40- EXHIBIT E I 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.j 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 ridgeline 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.l 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. -42- EXHIBIT E 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 . Significant Effect: Windblown debris and litter could result in an adverse visual impact and/or could be -43- EXHIBIT E 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 EIR. 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 thelandfill 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 imposition of the mitigation measures recommended -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 1 I of the mitigation measures recommended by the EIR. b. Supporting Rationale: 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. 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. 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. b. Supporting Rationale: 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 j personnel should be alerted to the possibility of encountering subsurface deposits during excavation. -46' EXHIBIT E 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 . i XI . PUBLIC SERVICES i 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 . 1'2-7 ) . 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. 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 icases, 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. -47- EXHIBIT E 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 . Si4nificant 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 Eased 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 j 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. I b. Supporting Rationale: 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. C. Monitoring Program: The County Community. Development Department shall submit monitoring reports to the Board on a regular basis regarding -49- EXHIBIT E • 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 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 -50- EXHIBIT E 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 :grogram: 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.i 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 i 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 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. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development Department shall report to the Board annually, as applicable, on compliance to the identified conditions . GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS Development of the Keller Canyon site could be potentially growth inducing, in that failure of the County to site a landfill at the Keller Canyon site and other proposed sites could eventually become an obstacle to growth and development. The improvement of access roads and extension of sewer lines to some landfill sites could also have growth inducing effects . (FEIR, pp. 5-1 - 5-3) . a. Finding: This Board finds that the potential growth inducing impacts of development of the Keller Canyon site are not significant. Even if such inpacts were judged to be significant in the project EIR, any growth inducing impacts of the Keller Canyon project would be subject to mitigation to less than a significant level through the following mitigation measures: The new County General Plan provides for orderly growth in 4 accordance with the requirements of the state ' planning law. Regulation of land use and growth by the County pursuant to the General Plan will avoid or reduce any growth-inducing impact that a landfill might exert. In addition, under Measure C, the County and the cities are required to manage growth in relation to transportation -52- EXHIBIT E infrastructure, thereby avoiding or reducing any growth-inducing effect that a landfill might otherwise exert. To the extent that the foregoing mitigation measures were judged in the project EIR to not be capable of avoiding or mitigating the growth-inducing impacts of the Keller Canyon j landfill to less than a significant level, the Board of Supervisors finds that the Statement of Overriding Considerations in these findings shall be applicable. b. Supporting Rationale: Unlike water or sewer lines and access roads, landfill capacity does not provide a clear quantitative threshold beyond which a landfill could be considered growth inducing. There is, however, a potential connection between landfill capacity and the County's ability top accomodate growth. The EIR does not state that the absence of such an inhibiting factor would create a significant environmental impact. Development of the Keller Canyon site would not require the construction of new roads, but only the widening of a small portion (less than 3/4 mile) of the existing Bailey Road. (FEIR, p. 4 .3-8) . The remaining access roads would be contained within the site boundaries. Furthermore, the Keller site presently adjoins the City of Pittsburg's limits and development of the site would not create additional infrastructure. C. Monitoring Program: The project EIR will further assess whether any mitigation measures should be imposed and, if any such measures are required as part of the project approval, they shall be incorporated into the monitoring program described in these findings . CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Certain impacts of the Keller Canyon General Plan Amendment, while not significant in themselves, may cumulatively have significant impacts assuming the eventual development of other potential projects and developments described in the EIR. These potential cumulative impacts include increases in traffic volumes along Highway 4, cumulative air quality impacts resulting from increased traffic, cumulative increases in demand for public services, cumulative loss of open space, agricultural lands and the cumulative impact of loss of riparian and wetland habitat. (FEIR, 5 . 3 - 5 . 8) . -52 a- - i EXHIBIT E a. Finding: This Board finds that that the potential cumulative impacts of eventual development of the Keller Canyon site may be significant, but if they are found to be significant in the project EIR, they are subject to mitigation to a level less than significant by the imposition of the mitigation i measures recommended by the EIR, including those mitigation measures described herein regarding traffic impacts, air quality impacts, impacts on demand for public services, loss of agricultural lands, and loss of wetlands and riparian vegetation as they pertain to the Keller site. General, non- site specific mitigation measures may include one or more of the following measures: adoption of City and County General Plans and zoning ordinances favoring high density development and contiguous patterns of urban development; imposition of .more stringent air pollutant controls by the Bay Area Air Quality Management Board; transportation management systems imposed by the County, the cities, the BAAQMD and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission; restrictions by the County and cities on the use of certain materials and commodities and other measures to reduce the volume of urban solid waste streams; and the coordination of infrastructure and land use planning at County and regional levels. Certain of these mitigation measures are outside. of the scope of the County's authority or require coordination with other agencies . The project EIR will further analyze cumulative impacts and will recommend additional detailed mitigation measures as appropriate. To the extent that the foregoing mitigation measures do not avoid, or reduce to a less than significant level, the cumulative impacts of the Keller Canyon project, the Board of Supervisors finds that the statement of Overriding Considerations shall be applicable. b. Monitoring Program: The project EIR will further assess whether any mitigation measures should be imposed and, if any such measures are required as part of the project approval, they shall be incorporated into the monitoring program described in these findings . ALTERNATIVES i 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 -52b- EXHIBIT E 11 0 feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and evaluate, the comparative merits of the alternatives (Guidelines, 5 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 i -52c - EXHIBIT E law and the writ of mandate entered in the liigation against 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 approv,,,als 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 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 -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 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 G(,---.neral 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 County Sanitary 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 impact on 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. , 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 Canyon Landfill site should that landfill meet environmental requirements and complete the public hearing process. (FEIR, p. 6-23) . 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. This program EIR and this General Plan Amendment are the first phase in a series of development proposals pursuant. to which the County is considering five (5) possible landfill sites covered by the Five General Plan Amendments, as possible alternative 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 ordered judgment in the Litigation against the County referenced in these findings . With respect to alternative landfill sites, 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 the following alternative sites, the EIR sets forth the following conclusions: The Christie Road site has insufficient capacity to meet minimum solid waste disposal needs for a landfill site in the county. The Cummings Skyway site has a significantly l -56- EXHIBIT E reduced capacity, because of the rerouting of Highway 4 . - The Ozol -site conflicts with a nearby naval jet refueling facility. - New development is encroaching on the Big Canyon ! site, making development of a landfill site there infeasible. Access to the Kirker Pass site is superior to two (2) unnamed sites near Kirker Pass Road. - Access to a site south of Antioch at the end of K Briones Valley Road is infeasible, because of the high potential cost of road improvements . - The cost of road improvements to a site at the end of Camino Tassajara Road is prohibitive. - The cost of road improvements to a site on the east of Camino Tassajara Road, south of Highland Road, is prohibitive. Access to a proposed site west of Camino Tassajara Road, . and east of Doherty Road, is prohibitive due to the cost of road improvements . 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. 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 . The Vaqueros site is too close to the Kellogg Reservoir, has a relatively small capacity, and possible access problems. - The Armstrong Road site is very remote and difficult to access, with a significant cost to , reach the site. 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 type configuration. - The proposed Altamont site is located at an extreme distance from waste generation sources, creating a significant cost the reach the site, and -56a- EXHIBIT E is located in close proximity to archeological sites. - 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 in the finding on alternate landfill sites . These reports are incorporated into the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15150 . The County is still considering the Bay Pointe, Keller Canyon, Kirker Pass, East Contra Costa and Marsh Canyon sites, and this evaluation of these alternative sites will continue after adoption of the Five General Plan Amendments, including this General Plan Amendment. 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 i -56 b- 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. 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 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 Keller Canyon Landfill site to qualify as a reserved site under state law. I i` I -57- EXHIBIT E 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 reduceor eliminate the environmental, traffic, and energy impactsof 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 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 requirements -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 thisl 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 lin 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. -59- EXHIBIT E i i 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. 1. REFUSE DISPOSAL PLAN a. Add to the Central Study Area Text (p. 22) : "Keller Canyon (Keller-Bailey) 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." 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 Ihuman presence, and do not interfere with landfill permit conditions. b. Add the attached diagram entitled Plan Map--Keller Canyon (Keller- Bailey) Landfill to the above plan text Amendment. 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: i { 'r "Adopted Refuse Disposal Facilities i 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) 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: 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 (] �v By Deputy FOOTNOTE: 1. Added subsequent to the distribution of the original draft amendment. CAZ/RV/jn 169:keller.gpa 4 KIRKER PASS LANDFILL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS AND MONITORING PROGRAM TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Procedural History CEOA Reguirements for Findings i 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. Disease-Bearing Vectors 2. Mosquitos 3. Fire and Explosion Hazard 4 . Hazardous Materials 5. Leachate Contamination of Ground and Surface Wastes 6 . On-Site Effects of Landfill Gas 7 . Co-Composting III. TRANSPORTATION 1. Highway 4 Congestion 2- Damage to Pavement Structure 3. Congestion and Safety on Local Roads 4 . Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety 5. Visual and Nuisance Effects EXHIBIT G -i- i IV. AIR QUALITY 1 . Landfill Gas Emissions 2. Odor 3 . Dust V. NOISE 1 . 1 Effect on Nearby Residents ' 2. , Effect on Residents Along Access Roads VI . VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 1. , Weeds and Pests 2. ; Effect of Soil Erosion on Vegetation 3. Injury to Wildlife 4 . Effect of Leachate on Downstream Areas 5. Effect of Dust on Vegetation 6. Construction of Landfill Interchange VII . GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 1. Landslides 2. Settlement 3. Stockpiling 4. Soil Expansiveness 5 Ponding 6. ' Ground Shaking VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1 .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. Topography and Appearance 3 . Removal of Vegetation 4 . , Landfill Operations 5 . i Litter X. SOCIOECONOMICS 1 . : Effect on Property Value XI. CULTURAL RESOURCES XII . PUBLIC SERVICES 2. Fire and Explosion Hazard 3. Wastewater Treatment 4. Water Supply 4. Increased Personnel 5. Police Services Potentially Significant Impacts Which May Not be Mitigable to Insignificant Levels I . Vegetation and Wildlife 1 . Removal of Wetlands II . Geology and Soils 1. Use of On-Site Soils and Alteration of Topography II . Visual Quality 1 . Change in Existing Visual Contours Growth Inducing Impacts Cumulative Impacts EXHIBIT G -iii- i • i Alternatives I . No Project Alternative II . Waste Reduction Alternative III . Substitute Landfill Sites Alternative i IV. No; Transfer Station Alternative Statement of Overriding Considerations i j i I EXHIBIT G -iv- 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 managment 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 Managmeent 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 provisons of the court order in California Waste Manaament 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. Previously, 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) EXHIBIT G -1- 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-Baily 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 Marsh Canyon Landfill, the subject of these findings, is referred as this "General Plan Amendment. " 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, and 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 I EXHIBIT G -2- above, the Marsh Canyon Landfill Site general plan amendment approved by this Board is hereinafter referred to as this "Generali 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 .y i 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 authoirze 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 alos 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 proposed landfill sites 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 be imposed in connection with this General Plan Amendment but must instead be imposed in connection with future land use approvals. EXHIBIT G -3- B. Procedures The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, California (hereinafter the "Board" or the "Board of Supervi1lors" ) , 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 Kirker 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 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 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 thejCalifornia Environmental Quality Act and implement the State's and the County's CEQA Guidelines . 1 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 County. The County Zoning Administrator held a public EXHIBIT G -4 i I 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, 521081 .'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. i 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. I i EXHIBIT G -4 a- 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. 515000 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 Land Use Permit when a specific landfill project is approved. These findings describe numerous mitigation measures set forth in the EIR, which is a Program EIR. The impacts and mitigation measures for the Rirker Pass Landfill project will be analyzed in more detail in a subsequent project-level EIR when final, specific development plans for the landfill project are considered. It is appropriate to impose 'general mitigation measures at the program stage and specific mitigation measures at the project stage. Some impacts and corresponding mitigation measures, while discussed in the Program EIR, have not been included in these findings because it will not be possible to formulate and impose specific mitigation measures until the Project EIR stage. These impacts include, but are not limited to, relocation of the power lines traversing the property (which depends on a detailed design of the project) , and sufficiency of soil cover (which will require further identification of resources at the site) . The initial study on this project contains an explanation for its conclusions following each of the questions appearing in the study. On the basis of those explanations, the initial study concludes that the landfill I EXHIBIT G -4 i General Plan Amendments, including the Kirker Pass General Plan Amendment, will have an insignificant impact on a number of environmental resources. These insignificant impacts are identified int he initial study, which is incorporated by reference in the Program EIR and in these findings . 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 County Board of Supervisors hereby finds and determines as follows: 1. A finding is made for each significant impact identified in the EIR (Public Resources Code (PRC) 5210811 CEQA Guidelines 515091) . 2. 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 address the 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 §521093, 21094, Guidelines 515168) . 3. The mitigation indicated will be considered and required by Contra Costa County as the Lead Agency. In addition, where appropriate, mitigation is } EXHIBIT G -4c- indicated as being required by other public agencies (PRC 521081, Guidelines 515091) . 4. With regard to each finding, the Board of Supervisors hereby determines that there exists substantial evidence in the record to support such finding. (PRC 521081.5, Guidelines §15091) 5. Consideration has been given to each alternative analyzed in the EIR, and findings have been made, with supporting rationale, for rejecting each alternative. (PRC 521081, Guidelines 515091) . ; 6 . 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) . EXHIBIT G _4d — POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE CONSIDERED MITIGABLE TO INSIGNIFICANCE I. PLANNING AND LAND USE 1 . Significant Effect: Landfill operations at the Kirker 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. 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 Tess 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. 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. 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 . Significant 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- 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 . I 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- 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 . Significant Effect: Operation of the landfill and associated equipment could cause additional risk of fire and explosion (FEIR, p. 4 . 2-7 ) . 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: 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 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. I EXHIBIT G -8- D 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 signi-�icant 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 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. 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 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 Rirker 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. 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. 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.i 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, therecould 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. 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- I s � 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 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 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 Rirker 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; 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 Kirker 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 j 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 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. 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 .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 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 F EXHIBIT G -18- II I landfills and shall make information available to the County Community Development Department. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District would also i perform inspections and enforce its own i 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 applica-L.ion 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. . 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- 1 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 while idling at the landfill site (FEIR, p. 4 .4-15) . 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 impact, the identified potentially significant impact: This impact 'is expected to be mitigated to a level less than significant by avoiding the unnecessary idling and grouping of landfill equipment and, if necessary, by the implementation of any further mitigation measures identified as necessary in the site-specific EIR. b. Supporting Explanation: Waste hauling and handling vehicles/equipment would emit exhaust as the site. Large numbers of such vehicles/equipment operating or idling in a small area could cause spot violations of the CO and Nets standards. C. Monitoring Program: The mitigation measures will be implemented through incorporation into the conditions of project approval. The County Community Development Department shall be responsible for ensuring that these conditions are complied with and report its findings to the Board of Supervisors annually. V. NOISE 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 EXHIBIT G -20- in Table 4 .5-2 of the Program EIR) . Some additional measures that should be evaluated in the 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. c. Monitoring Programs 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 i EXHIBIT G E -20 a- r 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 ) . 1 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. 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. EXHIBIT G -21- VI . VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 1 . Significant Effect: Development of the Rirker 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, 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. 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 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 Kirker 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 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 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. 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. 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- 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, 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. Specific improvements for the Kirker Pass Landfill have been identified in the previous Kirker Pass EIR and will be i incorporated into the Project EIR. b.' Supportincr 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 Effects The construction of a landfill interchange has the potential to adversely impact Hess Creek south of Kirker Pass Road (FEIR, p. 4 .6-27) . 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 impact, the identified potentially significant impact: a runoff diversion wall should be constructed at the downstream boundary of the construction zone, so that all runoff from this zone is contained behind the wall and not allowed to enter the creek-bed l below. A sump at one end of the wall may be necessary to hold excessive runoff if the construction is in progress during the rainy season. At the conclusion of the tunnel-underpass construction, all soil disturbed during the construction period should be stabilized with plantings and, if necessary, a terraced support wall should be installed to prevent downstream siltation. EXHIBIT G -26- b. Supportincq Explanation: Several hundred feet of streambed would be eliminated by the construction activities and location of the interchange. A shallow sump would .be installed upstream of the proposed construction zone to collect off-season flow. The stream would .be bypassed with either a temporary culvert or a diaphragm pump with a discharge hose. At the point of downstream j discharge, the flow could be dissipated to avoid additional erosion/siltation problems. c. Monitoring Programs: The County Community Development Department shall be responsible for ensuring that these conditions are complied with and report to the Board annually. 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- i ( 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. i (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 geoteccxlnical 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- j subject to excessive fill settlement and/or localized slpe sloughing resulting from decomposition of refuse, 10 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 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 . 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. 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. 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) . 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 Kirker Pass EIR and will be incorporated into the Project EIR. b.:1 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. 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 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 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 i recommendations in site-specific geotechnical investigations . State siting criteria for Class II i 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. 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. 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 i 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 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. C. Monitoring Program: The County Community i 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 . 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.1 4 . 8-11 ) . 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: 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 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 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. I j EXHIBIT G -37- 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 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 (FEIR, pp. 4 . 9-6, 4 . 9-7 ) . i i EXHIBIT G -38- 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: 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 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 EXHIBIT G -39- � s 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 j more often, if needed. EXHIBIT G -41- i c. Monitoring Proctram: 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 I Board on a regular basis regarding the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of the identified mitigation measures . XI . CULTURAL RESOURCES 1 . Significant Effect: Previously unknown cultural resources at the Kirker Pass Landfill site could be impacted during construction. (FEIR, p. 4 .11-9) 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 impact, the identified potentially significant impact: Construction personnel should be alerted to the possibility of encountering subsurface deposits during construction. In the event of a discovery, work should be diverted from the area until an archeologist can evaluate the resource and provide recommendations. ' The County Coroner should be notified immediately should buried human remains be discovered. b. , Supporting Explanation: It is possible that previously unknown, buried cultural resources exist within or adjacent to the proposed Kirker Pass Landfill site. c. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development Department shall report annually to the Board of Supervisors on the applicability of cultural resource findings and mitigation measures as they apply to proposed and sited solid waste projects. XII. PUBLIC SERVICES 1. Significant Effect: The proposed landfill could increase the risk of fire and explosion (FEIR, pp. 4 . 12- 4, 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 ) . j EXHIBIT G -43- 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. 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. 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. � 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 landfill developer would propose a water service i 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 EXHIBIT G -44 - y 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: Requirements for inspection and enforcement will require increased personnel and resources from affected agencies. (FEIR, p. 4 .12-7) 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 impact, the identified potentially significant impact: Requirements for increased personnel for inspection and enforcement will be mitigated through the levying of fees on the various solid waste projects to offset the additional governmental costs associated with landfills and other waste management projects. b. Supporting Explanation: Development of solid waste projects, including landfills, will require increased personnel and resources from affected agencies. C. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development Department shall report annually to the Board of Supervisors on the status of the monitoring measures including personnel requirements. 5 . Significant Effect: The Kirker Pass Landfill could have impacts on police services relating to traffic and litter violations . (FEIR, p. 4 . 12-5 ) EXHIBIT G -44a- 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 impact, the identified potentially significant impact: 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 and adjacent access roads could mitigate the impact of increased littering. 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 Kirker 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 I EXHIBIT G -44b - Environmental Impact Reports and other environmental document's implementing the California Environmental Quality Act that will emanate from the adoption of the Kirker Pass Landfills 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. VEGETATION AND SOILS 1. 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 mitigate the identified potentially significant effect, but may not reduce it to a less than significant level: 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 (RWQCB) , United Stated 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-unit habitat unit replacement for lost wetland. The County Community Development Department will ensure that a habitat enhancement and management plan in implemented, if necessary, by incorporating it into the project's Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval. The plan, or variations of it, can also I 1 EXHIBIT G -45- 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 EIR. 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 Program: 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 of Supervisors on compliance with the provisions of this plan. II. 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 j impact. Contour grading techniques will provide a I smooth transition between the new topography of the EXHIBIT G -46- j I i 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. 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 I EXHIBIT G -47- i GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS Unlike water or sewer lines and access roads, landfill capacity does not provide a clear quantitative threshold limit beyond which a landfill could be considered growth- inducing. There is however, a potential connection between landfill capacity and the County's ability to accommodate growth. ' Failure to provide a landfill site such as the Kirker Pass Landfill could at some point limit growth and development. The COSWMP/General Plan Amendments EIR estimated that the capacity of the Kirker Pass Landfill would provide 16 years of site life, based ont eh- County's current rate of solid waste generation. This exceeds the 8 years of disposal capacity required by the California Waste Management Board. However, this site life is within the 24 year time frame of the proposed County General Plan, and therefore would accommodate growth already anticipated and planned for by the County. In addition, the Kirker Pass Landfill site has a substantially lower capacity and site life then the other four sites for which General Plan Amendments have been proposed. Thus, to the extent that a landfill might be deemed growth-inducing, the Kirker Pass Landfill would be the least growth-inducing of the five candidate sites. A landfill may also be growth-inducing if its construction and use require major extension of roads, water lines or sewer lines through undeveloped lands, thereby making possible the development of those lands. However, the Kirker Pass Landfill does not require substantial road extensions which could open up new areas to development, and may not require a water main extension. Mitigation Findings The Board of Supervisors finds that the following mitigation measures will avoid, or reduce to a less than significant level, any growth-inducing impacts of the Kirker Pass Landfill: The new County General Plan provides for orderly growth in accordance with the requirements of state planning law. Regulation of land use and growth by the County pursuant to the General Plan will avoid or reduce any growth-inducing effect that a landfill might otherwise exert. In addition, under Measure C, the County and the cities are required to manage growth in relation to the transportation infrastructure in order to qualify for funding, thereby avoiding or reducing any growth-inducing effect that a landfill might otherwise exert. To the extent that the foregoing mitigation measures do not avoid, or reduce to a less than significant level, the growth-inducing impacts of the Kirker Pass Landfill, the EXHIBIT G ' -47a - i f i I Board of Supervisors finds that the Statement of Overriding Considerations in these findings shall be applicable. 4 ! CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The COSWMP/General Plan Amendments EIR describes a number of potential cumulative impacts arising from COSWMP facilities, including one or more landfills, in combination with other facilities and developments expected to occur in the County. These impacts would not be significant for the Kirker Pass Landfill alone, but this Landfill would make a small contribution to the overall magnitude of these cumulative impacts. The cumulative impacts described in the EIR are: Significant increases in traffic volumes along access roads to new facilities, including one or more landfills and transfer stations, causing traffic congestion. An increase in heavy truck traffic on Highway 4 . Landfill truck traffic could comprise about six percent of total truck volume. Air pollutant emissions from traffic, leading to adverse air quality impacts. Increased demand on public services, especially fir protection services. Loss of open space and grazing land due to development of one or more landfills as well as other COSWMP solid waste facilities, together with other development in the County. Loss of riparian and wetland habitat due to development of one or more landfills as well other COSWMP solid waste facilities, together with other development in the County. Mitigation Finding: The Board of Supervisors finds that the following mitigation measures will avoid, or reduce to a less than significant level, the cumulative impacts described in the EIR: These mitigation measures involve actions of the cities as well as the County, in addition to actions of regional and state agencies. To the extent that these mitigation measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of public agencies other than the County, they can and should be adopted by such other agencies: EXHIBIT G -47b - 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. Monitoring Program: The County Community Development Department shall report to the Board annually, as applicable, on compliance to the identified conditions. i I i EXHIBIT G ' 47c - • i The County will, and the cites should, adopt and implement general plans and zoning ordinances that favor high density development and urban in-filling to reduce the consumption of open land and wildlife habitat. The County will support efforts to coordinate . infrastructure and land use planning on County and regional levels. The BAAQMD and the Air REsources Board should enforce stringent stationary source and vehicular air pollution controls. The County will, and the cities, . the BAAQMD and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission should, implement transportation system management (TSM) measures such as car an van pooling, parking lots at transit stops, and exclusive car pool and bus lanes. The County will, and the cities should, implement, to the degree feasible, measures to reduce the volume of the urban solid waste stream. To the extent that he forgoing mitigation measures do not avoid, or reduce to a less than significant level, the cumulative impacts of the Kirker Pass Landfill, together with other COSWMP facilities and other anticipated County development, the Board of Supervisors finds that the Statement of Overriding Considerations in these findings shall be applicable. 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 Findinae This Alternative, as described in the CosWMP/GPA EIR, is infeasible because of the following specific economic, social and other considerations. Reasons'i This alternative is defined as the failure to adopt a CoSWMP revision and General Plan Amendments, which would 1 i EXHIBIT G -48 - have the effect of maintaining the status quo with respect to solid waste management and landfill development in the County. I In this alternative, no new landfills would be developed, existing landfills would be used until their closure,1 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 -48a- Contra Costa Sanitary District Solid Waste Management Project Report, 4985; 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 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. This program EIR and this General Plan Amendment are the first phase in a series of development proposals pursuant to which the County is considering five (5) possible landfill sites covered by the Five General Plan Amendments, as possible alternative 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 ordered judgment in the Litigation against the County referenced in these findings. With respect to alternative landfill sites, 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 the following alternative sites, the EIR sets forth the following conclusions: The Christie Road site has insufficient capacity to meet minimum solid waste disposal needs for a landfill site in the county. EXHIBIT G -49 - 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. New development is encroaching on the Big Canyon site, making development of a landfill site there infeasible. - Access to the Kirker Pass site is superior to two (2) unnamed sites near Ki.rker Pass Road. 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. The cost of road improvements to a site at the end of Camino Tassajara Road is prohibitive. The cost of road improvements to a site on the east of Camino Tassajara Road, south of Highland Road, is prohibitive. - Access to a proposed site west of Camino Tassajara Road, and east of Doherty Road, is prohibitive due to the cost of road improvements. 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. - 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. - The Vaqueros site is too close to the Kellogg Reservoir, has a relatively small capacity, and possible access problems. - The Armstrong Road site is very remote and difficult to access, with a significant cost to reach the site. 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 type configuration. -50 - EXHIBIT E i • The proposed Altamont site is located at an extreme distance from waste generation sources, creating a significant cost the reach the site, and is located "in close proximity to archeological sites . i 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 in the finding on alternate landfill sites. These reports are incorporated into the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15150. The County is still considering the Bay Pointe, Keller Canyon, Kirker Pass, East Contra Costa and Marsh Canyon sites, and this evaluation of these alternative sites will continue after adoption of the Five General Plan Amendments, including this General Plan Amendment. 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 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. -50a- EXHIBIT E i I 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, -50b- EXHIBIT E 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- I 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 theiCounty. 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. EXHIBIT G -52- i 1 i GENERAL PLAN MENDMENT KELLER CANYON (KPLLER-BAILEY) LANDFILL (GPA 3-89-CO) Highway`4 •. •.. ._t�.'r :�`iY 4 -Y ��✓� -'1(1 � �`a.• `` yj / w..I .�� ` yi �t..Y......'J I I R kJ _ �'� 30= PLATT MAP ( -- KELLER CANYON (KELLER-BAILEY) LANDFILL Part of the Refuse Disposal Plan and ; i�. :Y •' •�»• Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan } I ,' � j / � � •:° :co»iia co f Y'• :�� ••. ss go AC j Fa, 0. 5: ; tPITTSBURG r• •. f 1 ��; .17� aC is ! o r. 440 I AC ro '. Neto at La . i oe north . _ • 11..11 aC/ \ ? 00 0 100 0 � Scala in Feet CONCORD35 /.'"'� „"„ • ,' " Otte t .�•.� �rra► �� ,a.• ; 1 0 {{ �� 1283 •tr14 'T + 1 O MOOD General Plan Amendment Area Sanitary Landfill Refuse Disposal Facility Special Buffer Area Area Reclassified from Agricultural Preserve to General Open Space a 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, C1erK of the Bocird of Supervisor:. ,1nd County Admini::trator BY: � De u y EXHIBIT H E GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT KIRKER PASS WASTE MANAGEMENT LANDFILL (GPA 24-84-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) : "Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill. 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. 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 d Count inistrator By a Depulty RV:jll4:kir.gpa s GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT KIR.RER PASS WASTE MANAGEMENT LANDFILL (GPA 24-84-CO ) jPLAN MAP -- KIRKER PASS WASTE MANAGEMENT LANDFILL i Part of the Refuse Disposal Plan and Land Use Element ( Plan Map Overlay) of the Contra Costa County General Plan / I `�. �N•nd w..•• 1 X60 •L / � jw• ♦C � �;- Mulligan N.11 636.63 •C a� 29 A,; 60 &C 'Et*OR T.r 1l X73 17 •C so ev 35 4 Kirker N � a , a rC00Pt A ,� W= 117 6t •C T2N 2NIE \ --sor. -- --- -- INIW' I N 1EJ 342e7K /v'6 ElwON1Mt•' O w • �' / 63 Oa K DLlO AC �i 1 � •t• ,% E Lw0117.•r i /� w +'+' ) e• •j 177.26 K 2 / i Kirker Pue --- 6 \�rT –— flrr.nr+lr 1 W,41 .11 1000 2000 .113.98 AC `• ECwORTHr Scale is Feet . w : ••-',.o Amt- • •...s ', General Plan Amendment Area Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill Project C Y I hereby certify that this amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan was Adopted by the Board c: Supervisors on October 10, 1939. Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator D 13y: Depu y I cbuoty c BOARD OF SUPERVISORS u T 1 G� Se/ CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, J "CALIFORNIA r2`�ne2, L 969 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 judgment and peremptory writ of mandate in California Waste Management Board v. Board of Supervisors , Contra Costa County Superior Court No. C89-00833 (the "Litigation" ) . This litigation was initiated against the County to require submission of a final revised CoSWMP, and the court ' s judgment and peremptory writ require 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 I Previously, 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 Marsh Canyon Landfill , the subject of these findings , is referred as this "General Plan Amendment . " i 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 the court judgment and peremptory writ 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 i EXHIBIT I 3 I 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 be Jimposed in connection with this General Plan Amendment but must instead be imposed in connection with future land use approvals . Bt�. 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 inthe 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 I 4 6n: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 I 5 ,Response_ .D.ocument, 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 consultantlin June 1986, and 3) the Final Report of the Landfill Siting Task Force adopted by the County Board of Supervisor's 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 I ( iii) if the project-specific 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 . I 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 EIR; and 6 . The judgment and peremptory writ of mandate 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 I 7 I 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 limitation1the 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 par ticular =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 . i 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 EXHIBIT I 8 I i endange:r.ed :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 . Based 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 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 I 9 III . POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE CONSIDERED MITIGABLE TO INSIGNIFICANCE Al. 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. I i ( 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 Marsh Canyon 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) The impact of this General Plan Amendment gelating 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, i I EXHIBIT Ij 10 r � .:social_ -and.-other benefits .of .the ..Landf.i l 1. -Pxo j ect 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 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 inconsistt.ency 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 - recove-r.y 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 ori a site rich is inconsistent with the applicable jurisdiction' s geimeral 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 Prel.iminary Draft County General Plan specifically identify soRid waste transfer, or major resource recovery facilities as aillowable uses., but' Chapter 418-4 of the County Ordinance Ccdle allows waste disposal facilities to be considered in the Heavy Industriaal 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 pRan land use element category which allows H-I , A-2 , or A-3 zonii.ng. The Community_ Development Department shall require a pa-oponent 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 Perrrd t . b. Findings . Based upon the EIR and the entire rec-ord, this .Board finds that : i 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 . mitigation measure 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. 1 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 Project as' 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 jurisdiction 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. i i EXHIBIT I. 12 i 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 site 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 II 13 j other,..benef..its .of_ahe._Landfi.l.l Pr.o.j.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 sections on Air Quality, Visual Quality, Noise and Transportation. Impacts identified in these sections can result in significant land use im-pacts 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 . 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 Il 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) . i ( 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 ) 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 i ( 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 . i ( 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. I 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 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 analyzed in the EIR as potentially significant only with respect to the Bay Pointe and Keller Canyon 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 . ( 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 I EXHIBIT Il 17 Pr.ojec.t.. _as..c.onditions 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 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) . 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 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 I 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 i EXHIBIT I 19 -mi.tigated.- to .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. 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 ( incompatab.ility 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 ,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 I 20 i 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 mitigatedjto 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. 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 -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 122 i i 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,- 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 .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 The 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 I 24 i t i ( 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 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 I I 25 col.lec.ti:on--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, householdhazardous waste programs , and landfills structural requirements would be addressed in Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval . The County is currently working on a household hazardousiwaste -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 I 26 W Landfill .Proj_e.ct _.impacts relating to hazardous materials and special wastes will be mitigated to a level of I 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 o I 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) . ( 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 I 27 I 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 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 EXHIBIT I 28 I report .to .the .Board .as .set _forth :in .se.ction. .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 emissions at all new landfills . The BAAQMD ' s Air Risk ScreeningPolicy (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 I� EXHIBIT I � 29 i • • ( 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 responsibi'lity .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 as impacts associated with landfills . EXHIBIT I 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 I 31 7 . Waste-to-energy .f.aciliti:es . 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 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 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 constitutes approval of any development plan for this site . EXHIBIT I 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 mitigationimeasures , 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 I ! 33 t ( i) The impact of ,.composting 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 . 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 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 . ( 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 I 34 I 9 . Waste-to-energy plant 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 mitigationmeasures 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 extllent 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 . i EXHIBIT I 3-5 (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 (vi) The status of the aforementioned mitigation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring report to *he 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 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 I 36 i - ( 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 VII 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 . 3-112 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 . ( 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 do 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 ' 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 notfeasible 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 mitigatedto a level of insignificance, the environmental , I EXHIBIT 138 i 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 jthe 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 . 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 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 I 39 -be includeid in _any .subsequent .land use..deve..lo: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 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 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 oniroads 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 determinedito 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 . 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 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 I 41 IIi (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 I 42 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 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 jthe 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 ijs 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 I 43 I ( ii) In .the alternat-ive, 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. 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 af-fected 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 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 1 44 i 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 . ( 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. i 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 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 d andfill- 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 asa 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 1 46 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 theproposed mitigation of choosing a landfill site closer to a proposed transfer station applies to this General Plan Amendment,1 this mitigation measure is rejected. With respect to this landfill site, that recommended mitigation measure is identicallto 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 , 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, EXHIBIT -1 ! 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 . ti ( 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 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 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 requirjd 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 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. EXHIBIT I 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 residenceslor 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 I 50 ( 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 altnerative, implementation of the recommended mitigation measures is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality ManagementiDistrict, 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 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 ) 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 . The Bay Area Air Quality ManagementlDistrict 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. .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 analysisof 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 screeninglwould 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 P1an .Amendment sets forth general designations for the landfill site, and does not constituteapproval of any development plan for this site . EXHIBIT I 52 i ( iv) In the :alternatve, 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 f 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 f Inds 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 Geaeral 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 I 54 i 1 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 . i I ( 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 faci';litate 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 : j ( 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 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 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 I EXHIBIT I i 56 i will bemitigated 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. 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 I 57 � a ( 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 Departments would ensure that a weed control and pest control program, ilf 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 E'fR. 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) . EXHIBIT I 58 ( 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 . 6-119 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 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 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 increasled 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 . ( iv) Riparian impacts are not set forth in the EIRas 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) Landfill _Proj_ect 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 approvalof 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 . ( ii ) 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 forimmediate 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 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 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 revegetatlon 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 plan1would 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 . 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, jbelow, and is subject to control by the County. EXHIBIT 1 61 4 . Toxic materials . a . Facts . ( i) Impact 4 is discussed on page 4 . 6-2i 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 ( 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 alternat=ive, 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 . 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 I 63 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 ofdinsignificance 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 mitigationmeasures will be incorporated into the Landfill Project asiconditions 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 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 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 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 I 64 b. Findings . Bused 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 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 . 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 i I EXHIBIT I ' 65 ..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 v, 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 reco'.uriended 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 riot 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 UI of these findings , below) . EXHIBIT IJ 66 (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 EIRi. 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: ( 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 general design=ations for the landfill site, :znd does not constitute approval of any development plan for this site . ( 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, 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 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 . ( 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 . i i EXHIBIT I j 68 (.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 undertakeni by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, or by a qualified team. The Study and Program would be incorporatied into the final design fo.r the project . Some of th'e 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 to the County would be 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 yin 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 i f ( 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 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) .. 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 . Settlement . a. Facts . ( i ) Impact 2 is discussed on page 4 . 7-13 of the EIR. 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 . ( 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. Asia 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 settlements 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 . I 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 . ( 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. i EXHIBIT I 71 r .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 t!o 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 . 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 constitutelapproval of any development plan for this site. EXHIBIT I 72 I ( 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 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 ithe 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 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. i ( iii) The site geotechnical investigations , ' including soil borings ,- required by the landfill developer during the application process would determine I 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 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 General Plan Amendment specific ri..itigation 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 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) . ( 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 s +r 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 foundation's . ( 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 . 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 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 I 75 C 0 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 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 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 -.soil.s ..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 . 4 ( iv) water ponding is not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse impact of the. Landfill Project . { I EXHIBIT 1 , 76 l 0 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 an 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 mitigationlmeasures will be incorporated into the Landfill Project ashconditions 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 gener.a.l 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 . 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 . ( 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 , EXHIBIT I 77 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 . 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 . EXHIBIT I 78 0 It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to these impalcts , because this General Plan Amendment sets forth general delsignations for the landfill site, and does not constitutes 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 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 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 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 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 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 EXHIBIT I 79 i • 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. i 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, '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 . _EXHIB.IT _I .80 b. Findings . Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board finds that : I i ( 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 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. 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 . i ( 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 : r ( 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 Amendment1 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 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 I 82 E., . .;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 . Tol prevent surface water contamination, rain falling on the landfill would be isolated from the refuse by a system of slopes, dr{ainage 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 fivefeet °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 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 EXHIBIT I 83 regularly ..over the .life of the landfill the .install-ation 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 . ( 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 . Alteration of Site Drainage. i a. Facts . I ( 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, I EXHIBIT I 84 i 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 in 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 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 1 3.. ..Reduction of Gr.oundwater _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 . 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 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) . i i i EXHIBIT I 86 i I (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 Ithe 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 . ( 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 i i 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 mitigatedito 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. 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 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 EXHIBIT I 88 ,meet al.l. .S�tate 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 ( 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 . ( 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 . Water Consumption. I a . Facts. i ( 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 . EXHIBIT I 89 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 . 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 . 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 EXHIBIT I 90 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) . ii ( 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. i 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) . ( ii) These impacts relate to transfer stations., interim measures ; and other components of the CoSWMP, and do not relate to this General Plan Amendment . ( iii) These impacts are not set forth in the ETR 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 mitigationmeasures 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 j EXHIBIT I 91 i %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 -theLandfill 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 Qualit 1 . Change in Visual Character of the Existing Land Use . a . Facts ( 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. EXHIBIT I 92 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 , 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 . 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. i 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 forlsecurity 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. l ( iii ) Construction and operational lighting would increase ambient light and glare due to night lighting. ILighting 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 ofApproval . The County HSD -could .also specify,.hours of operation ,in the Solid Waste Facilities Permit and respond to lighting complaints by nearby residents . i ( 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 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 impar-t , 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 EXHIBIT I 94 PPl>an Amendment- on - surrounding uses .ane.:.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) . 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. 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 the 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. iRevegetation 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 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 , 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 If 95 ( i) Project impacts :x.elating to this impact wild 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 mitigationimeasures 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 frilled areas would mitigate this impact . Restorative landscaping may appear to clash with the existing visual character of the native plantings for 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 on1filled 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 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 . 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 . ( i ) This impact can be mitigated by utilizing natural topography as a visual barrier and by providingvisual 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 would be required to prepare and implement a final landscaping plan with the 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 al.terna.t:ive, .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 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 hitter 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 I 99 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 unavoidabl+e 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 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 , 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 ( 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 100 { 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 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 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 . 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 EXHIBIT I 101 s � 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 . Marsh Canyon Impacts . I 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 residential and recreational areas . The majority of the sites , however , will be kept in open space, as about 320 acres of the 1 , 680 acre site would be used for a proposed landfill if further development approvals are granted. ( ii ) Mitigation measures recommended by the EIR include 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 =.s an unavoidable adverse impact , this specific impact of thi site 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 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 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 notfeasible or appropriate to incorporate into this General PIIan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to EXHIBIT I 102 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 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 Overridings 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 15 (night lighting at interim facilities) , and impact 16 ( litter from resource rec( very 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 i EXHIBIT I 103 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 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 designationsforthe 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) . (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. J;. 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 1 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 . 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 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 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, 4below, 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 o.:' 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 . t ( 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 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 to other 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 . ( 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 s � 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 tojthe Board as set forth in section VII of these findings , below, and is subject to control by the County. 2 . Marsh Canyon Impacts . a . Facts . ( i) Impact 3 is discussed at page 4 . 11-7 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 . 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 to off 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 . 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 . ( iv) Impact 3 relating to the historic homestead,� is 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 ) 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 sof Overriding Considerations , section vi , below. EXHIBIT I 109 (ii) Although the impact of this project on 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 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 notfeasible 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 Plane 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 mit..gation measures shall be included in the annual monitoring rep�jrt 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 . 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 testingphase could be considered adequate mitigation. Project_re 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 beenisubject 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 . 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 toa level of insignificance . ( iv) This impact is set forth in the EIR as an ;unavo .dable adverse impact of the Landfill Project , although a numbt:�r 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 . EXHIBIT I 111 ( 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 mitigatedto a level of insignificance, the environmental , economic, 0cial , 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. 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 . EXHIBIT I 112 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 tothe 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 I 113 b. _ Findings . Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board finds than : ( 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' notjfeasible 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. 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 . I i i i i EXHIBIT I 114 b. Findings . Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board finds that : E ( 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 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 . i ( 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. 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 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 . 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 . ( 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 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. EXHIBIT I 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. This impact does not relate to any other landfill site or tolthis General Plan Amendment . i ( 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 . 127 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 ash 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. f 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) . 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 . 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 : ( >.) 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 EXHIBIT I 119 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. M'. Growth Inducing Impacts . 1 . Facts . ( 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 connection between the capacity of landfill sites and corresponding future development is less direct than the connectionibetween 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 . i (iv) Growth inducing impacts are not set forthlin 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 ) Although landfill sites are necessary to serve existing development, businesses, and homes , EXHIBIT I 120 J � � and although the EIR does not list growth-inducing impacts as unavoidable significant impacts , the growth inducing impacts of this General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project are potentially significant . I ( ii) To the extent that any growth inducing impacts of this General Plan Amendment or the Landfill Project are potentially significant, 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) . ( iii) Growth-inducing impacts which are related todevelopment plans for specific landfill sites are not ripe for consideration at .this time, because this Board is not considering final or site-specific development plans for any landfill sites at this time, and is only considering the Five General Plan Amendments pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines authorizing Program EIRs and tiering of EIRs . Any growth-inducing impacts which arise from final development plans for specific landfill sites , and any mitigation, measures which may reduce such impacts , will be evaluated in the project-specific EIR for each landfill site . N. Cumulative Impacts . 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 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 Joss of riparian and wetland habitat . EXHIBIT I 121 s (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 i i (a) The aforementioned potential cumulative 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. (b) 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 state and federal agencies . (c) 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 . (d) 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 EXHIBIT I 122 habitat , transportation system management measures are required by the County for final development plan approval of projects , and 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 studies which are currently underway involving the Solid Waste Commissions, the County Health Department , and this Board' s Internal Operations Committee. The County coordinates infrastructure and land use planning through its participation in the Measure C financing and coordination program for developments. (e) 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) . (f) Cumulative impacts which are related to development plans for specific landfill sites are not ripe for consideration at this time, because this Board is not considering final or site-specific development plans for any landfill sites at this time, and is only considering the Five General Plan Amendments pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines authorizing program EIRs and tiering of EIRs . Any, cumulative impacts which arise from final development plans for specific landfill sites, and any mitigation measures which may reduce such impacts, will be evaluated in the project-specific EIR for each landfill site. (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 I 122-A i • the SolidWaste 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 thecumulative impacts of the Landfill Project or this General P11an 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 VTI 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 . (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 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 EXHIBIT I 123 habitat enhancement plan . which can provide for replacement or compensatilon 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) . i (c) As discussed in Section V, below, regardinglalternatives 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. (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 . 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 . i 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 . EXHIBIT I 124 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) . I J (c) As discussed in Section V, below, regardingialternatives 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. 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 otherwisejsignificant , 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 . 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 I 125 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, regardinglalternatives to this Landfill Project, the above-described impact of the General Plan Amendment and this Landfill. Project would similarly be 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 . 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 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. 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 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 EXHIBIT I 126 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, land evaluating the feasibility of preservational removal of particular significant portions of the site . I (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 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 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 Plan Amendment and the other sites which are the subject of the Five General Plan Amendments . The alternatives EXHIBIT I 127 to the General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project analyzed in this EIR are the following: 11. 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. 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 . I 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 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 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 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 Litigationlreferenced above . (b) Mitigation measures incorporated into this General Plan Amendment , or which will be incorporated into future development approvals as conditions of approval , have substantia'ily 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 entilrely eliminate sound planning for disposal of future solid wastes in the county, resulting in 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 3.0 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. Waste reduction technologies pursuant to this alternative would have EXHIBIT I 130 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. 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 benefits derived from the General Plan Amendment and the Landfill Project as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations would not be obtained. I EXHIBIT Ii 131 1 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 19'7)2 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 198.5 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 asan 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 La landfill site in the county. 1 .EXHIBIT I 132 ( 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 Big 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 . (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 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 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 site . 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. l (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. 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. EXHIBIT I 134 I The Cummings .-Skyway site is infeasible because it will have a significantly reduced capacity due to the rerouting of Highway 4 . 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 . (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 . EXHIBIT I 135 (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 . (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 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 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 . 33 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 . 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 tj 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 . 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 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 seg. , the County is required to prepare and update a county solid waste management plan ( ''CoSWMP" ) . In EXHIBIT I 138 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 n-o-new site is currently 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. C89-00833 (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 . The General Plan Amendment is necessary for the County to comply with the provisions of the judgment and peremptory writ of mandate in the Litigation. 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 judgment 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 this judgment, 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 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 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 19.91 . 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 orieliminate 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 . EXHIBIT I 140 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 , 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 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 . 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 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 EXHIBIT I 142 may not belavoided despite the numerous mitigation measures and conditionsiof 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 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 . EXHIBIT I 143 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 regardinglmitigation 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 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. EXHIBIT I 144 VIII . GENERAL I 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 Contained herein ai.e 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 . EXHIBIT I I 145 I i I i I 0 EXHIEIT 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 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--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 1 , � ,� �, �� t ��< �, �t �� _� �, ,� �� , '�<< �,� ,t t Add "refuse disposal" to the following statement of purpose on Page I, Purposes, of the Open Space and Conservation Element, indicated by under- lining: Open Space and Conservation in this plan can mean lana 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 nd Coun Administrator By En ( L D ty CAZ/jn 169:marshcyn.gpa r GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT MARSH CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL (GPA 4-89-CO) PLAN MAP -- 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 4;•rocw00.., I dao •Q � .c.0 r'r.. I 1 1 �— • 993tt lrr Ac cop%n. or Q J 1 , V a�t•o '�•'1 . 21?s- ec G .z, alwa • I ^ .■ o • tit �wtv O 1 ISIE k •,n r I � north 11r•u -- may �� a•wOCrt•ir• �\ j 0 1000 =:00 •, •-� a•t.Ot •c•l •` •.; Scale in Feet I I I job pr ;.t i .•i. : Ko T 1 ta0 •c \ ••r •�Il I Ml.lt� \ .a.aa •c • •`• d -`•` / 'Ara al •c t I W.tor Took Ac -'.y-• VAB0 2179 e% 'z• -•k O U N O- . .. . _ General Plan amendment Area Sanitary Landfill Refuse Disposai :acili:: I hereby certify that amendmi ant to the Contra Cost,.. County General Plan was Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October iC, i`3f3,3. Phil Batchelor, Clerk cit -ne Poard of Supervisory arlu County Administrator By: D Uepu