The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 10121993 - H.7 f AL 'r- }H. 7 Ccntra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .�� ^Jl. r LI FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON C Utv DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: October 12, 1993 SUBJECT: AMENDMENT 3 TO LAND USE PERMIT 2122-86 FOR THE ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Affirm that the Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report (December 1987) and Addendum 4 (September 1993) for the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station before acting on this item. 2 . Certify that Addendum 4 has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 3 . Approve Amendment 3 to Land Use Permit 2122-86, as set forth in the September, 1993 , Amendment Document. FISCAL IMPACT None BACKGROUND The County Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of Amendment 3 (see Planning Commission Resolution 40-1993 and September 21, 1993 staff report). The applicant, Acme Fill Corporation, requests that Land Use Permit 2122-86 be amended to extend the operating period of its Interim Transfer Station at the Acme Landfill from December 31, 1993 , to December 31, 1994. Staff has added non-substantive modifications to Amendment 3 which recognize that the Interim Transfer Station is (now) an operating facility rather than a proposal. Continued use of the Interim Transfer Station is necessary to ensure that waste be processed through a transfer station as required for disposal at CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES SIGNATUR RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEND F D COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON October 12 , 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the above amendment. The public hearing was opened and Mr. Torn Bruen, .representing ACME Fill , spoke in concurrence with the staff recommendation, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above recommendations are -APPROVED. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT IV TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orin: Community Development Department ATTESTED October 12 , 1993 cc: Health Services Dept. , Env. Health PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Administrators Office THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel COU T ADMINISTRATOR Acme Fill Corp. (via CDD) CA Integrated Waste Mgmt Board (via CDD)BY DEPUTY Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt District (via CDD) S.F. Regional Water Quality Control Board (via CDD) Page 2 - Board Order Acme Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Amendment 3 October 12, 1993 Keller Canyon Landfill. The Conditions of Approval for Keller Canyon Landfill require that almost all waste must first be processed through a transfer station prior to disposal at the landfill. This requirement significantly reduces traffic impacts in the vicinity of the landfill and enables the efficient management of the disposal area by prohibiting route collection and public self-haul customers from accessing the landfill. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the continued use of the Interim Transfer Station, and to provide time for the Permanent Transfer Station to be installed. According to Acme, construction of the Permanent Transfer Station has been delayed, primarily due to lack of a wastestream committment. Acme estimates that the permanent station will be operational during the first half of 1994 . The extension date of December 31, 1994, was chosen to provide for contingencies, such as inclement weather. The Board certified the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station ETR on December 15, 1987. Since the proposed change is not a substantive modification, i.e. it does not change the physical characteristics of the project itself nor the nature or extent of its impacts on its setting, staff regards the change as being consistent with the project covered in the EIR. An addendum to the EIR, therefore, has been prepared according to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. There have been two previous amendments to the Land Use Permit 2122-86 Conditions of Approval which extended the operating date of the Interim Transfer Station. Amendment 1 was approved by the Board on April 3, 1990. Amendment 2 was approved by the Board on April 21, 1992 . Copies of the Amendment 3 Document, the County Planning Commission's Resolution, the Staff Report (originally prepared for the County Planning Commission) , the Final Environmental Impact Report, ETR Addendum 4, previous EIR addenda (1-3) , previous Land Use Permit 2122-86 amendments (1 and 2) and the April, 1992, Conditions of Approval for Land Use Permit 2122-86 have been transmitted under separate cover. DM ACMEAMD3.80 )4-7 ATTACHMENT B FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM 4 ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION PROJECT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SEPTEMBER 1993 State Clearinghouse No. 86090906 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 PINE STREET, 4TH FLOOR - NORTH WING MARTINEZ, CA 94553 (510) 646-2096 1.0 INTRODUCTION Environmental Impact Report; EIR Addendum 1 The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station (State Clearinghouse No. 86090906) was published in June of 1987. It was circulated for review by local, regional, and state agencies and the public for a 45- day period. Comments that were received during this review period were responded to in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), which was published in September of 1987. On October 13, 1987, the County Planning Commission made several comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the FEIR Response Document. In reply to the Planning Commission comments, an Addendum (Addendum 1) to the FEIR, was prepared. The 1987 Addendum provided additional information on matters raised in the FEIR, and was intended to be used in the Commission's decision making process. The FEIR for the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer station was certified by the County Board of Supervisors on December 15, 198;'. On the same day, County Land Use Permit (#2122-86)was approved for the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station project. Amendment 1; EIR Addendum 2 On April 3, 1990, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment 1 to Land Use Permit 2122-86. Its primary purpose was to extend the authorized operating life of the interim Transfer Station from April 30, 1990, to July 27, 1992. The 1987 Environmental Impact Report with Addendum 2 (dated January, 1990) was used for CEQA compliance. Subsequently, the facility's Solid Waste Facilities Permit was similarly amended, using the EIR with addendum for CEQA compliance. Amendment 2; EIR Addendum 3 On April 21, 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment 2 to Land Use Permit. Its primary purpose also was to extend the authorized operating life of the interim Transfer Station, this time from July 27, 1992, to December 31, 1993. Again, the 1987 Environmental Impact Report with Addendum 3 (dated March, 1992) was used for CEQA compliance. Amendment 3; EIR Addendum 4 The purpose of Addendum 4 to the 1987 Environmental Impact Report is to provide CEQA compliance for a third Amendment.to Land Use Permit 2122-86. The primary purpose of the amendment is to extend the authorized operating life of the interim Transfer Station from December 31, 1993, to December 31, 1994. The Environmental - Page 1 - Impact Report, with its addendum, wold also be used to provide CEQA compliance for an updating of the facility's Solid Waste Facilities Permit. The permanent Transfer Station is under construction, but might not be ready for operation until 1994. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station approved by Land Use Permit 2122- 86 consists of an Interim Transfer Station and a Permanent Transfer Station. The Interim Transfer Station was intended to provide a relatively temporary, simple, quickly buildable, and inexpensive facility to enable the County to trans-ship solid waste to other disposal sites when the Acme Fill landfill reached capacity. The Permanent Transfer Station was intended to be a long-term transfer facility which under its conditions of approval provided for resource recovery, drop-off/buy-back, and household hazardous waste intake functions along with administrative and vehicle maintenance uses at an end- state of development. The main purpose of a transfer station is to enable waste to be transferred from commercial refuse collection vehicles to larger long-haul transfer trucks for transport to a distant landfill. Transfer station operations allow considerable savings in fuel by providing the means for transporting refuse long distance in more energy efficient long- haul vehicles. The use of a transfer station to transport waste also very substantially reduces the amount of traffic in the vicinity of the receiving landfill. The Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station is to be located at the existing Acme Fill landfill site. The site is bounded on the north by Waterfront Road, on the east by Walnut Creek, on the south by Pacheco Creek and on the west by International Technology Corporation. The area, which is zoned heavy industrial, is within the jurisdiction of Contra Costa County, and is located within the LAFCO Sphere of Influence for the City of Martinez. The Interim Transfer Station is located at the southwest corner of the 97-acre Acme landfill East Parcel. The station site forms a portion of Assessor's Parcel Number 380-020-013. Acme Fill Corporation (Acme)is the owner and operator of this site. The Permanent Transfer Station is being built on the west side of the site at a location formerly used as a borrow pit. The Interim Transfer Station went into operation in December 1989. Most waste formerly disposed at the Acme Fill landfill was transferred to the Altamont Landfill in Alameda County under a 2-year agreement. A smaller amount was transferred to the Potrero Hills Landfill in Solano County between April, 1990, and January, 1993, under a 3-year agreement. A much smaller amount went to the Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, which closed at the end of March, 1992. Beginning on May 7, 1992, most waste from the Interim Transfer Station , ranging form 900 to 1,800 tons per day, has been taken to the new Keller Canyon Landfill in Contra Costa County. The conditions of approval for the Keller Canyon Landfill require most solid waste to arrive by transfer vans. - Page 2 - The development of the Permanent Transfer Station is being phased. Sound walls were built and site grading was done prior to 1993. Utilities are being installed and part of the main processing building is being constructed under the current stage. The building will accommodate the transfer function and provide part of the ultimate resources recovery function. Acme Fill expects to complete this stage in 1994. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM CRITERIA This Addendum to the FEIR has been prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act. This section states that a lead agency or a responsibility agency shall prepare an addendum to an EIR if: 1. None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of'the subsequent EIR have occurred; 2. Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA; and 3. The changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. 4.0 AMENDMENT 3 TO LAND USE PERMIT 2122-86 This section summarizes Amendment 3. The full text of the proposed deletions, revisions, and additions to the Conditions of Approval, together with reasons for the changes, is provided in an associated document entitled Amendment Document, Amendment 3 to Land Use Permit 2122-86, Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station. The primary revision in Amendment 3 is the extension of the authorized period of operations of the Interim Transfer Station from December 31, 1993, to December 31, 1994. This extension was requested by the Acme Fill Corporation. Staff additionally proposing revising the text of Condition 29.1 and to eliminate Condition 29.2 (addressing alternate locations) to reflect the fact that the interim transfer station was built and operating, not simply planned and permitted. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS The environmental impacts and associated mitigation measures for the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station are discussed in the 1987 Final Environmental Impact Report. All potentially significant impacts were found to be mitigable to insignificance - Page 3 - through the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. The applicable mitigation measures were included in Land Use Permit 2122-86's Conditions of Approval. Later, in response to state law, an Implementation and Mitigation Monitoring Program was instituted to track compliance with the conditions. The primary proposed charge to the Land Use Permit's Conditions of Approval, authorizing the Interim Transfer Station, to operate for another year, would not change the physical characteristics of the project, nor would the extension result in new impacts. The Interim Transfer Station has been operating without prevailing problems (virtually without incident) and in compliance with its permits. Allowing the Interim Transfer Station to continue to operate will have the beneficial effect of enabling the major portion of the County's waste stream to be transferred to the new Keller Canyon Landfill (in turn, enabling the landfill to comply with its own CEQA originated Conditions of Approval regarding traffic and management of the disposal area). The Interim Transfer Station is as yet the only operating Transfer Station in the County. CAZ:cw RCZ:AcmeFEIR.Fin 9-9-93 - Page 4 - ATTACB[MENT A AMENDMENT DOCUMENT AMENDMENT 3 TO LAND USE PERMIT 2122-86 ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMIVIISSION SEPTEMBER 211993 Conditions 29.1 and 29.2 Existing .1 General Condition. The Acme Fill Corporation may construct and operate Condition an interim Transfer Station on the Acme landfill property at a location designated in Conaition 29.2 below. The size of the interim station shall not exceed 10 acres. The interim Transfer Station may commence operations on or after April, 1989, and shall cease operations not later than 90 days following the opening of the permanent Transfer Station, but in no event longer than December 31, 1993. Grading shall be done in accordance with Section 16. The interim Transfer Station may consist of one or more unenclosed pads, which shall be paved to prevent the infiltration of liquids into the underlying ground. If it is necessary to excavate into the cover of the landfill, permission shall be obtained from the County Health Services Department and other regulatory agencies having jurisdiction. Drainage waters from the pads shall be handled as leachate. Screens or fences shall be installed to restrict litter from blowing off the operations area. The interim Transfer Station shall be served by a paved road. It shall be enclosed by a security fence. Wooden slats shall be installed in the fence to screen any part of the station which may be visible from a residential area. Existing .2 Location. The interim Transfer Station may be placed in the immediate Condition vicinity of one of the following locations: ON (a) in the immediate vicinity of the permanent Transfer Station's access road on the 125-acre north parcel; (b) on the 97-acre parcel; or (c) in the northeast corner of the 125-acre parcel. Substitute .1 Operating Period. The Interim Transfer Station, which was built and Condition became operational in 1989 under the terms of the original Condition (Add) 29.1, may continue to operate through December 31, 1994, or 90 days after the opening of the Permanent Transfer Station, whichever comes first. The Interim Transfer Station shall be well maintained during its period of operations, including its air and water quality protection installations and the fencing, screening and litter control features specified by original Condition 29.1. Concomitant Renumber Existing Condition 29.3 to 29.2. Actions Reasons The primary reason for this revision of Conditions 29.1 and 29.2, is to extend the operating life of the interim Transfer Station for a maximum of one year (from December 31, 1993, to December 31, 1994). As previously noted, the purpose of the extension is to enable the interim facility to remain in operation until stage 1 of the permanent facility is ready to operate. The InUrim Transfer Station is currently the only operating Transfer Station in the County and is needed to provide access to the Keller Canyon Landfill. Another reason for the amendment is to acknowledge in the Land Use Permit that the Interim Transfer Station was built and became operational in accordance with the original Condition 29.1. CAz:rw RCZ:A=e-1V.Fia 9-9-93 - Page 2 - STAFF REPORT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 AGENDA ITEM 1 AMENDMENT 3 TO LAND USE PERMIT 2122-86 ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION RECOMaVIEENDATIONS 1. Affirm that the Commission has reviewed and considered Addendum 4 (August, 1993) to the Final Environmental Impact Report (1987) for the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station, and the Final Environmental Impact Report, before acting on this item. 2. Recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the Board approve Amendment 3 to Land Use Permit 2122-86 as recommended by staff. 3. Direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval, setting forth the Commission's findings, on this item. DESCRIPTION Amendment Document Existing Conditions of Approval which are proposed to be revised, the text of the proposed revisions, and the reasons for the revision are provided in a separate Amendment Document (Attachment A). Proposed Interim Transfer Station Time Extension The purpose of Amendment 3 is to extend the operating time limit of existing Condition 29.1 of Land Use Permit 2122-86 from December 31, 1993, to December 31, 1994. The time extension is to enable the Interim Transfer Station to continue to operate while Permanent Transfer Station's transfer facility (stage 1), which is nearing construction, to open. The time extension is requested by the Acme Fill Corporation, owner of the Acme landfill on which both the Interim and Permanent Transfer Facilities are located (Figure 1.) Other Revisions Staff proposes to revise the text of Condition 29.1 and eliminate the now irrelevant Condition 29.2 to reflect the fact that the Interim Transfer Station now is an existing, operating facility rather than a proposed facility. California Environmental Quality Act Compliance This Amendment's compliance with CEQA is accomplished through the use of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Acme Fill Waste.Recovery and Transfer Station (SCH 86090906), certified on December 15, 1987, accompanied by Addendum 4 to the EIR. The original EIR evaluated the substantive impacts of the project and provided conditions (originated as mitigation measures) for the Land Use Permit's Conditions of Approval, while the Addendum covers the effects of extending the operating life of the Interim Transfer Station. Addendum 4 concludes that there would be no physical changes or continuation of environmentally detrimental conditions resulting from Amendment 3. Therefore, there would be no significant changes to the original environmental analysis performed for the 1987 Environmental Impact Report. Addendum 4 accompanies this staff report as Attachment B. BACKGROUND Status of the Interim Transfer S.ation An Interim Transfer Station -- on an unenclosed tipping floor slab with a transfer van loading tunnel, loading hoods, and a process water collection system, -- was provided for in Land Use Permit 2122-86 in the event that the "Permanent.Transfer Station" could not be built by the time the Acme landfill reached capacity. When the transfer station was being permitted in 1987, It ::.was uncertain whether the solid waste then being disposed at the Acme landfill, about 60% of the County's wastestream,_ would have to be transferred to other landfills in the County or shipped out of the County since a new landfill was unlikely to be available. Furthermore, it was becoming apparent that transfer stations were needed because waste collection and self-haul vehicles would not have direct access to a new landfill for traffic reduction and landfill management reasons. As events transpired, the Interim Transfer Station was used for all three reasons. Although the Acme landfill did not close, it had to drastically scale-back disposal in late 1989. By then, the Interim Station had been permitted and built. For two years, most of the Central County wastestream was transported to the Altamont Landfill in Alameda County under an agreement that included waste inspection (for hazardous materials) at the transfer station and shipment by transfer vans. A similar agreement for the use of the Potrero Hills landfill in Solano County, but for a small portion of the wastestream, was in effect for three years beginning in April of 1990. Some waste also was transferred to the Contra Costa County Sanitary Landfill near Antioch between late 1991 and March, 1992, when that facility ceased operations. On May 7, 1992, the new Keller Canyon Landfill opened, and except for a small percentage of special waste, all waste disposed at the landfill has arrived by transfer vans in compliance with the landfill's permits. - The Acme Interim Transfer Station is still the only operating transfer station in Contra Costa County, although others have been permitted or are in the process of being permitted. The Interim Transfer Station has received a series of approvals predicated on keeping it - Page 2 - FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP - :RFaON , ACME FILL _ ... • CORPORATION M INTERIM TRANSFER STATION SITE Radio - qe To, C • sa PERMANENT TRANSFER STATION.SITE-` ; - - - •• I ,0 '� ?��':MARTINEZ "- �:^��"•�=�� - ..;r :GUN CLUB ::�-=- SO ZO ••• .1� \. p -vft J. Wj If ♦•/ ,�• ENRTREE Q' '''SERVICE Sta ! . ;" . , ...-----•- t hon:,►•; ,. .._ �N 176 o aoo lowsoon soung oe tona Conner Mc elp R operating in the short term while efforts are made to obtain wastestream commitments for the permanent facility. The most recent amendment in April, 1992, extended the Land Use Permit authorization to December 311 1993. The current Amendment proposes to extend the Land Use Permit authorization to December 31, 1994. Two other permits, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Permit to operate and the Local Enforcement Agency's Solid Waste Facilities Permit (operating permit) must be extended at the same time. They may impose other time constraints. The new BAAQMD Permit to operate, which is believed to be that District's last extension (because the station is an uncovered facility), extends the facility through October, 1994. Impending capping of the landfill will also limit its longevity. Although Amendment 3 would extend the authorization for one year, the longest period thought to be acceptable, Condition 29.1 in its existing and revised forms would require the interim facility to cease transfer operations within 90 days of the opening of the permanent facility. Status of the Permanent Transfer Station The "Permanent Transfer Station", is the short-title expression for the permanent Waste Recovery and Transfer Station. It encompasses transfer, materials recovery, household hazardous waste, drop-off/buy-back,administrative and vehicle maintenance functions in its end- state development. It is complemented by the Acme Composting Facility located on the adjoining East Parcel of the landfill. As is the case with the similar West County Integrated Resource Recovery Facility and East County Community Collection Center projects, the Acme permanent facility is proposed to be phased in to hold down costs at any given time and to synchronize facility development with incremental resource recovery requirements. Two initial phases of the Permanent Transfer Station have been completed. The first pertained to the construction of sound walls adjacent to the Vine Hill Residential Neighborhood on the West and Martinez Gun Club on the East. The second involved the partial filling of the landfill's former borrow pit (quarry) and grading it to accommodate the facility's buildings and roads. Currently, the installation of the facility's foundation, utilities, and main transfer/processing building are being staged. The permittee has applied for a building permit for the first stage of the foundation and is preparing construction drawings for the first stage building utilities and an outfall line by the time this Amendment goes to public hearing. The Stage 1 facility is expected to be in operation in 1994. The Permanent Transfer Station is covered by Land Use Permit 2122-86. It has a Solid Waste Facilities Permit issued in 1991. Additionally, it has a Bay Area Air Quality Management District. _ CAZ-rw RCZ:AcmeF-A.Fin 9-9-93 - Page 4 - r k9vorvim roUrd p�ac ............... .. ............ LAND USE PERMIT 2122-86 ANNOTATED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION Approved by the: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors December 15, 1987 Amended by the: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors April 3, 1990 (Amendment 1) Amended by the: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors April 21, 1992 (Amendment 2) ANNOTATED COPY (OF DECEMBER 15, 1987 VERSION) ACME FILL"WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION LAND USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL In the text that follows: Underlining: Indicates a condition or wording which was not in the December 15, 1987, document, but was approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 21, 1992. StFiIfe-Out: Indicates wording deleted on April 21, 1990. Margin Notes: Originators of changes are: STAFF: Contra Costa County Community Development Department ACME: Acme Fill Corporation BOS: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTIONS PAGE 1. SHORT TITLE 1 2. RESPONSIBILITY 1 y 3. VALIDITY PERIOD 1 4. PERMIT REVIEW 1 5. SERVICE AREA 2 Area of Origin, Out-of-County Wastes 6. ELIGIBLE REFUSE TRANSPORT VEHICLES 2 Eligible Vehicles, Emergency Use 7. ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE WASTES 3 Eligible Wastes, Ineligible Wastes, Exceptions 8. ADMINISTRATION 4 Incoming Waste Reports, Local Advisory Committee, Insurance and/or Bonding, Notification Program, Development Coordinator, Pre-Annexation Notification, Rate Approval 9. LOAD INSPECTION 5 Eligible Vehicles and Loads, Refuse Characterization 10. WASTE MEASUREMENT 6 Scales, Incoming Waste Reports 11. HOURS OF OPERATION 6 24-Hour Service, Self-Hauler Service, Late-Hours Program 12. RESOURCE RECOVERY _ g 1988-1992 Resource Recovery Program, Post-1992 Resource Recovery Program, Recyclable Extraction, Recyclable Storage, Wood Chipping, Composting Pilot Project, Landfill Gas, Re-Used Water, County Resource Recovery Management Program TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued SECTIONS PAGE 13. HAZARDOUS WASTE 9 Load Inspection, Household Hazardous Waste Program, Regulatory Agency Approvals 14. SCHEMATIC PLAN FOR LAND USE PERMIT 9 Initial Development Plan 15. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 10 Submittal of Plan, Down-Sizing Factors, Phased Construction, Franchise Agreement 16. SITE DESIGN PLAN 12 Final Site Design Plan, Final Landscaping Plan 17. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PLAN 13 Final Architectural Design Plan, Construction Material, Texture and Color, Building Heights, Sesimic Criteria 18. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION PLAN 13 Final Transportation and Circulation Plan; Design Studies, Construction Plans, and Project-Related Improvements; Waterbird Way Extension; I.T. Corporation Coordination; Arthur Road Gate; Assessment or Benefit Districts; Temporary Turn-Around; Transfer Station Circulation; Peak Period Traffic Management; Transfer Station Main Intersection 19. SITE SERVICES AND UTILITIES PLAN 16 Final Site Services and Utilities Plan, Compliance with Fire District, Automatic Sprinklers, Fire Extinguishers, Public Water Supply, Landscape Water Supply, Annexation to Sanitary District, Compliance with Sanitary District, Discharge to Public Sewer System, Surface Drainage 20. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 18 Final Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Primary Grading, Temporary Flow Restriction, Curbs, Ground Cover, Ditch-Swale Liners, Sedimentation Ponds TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued SECTIONS PAGE 21. CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS 19 Hours of Operation, Exemption, Sound Wall, Access Roads, Dust Suppression, Landfill Cover Disturbance 22. NOISE CONTROL 20 Noise Monitoring ,Program, Transfer Station Construction, Irene Drive Sound Wall, Martinez Gun Club Sound Wall, Construction Hours, Late Hours Program, Transfer Truck Circulation, Transfer Truck Noise Suppression 23. ODOR CONTROL 21 Odor Control Program, Odor Suppresssants, Waste Storage, Night Loading, Landfill Cell Re-Opening, Dust Suppressants 24. CULTURAL RESOURCES 22 Archeology 25. LITTER CONTROL 22 Litter Screening, Transfer Trucks, Collection Vehicles, On-Site Litter Policing, Off-Site Litter Policing, Littering Signs, Load Covering, Uncovered Load Surcharge 26. SAFETY/PUBLIC HEALTH 24 Equipment Operator Protection, Emergency Plan, Employee Training, Employee Safety Equipment, First Aid Equipment, Emergency Communications, Emergency Eye Baths and Showers, Equipment Maintenance, Gas Monitoring 27. SITE SECURITY 25 Security Fencing, Security Staffing, Safety and Security Lighting 28. VECTORS 25 Rodent Control, Mosquito Control TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued SECTIONS PAGE 29. INTERIM TRANSFER STATION 26 General Condition, Location,.Permits 30. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 27 Road Material Storage, Abandoned Vehicle Storage Page 1 1. SHORT TITLE .1 The Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station project is henceforth referred to in this document as the Transfer Station. 2. RESPONSIBILITY ,y .1 The conditions of approval identify the Transfer Station developer as the party responsible for implementing conditions involving construction and improvements, and the Transfer Station operator for implementing conditions involving maintenance and management. Regardless of these identifications, the Transfer Station owner shall be responsible for complying with all conditions. 3. VALIDITY PERIOD STAFF .1 The Transfer Station developer shall install pre-requisite improve- ments and open the Permanent Transfer Station for receiving refuse within three years of the final approval of the p~rjeet'ss Permanent Transfer Station's Solid Waste Facilities Permit, which three years shall be extended by any appeal on any permit. The Transfer Station developer may request a one-year extension of the Land Use Permit. If the Land Use Permit is not implemented within the specified time, it shall become null and void. The BOS Transfer Station Developer shall apply to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for a Solid Waste Facilities Permit for the Permanent Transfer Station no later than October 1. 1990. The Transfer Station developer shall report to the Board of Supervisors on the status of the Permanent Transfer Station's permits and wastestream commitments at six-month intervals beginning on June 1. 1990.' 4. PERMIT REVIEW .1 Permit Review. The Board of Supervisors will hold annual public hearings to review the Conditions of Approval for this Land Use Permit for three years beginning one year after the commencement of operations of the Transfer Station. The Board ' The reports could coincide with annual and semi-annual rate review. Page 2 may refer proposed changes to the Land Use Permit to the County Planning Commission for processing. Thereafter, the County Planning Commission shall hold public hearings on the Land Use Permit at three-year intervals. As a result of a review and public hearing, the County Planning Commission may recommend to the Board of Supervisors new or modified conditions to improve the public hearing and safety. Nothing in this condition shall preclude the Transfer Station owner from applying for amendments to the Land Use Permit at any time or preclude the County from addressing emergency situations or new requirements imposed by state legislation or the courts. 5. SERVICE AREA STAFF .1 Area of Origin. The area of origin of all refuse-bearing vehicles admitted to the transfer station shall be determined by the Board of Supervisors. Unless otherwise specified by the Board, the Board's policy is deemed to be the 1989 Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan or a successor plan for siting solid waste facilities in the County. STAFF .2 Out-of-County Wastes. stiek The importation of wastes from outside the County ig subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors. tent with the shall deteffnine if an impen is eaRsistent with the plaFi. 6. ELIGIBLE REFUSE TRANSPORT VEHICLES .1 Eligible Vehicles. The Transfer Station operator shall admit only the following refuse transport vehicles to the transfer facilities: (a) Self-hauler light vehicles, including personal vehicles and small trucks, conveying eligible loads. (b) Self-hauler and commercial heavy trucks, with or without transfer station accounts, conveying eligible loads. - (c) Packer, drop-box, and other collection service solid waste collection vehicles. Page 3 (d) Transfer vehicles. .2 Emergency Use. The County Health Services Department may allow vehicles transporting eligible wastes originating in other areas of Contra Costa County to have access to the Transfer Station for periods up to 180 days on an emergency basis. The department may grant one extension for no longer than 180 days. The, Board of Supervisors may allow the emergency use of the transfer station to continue for a period up to two years. 7. ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE WASTES .1 Eligible Wastes. The Transfer Station operator shall allow only wastes eligible for disposal in a Class III facility, as defined by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, to be admitted to the Transfer Station. The wastes admitted to the Transfer Station shall also be consistent with the Solid Waste Facilities Permit, administered by the County Health Services Department. .2 Ineligible Wastes. The Transfer Station operator shall not allow the following wastes to be received at the Transfer Station: (a) Designated Wastes, as defined by Section 2522 of Article 2 of Subchapter 15, of Title 23, of the California Administrative Code. (b) Infectious Wastes. (c) Hazardous and.toxic wastes. (d) Radioactive wastes. (e) Liquid wastes. (f) Utility sludges. (g) Other ineligible wastes specified in the Solid Waste Facilities Permit. .3 Exceptions. The Transfer Station operator may admit the follow- ing wastes to the Transfer Station in accordance with waste management programs approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and consistent with the Solid Waste Facilities Permit: (a) Utility sludges, if utilized in a composting program. (b) Household hazardous wastes, if received to implement a household or small generator program. See Section 13. Page 4 8. ADMINISTRATION .1 Incoming Waste Reports. The Transfer Station operator shall submit quarterly reports to the County Department of Health Services on the amount of incoming waste by approved categories, such as residential/commercial, industrial, and construction/demolition and by originating community. .2 Local Advisory Committee. The Transfer Station developer shall make a good faith effort to organize a local advisory committee, consisting of neighbors (i.e., representatives of the Vine Hill neighborhood, the Martinez Gun Club and the IT Corporation) to comment and advise on the development of the Transfer Station and its operations. The advice of the committee shall be sought on the color and texture of the sound wall to be built adjoining properties on Irene Drive. If a committee cannot be organized,the transfer station developer shall hold a series of meetings in the locale. Meetings with the committee, or invited local residents, shall be initiated following the approval of a Land Use Permit and shall be held at least quarterly, through the first two years of operations. Additional meetings may be called by the Chair or by written request of three or more members. Subjects for the agenda may include traffic, noise, odor, litter, and other matters. The County Community Development Department and Health Services Department shall be notified at least ten days in advance of all meetings. .3 Insurance and/or Bonding. The Transfer Station developer shall provide the insurance and bonds specified by the units of govern- ment having approval authority over the project. .4 Notification Program. The Transfer Station operator shall prepare and implement a program to notify potential users of the Transfer Station of its opening and conditions of use. The program should be prepared in cooperation with refuse collectors and with the operator(s) of the landfill served by the Transfer Station. It shall be approved by the County Community Development Department. .5 Development Coordinator. The Transfer Station owner shall provide monies to support a County Transfer Station Development Coordinator, if the County establishes the position, through the first year of Station operations. A pre-payment covering the last six months or service shall be made when requested by the County. Thereafter, the owner may make quarterly advance pay- ments. The owner shall not be obligated to fund Coordinator Page 5 costs in excess of $50,000 per year at 1987 levels, except for the above six-month pre-payment which shall be made at the start of the first year. The Transfer Station developer and operator shall provide such information as the Development Coordinator may require to review plans and installations under the purview of the County, except that'any requirement for additional studies shall be subject to the approval of the County's Director of Community Development. .6 Pre-Annexation Notification. If the owner decides to request annexation of the Transfer Station to a city, the owner shall notify the Board of Supervisors at least 180 days in advance of filing any application for such annexation. The Board may require the owner to consult with it or County staff to determine how solid waste management programs specified in these Conditions of Approval, or in a Development Agreement with the County, would be carried out subsequent to annexation. STAFF .7 Rate Approval. The disposal rates charged by the Interim and Permanent Transfer Station operator shall be ofeYal of approved by the County if the Geumy establishes 8 Fate * lgfflm. The operator shall provide financial information specified by the County in agreed upon form to establish and administer the County's rate approval program. 9. LOAD INSPECTION .1 Eligible Vehicles and Loads. The Transfer Station operator shall prepare and implement a program for screening loads at the Transfer Station gate house, and for checking loads at the transfer buildings. The load inspection program shall include inspection for hazardous wastes, and other ineligible wastes, and procedures for their handling and disposal. The program shall be approved by the County Community Development and Health Services Depart- ments. .2 Refuse Characterization. Prior to receiving waste, the Transfer Station operator shall prepare and implement a program to characterize incoming refuse by type and amount, by performing periodic detailed load inspections according to a program approved by the County Community Development and Health Services Departments. Page 6 10. WASTE MEASUREMENT .1 Scales. The Transfer Station developer shall install scales at the facility to weigh incoming and outgoing vehicles. A weighing program, subject to approval by the County's Department of Health Services and Director of Weights and Measures, shall be implemented to monitor wastes. Waste transfer trucks and vans, franchise hauler vehicles, commercial account vehicles, and general public vehicles with three or more axles shall be weighed. Unless required by other agencies, general public personal vehicles and small trucks may be exempted from weighing requirements. .2 Incoming Waste Reports. See Condition 8.1. 11. HOURS OF OPERATION .1 24-Hour Service. The Transfer Station operator may accept eligible refuse on a 24-hour basis, consistent with these Condi- tions of Approval and the Solid Waste Facilities Permit. .2 Self-Hauler Service. The Transfer Station operator shall receive eligible refuse from self-haulers between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., seven days a week. The Transfer Station shall not admit self- haulers at other times. The Transfer Station operator shall post a sign at the facility's entrance which notes the days and hours the facility is open to self-haulers. The sign shall note days the facility is closed due to holidays. A sign shall be posted which notes the County landfills which do not accept waste deliveries from self-haulers. .3 Late Hours Program. See Conditions 22.6 and 23.4. 12. RESOURCE RECOVERY STAFF Note: The resource recovery goals and time frames cited below shall remain in effect until they are superseded by conditions implementing the goals and time frames established by the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Pub. Resources Code §40000 et sea). .1 1988-1992_ Resource Recovery Program. The Transfer Station Operator shall implement a resource recovery and recycling pro- gram at the Waste Recovery and Transfer Station, consistent with STAFF the 1989 County Solid Waste Management Plan, to complement Page 7 the cities' and collectors' recycling efforts. From initial start-up through 1992, a drop-off recycling center for newspaper, glass, BOS plastics and cans shall be provided along the access road prior to the pay booth. Wood/brush debris shall be chipped for shipment. Cardboard shall be salvaged and baled. Miscellaneous metals and other reusable materials shall be salvaged and stored in boxes located adjacent to station buildings, in every effort to meet the STAFF recycling goal of the 1989 County Solid Waste Management Plan in the near term of 20 percent reduction of the total waste stream. STAFF .2 Post 1992 Resource Recovery Program. Prior to 1991, the Transfer Station Operator shall prepare and submit for review and approval by the County a proposed resource recovery program covering the periods from 1992-1997 and 1997-2007. The proposed program shall be designed to implement the resource recovery goals of the 1989 County Solid Waste Management Plan. STAFF The 1992-1997 phase of the program shall address the recovery of additional materials, and conversion of the drop-off recycling center to a buy-back center. The program shall attempt to recov- er at the Waste Transfer Station an additional 5 percent of the total waste stream to complement the cities' and collectors' anticipated curbside recycling program of 5 percent of the waste stream, to meet the recycling goal of the 1989 County Solid Waste Management Plan in the midterm of 30 percent reduction of the waste stream. The 1997-2007 phase of the program shall address a more comprehensive resource recovery system, including production of refuse pellets for shipment if feasible, with a recycling goal of an approximate additional 20 percent of the waste stream, to.bring the total waste recycled at the facility to approximately 45 percent of the total waste stream, to complement the cities' and collectors' anticipated curbside recycling or equivalent recycling program of 15 percent of the waste stream to meet the recycling STAFF goal of the 1989 County Solid Waste Management Plan in the long term of 60 percent reduction of the waste stream. Nothing in Condition 12.2 shall be interpreted as giving approval to modifications of Land Use Permit 2122-86 without environmental review or due process of law, nor shall it be interpreted as approving project modifications without obtaining other applicable permits. Page 8 y STAFF .3 Recyclable Extraction. The Transfer Station operator shall screen incoming self-hauler loads for major recyclable materials and extract materials, consistent with the 1989 County Solid Waste Management Plan. .4 Recyclable Storage. The Transfer Station operator shall not store recycled materials in the open on the Transfer Station site, unless the >-naterial is baled or placed in bins or storage containers. .5 Wood Chipping. The Transfer Station operator shall install wood chipping equipment on the site, and establish a program to encourage.landscape-services and construction/demolition material haulers to segregate wood material for chipping. .6 Composting Pilot Project. The Transfer Station Operator shall propose and implement a pilot project for composting a portion of the organic material brought to the Station. The composting facility shall be placed on the adjoining Acme landfill site at a location approved by the County Community Development Department. Alternatively, the Transfer Station Operator may utilize a composting facility at a County landfill or other County- approved location. If practicable, the compost shall be used initially as a soil amendment for Transfer Station landscaping. The pilot project shall be approved by the County Community Development Department and Health Services Department and shall be subject to regulatory agency approvals. The operator shall-submit a proposal for the pilot project within one year after receiving waste at the Transfer Station, and shall implement the project within one year of its approval. Its status shall be considered at the next Land Use Permit review. .7 Landfill Gas. The Transfer Station operator shall explore the use of landfill gas to heat the Transfer Station facility. .8 Re-Used Water. See Condition 19.6. .9 County Resource Recovery Management Program. When requested by the County,the Transfer Station owner shall provide annual advance funding to support a County Resource Recovery Management Program consisting of the Office of Resource Recovery Manager and its program. The cost of the program shall not exceed $100,000 at 1987 levels. Page 9 The Transfer Station owner may recover funds provided to the County in advance of the opening of the station through subse- quent rate adjustments or surcharges approved by the County. If the County approves new landfills or other solid waste disposal facilities, it may provide for the new facilities to wholly or partially support the County Resource Recovery Management Program. a 13. HAZARDOUS WASTE .1 Load Inspection. See Section 19. .2 Household Hazardous Waste Program. If consistent with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, the Transfer Station operator shall develop a household hazardous waste disposal program. The operator is encouraged to develop the program in cooperation with other waste management services. The proposed program, along with a schedule of proposed costs and funding sources, shall be submitted to the County Community Development Department within 1 year of the opening of the Transfer Station. If the household hazardous waste program (or a version of it) is approved by the County Board of Supervisors, and the program is funded, the Transfer Station operator shall implement it. The Transfer Station household hazardous waste program shall include a program approved by the County Health Services Department for notifying facility users and households in its service area of what constitutes hazardous wastes and how such wastes are to be disposed of. .3 Regulatory Agency Approvals. The collection and storage of toxic and hazardous wastes pursuant to this section, shall be subject to regulatory agency approvals and shall be consistent with County waste management plans. 14. SCHEMATIC PLAN FOR LAND USE PERMIT .1 Initial Development Plan. The development plan approved by this Land Use Permit, and modified by these Conditions of Approval, shall consist of the following schematic plans included in the applicant's July, 1986, report entitled "Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Project Description/Report of Station Information": Page 10 (a) Drawing S1, Location Plan (b) Drawing S2, Site Plan (c) Drawing S3, Floor Plan (d) Drawing S4, Building Elevation and Sections 15. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS PLAN .1 Subsequent to the approval of the Land Use Permit but prior to the commencement of any construction, the Transfer Station developer shall submit a Development and Improvements Plan to the Community Development Department and obtain its approval. The Development and Improvements Plan shall be consistent with the project approved by the Land Use Permit, but prepared to a level of detail appropriate for the review of engineering and, construction proposals. It shall be internally consistent with the project's Environmental Impact Report findings, these Conditions of Approval, and the Solid Waste Facilities Permit issued by the County Health Services Department. The Community Development Department will coordinate the review of the plan by the Health Services Department, the Public Works Department, and other appropriate units of government. The Development and Improvements Plan shall include: (a) A final Site Design Plan described in Section 16. (b) A Final Architectural Design Plan, as described in Section 17. (c) A Transportation and Circulation Plan, as described in Section 18. (d) A Site Services and Utilities Plan, as described in Section 19. (e) A Sediment and Erosion Control Plan, described in Section 20. (f) A resource recovery program, described in Section 12. The program shall be prepared in writing and submitted along with the Development and Improvements Plan .2 Down-sizing Factors. The Transfer Station developer shall consider factors for down-sizing the project in arriving at a final design. At least the following factors shall be addressed in the Development and Improvements Plan: - Redirection of parts of the assumed service area wastestream to other refuse disposal facilities. Page 11 - Interactions with other transfer stations. - Restriction of self-hauler access to landfill. - Wastestrearp reductions resulting from resource recovery. .3 In approving the Development and Improvements Plan, the Community Development Department may provide for phased construction and for the subsequent submission of detailed Development and Improvements Plan components related to the phased construction. STAFF .4 Develepm Franchise Agreement. The Transfer Station shall sUbiect to the terms of a franchise agreement if the Board of Supervisors decides to franchise the facilijydeV8l9PeF ease by ease basis if that iffil)Feyement is neeesSBFY feF Feesen e4 then ene hundFed and twenty days 1120 days) while !he !eFFR-Q STAFF The Develepm Franchise Agreement may require the Transfer Station owner to gay a franchise fee and to financially support waste management programs established by the County. Such programs may include, but are not limited to, resource recovery, litter control, and public education. end.eeAfFel if this PFe@FaFR h8S net been established by wdinene-e The Board of Supervisors may allow the Transfer Station operator to estabiis# Ico lect appropriate rates and surcharges to support the County's waste management programs and to contribute to the closure costs of a landfill which has served the Transfer Station's service area. Page 12 16. SITE DESIGN PLAN .1 Final Site Design Plan. The Transfer Station developer shall prepare and submit a final Site Design Plan, including a. land- scaping plan,to the County Community Development Department, and obtain approval, prior to beginning construction. The final Site Development Plan shall show boundary lines to survey accuracy and shall show facility locations and installation specifications based on final engineering and construction plans. The final Site Design Plan shall show: (a) Final site contours. (b) Sound wall and berm locations and their specifications. (c) On-site road locations and construction specifications. (d) On-site paved areas and construction specifications. (e) Building locations. (f) Entrance facility location and specifications. (g) On-site rights-of-way and easements. (h) Water, sewer, and other utility installations, unless shown on a separate utilities service plan. .2 Final Landscaping Plan.. The Site Design Plan shall include, or be accompanied by, a final Landscaping Plan. The final Landscaping Plan shall show: (a) Ground preparation for planting. (b) Plant species, size and locations. (c) A landscape maintenance program. (d) A plan for improving the appearance of the Waterbird Way/Waterfront Road entrance way .and the Waterbird Way/Transfer Station access road intersection area. (e) The final Landscaping Plan shall be consistent with the County Policy on Water Conservation requirements for new developments and shall utilize California native species to the extent practicable. (f) Waterbird Way Extension. The final Landscaping Plan shall provide for the interim landscaping of the Waterbird Way extension adjoining the Transfer Station. (g) Gun Club Sound Wall. The final Landscaping Plan shall provide for landscaping along the Transfer Station side of the sound wall adjoining the Martinez Gun Club. The plan shall provide for a planting screen of trees. Page 13 17. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PLAN .1 Final Architectural Design Plan. The Transfer Station developer shall prepare and submit a final Architectural Design Plan to the County Community Development Department,and obtain approval prior to beginning construction. The Final Architectural Design Plan shall show (a) Building and installation dimensions and elevations. (b) Proposed construction materials and colors. .2 Construction Material. The waste processing and transfer build- ings shall be tilt-up concrete or other sound-reducing construction. .3 Texture and Color. The transfer facility buildings and sound walls shall be finished with non-smooth textures and earth-tone colors. .4 Building Heights. Building heights or elevations shall not exceed those shown in Condition 14.1(d) by more than 10 percent. .5 Seismic Criteria. Building and installations, including tanks, shall be designed to withstand the Maximum Probable Earthquake anticipated for the location. The determination of Maximum Probable Earthquake shall be subject to the approval of the County's Planning Geologist. 18. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION PLAN .1 Final Transportation and Circulation Plan. The Transfer Station developers shall prepare and submit a final Transportation and Circulation Plan, and obtain the approval of the County Community Development Department prior to beginning construction. The final Transportation and Circulation Plan shall: (a) Include the studies and plans called for in this section. (b) Detail the on-site circulation described in the project's Envi- ronmental Impact Report, adjusted for modifications imposed by these conditions of approval. .2 - Design Studies, Construction Plans, and Project-Related Improve- ments. The Transfer Station developer shall carry out studies,and prepare construction plans accordingly, for the intersections and road segments listed below. The studies and plans shall be Page 14 initially submitted in draft form. The studies and construction plans shall be included in the Final Transportation and Circulation Plan and shall be approved by the County Public Works and Community Development Departments. The Transfer Station developer.shall be responsible for constructing the improvements called for by the studies. County public roads standards shall be used to determine improvements. (a) I-680/Waterfront Road Interchange. The study and plan shall identify interim improvements necessary to accommodate Transfer Station traffic operations, including transfer trucks, under all weather conditions. The study and plans shall be approved by the California Department of Transportation. (b) Waterfront Road, 1-680 to Waterbird Way. The study shall identify improvements necessary to accommodate Transfer Station traffic, including transfer trucks, under all weather conditions. (c) Waterfront RoadlWaterbird Way Intersection. The study shall identify improvements necessary to accommodate Transfer Station traffic, including transfer trucks, under all weather conditions. It shall determine the adequacy of turning and vehicle storage lanes at the intersection. (d) Waterbird Way. The study shall identify improvements necessary to accommodate Transfer Station traffic, including transfer trucks, under all weather conditions. It shall determine the adequacy of turning and vehicle storage lanes at the intersection. (e) Waterbird Way/Transfer Station Intersection. The study shall identify vehicle storage and turning lane requirements, as well as signing requirements at the intersection. It shall address both short-term and long-term (Waterbird Way extended to Imhoff Drive) requirements. (f) Acme Access Road. The study shall identify roadway requirements, including lane widths, pavement specifications, and fill-over-sanitary landfill requirements, for the Acme access road between Waterbird Way and the 22-acre Transfer Station site. Page 15 (g) Transfer Station Intersection. The study shall detail intersection construction and movement requirements of Acme Fill Corporation, I.T. Corporation, and Martinez Gun Club traffic through the main Transfer Station intersection (the intersection between the Transfer Station and gate house). The study shall address signing and signalization. It shall include improvements to Waterbird Way which may be necessary to join that road to the re-built intersection. See Condition 18.10. .3 Waterbird Way Extension. The Transfer station developer shall survey, reserve, and offer to dedicate to the County a right-of- way for the extension of Waterbird Way from the vicinity of the main Transfer Station intersection, through the Acme Fill land holdings, to the vicinity of the A.T.S.F. Railroad on the south. The right-of-way width and configuration of the extension shall be approved by the County Public Works and Community Development Departments. .4 I.T. Corporation Coordination. The Transfer Station developer shall make a good faith effort to coordinate the Waterfront Road intersection, Transfer Station intersection, and Waterbird Way extension improvements with the I.T. Corporation's Vine Hill modernization project. (Similar conditions may be included in the future in Land Use Permit for the I.T. project.) .5 Arthur Road Gate. The Transfer Station developer shall provide for connection between the Arthur Road corridor and the main Transfer Station intersection controlled by a lockable gate. The connection shall admit emergency vehicles, including fire trucks, and the gate shall be controllable by the emergency vehicles. If the Martinez Gun Club legally must be granted access to their site by way of Arthur Road, the Club shall also be provided the opportunity to transport their traffic through the gate. If agreement can be obtained from the parties of interest, the Transfer station developer shall provide for gate control by card or similar device available to authorized users. .6 Assessment or Benefit Districts. The Transfer station developer shall join future assessment, benefit, or similar districts that may be established in the future to: (a) Modernize or re-build the 1-680/Waterfront Road interchange. Page 16 (b) Modernize or re-build Waterfront Road between 1-680 and Waterbird Way. (c) Improve or extend Waterbird Way between the Transfer Station and Imhoff Road. .7 Temporary Turn-Around. The Transfer Station developer shall provide a temporary (until the road is extended) turn-around, adequate for large trucks, at the southern end of Waterbird Way. .8 Transfer Station Circulation. The Transfer Station developer shall prepare a detailed site circulation plan for operations under varying conditions. The plan shall provide for the closing of west-facing refuse bays after 5:00 p.m. It shall consider circulating transfer trucks in a west (unloaded) to east (loaded) pattern to reduce noise impacts on the Vine Hill neighborhood. .9 Peak Period Traffic Management. The Transfer Station operator shall prepare a study for managing outgoing transfer vehicle traffic to reduce peak period conflicts with traffic on Waterfront Road, Highway 4, and 1-680. The study shall also consider the management of transfer vehicle traffic to reduce conflicts with peak period traffic in the vicinity(ies) of receiving landfills. It shall identify changes to the Conditions of Approval needed to implement a peak-period traffic reduction program. The study shall be provided to the County Community Development Department no later than the opening of the Transfer Station. .10 Transfer Station Main Intersection. The Transfer Station devel- oper shall meet with the IT Corporation and Martinez Gun Club to ascertain if the main intersection can be better configured to serve the three parties. The results shall be provided to the Community Development Department within 6 months of the Board of Supervisors' approval of a Land Use Permit for the Transfer Station. The Community Development Department may allow a re-configured design to be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. 19. SITE SERVICES AND UTILITIES PLAN .1 Final Site Services and Utilities Plan. The Transfer Station developer shall prepare and submit a final Site Services and Utilities Plan, and obtain the approval of the County Community Page 17 Development Department prior to beginning construction. The final Site Services and Utilities Plan shall include: (a) A fire protection component. (b) A water service component. (c) A sewering service component. (d) A drainage service component. .2 The Transfer Station developer shall comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District, expressed in the District's letter of September 1, 1987 (which is attached as Appendix A) or other measures approved by the district. .3 The Transfer Station developer shall provide automatic sprinklers in all buildings. The fire sprinkler system shall be designed to control fires during the fire district's response period. Addi- tionally, a manually controlled water delivery system shall be installed in the waste handling buildings. .4 The Transfer Station developer shall provide fire extinguishers and apparatus as specified in the Solid Waste Facilities Permit. .5 The Transfer Station developer shall extend a public water supply to the Transfer Station site and the gate house facility. The water supply system shall be acceptable to the Contra Costa Water District and the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District. .6 The Transfer Station developer shall make every effort to use treated waste water from a district sewage treatment plant for landscape maintenance. The Transfer Station developer shall report on this matter to the Community Development Department. .7 The Transfer Station developer shall arrange for the portion of the site outside of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) to be detached from the Mountain View Sanitary District and annexed to the CCCSD. This will require the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to approve a boundary reorganization. Alternatively, the Transfer Station developer may arrange for the entire site to be included in the Mountain View Sanitary District. .8 If the site is annexed to the CCCSD, the Transfer Station devel- oper shall comply with the following conditions set forth in the district's letter of September 1, 1987, or other measures approved by the district: Page 18 (a) An eight-inch public sewer shall be extended to serve the site. It shall provide gravity service. (b) A ten-foot exclusive public sewer easement shall be estab- lished over the alignment of any public sewer not located within a public road to provide access for maintenance. Alternatively, if the eight-inch public sewer is in a private street, a ten-foot exclusive public sewer easement shall be established over the alignment of the public sewer to provide access for future maintenance. (c) Building plans shall be stamped by the District's Permit Section prior to building plan approval. .9 The Transfer Station developer shall ascertain from the sewage treatment district having jurisdiction if drainage and wash waters require pre-treatment before discharge into the public sewer system. The developer shall provide the pre-treatment of drainage waters indicated by the district. .10 Surface Drainage. The Transfer Station developer shall prepare and implement a plan for conveying surface drainage water from the facility site (except for drainage waters to be conveyed to a waste water treatment plant) to discharge locations. The plan shall be approved by the County Public Works Department. 20. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN .1 Final Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The Transfer Station developer shall prepare and implement a sediment and erosion control plan, which shall be subject to the approval of the County Community Development Department. The plan shall prevent substantial erosion on slopes on the project site and reduce the amounts of water-borne materials from reaching surface waters. It shall include the conditions listed below. .2 Primary Grading. The Transfer Station developer shall perform primary grading for the project's roads, paved areas, and building sites and the construction of site slopes during the April through October low rainfall season. To the extent practicable, unpaved grades on erodable material shall be limited to 2 percent. Page 19 .3 Temporary Flow Restriction. If grading must be done during rainy periods, or if erosion is occurring on previously graded areas, the Transfer Station developer shall take corrective actions, which may include the installation of ground cloth or the placement of hay bales. .4 Curbs. The Transfer Station developer shall install curbs on facil?ty roads and paved areas, wherever practicable, to limit erosion and facilitate dust and litter control. .5 Ground Cover. The Transfer Station developer shall plant ground cover on graded areas which are not to be paved as soon as prac- ticable. The ground cover shall be consistent with the Landscap- ing Plan. .6 Ditch/Swale Liners. The Transfer Station developer shall line any ditches and swales for conveying surface runoff across sanitary landfill areas to prevent water infiltration. Drainage-ways across other areas shall be lined or planted to limit erosion. .7 Sedimentation Ponds. If an off-site sedimentation pond is required to control the discharge of eroded material into Pacheco Creek- Walnut Creek, the Transfer Station's operators shall not place the pond over a sanitary landfilled area, or in a location where seepage into a sanitary landfill could occur. Consideration shall be given to providing wetland habitat in connection with any sedimentation pond required by the project. 21. CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS .1 Hours of Construction. The Transfer Station developer shall restrict outdoor construction activities to the period from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. .2 Exemption. The Transfer Station developer may request, in writ- ing, and the Director of Community Development may grant, exemptions to Condition 21.1 for specific times for cause. An example is the placing of concrete. .3 Sound Wall. Prior to any other construction,the Transfer Station developer shall install a sound wall (Condition 22.3) adjoining the rear lot lines of homes on Irene Drive, and extending westward on Arthur Drive, and along the Martinez Gun Club property. Page 20 .4 Access Roads. Before commencing operations, the Transfer Station developer shall install and pave the access road connecting Waterbird Way to the Transfer Station site. The pavement shall be installed as early as practicable, but no later than the opening of the Transfer Station, to limit dust generation. .5 Dust Suppression. The Transfer Station developer shall sprinkle or chemically treat graded areas and temporary pavements to control dust, as determined necessary by the County Health Ser- vices Department. .6 Landfill Cover Disturbance. The Transfer Station developer shall not excavate the final or intermediate cover of sanitary landfill areas for road improvements or utilities without permission from the County Health Services Department. 22. NOISE CONTROL .1 Noise Monitoring Program. The Transfer Station operator shall prepare and implement a noise monitoring and abatement program, which shall be approved by the County Community Development and Health Services Departments. The program shall monitor noise levels at two sensitive receptor locations, one adjoining the Vine Hill Neighborhood and another adjoining the Martinez Gun Club. If the monitoring noise levels at the Transfer Station boundary line exceed 60 dBA during daylight hours, or 50 dBA during the evening or at night, the operator shall institute additional noise reduction measures to bring noise emanating from the Transfer Station to the forementioned levels or less. .2 Transfer Station Construction. See Section 21. .3 Irene Drive Sound Wall. The Transfer Station developer shall install a sound wall adjoining the rear lot lines of properties on the east side of Irene Drive. The sound wall shall be a minimum of 10 feet in height and at least 5 feet, or higher, than the estimated heights of vertical exhaust stacks of transfer vehicles when the transfer trucks are in the pit and moving parallel to the wall. The sound wall shall extend at least 150 feet westerly along Arthur Road, extended, to further protect the Vine Hill Neighborhood.- It shall be installed prior to other construction to shield the neighborhood from construction noise. Page 21 -.4 Martinez Gun Club Sound Wall. The Transfer Station developer shall install a sound wall along the common boundary of the Transfer Station and the Martinez Gun Club. The sound wall shall be a minimum of 10 feet in height and at least 5 feet, or higher, than the estimated heights of vertical exhaust stacks of transfer vehicles when the transfer trucks are in the pit or moving parallel to the wall. The wall shall be similar in construction and appear- ance to the Irene Drive sound wall. It shall be installed prior to other construction to shield the gun club facility from construction noise. .5 Construction Hours. See Condition 21.1 .6 Late Hours Program. The Transfer Station operator shall prepare a late hours program, which shall be approved by the County Community Development Department, to reduce operations noise between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The program shall include: (a) Discontinuing the use of west-facing unloading bays and closing bay doors. (b) Closing the west-facing transfer truck bay doors except when trucks are entering or leaving the transfer building. .7 Transfer Truck Circulation. See Condition 18.8 .8 Transfer Truck Noise Suppression. The Transfer Station operator shall require transfer trucks using the facility to be equipped with factory approved noise suppression equipment, including engine compartment insulation. 23. ODOR CONTROL .1 Odor Control Program. The Transfer Station operator shall prepare and implement an odor control program, which shall be approved by the County Community Development and Health Services Departments. The program shall ensure that odors emanating from the Transfer Station shall not be detectable and offensive at the facility's boundary line. The program shall comply with Rule 7-302 of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. It shall include the conditions listed below. .2 Odor Suppressants. When necessary, the Transfer Station operator shall treat wastes in the transfer buildings with odor Page 22 suppressants. If required by the County Health Services Department, the Transfer Station Operator shall more frequently treat wastes with odor suppressants. .3 Waste Storage. Pursuant to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Authority to Construct, the Transfer Station operator shall not hold wastes, except for recycled materials, for longer than 24 hours. If the Bay Area Air Quality Management District subsequently allows longer storage times, as for traffic management, the operator shall not hold such wastes for longer than 48 hours. This condition shall not be interpreted to prohibit the operator from loading a transfer truck after 6:00 p.m. on one day and dispatching it by 7:00 a.m. the next day. .4 Night Loading. The Transfer Station operator may load and dispatch transfer trucks after 5:00 p.m. Dispatching shall cease by 10:00 p.m. Pre-loaded trucks shall be coveted, or stored indoors, and shall not cause odor or vector problems. .5 Landfill Cell Re-Opening. See Condition 21.6. .6 Dust Suppressants. See Condition 21.5 24. CULTURAL RESOURCES .1 Archaeology. The Transfer Station shall cease work in the imme- diate area if buried human remains or archaeological material is uncovered during construction or operation. Work in the immedi- ate area shall cease until a qualified archaeologist is consulted and approves resumption of work. Should human remains which may be of Native American origin be encountered during the project, the County Coroner's Office shall be contacted pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Health and Safety Code. The County Community Development Department shall also be notified. 25. LITTER CONTROL .1 Litter Screening. The Transfer Station developer shall install a system of landscaping and fencing on the facility to prevent litter from blowing off-site. The litter screening system shall be described in the Development and Improvements Plan. Page 23 .2 Transfer Trucks. The Transfer Station operator shall equip all transfer trucks using the facility with anti-litter screening. .3 Collection Vehicles. The Transfer Station operator shall develop an anti-littering program for collection vehicles and large trucks using the facility in cooperation with the collection services and commercial (account)firms utilizing the facility. The program shall be submitted in writing to the County Community Development Department, and shall be subject to the Department's approval. .4 On-Site Litter Policing. The Transfer Station operator shall remove litter from perimeter and litter fences and planting screens at least once each day, and police the facility site at least daily. The County Health Services Department may require more frequent policing to control the accumulation of litter. .5 Off-Site Litter Policing. The Transfer Station operator shall provide weekly litter clean-up of Waterbird Way and the on-site Transfer Station access road. The landfill operator shall provide bi-weekly litter clean-up of Waterfront Road from the 1-680 interchange to the Walnut Creek bridge. .6 Littering Signs. The Transfer Station operator shall post signs, as determined necessary by the County Community Development Department, along access roads to the Transfer Station noting littering and illegal dumping laws. The Transfer Station operator shall post signs at the landfill entrance noting the hours when the facility is open to the public. .7 Load Covering. The Transfer Station operator shall implement a written program to limit uncovered loads from arriving at the landfill. It shall include a surcharge for uncovered loads (see Condition 25.8). The program shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services Department. .8 Uncovered Load Surcharge. The Transfer Station operator shall impose a surcharge on uncovered loads and pay the proceeds to the County for the support of litter abatement programs. The sur- charge shall be determined by the County Board of Supervisors. The Board may compensate the operator for the costs of adminis- tering the surcharge. Payment to the County shall be made on a quarterly basis. Page 24 26. SAFETY/PUBLIC HEALTH .1 Equipment Operator Protection. The Transfer Station operator shall provide air conditioned, sound-reducing enclosures on solid waste moving equipment and operations booths in the facility's waste processing buildings. .2 Emergency Plan. The Transfer Station operator shall prepare an emergency plan specified by the Solid Waste Facilities Permit and approved by the County Health Services Department. The emergency plan shall include the following: (a) A fire and explosion component. (b) A seismic component. (c) A hazardous waste spills and contamination containment component. (d) An evacuation component. .3 Employee Training. The Transfer Station operator shall develop and implement training and subsequent refresher training programs covering accident prevention, safety, identification and handling of hazardous materials, first aid, and instruction of use of equipment. The programs shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services Department. .4 Employee Safety Equipment. The Transfer Station operator shall provide or require employees to provide safety equipment, such as safety glasses, hard hats, safety shoes, gloves, coveralls, and noise reducers as required by state and federal safety agencies and the County Health Services Department. .5 First Aid Equipment. The Transfer Station operator shall provide and maintain supplies located in easily accessible areas. The first aid supplies shall be consistent with Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements and subject to the approval of the County Health Services Department. .6 Emergency Communications. The Transfer Station operator shall provide radio phones or telephones for employee use to call for medical and other emergency assistance. Phone numbers to use for outside emergency assistance shall be clearly posted on the landfill and in other work areas. The communications system shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services Department. Page 25 .7 Emergency Eye Baths and Showers. The Transfer Station operator shall provide facilities for emergency eye baths and emergency showers. The facilities shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Service Department. .8 Equipment Maintenance. The Transfer Station operator shall prepare and implement an equipment maintenance program which shat; be approved by the County Health Services Department prior to the commencement of operations. The program shall address transfer vehicles and other refuse-conveying vehicles stored on the site as well as the station's refuse-moving vehicles and mechanical equipment. Vehicles and equipment shall be regularly cleaned to reduce the risk of fires. .9 Gas Monitoring. The Transfer Station operator shall prepare and implement a gas monitoring program which shall be approved by the County Health Services Department. 27. SITE SECURITY .1 Security Fencing. The Transfer Station developer shall install a security fence around the perimeter of the site with lockable gated entrances and exits. The fence shall be located to minimize its visual impacts. It shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. .2 Security Staffing. The Transfer Station operator shall staff the facility 24 hours a day. .3 Safety and Security Lighting. The Transfer Station developer shall install and operate adequate lighting. The lighting shall be provided in a manner which minimizes glare to nearby residents and road users. The lighting program shall be covered in the Development and Improvements Plan. 28. VECTORS .1 Rodent Control. If refuse compaction does not completely elimi- nate live rodents from the Transfer Station, the operator shall work with the County Health Services Department to identify the reasons for the presence of rodents, and make appropriate changes in operational procedures. If an eradication program is necessary, the use of alternative rodent control programs such as Page 26 sustained live trapping using non-poisonous baits, and natural . biological control shall be considered. Anti-coagulants shall be administered by a pest management professional in a manner which minimizes exposure to avian predators. Class I pesticides shall not be used. .2 Mosquito Control. The landfill operator shall grade areas within the Transfer Station property to prevent ponding of water which could harbor mosquitos (except for sedimentation ponds and riparian habitat areas.) If a mosquito problem persists, the County Health Services Department may require the preparation and implementation of additional mosquito control measures. 29. INTERIM TRANSFER STATION .1 General Condition. The Acme Fill Corporation may construct and operate an interim Transfer Station on the Acme landfill property at a location designated in Condition 29.2 below. The size of the interim station shall not exceed 10 acres. The interim Transfer Station may commence operations on or after April 1, 1989, and shall cease operations not later than 90 days following the opening-of the permanent Transfer Station, but in no event longer ACME than July 2:7, 1 December 31, 1993. Grading shall be done in accordance with Section 16. The interim Transfer Station may consist of one or more unenclosed pads, which shall be paved to prevent the infiltration of liquids into the underlying ground. If it is necessary to excavate into the cover of the landfill, permission shall be obtained from the County Health Services Department and other regulatory agencies having jurisdiction. Drainage waters from the pads shall be handled as leachate. Screens or fences shall be installed to restrict litter from blowing off the operations area. The interim Transfer Station shall be served by a paved road. It shall be enclosed by a security fence. Wooden slats shall be installed in the fence to screen any part of the station which may be visible from a residential area. .2 Location. The interim Transfer Station may be placed in the immediate vicinity of one of the following locations: (a) in the immediate vicinity of the permanent Transfer Station's access road on the 125-acre north parcel; (b) on the 97-acre parcel; or Page 27 r (c) in the northeast corner of the 125-acre parcel. .3 Permits. The interim Transfer Station shall be subject to a Solid Waste Facilities Permit and building permits from Contra Costa County. Other regulatory agencies may also have permit jurisdiction. 30. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS .1 Road Material Storage. The Transfer Station owner may provide to the County a road material storage area of not less than 2 acres on the Acme Landfill site, or other location acceptable to the County, as a substitute for the material storage areas on the Waterfront Road right-of-way. The Transfer Station owner may terminate the offer, upon one years' notice, if Waterbird Way is extended to County-owned land south of the Acme Landfill. The road material storage area shall comply with the California Envi- ronmental Quality Act, and shall be subject to the approvals of regulatory agencies having jurisdiction. .2 Abandoned Vehicle Storage. The Transfer Station operator shall offer to provide a 10-acre, or larger, area on the Acme Landfill site for the storage of abandoned vehicles awaiting salvaging. Alternatively, the Transfer Station operator may provide the requisite abandoned vehicle storage area at another location or participate with another landfill operator to satisfy this condition. Alternative locations shall be approved by the County Community Development Department. The abandoned vehicle storage area shall conform to applicable land use, health, and safety regulations,shall comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, and shall be subject to the approvals of regulatory agencies having jurisdiction. CAZ\RV:jn\gms ec1:lrvlAcmeC0A.BoS N.7 October 12, 1993 Public, Hearing Documents r 7 COMBINED AMENDMENT 1 LAND USE PERMIT 2122-86 ACME FILL MASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION (ANNOTATED VERSION) PART A AMENDMENT ORIGINATED BY APPLICANT 1. Condition of Approval 29.1 is'amended as follows (delete over-struck text; add underlined text): General Condition. The Acme Fill Corporation may construct and operate an interim Transfer Station on the Acme landfill property at a location designated in Condition 29.2 below. The size of the interim station may not exceed 10 acres. The interim Transfer Station may commence operations on or after April 1, 1969, and shall cease operations not later than 90 days following the opening of the permanent Transfer Station, but in no event longer than Ro�,'LX'!�O, %;9po July 27, 1992. Grading shall be done in accordance with Section 16. The interim Transfer Station may consist of one or more un-enclosed pads, which shall be paved to prevent the infiltration of liquids into the underlying ground. If it is necessary to excavate into the cover of the landfill, permission shall be obtained from the County Health Services Department and other regulatory agencies having jurisdiction. Drainage waters from the pads shall be handled as leachate. Screens or fences shall be installed to restrict litter from blowing off the operations area. The Interim Transfer Station shall be served by a paved road. It shall be enclosed by a security fence. Wooden slats shall be installed in the fence to screen any part of the station which may be visible from a -residential area. PART B AMENDMENTS ORIGINATED BY COUNTY STAFF 1. Condition of Approval 3.1 is amended as follows (etc.): The Transfer Station developer shall install pre-requisite improvements and open the Permanent Transfer Station for receiving refuse within three years of the final approval of the OtOJO0910 Permanent Transfer Station's Solid Waste Facilities Permit, which three years shall be extended by any appeal on any permit. The Transfer Station developer may request a one-year extension of the Land Use Permit. If the Land Use Permit is not implemented within the specified time, it shall become null and void. _ I. .2 Post 1992 Resource Recovery Program. Prior to 1991, the Transfer Station Operator shall prepare and submit for review and approval by the County a proposed resource recovery program covering the periods from 1992-1997 and 1997-2007. The proposed program shall be designed to implement the resource recovery goals of the 1989 County Solid Waste Management Plan. The 1992-1997 phase of the program shall address the recovery of additional materials, and conversion of the drop-off recycling center to a buy-back center. The program shall attempt to recover at the Waste Transfer Station an additional 5 percent of the total waste stream to complement the cities' and collectors' anticipated curbside recycling program of 5 percent of the waste stream, to meet the recycling goal of the 1989 County Solid Waste Management Plan in the midterm of 30 percent reduction of the waste stream. The 1997-2007 phase of the program shall address a more comprehensive resource recovery system, including production of refuse pellets for shipment if feasible, with a recycling goal of an approximate additional 20 percent of the waste stream, to bring the total waste recycled at the facility to approximately 45 percent of the total waste stream, to complement the cities' and collectors' anticipated curbside recycling or equivalent recycling program of 15 percent of the waste stream to meet the recycling goal of the 1989 County Solid Waste Management Plan in the long term of 60 percent reduction of the waste stream. Nothing in Condition 12.2 shall be interpreted as giving approval to modifications of Land Use Permit 2122-86 without environmental review or due process of law, nor shall it be interpreted as --approving project modifications without obtaining other applicable permits. .3 Recyclable Extraction. The Transfer Station operator shall screen incoming self-hauler loads for major recyclable materials and extract materials, consistent with the 1989 County Solid Waste Management Plan. .4 Recyclable Storage. The Transfer Station operator shall not store recycled materials in the open on the Transfer Station site, unless the material is baled or placed in bins or storage containers. .5 Wood Chipping. The Transfer Station operator shall install wood chipping equipment on the site, and establish a program to encourage landscape-services and construction/demolition material haulers to segregate wood material for chipping. 3. 1000ot/xw /000/xwtoo /W- 1%)Wxi loot$ IMP /0xM /OA-ZO /W xotm$lof //no/aorits Of /$xx#tYf$Ot$ /Oof/W000/XAX$ 1160HOO/fOt/$160¢fff¢ noriimg /of TAO /WoXOPOoxz AX00000OX /grit/60/0*0¢0900/fOXXO)OAri0/900 01616000X/OX/too/00040000V"A/X000000xz0/PXAA/ The 00)toX00;60yit Franchise Agreement may require the Transfer Station owner to pay a franchise fee and to financially support waste management programs established by the County. Such programs may include, but are not limited to, resource recovery, litter control, and public education. ,iX/OAJ/PtOO100 if Ot/ttx0 tot�oo/OAA/¢OAtt04/Xf IXX401l togtM IXA$ IriOX /)6001oO%OX4Ox¢A/)61 �`�� ¢ /y5l`/ / ► / Xx/;60j The Board of Supervisors may allow the Transfer Station operator to O$XOXX$X collect appropriate rates and surcharges to support the County's waste management programs and to contribute to the closure costs of a landfill which has served the Transfer Station's service area. CAZ:jal j137:ann.doc (1/16/90) (2/23/90) 5. ? ATTACHMENT A AMENDMENT 2 LAND USE PERMIT 2122-86 ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION (ANNOTATED VERSION) Condition of Approval 29.1 is amended as follows (delete lined struck text; add underlined text) : General Condition. The Acme Fill Corporation may construct and operate an interim Transfer Station on the Acme landfill property ata location designated in Condition 29.2 below. The size of the interim station shall not exceed 10 acres. The interim Transfer Station may commence operations on or after April 1, 19'89, and shall cease operations not later than 90 days following the opening of the permanent Transfer Station, but in no event longer than u j 27, 1992 December 31, 1993. Grading shall be done in accordance with Section 16. The interim Transfer Station may consist of one or more unenclosed pads, which shall be paved to prevent the infiltration of liquids into the underlying ground. If it is necessary to excavate into the cover . of the landfill, permission shall be obtained from the County Health Services Department and other regulatory agencies having jurisdiction. Drainage waters from the pads shall be handled as leachate. Screens or fences shall be installed to restrict litter from blowing off the operations area. The interim Transfer Station shall be served by a paved road. It shall be enclosed by a security fence. Wooden slats shall be installed in the fence to screen any part of the station which may be visible from a residential area. RV\ - _- rpv2:AcmeAmd2.TSt r FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION PROJECT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY January 1990 State Clearinghouse No. 86090906 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 PINE STREET, 4TH FLOOR - NORTH WING MARTINEZ, CA 94553-0095 (415) 646-4195 I. INTRODUCTION 1.0 BACKGROUND The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station (State Clearinghouse No. 86090906) was published in June of 1987. It was circulated for review by local, regional, and state agencies and the public for a 45-day period. Comments that were received during this review period were responded to in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), which was published in September of 1987. On October 13, 1987, the County Planning Commission made several comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the FEIR Response Document. In reply to the Planning Commission comments, an Addendum to the FEIR was prepared. The 1987 Addendum provided additional. information on matters raised in the FEIR, and was intended to be used in the Commission's decision making process. The FEIR for the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer station was certified by the County Board of Supervisors on December 15, 1987. County Land Use Permit (#2122-86) was issued for the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Project. The Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station consists of a permanent transfer station and an interim transfer station facility. The operating life of the Acme Fill Interim Transfer Station is proposed to be extended through an amendment to the Land Use Permit beyond that which was identified in the FEIR prepared for the project. Therefore, this Addemdum to the FEIR has been prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act. This Section states that a lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to an EIR if: 1. None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of the subsequent EIR have occurred; 2. Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA; and 3. The changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effect on the environment. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This section presents a summary of the approved Acme Fill Waste 1ecov.—r•..' and Transfer Station, which was the focus of the FEIR, and me propr ;.-d amendment to. Land Use Permit 2122-86. 2.1 THE ACME FILL JASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION: The Acme 'rill ::este Recovery and Transfer Station consists of a permanent transfer station and an interim transfer station facility. The project involves �=structinq the interim. *ransfer station, which would provide for the transfer and exportation of waste refuse pending completion of the permanent transfer station and associated buildings. It would ceases ;peratitm once the permanent transfer station would be completed. 7 The main purpose of a transfer station is to enable waste to be transferred from commercial refuse collection vehicles to larger long-haul transfer trucks for transport to a distant landfill. Transfer station operations allow considerable savings in fuel by providing the means for transporting refuse long distance in more energy efficient long-haul vehicles. The use of the transfer station facility to export waste also reduces the amount of traffic in the vicinity of a 'landfill. The approved project was the .construction of the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station and an interim Transfer Station to be located at the existing Acme Landfill. The Interim Transfer Station is located at the southwest corner of the 97-acre Acme Fill East Parcel. The site forms a portion of Assessor's Parcel Number 380-020-013. The site is bounded on the north by Waterfront Road, on the east by Walnut Creek, on the south by Pacheco Creek and on the west by International Technology Corporation. The area, which is zoned heavy industrial, is within the jurisdiction of Contra Costa County, and is located within the LAFCO Sphere of Influence for the City of Martinez. As stated in the FEIR, the permanent transfer station facility would require about a year to build after all required state and local permits are obtained. At the time of the writing of the FEIR, the permanent transfer station was expected to begin operation by February of 1990. The project also involved an interim transfer station that would provide wastestream transfer capability during the period Acme Landfill ceases most landfill activities (expected to be in June of 1990) and the completion date for the permanent transfer station facility should the completion of the permanent transfer station be delayed beyond its February, 1989 then scheduled opening. 2.2 LAND USE PERMIT AMENDMENT: The proposed Combined Amendment 1 to Land Use Permit 2122-86 (LUP) 'consists of six amendments to the LUP issued by Contra Costa County. The amendments deal with the substitution of dates, policies, and implementation measures for those originally provided in LUP 2122-86. All six reflect changes in circumstances since the original conditions of approval were adopted, or adjustments necessitated by the passage of AB 939 (Statutes of 1989) . The proposed amendments are: 1. Condition of Approval 29.1: This proposed amendment would adjust the now-obsolete operating period provided for in the 1987 land use permit by extending the allowable operating date to July 27, 1992, which is the end of the Interim Facility's Bay Area Air Quality Management District Authority to Operate Permit. 2. Condition cf Approval 3.1 (Validity): This proposed amendment :aou.11 link the validity time limit of the condition to the Issuance (-,I- 't solid waste facilities permit for the permanent transfer station. 3. Conditions of Apprcval 5. 1 and 5.2 (Area of Origin, Out-of-Ccunty Wastes) : :his proposeu amendment would require that the area of origin of refuse-bearing vehicles admitted to the transfer station re dete rnined by the County Board of Supervisors, rather than he consistent with the Contra Costa County Solid waste Management Plan. 3. d 4. Condition of Approval 8.7 (Rate Approval): This proposed amendment substitutes compliance with the County's Operating Rate Regulation Program for the earlier requirement that the transfer station be subject to such a program if the County established one. 5. Condition of Approval Series 12 (Resource Recovery): This proposed amendment would add a "note" to the effect that the 1987 Resource Recovery Goals and Timeline, which were derived from the County Solid Waste Management Plan in. effect at the time, will remain operative despite AB 939as (Statutes of 1989) setting of new requirements. 6. Condition of Approval 15.4 (Development Agreement): This proposed amendment would substitute compliance for the County Franchise for compliance with a development agreement as a prerequisite for operating a transfer station, should the County decide to franchise the facility. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 3.1 BACKGROUND: The environmental impacts and associated mitigation measures for the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station are discussed in the FEIR (December, 1987) . The proposed changes to the approved project are not substantive modifications; e.g, they do not change the physical characteristics of the project itself or the nature or extent of its impacts on the setting. The proposed six amendments to Land Use Permit 2122-86 are consistent with the project covered by the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station FEIR which was certified by the Board of Supervisors on December 15, 1987. This section provides additional information on the need for each of the proposed six land usa permit amendments, as well as the rationale for the finding that the proposed projects are consistent with the existing FEIR and do not warrant additional CEQA review. 1. Condition of Approval 29.1 (Interim Transfer Station General Condition) - Land Use Permit 2122-86 provided that the interim facility could not start operation before April 1, 1989 (shortly before the Acme Landfill east parcel's federal and state permits were to expire) and had to cease operations by April 1, 1990 (to help ensure that the use of the interim facility would not delay the building of the permanent transfer station). Following the land use permit approval, however, circumstances changed considerably such that the interim transfer station which was built in 1988, was not able 'o go into operation until December 18, 1989. In addition, difficultias in obtaining commitments of the wastestream to a permanent :raps.-r station because of disagreements over control resultea in onoc:::a delays of the construction of the permanent transfer ;cation. A., i result, the interim transfer station, which began operations -.n December of 1989, will need to be operated for two more years. :'he amencment proposes to extend the allowable operatinq crate of the interim transfer :station to July 27, 1992. Extending the allowable operating date of the Interim Transfer Station , from December 18, 1989 (opening date) to July 27, 1992, will not impact air quality. Air impacts identified in the project EIR were mitigated to non-significance. In addition, the Interim Transfer Station is remotely located. It is 3,200 feet from the nearest residential structure. The project is in compliance with its air permit which was recently extended to July 27, 1992, by the Air Quality Management District. Implementation of the project actually decreased particulate emissions in the area. The 1,100 tons per day which are currently being .transferred to the Altamont Landfill in Alameda County were previously landfilled in the same general vicinity. Landfilling generates more particulate than transfer because waste was deposited on dirt surfaces rather than on paved surfaces at the Interim Transfer Station, and landfilling requires the application of daily dirt cover which is avoided by transferring. . 2. Condition of Approval 3.1 (Validity) - This proposed amendment would link the validity period time limit of the condition to the issuance of a solid waste facilities permit for the permanent transfer station. When the condition was approved as part of Land Use Permit 2122-86, it was assumed that the California Waste Management Board (CWMB) would issue a single solid waste facilities permit which covered both the interim and the permanent transfer stations. Instead, the CWMB issued a permit for the very short-term use of the interim transfer station and, in effect, held approval for the permanent transfer station pending Contra Costa County's progress in adopting a new solid waste management plan and siting a new landfill. By amending this Condition of Approval as proposed, the applicant will have three years following issuance of a solid waste facilities permit to construct and, open the permanent transfer station. This change is consistent with the intent of the Condition of Approval 3.1, and does not change the physical characteristics of the project itself or the nature or extent of the impacts of the project on its setting. 3. Conditions of Approval 5.1 and 5.2 (Area of Origin, Out-of-County Wastes) - This proposed amendment would require that the area of origin of refuse-bearing vehicles admitted to the transfer station be determined by the Board of Supervisors, rather than be consistent with the Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan. With the passage of Assembly Bill 939 (Statutes of 1989) the legal need for the County Solid Waste Management Plan was eliminated as of January 1, 1990. In accordance with the new law, the cities and the County must adopt a County-wide siting element, which will constitute a part or the County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. This amendment will Prov.-je that the origin of wastes admitted to the transfer station determined by policy of the Board of Supervisors, anticipated to be the form of the County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. ,:iii proposed amendment ensures that Conditions of Approval 5.1 and will be ,consistent with the new solid waste planning process mana,lied under AB 939 (Statutes of 1989) . 5. 4. Condition of Approval 8.7 (Rate Approval) - This amendment substitutes compliance with the County's operating rate regulation program for the earlier requirement that the transfer station would be subject to such a program if the County established one. Since the County passed a rate regulation ordinance in 1988, this proposed amendment ensures that the Conditions of Approval for this facility is consistent with the Contra Costa County Code. This change does not change the physical characteristics of the project itself, or the nature or- extent of .impacts on its setting. 5. Condition of Approval Series 12 (Resource Recovery) - This proposed amendment is the addition of a "note" which explains that the 1987 resource recovery goals and timelines, which were derived from the County Solid Waste Management Plan in effect at the time, will remain operative despite AB 939's (Statutes of 1989) setting of new requirements. This "note" is intended to provide a bridge between the 1987 condition and anticipated future amendments to the land use permit which would be necessary to implement future AB 939 - mandated plans. This proposed amendment provides information only and does not change the physical characteristics of the project itself or the nature or extent of the impacts on its setting. 6. Condition of Approval 15.4 (Development Agreement) - This proposed amendment substitutes compliance with a County franchise for compliance with a development agreement as a prerequisite for operating a transfer station, should the County decide to franchise a facility. Again, this proposed change reflects the enactment, by Contra Costa County, of a franchising ordinance, which is a more direct means of accomplishing the condition's purpose. This change does not alter the physical characteristics of the project or the nature or extent of its impact on its settings. Rather, this change insures that the project is consistent with existing County regulations. The proposed adjustments to Land Use Permit 2122-86 identified in this Combined Amendment are consistent with the project covered by the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Environmental Impact Report which was certified by the Board of Supervisors on December 15, 1987. The Certified Environmental Impact Report found that all significant adverse impacts of the project could be mitigated to less than significant. The proposed adjustments to Land Use Permit 2122-86 do not change the physical characteristics of the project or the nature or extent of impacts on the setting which were identified in the December, 1987 certified Environmental Impact Report. Subsequent' to the issuance of Land Use Permit 2122-86, AssemDiy Bill —4 (Statutes of 1989) was approved. This law requires cities and counties a recycle 25% of generated solid waste by January 1, 1995, and 50% by Januar— . , 2000. The Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Project will co:^ply with the 1995 AB 939 recycling provisions. The Acme Fill facility, in conjunction with programs conducted by the cities, will comply with the year 2000 recycling provisions. rhe project is conceptualized to recover a significant amount of the waste received, thereby reducing the ;amount of waste needed to be landfilled. b. ! • } ATTACHMENT B m FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM 3 ACME FILL _ WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION PROJECT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARCH 1992 State Clearinghouse No. 86090906 CONTRA COSTA COUN'T'Y COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 PINE STREET, 4TH FLOOR - NORTH WING MARTINEZ, CA 94553-0095 (510) 646-4194 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station (State Clearinghouse No. 86090906) was published in June of 1987. It was circulated for review by local; regional, and state agencies and the public for a 45-day period. Comments that were received during this review period were responded to in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) , which was published in September of 1987. On October 13, 1987, the County Planning Commission made several comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the FEIR Response Document. In reply to the Planning Commission comments, an Addendum to the FEIR was prepared. The 1987 Addendum provided additional information on matters raised in the FEIR, and was intended to be used in the Commission's decision making process. The FEIR for the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer station was certified by the County Board of Supervisors on December 15, 1987. County Land Use Permit (#2122-86) was issued for the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Project. In January 1990, a second Addendum to the FEIR was published for the purpose of amending the Land Use Permit and the Solid Waste Facilities Permit. The-Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station consists of . a permanent transfer station and an interim transfer station facility. The operating life of the Acme Fill Interim Transfer Station is proposed to be extended through a second amendment to the Land Use Permit beyond that which was identified in the FEIR prepared for the project. Therefore, this Addendum to the FEIR has been prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California ' Environmental Quality Act. This section states that a lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to an EIR if: 1. None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of the subsequent EIR have occurred; 2. Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA; and 3. The changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. • 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This section presents a summary of the approved Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station, which was the focus of the FEIR, and the proposed amendment to Land Use Permit 2122- 86. 2.1 THE ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION: The Acme Fill Waste Recovery ., and Transfer Station consists of a permanent transfer station and an interim transfer station - facility. -The project involves constructing the interim transfer station, which provides for the . transfer and exportation of waste refuse pending completion of the permanent transfer station and associated .buildings. It will cease operation once the . permanent. transfer station is completed. The main purpose of a .transfer station is to enable waste to be transferred from commercial refuse collection vehicles to larger long-haul transfer trucks for transport to a distant landfill. Transfer station operations allow . considerable savings in fuel by providing the means for transporting refuse long distance in more energy efficient long-haul vehicles. The use of the transfer station facility to export waste also reduces the amount of traffic in the vicinity of a landfill. The approved project was the construction of the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station and an interim transfer station to be located at the existing Acme Landfill. The landfill site is bounded on the north by Waterfront Road, on the east by Walnut Creek, on the south by Pacheco Creek and on the west by International Technology Corporation. The area, which is zoned heavy industrial, is within the jurisdiction of Contra Costa County, and is located within the LAFCO Sphere of Influence for. the City of Martinez. The interim transfer station is located at the southwest corner of the 97-acre Acme Fill East Parcel. The station site forms a portion of Assessor's Parcel Number 380-020-013. Acme Fill Corporation (Acme) is the owner and operator of this site. As stated in the FEIR, the permanent transfer station facility would require about a year to build after all required state and local permits are obtained. At the time of the writing of the FEIR, the permanent transfer station was expected to begin operation by February of 1990. The project also involved an interim transfer station that would provide wastestream transfer capability during the period Acme Landfill ceases most landfill activities (originally expected to be in June of 1990) and the completion date for the permanent transfer station .facility should the completion of the permanent 2. transfer station be delayed beyond its February, 1989 then ` scheduled opening. 2.2 LAND USE PERMIT AMENDMENT 2: The proposed Amendment 2 to Land Use Permit 2122-86 (LUP) consists of one amendment to the LUP issued by Contra Costa County. The amendment addresses the operating period of the interim transfer station. It would adjust the existing period provided for in the 1990 Combined Amendment 1 to Land Use Permit 2122-86. The 1990 amendment extended the operating date from April 30, 1990 to July 27, 1992. Acme has requested that the operating date of the interim transfer station be extended to coincide with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) decision to extend Acme's permit and Authority to Construct the permanent transfer station to December 31, 1993. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 3.1 BACKGROUND: The environmental impacts and associated mitigation measures for the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station are discussed in the FEIR (December, 1987) . The., proposed change to the approved project is not a substantive modification; i.e. , it does not change the physical characteristics of the project itself or the nature or extent of its impacts on the setting. The proposed amendment to Land Use Permit 2122-86 is consistent with the project covered by the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station FEIR which was certified by the Board of Supervisors . on December 15, 1987. This section provides additional information on the need for the amendment, as well as the rationale for the finding that the proposed project is consistent with the existing FEIR and does not warrant additional CEQA-review. Land Use Permit 2122-86 provided that the interim facility could not start operation before April 1, 1989 (shortly before the Acme Landfill east parcel's federal and state permits were to expire) and had to cease operations by April 1, 1990 (to help ensure that the use of the interim facility would not delay the building of the permanent transfer station) . Following the land use permit approval, however, circumstances changed considerably such that the interim transfer station which was built in 1988, was not able to go into operation until December 18, 1989. In addition, difficulties in obtaining commitments of the wastestream to a permanent transfer station because of disagreements over control resulted in ongoing delays of the construction of the permanent transfer station. As a result, on April 3, 1990, the interim transfer station operating date was extended -by the Board of Supervisors (as Amendment 1 to Land Use Permit 2122-86) to July 27, 1992. 3. Amendment 2 proposes to extend the allowable operating date of the interim transfer station to December 31, 1993. Construction of the permanent transfer station has met with several delays. Some of these delays have been due to additional time needed for the design of the facility, as well as for the design review by permitting agencies. The uncertainty created by the negotiations involving the County and Central Contra Costa Sanitary District to purchase the transfer station, and the related issue of obtaining a committed wastestream have also resulted in on-going delays. Despite these delays, Phase 3 construction is due to commence shortly. This phase includes the building foundations, ramps and utilities. Acme estimates that construction will be completed by October 1993. Extending the allowable operating date of the interim transfer station from July 2.7, 1992 to December 31,_ 1993, will not impact air quality. Air impacts identified in the project EIR were mitigated to non-significance. In addition, the interim transfer station is remotely located. It is 3,200 feet from the nearest residential structure. The project is . in _ compliance with its air permit which was recently extended to December 31, 1993, by the BAAQMD. Operation of the project actually decreases particulate emissions in the area. Landfilling generates more particulate than transfer because . waste is deposited on dirt surfaces rather than on paved surfaces at the interim transfer station, and landfilling requires the application of daily dirt cover which is avoided by transferring. Currently, 700-750 of the 1,100 tons per day received at Acme are being processed through the interim station for transfer instead of being landfilled directly. The remaining 350-400 tons are being landfilled on the East Parcel. Approximately 630 tons per day are being transferred to —Solano County and 120 tons to Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill. When the latter 'site' ceases operation on March 31, 1992, the waste will be landfilled at Acme. RPV\:gms rpv2:FEIRaccne.ad2 4. Resolution No. 40-1993 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AFFIRMING THAT THE COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED ADDENDUM 4 (SEPTEMBER 1993) WITH THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CONTRA COSTA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT 3 TO THE PROJECT'S LAND USE PERMIT (LUP 2122-86) . WHEREAS, on December 15, 1987, the County Board of Supervisors certified that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station (Transfer Station) , is adequate and complies with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 1987, the County Board of Supervisors adopted General Plan Amendment 9-87-CO and its findings (which carried forth to the 1991 General Plan) , and approved Land Use Permit 2122-86, including Conditions of Approval, for the Transfer Station; and WHEREAS, the approved Transfer Station project included an Interim Transfer Station (temporary facility) , which was to commence operation in 1989 and conclude operations by April 30, 1990; and WHEREAS, the Interim Transfer station did not commence operation until December 18, 1989, upon which it served as the required facility for the export of waste to Alameda and Solano Counties; and WHEREAS, on April 3, 1990, the County Board of Supervisors approved Combined Amendment 1 to LUP 2122-86, which extended the operating date of the Interim Transfer Station until July 27, 1992; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 1992, the County Board of Supervisors approved Amendment 2 to LUP 2122-86, which extended the operating date of the Interim Transfer Station until December 31, 1993; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 1993, Acme Fill Corporation requested an amendment to LUP 2122-86 to extend the operating date of the Interim Transfer Station until December 31, 1994, in order to ensure that waste be processed through a transfer station as required for export to other counties, including Solano County and in-County landfills, including Keller Canyon Landfill; and = WHEREAS, on September 10, 1993, the County Community Development Department transmitted a Staff Report, the Conditions of Approval for LUP 2122-86, Amendment 3 to LUP 2122-86, an Resolution No. 40-1993 annotated version of Amendment 2, an annotated version of Amendment 1, and the Final Environmental Impact Report including Addendum 4 as well as previous Addendums, to the Planning Commissioners for review; and WHEREAS, on September 21, 1993, the County Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive testimony on Amendment 3 to LUP 2122-86, and ascertaining there was no one opposed, closed the public hearing; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission finds that the Commission reviewed and considered Addendum 4 (September 1993) with the Final Environmental Impact Report before acting on this item; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission, on the basis of the record before it, takes the following actions: 1. Transmits the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Final Environmental Impact Report (December 1987) and Addendum 4 (September 1993) to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendations that the Board review and consider these documents before acting on this item; confirm that use of an addendum is consistent with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; certify that Addendum 4 has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; acknowledge that the Findings and Mitigation Monitoring Program do not require revisions; and 2. Recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve Amendment 3 to Land Use Permit 2122-86. The instruction by the County Planning Commission to affirm that the Commission has reviewed and considered Addendum 4 with the Final Environmental Impact Report was given at a regular meeting on Tuesday, . September 21, 1993 , by the following vote: AYES: GADDIS, IJONG, STRAUS, 1.100, TERRELL NOES: 210NE ABSENT: ACCORNFRO, CLARK ABSTAIN: NONE The instruction by the County Planning Commission to prepare this resolution and recommend Approval of Amendment 3 to Land Use Permit 2122-86, was given at a regular meeting DDI:ACME3PC.RES Resolution No. 40-1993 on Tuesday, September 21, 1993 , by the following vote: AYES: GADDIS, WONG, STRAUS, W00, TERRELL NOES: NONE ABSENT: ACCORNERO, CLARK ABSTAIN: NONE I , Richard Clark, Chairman of the County Planning Commission of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing was duly called and held in accordance with the law on Tuesday, September 21, 1993 , and that this resolution was duly passed and adopted by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: STRAUS, WOO, GADDIS, WONG, TERRELL NOES: NONE ABSENT: ACCORNERO, CLARK ABSTAIN: NONE Richard Clark, Chairman, County Planning Commission, State of California ATTEST: Sec ark oft e County Planning Comma on, my of Contra Costa, State of Cali rnia DDI:ACME3PC.RES 13 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: October 4, 1993 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director of Community Development Department By: Charles A. Zahn, Assistant Director CA— - SUBJECT: TRANSMITTAL OF DOCUMENTS FOR OCTOBER 12, 1993, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION, AMENDMENT 3 TO LAND USE PERMIT 2122-86 The following documents pertaining to the Board of Supervisors' October 12, 1993, public hearing (Amendment 3 to the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Land Use Permit 2122-86) are being provided to the members of the Board under the cover of this memorandum: OCTOBER 12, 1993 PUBLIC HEARING DOCUMENTS 1. Board Order, dated October 12, 1993, for certifying of Addendum 4 of the Environmental Impact Report, and approving Amendment 3 to Land Use Permit. 2. Staff Report, dated September 21, 1993, which describes the need and nature of the Amendment 3 and Addendum 4. 3. Amendment 3 Document, dated September 21, 1993, which describes the content of Land Use Permit Amendment 3 extending the operating period of the Interim Transfer Station, from December 31, 1993 to December 31, 1994. 4. Addendum 4 Document, dated September 1993, which describes environmental considerations for Amendment 3 to the Land Use Permit. 5. Planning Commission Resolution 40-1993, dated September 21, 1993, recommending certification of Addendum 4 and approval of Amendment 3. BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS 6. Land Use Permit 2122-86, dated April 21, 1992, which includes changes which resulted from the prior amendments. 7. Amendment 1 Document, approved by the Board April 3, 1990, which describes the content of the Land Use Permit Amendment 1 which extended the operating period of the Interim Transfer Station. 8. Amendment 2 Document, approved by the Board on April 21, 1992, which describes the content of the Land Use Permit Amendment 2 which extended the operating period of the Interim Transfer Station. DDI:ACME3BOS.MEM Page 2 October 4, 1993 Amendment 3 to Land Use Permit 2122-86 9. Final Environmental Impact Report, certified on December 15, 1987, which includes the Draft EIR, the Response Document and an Addendum. 10. Addendum 2 Document, dated January 1990, which describes environmental considerations for Amendment 1 to the Land Use Permit. 11. Addendum 3, Document, dated March 1992, which describes environmental considerations for Amendment 2 to the Land Use Permit. DD 1:ACME3BOS.MEM 1 Contra Costa County 1 1 1 1 � ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION � Draft Environmental Impact Report 1 1 1 t 1 JUNE 1987 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION PROJECT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY JUNE, 1987 State Clearinghouse No. 86090906 Contra Costa County Community Development Department Boa 951, Martinez, CA 94553 415/322-2026 I i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report 1-3 1.2 Organization of this Environmental Impact Report 1-5 j 1.3 Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-6 1.4 Preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Report 1-7 E2. SUMMARY 2-1 2.1 Summary of Proposed Project 2-1 2.2 Summary of Transfer Station Operations 2-10 2.3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2-11 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-1 3.1 Project Background 3-1 3.2 Project Characteristics 3=8 3.3 Solid Waste Collection 3-47 3.4 Solid Waste Classifications 3-58 3.5 Legal and Institutional Considerations 3-60 4. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES \ PERMANENT TRANSFER STATION 4-1 �) 4.1 Land Use & Planning 4-1 4.2 Traffic & Circulation 4-12 4.3 Noise 4-43 4.4 Soils, Geology & Seismicity 4-52 4.5 Hydrology & Water,Quality 4-60 4.6 Vegetation & Natural Resources 4-65 4.7 Air Quality 4-69 4.8 Energy 4-80 4.9 Visual Quality 4-83 4.10 Public Safety 4-104 4.11 Utilities & Services 4-109 4.12 Socioeconomics 4-116 4.13 Cultural Resources 4-126 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES INTERIM TRANSFER STATION 5-1 5.1 Land Use & Planning 5-1 .:' 5.2 Traffic & Circulation 5-4 5.3 Noise 5-6 5.4 Soils, Geology & Seismicity 5-8 5.5 Hydrology & Water Quality 5-11 5.6 Vegetation & Natural Resources 5-16 5.7 Air Quality 5-16 5.8 Energy 5-16 86130 i TABLE OF CONTENTS continued Pae 5.9 Visual Quality 5-16 5.10 Public Safety 5-18 5.11 Utilities be Services 5-18 5.12 Socioeconomics 5-18 5.13 Cultural Resources 5-18 6. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 6-1 6.1 No Project 6-1 6.2 Modified Project 6-4 6.3 Alternative Site Locations: Permanent Transfer Station 6-11 6.4 Alternative Site Locations: Interim Transfer Station 6-13 7. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS — 7-1 8. GROWTH INDUCEMENT 8-1 9. GLOSSARY 9-1 10. EIR AUTHORS 10-1 Report Disclosure 11. REFERENCES 11-1 APPENDICES Appendix A: Public Information Documents Appendix B: Project Background Documents _J 86130 ii LIST OF FIGURES Page Frontispiece: {Color photographs provided by Acme Fill Corporation) AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH: EXISTING SITE AND SETTING PHOTO RENDERING: APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 1, REGIONAL LOCATION MAP 1-2 2. SITE LOCATION MAP 2-3 3. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE MAP 2-4 t4. LAND OWNERSHIP MAP 3-2 5. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3-5 6. EXISTING .ROAD PATTERN: ACME LANDFILL 3-9 7. PROPOSED ROAD PATTERN: PERMANENT TRANSFER STATION 3-11 8. REALIGNED INTERSECTION: WATERBIRD WAY AND ARTHUR ROAD 3-13 9. TRAFFIC FLOW: FRANCHISE HAULERS - BOX TRUCKS 3-24 ( 10. TRAFFIC FLOW: CHARGE CUSTOMERS 3-25 1.. 11. TRAFFIC FLOW: GENERAL PUBLIC 3-26 12. TRAFFIC FLOW: FRANCHISE HAULER GARBAGE TRUCKS 3-28 13. TRAFFIC FLOW: TRANSFER TRUCKS 3-29 14. TRAFFIC FLOW: EMPLOYEES 3-30 15. TRAFFIC FLOW: VISITORS 3-31 16. TRAFFIC FLOW: VEHICULAR SERVICING 3-32 17. TRAFFIC FLOW: MARTINEZ GUN CLUB TRAFFIC 3-34 18. TRAFFIC FLOW: IT CORPORATION TRAFFIC 3-35 19. BUILDING PLAN: MAIN TRANSFER AND PUBLIC DISPOSAL BUILDING 3-37 20. SECTIONS AND ELEVATIONS: MAIN TRANSFER AND 3-39 PUBLIC DISPOSAL BUILDING 86130 iii i LIST OF FIGURES continued Page 21. INTERIM TRANSFER STATION SITE 3-46 22. EXISTING SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AREAS 3-48 23. LAND USE MAP 4-3 24. EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK TRAFFIC VOLUMES, 1986 4-13 25. FUTURE EXTENSION OF WATERBIRD WAY SOUTH 4-16 26. EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC: ACME LANDFILL, 1986 4-17 27. INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES: MORNING do EVENING 4-19 OFF-SITE PEAK HOURS, 1986 28. INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES: LANDFILL PEAK-HOUR 4-20 (& ADT), 1986 29. YEAR 2005 TRAFFIC FORECASTS — 4-23 r 30. PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES: TRANSFER STATION . ENTRANCE, 2010 4-33 rIi 31. NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS 4-44 i 32. SOILS/GEOLOGY/SEISMIC CONDITIONS 4-53 33. SURFACE. HYDROLOGY 4-61 34. VIEW LOCATION MAP ' 4-85 35. SECTIONS ALONG SIGHT LINES 4-87 36. PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 4-89 37. PHOTOMONTAGE VIEW POINT A 4-95 38. PHOTOMONTAGE VIEW POINT B 4-97 39. PHOTOMONTAGE VIEW POINT C 4-99 40. OBSERVATION POINTS AND WELLS 5-12 41. ALTERNATIVE SITE LAYOUT 6-5 42. ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTION LAYOUT 6-9 r 1 86130 iv r r LIST OF TABLES Page 1. EXISTING LANDFILL SERVICE AREAS 3-49 r2. SOLID WASTE VOLUMES DISPOSED AT COUNTY LANDFILL SITES, 1985 3-51, 3. PROJECTED SOLID WASTE VOLUMES, 1980-2020 3-53 4. TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT ACME LANDFILL, 1986 4-21 5. FUTURE TRAFFIC FORECASTS: PERMANENT TRANSFER STATION 4-27 6. PROJECTED IMPACT OF WATERBIRD WAY SOUTH EXTENSION ON 4-28 TRANSFER STATION TRAFFIC, 2010 7. RARE SPECIES IN THE PROJECT REGION 4-67 4 8. CONCORD AIR POLLUTANT SUMMARY, 1981-1985 4-71 9. EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC 4-76 10. WORST-CASE CURBSIDE CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS 4-77 r 11. ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS 4-117 12. ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 4-118 13. PROPERTY TAX DISTRIBUTION, 1986-87 4-120 14. ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAX DISTRIBUTION 4-122 15. POTENTIAL LEACHATE PROBLEMS IN SURFACE WATER 5-14 16. POTENTIAL LEACHATE PROBLEMS IN GROUNDWATERS 5-15 r r r 86130 v i rte �C `It �� t. + � 1 yT -, �� ♦ .t � - j i• ♦♦ •{it y�•y.w �a ` f. x� 't• ♦ R It IK � ♦ 1, (� •i♦eto `/V' ,y' ;} �y i.I ��. ^7,;�"•tit+= Ar-'' ♦ i (' t d•i � ' =� � � d � , .,-'� T '^..'bio, ir t 16 Ns NO Ft i ♦ _ �,�!� j 1L. ♦tom 1 fit 46. jig:►�, `�� t'•� :+t��F 1t � ! VA Y' z � {: f � • � f• 116,i�,i `� �•_'-1k�'� +L`k t";. sk ' ;.. .`� m�:�. '�� rr �.` ,fit �� • „• .,a ,��:�# Is r,SrD i {� F Py .I .• t .i `+♦"1{ t1 �� t i f�•� '� 11,t:"l� i� �J' f! a"� sl t, ,J tr t'. R• sr. 'r! its .t•• .� ~��/`� rr�� .-jt f;4�! � i' ,r .) i,., ' '�.- � ,moi .� Ilop �rFi Y jft - lsg�.• •I t 1 S' y;- `S 111 � f' .�:: . •� .� S. � � R`YYa`F teyp7�� .��*tj� �" � w 4 � � s ` ,r}t� t��tt �'+t f;'' ♦:� t C., ' ' •.. 'lj• +y st 1. 1 '• tt �11j}.� ,. A •. sgj}. !*. 311 `t. °�`rsw,�,-f�N;. i t� ��., �� 1 �' f'►.•r ��:� � i,�;.. �1r�t�, Jt �. �+ �, .�, f •t ..�� . � to �.. ,�i t _�`. •4�' .r w r- if .• ..� �`� �, �,�� ` 11�+; ....., Sir �.,1; 1.: , 3 •�. `1 , sS s. `• ��'�i fl,} y �Il�l l ;,f ' �,r ♦ ,�' • '` i � ��: •.tib � k; .n i. .,i• a`1^'4> !i 4 !l� t 1 ji Ft1' ,* � t; a ,.}t , ^:j � {A� } I INTRODUCTION The proposed project is the construction.of a Waste Recovery and Transfer Station to be located adjacent to the existing Acme landfill east of Martinez (Figure 1). The project applicant is the Acme Fill Corporation which owns the site of the proposed facility. The project would consist of a permanent transfer station and associated buildings, roads and on-site improvements. The 22-acre permanent transfer station site is a former borrow pit previously used to provide cover material on other portions of the Acme landfill site. A temporary or interim transfer station would be situated on an open site on the adjacent landfill area. The project applicant proposes to construct the transfer station at this location because the main disposal area of the Acme landfill would cease operation in June 1989 and future landfill sites are expected to be located some distance from refuse generation areas. Additionally, new landfill operations may dictate the use of transfer trucks, rather than accepting refuse delivered 'by private vehicles, to comply with county waste disposal policies. Please refer to Section 2, Project Rationale, for further discussion of this matter. A transfer station is a waste processing facility that combines activities relating to the export of solid wastes and resource recovery operations. The function of a transfer C i� station is to receive and process waste materials brought to the facility by commercial collectors and by members of the public (self-haulers). Waste material is then loaded into long-haul transfer trucks and exported to a landfill site. Transfer stations also provide ' resource recovery opportunities. Areas of the proposed facility would be designated for waste recovery activities and the recycling of portions of the wastestream. Transfer ' stations can also accommodate waste-to-energy facilities. Space for a possible future waste-to-energy facility has been allocated on the site development plan for the proposed project. The development of the waste-to-energy facility is, however, not a part of the proposed project. i,i 86130 1-1 REGIONAL LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1 MMES 0 5 10 20 NAPA PROJECT SITE NOVATO TINE RAA L SAN F M a R z E CONCORD .... OAKLAND D >< SAN FRANCISCO M AY WA RD SAN MATE T PALO o P LO a� SAN JOSE f s eip (�] f0 1-2 1. Introduction 1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station (Transfer Station) has been prepared for review and comment by public agencies, interested organizations, and the public. Contra Costa County, as the general- purpose unit of government having jurisdiction over the project, is the lead agency. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department, is responsible for the [ development and processing of the EIR. The report was prepared by a team of consultants headed by EIP Associates. (Refer to Section 10, EIR Authors) After circulation, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) will be subject to review and comment for a minimum period of 45 days, and a public hearing on it will be ` held by the County Planning Commission. A Final Environmental Impact Report (the DEIR and a Response Document) will be developed, certified, and used as a basis for making decisions on the proposed transfer station by the County Planning Commission and ` the County Board of Supervisors. _ . The main purposes of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are to provide information to decision-making units of government, and to other interested parties, on the potentially significant (adverse) environmental consequences of the project if it were to be implemented as proposed, and to identify mitigation measures (which may already be included in the project) which could be used to mitigate these impacts. Information in the EIR also describes the existing environmental setting of the project area and provides a rationale for determining the significance of project impacts. The EIR is intended to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended, and the State and local guidelines for its implementation. ' Governmental approvals for the project are discretionary acts subject to the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA Mrequires all state and local government agencies to consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority prior to taking action on those projects. CEQA further requires that the public agency with principal responsibility for approving a project, the lead agency, prepare an Environmental Impact Report if the agency determines that a proposed project has the potential to adversely affect the environment. 86130 1-3 1. Introduction Contra Costa County completed an . Initial Study of Environmental Significance (Appendix A) which determined that an EIR should be prepared for the proposed project. The County then initiated the preparation of this EIR by issuing a Notice of Preparation (NOP) asking affected agencies and members of the public to identify issues which should to be covered in the EIR. The EIR provides an overall environmental analysis of the proposed project by addressing potential impacts outlined in the Notice of Preparation for the EIR and in the Responses to the Notice of Preparation and notes mitigation measures suggested by the applicant and the preparers of the report. Contra Costa Count directed that the EIR utilize the Comprehensive Project Description Y 1? prepared by the project sponsor and required by the County as a prerequisite for making application for the project. The County also directed that the EIR make use of significant related documents, specifically the Solid Waste Management Project Report prepared by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and Contra Costa County (CCCSD/CCC study) in 1984-1985, the Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP), December, 1982, and the 1987 draft revisions to the CoSWMP (June 11, 1987 version). Copies of these documents are available for inspection in the offices of the County Community Development Department at 651 Pine Street in Martinez. (� The transfer station is proposed to be installed on a part of the Acme landfill site which was the subject of a previous Environmental Impact Report. As stated in the Notice of Preparation for the transfer station EIR: The Acme Transfer Station EIR is intended to complement the June, 1983, Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the Acme Landfill Expansion (SCH #82081001) which covered the 535-acre Acme landfill site but did not anticipate a transfer station project there. The Acme Transfer Station, , EIR will be a separate EIR, rather than a supplement to the 1983 EIR/EIS because the complex geo-technical, engineering, and institutional issues of the landfill expansion largely do not apply to the transfer station project. The Acme Landfill Expansion , EIR/EIS, however, will be incorporated by reference into the Acme Transfer Station EIR as �ouree material. �.. An intent of the EIR is to clearly summarize and communicate technical materials found in source materials and appendices so that decision-makers and the members of public can ` J 86130 1-4 1. Introduction readily understand their contents. This emphasis is in accord with the requirement of the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15140) which notes the need to present technical discussions in an EIR in simple and direct language. 1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Chapter 1 of the report provides an introduction and overview describing the EIR and its review and certification process. The chapter also describes the organization of the report and the preparation of the Draft EIR and of the Final EIR. Chapter 2 provides a summary of the EIR and identifies the areas of potential significant impact along with issues to be addressed should the County and other decision-making bodies approve the proposed project. Chapter 2 also identifies mitigation measures to minimize or reduce potential impacts. A summary of potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures is presented in tabular form in this chapter. The four-categories of impact noted in this chapter are: Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts; Impacts which can be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Level; Impacts Not Considered i Significant; and Beneficial Impacts. Chapter 3 provides background information on the proposed project and also describes the project's objectives, and characteristics. Information on solid waste management and regulatory institutional constraints are contained in this chapter. Chapter 4 discusses the environmental effects of the Permanent Transfer Station on a subject-by-subject basis. Each section of this chapter follows a standard format. The environmental setting of the project is followed by a discussion of potential environmental impacts. A description of mitigation measures which may be applied to reduce if' f. p p g y pp ce signs scant environmental effects completes the section. Chapter 5 discusses the potential environmental effects of the Interim Transfer Station. The format employed is similar to that used in Chapter 4. ' Chapter 6 discusses alternatives for the development of the proposed project. A total of four project alternatives are discussed in this chapter. I 86130 1-5 1. Introduction Appendices and Reference materials, noting organizations, persons and documents consulted in the preparation of this report are recorded at the back of the document. Appendix A contains public information documents. The Initial Study for the project along with the Notice of Preparation is contained in Appendix A. 1.3 PREPARATION OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Initial Study and Notice of Preparation for the proposed Acme Transfer Station was prepared by the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County on September 4, 1986, following the filing of a project application on August 19, 1986. As required by the State Guidelines, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project was delivered by Certified Mail to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board which were the apparent Responsible Agencies identified at the time. A copy of the NOP was hand-delivered to the State Clearinghouse. Approximately one hundred copies of the NOP were sent to other governmental offices and organizations. The purpose of an Initial Study is to identify potential environmental impacts, enable early project modifications to be made, and focus an Environmental Impact Report on potentially significant impacts, should one be required. As a result of the investigation conducted for the Initial Study, and of concerns expressed by the Community Development Department, a number of areas of potentially significant impact were identified for analysis in the EIR. These areas included, but were not limited to, compliance of the proposed project with County plans, impacts on the adjoining Vine Hill residential neighborhood, impacts generated by traffic, noise, and issues associated with visual quality and air quality. The Table of Contents of the report lists the subject areas covered in the EIR. Public Review As previously noted, the Draft EIR on the proposed project will be available for public review by agencies, interested organizations and individuals for at least a 45-day period following the filing of a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse. During the review period, the County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive oral 86130 1-6 1. Introduction and written testimony on the Draft EIR. Written comments may also be submitted to the County up to the end of the public review period. Environmental comments and questions raised during the public review period and at the public hearing relating to the project's analysis in the Draft EIR will be addressed in a Response Document. The Draft EIR and the Response Document will together constitute a Final Environmental Impact Report. The Final EIR will be considered for certification in accordance with CEQA and the State's CEQA guidelines. 1.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT After initial certification by the County Planning Commission, the Final EIR will be considered by the County Board of Supervisors in making its decision on the proposed project. The Final EIR will be acted on by the Board of Supervisors to verify that the document has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Contra Costa County's environmental impact report procedures, and to show that the 4 > Board concurs with the County Planning Commission that the EIR is adequate. If the project is approved, the County Board of Supervisors will certify that it has considered Ithe information contained in the Final EIR incident to their approval of the document and findings will be made on significant impacts and the provision of the mitigation measures. When a decision is made on the proposed project, the County will file a Notice of Determination with the State's Office of Planning and Research and the County Clerk to complete the CEQA process. 86130 - 17 2 SUMMARY This chapter of the report presents a summary of the proposed project and notes potential impacts generated by the project and measures included to mitigate potential impacts. A Summary of Proposed Project is followed by a Summary of Transfer Station Operations and a Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The chapter also contains four categories of impacts: Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts, which ' cannot be full mitigated; Impacts which can be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Y g g � Level; Impacts Not Considered Significant; and Beneficial Impacts. Each of the latter four sections follows a standard tabular format that contains: environmental issues reviewed in the EIR; specific impacts identified as part of the project; mitigation measures proposed as part of the project; and further mitigation measures proposed by the EIR authors. 2.1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT This document provides information on environmental issues relating to an analysis of the proposed waste recovery and transfer station. The proposed project would consist of a permanent transfer station and an interim transfer station facility. The interim transfer station would be constructed prior to the completion of the permanent transfer station. The interim transfer station would provide for the transfer and exportation of waste refuse pending completion of the permanent transfer station and associated buildings. It would cease operation once the permanent transfer station is completed. Access road improvements leading to the permanent transfer station, new scale house and pay booth facilities, and the provision of space to accommodate Waterbird Way extension south as required by the county would also form part of the project. An aerial photograph showing the existing site conditions is shown on the frontispiece of this document. A photographic rendering of the proposed project is also included as a frontispiece to this report. A Site Development Plan is shown on Figure 5, indicating the layout of the proposed facility. J 86130 2-1 2. Summary The main purpose of a transfer station is to enable wastes to be transferred from commercial refuse collection vehicles to larger long-haul transfer trucks for transport to a distant landfill. Transfer station operations allow considerable savings in fuel by providing a means for transporting refuse long distances in more energy-efficient long- haul vehicles The use of a transfer station facility to export wastes also reduces the amount of traffic in the vicinity of a landfill. A transfer station facility can be a focal point for resource recovery activities. The proposed project is the construction of the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station at the existing Acme landfill. The Acme Fill Corporation, the project applicant, owns the site of the proposed facility. The permanent transfer station site, consisting of approximately 22 acres of vacant land, forms part of a 535-acre land holding. The site is a former borrow pit used to supply cover materials for landfill operations on other portions of the Acme landfill site. The project site is bounded by Arthur Road to the northwest, the Martinez Gun Club to the southeast, two• Contra Costa Water District storage tanks to the south and the Vine Hill residential neighborhood to the west (Figure 2). It is currently zoned HI, Heavy Industrial. The site is within the jurisdiction of Contra Costa -County and is located within the LAFCO Sphere of Influence for the City of Martinez (Figure 3). As noted above the proposed project would accommodate an extension of Waterbird Way south along the western edge of the project site through the Acme Fill Corporation land holdings. The extension of Waterbird Way would, in part, implement the Circulation Element of the County General Plan. PROJECT RATIONALE The Acme Fill Company has proposed the transfer station project to provide flexibility for Central County refuse collectors in a changing and uncertain situation. The applicant's rationale in proposing a transfer station is as follows: o Central County refuse collection firms now using Acme's landfill will have to use different landfills when Acme's current main disposal area (the 1984 97-acre expansion area) is forced to close in June, 1989, when its U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' permit expires. Future landfill locations are likely to be located farther from the sources of refuse generation than the Acme landfill. Refuse collection vehicles are most economically used on collection routes. When the haul distances 86130 2-2 SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2 FEET 0 1000 2000 4000 r • 0% 0",1,0 PERMANENT TRANSFER 'r•. Avon STATION INTERIM ��F ��oV: ,y m.:� - - . TRANSFER STATION ACME N, •� k, �.. L... � -1 LANDFILL ,•`' f "+ ' ? • •• ` o.,N sant, . 1 4 a 0 4p LAS juraxs =� • - r ✓INV2�, to N1 7 M 15 � r •,� ,\ 1 `. _ r HIGHWAY4 f r HUC',HAmA J V` �i1�KTl�P7 em t±; i t ■ eip 2-3 10m LAFCO SPHERE OF INFLUENCE MAP FIGURE 3 SOURCE. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,JUNE 1986 ��r � • PROJECT SITE FEET•,,.., a 2000 4000 6000 .• w••w• : M,XR*SMIAND. CAROUiNEZ STRAITS ,« •( P ,w• • ,« « ,w • • SUtSUN BAY • ��ti '•. F . .•...... c0c `. RF �A- w ;R{ • • :y9 ': • ::: PA � .• co • :•m • .m i H '•.WA Y 4: .•t•.• •. GH i t « i.. ., `«• « ALHAMBRA •• •' VqL� : _ 9F .' =':�•. BUCHANAN fiy ROACH`�'' !F�, _ `• 3t�Q FIELD GY "« 'TAYLOR 90 LEGEND A { I o l MARTINEZ CITY LIMITS(6!1986) � 4 «••••••••• MARTINEZ SPHERE OF INFLUENCE(6!1986) I eip 2-4 � 2. Summary from the end of the collection routes to the disposal sites exceed 15-20 miles, the use of large-capacity transfer trucks becomes economical. o Other landfills may require refuse to be brought in transfer trucks. If the Altamont Landfill in Alameda County is used as an interim disposal facility by Contra Costa County refuse collectors, the terms of its use would be expected to include shipment by transfer trucks. The Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval for a new landfill in Contra Costa County may limit access to transfer trucks or prohibit access by self-haulers to reduce the traffic in the vicinity of the landfill site. o County refuse disposal policies specHy that new landfills are to be served, to different degrees, by transfer stations. o Transfer stations are waste processing, separation, and inspection centers which facilitate resource recovery, waste-derived material production (e.g., wood chips refuse-derived fuels) and the administration of regulatory programs (e.g., inspection for hazardous wastes). o Transfer stations enable a given quantity of refuse to be delivered to a landfill in fewer loads, allowing the landfill to better manage its working face. Thea applicant proposes to locate the transfer station at the existing Acme landfill for the PP P P g following reasons: o The applicant already owns the land and has the opportunity to rehabilitate part of it E in connection with the project. o The landfill is located in an area characterized by and committed to uses compatible with industrial development. o The Acme Fill Corporation land holding would accommodate future refuse processing facilities such as a waste-to-energy plant and a collection service corporation yard. o Refuse disposal traffic is already established in the area and would be little changed by the transfer station. o Experience in other areas indicates that transfer stations are more likely to be acceptable on existing landfill sites. The development of the proposed transfer station site could proceed in tandem with, or independent from, the development of landfill sites proposed for the County. A permanent transfer station facility at the Acme landfill site would require about a year to build after all required state and local permits are obtained. The permanent transfer station, as currently planned, would begin operation by February, 1990. The interim _J 1 86130 2-5 2. Summary i transfer station would provide wastestream transfer c apab lity during the period Acme landfill ceases most landfilling activity (June, 1989) and the completion date for the permanent transfer station facility should the completion of the permanent transfer station be delayed beyond its February, 1989 scheduled opening. LANDFILLS, PROJECTS, AND SITES Existing Landfill Sites The disposal of solid waste materials is ci•rrently accommodated at three county landfill sites; the Contra Costa Waste Sanitary Landfill (CCWSL) near Antioch, the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (WCCSL) near Richmond, and the existing Acme landfill near Martinez. All three sites are -approaching the limit of permitted capacity. Refer to Figure 22 and Table 1 for existing solid waste collection areas and landfill service areas in Contra Costa County. The existing landfills are located reasonably proximate to their service areas and have not required the use of transfer stations. The CCWSL serves East Contra Costa County and part of Concord. It also receives dewatered sludge from the Delta-Diablo .Sanitation District wastewater treatment facility located near Pittsburg. Should the CCWSL site continue to serve its present collection areas, its closure date is estimated to be between 1992 and 1994. The WCCSL serves West County and a small portion of Southern Marin County and receives dewatered sludge from the West County Wastewater treatment plants. Without expansion, which would be subject to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit, the WCCSL will reach capacity in 1993. The Acme Landfill serves Central Contra Costa County, Rodeo Sanitary District, and the City of Benicia in Solano County. It also receives incinerated sludge ash from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit allowing landfill disposal in the site's primary disposal area is scheduled to expire on June 15, 1989. A few months' capacity for general disposal may remain on older landfilled areas of the site. It is anticipated that some portions of the Acme landfill would remain in operation 86130 2-6 2. Summary largely for the disposal of designated wastes for as long as 10 years. During this period it would receive ever decreasing volumes of waste materials. Landfill Site Projects Currently two new landfill projects are proposed for development in Contra Costa County. Both are being considered by the County Planning Commission but their outcome is uncertain. The projects are: 1. The Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill (KPWML), which the applicant proposes as a replacement site for Central County wastes currently taken to Acme Landfill, and possibly for West County wastesthat.are presently discharged to the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill 2. The East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (ECCSL), proposed by its sponsor as a replacement site for the existing Contra Costa Waste Sanitary Landfill near Antioch. It is also proposed that this landfill would take dewatered sludge from the Delta Diablo Sanitation District, and incinerated sludge ash from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. Both proposed sites are also being considered as refuse disposal sites for the entire County wastestream. In addition, a third site, Bay Pointe, in the southwest quadrant of Highway 4 and Bailey Road, adjoining Concord, has been announced by California Land Research. The sponsor has submitted a letter of intent to the County Community Development Department and is preparing the Comprehensive. Project.Description studies that are prerequisite to the filing of project applications with the County. Other Landfill Sites Other possible landfill sites in Contra Costa County have been identified in recent years by the 1984-85 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District/Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Project ("CCCSD/CCC Study"), and the 1985-86 Contra Costa County/Delta Diablo Sanitation District Southeast County Siting Study. Certain of these and some newly identified sites are being studied by a Blue Ribbon Landfill Siting Task Force created by the Board of Supervisors in early 1985. Except for the sites identified above, none of the study sites has evolved into a sponsored project. .J 86130 2-7 2. Summary Acme Landfill Closure Plan The closure of the existing Acme landfill site is not a part of the proposed transfer station project. It is noted here for reference purposes. Closure activities at Acme landfill would be carried out in accordance with a closure and post-closure maintenance plan ? 'on which would be prepared by the protect applicant for approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (Bay RWQCB) and County Health Services Department. The closure plan would be subject to the approval of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Department of Health i Services (DOHS) and the State Solid Waste Management Board. A preliminary draft closure plan for the 125-acre North Parcel of the Acme landfill is �I currently being prepared by the engineering firm of Harding Lawson Associates. The North Parcel does not include the 97-acre Northeast Parcel Expansion Area of the Acme landf ill.l Suggested future uses for the landfill area covered by the closure plan have previously included: a) golf course and park, b) light industrial buildings, c) storage yards, and d) water-related industrial uses. Currently the anticipated use of the north parcel site is for the storage of Acme Fill Corporation vehicles and equipment. This equipment would be stored on existing paved areas. No expansion to that existing paving is anticipated in , current plans.2 Closure plan activities for the Northeast parcel expansion area of the Acme landfill have not been developed to date. It is possible that this area may be used for light industrial purposes and self-storage units.3 The landfill is bounded b a 5-foot thick compacted clay leachate barrier to the east Y P Y north and most of the western perimeter. The barrier provides protection from the lateral migration of leachate. An impermeable .leachate control barrier is proposed for the southern boundary of the North Parcel in the preliminary closure plan. There are 10 gas collection wells on the landfill site that function as part of a gas recovery system. The system is owned and operated by GSF Energy, Inc., and it is anticipated that the system will be maintained and operational after site closure. A preliminary site closure schedule, provided for reference purposes, is noted below:4 86130 2-8 2. Summary Activity Estimated Time of Completion Installation of leachate monitoring and treatment system Fall 1987 Last receipt of hazardous waste Fall 1996 Last receipt of Class 2 and 3 wastes Winter 1996 Construction of final cover (complete) including planting and drainage facilities Winter 1997 Closure activities would include installation of at least four feet of final cover and final grading and revegetation. The Harding Lawson report notes that closure and post-closure costs of the Acme landfill would be approximately $2 million over a 30-year periods F 1 1Harding Lawson Associates, Closure Plan for the North Parcel Landfill, Acme Landfill, + ' (preliminary draft), April 1986, p.2. 2Philip Crispell, Harding Lawson Associates, telephone conversation, May 28, 1987. 3Ibid. 4Harding Lawson Associates, Closure Plan for the North Parcel Landfill, Acme Landfill, (preliminary draft), April 1986, p. 19. 5These wastes would include municipal and construction wastes. Philip Chrispell, Harding Lawson Associates, telephone conversation, June 12, 1987. sHarding Lawson Associates, Closure Plan for the North Parcel Landfill, Acme Landfill, (preliminary draft), April 1986, p. 20-21. 86130 2-g 2. Summary r 2.2 SUMMARY OF TRANSFER STATION OPERATIONS Transfer station facilities would be available to the general public (self haulers) and refuse collection and other commercial customers on a basis similar to that used at the present Acme landfill site. Wastestream materials discharged at both the interim and permanent transfer station would be similar in character to solid wastes currently disposed at the landfill, with the exception that certain waste loads (e.g., large construct ion/de molition debris loads) and specialized loads (e.g., dewatered sewage sludge and sewage sludge incinerator ash) would not be accepted at the transfer station but would be delivered directly to a landfill. Other materials that would not be accepted at the transfer station would include liquid waste, animal carcasses, septic tank pumpings, auto bodies and manifested waste. Depending on county policies, and the eventual disposition of applications for new landfill sites in the county, designated wastes, dewatered sludge and incinerated sludge ash may continue to be discharged at the Acme landfill site for a time but not at the proposed .transfer station. Service Area The proposed transfer station is proposed to continue providing service to the 425,000 residents of the area now served by the Acme landfill. Adjustment may be necessitated �. by subsequent decisions on new landfill locations or the terms of their conditions of approval. For example, if a new East County landfill site is identified by Contra Costa County, the Antioch wastestream may be hauled directly to the designated new site, or it may be decided that the Acme transfer station should serve nearby Pittsburg. However, the extent of the service area would have to remain large enough to retire its Industrial Development Bond debt obligations. Table 1 and Table 3 show the existing and projected service areas covered by the trar)sfer station operations. ' 1 86130 2-10 2. Summary 2.3 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The approval and construction of the proposed Acme Transfer Station could create both short-term and long-term effects on the local physical environment. Construction of the project would alter the existing physical environment of the site and effectively preclude options for other uses of the site. Grading for roads, buildings and parking/service areas and other construction-related changes would alter the existing physical character of the site. A change in the visual environment of the site would also result from the development of a group of small scale industrial buildings proposed by the project. Site development would have the long-term effect of depleting natural resources of fOssH fuels (used in both construction and operation of the facility) but these effects would be 1 partially off-set by better per-ton fuel economy of transfer trucks. Site development i would also have the effect of depleting natural construction materials, but not to a. significant degree. The development of the project could contribute to local traffic increases on Interstate 680 (1-680), State Highway 4 (S.R. 4) and local arterial roads. This potential increase would be due in part to the operation of transfer vehicles transporting waste materials from the transfer station to a landfill site. As noted above the location of a new landfill isite has yet to be identified thus the exact number of transfer vehicles to be employed at the transfer station remains undetermined. The development of the transfer station would have the net effect of reducing traffic volumes at and near a landfill site compared with the direct haul access to the landfill site. Traffic impacts generated by the transfer station would not be significant (Section 4.2, Traffic and Circulation). Other potentially significant issues include Noise, Visual Quality, Air Quality and Water Quality. As noted in relevant sections of this report, adverse effects associated with potential impacts could; be reduced to a level of insignificance by appropriate mitigation measures. Development of the site would have the long-term effect of increasing revenues to the County, adding slightly to the County employment base, and helping to provide a solution to the County's long-range goal of establishing a cost effective method for the disposal of ' solid waste products. 86130 2-11 F O z 0 4 �w OC '� p O a , . a. z w x �w y a 44 z O ca x C v v •v v � v •o 'v '0 m m m m u u u u u u u u u v u u •� LCD'C OD bD � LD LD LCD'C LD d 'O 'C 'O 'C 'O b 'C 'O 'C k.1 TA„+ �q y •y y of d N y y y in y on y •�j d d7 y 'Ei y CO y « « r r « r r r « r r Ow .� « dm « m r d D d a 1) m r m.' m« m++ m "°um �� 0 �� tom �m �m m0 �0 mm �v x E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E to 91o % oy ° w oaf oaf , moo, 7 °g oaf o � od, o o o y o d o d o d o d o d o o o d o d z > z > z > z > z > z > z > z > z > z > z > x > .i 4 .: .; .4 .; .3 r; 9 .: .i M r N ^ m a 3 z 1>r Uy. 80 ao, o y y ;� M ° cc p .r N M U7 t0 [r C W Q IY I' ap er 2_12 0o Co D 0 wU„o G d ... ,, w � � w x G 0 0 r � dbl � E • w ✓ O C C Vo U 1 i o ° ✓`U Gy G y Cay v N d C 3 w C v NW p' N P N GO 065 «� .i.. as °•.', G V E•C G O N w v e 7 oLt S O bR G tb O....✓ C5 Z qO m Q65 > ° G 7 t� C. .' 3 p G d C ca'E G C5 °✓ ✓'„ C O o aSTti ''CIS °c ° ° ca P 4) d oFto o�' r no ✓G �, G nv t,.. x , m s a Q, ir. dcw \ 0 cc!� JoQ, v � tGO p5r G O' 4 � .j OG p ° U`'°� r y d C 14 r Wd: SCO aG•yH co r � O O a:d•��•o � Yd p.am ✓$0 3 � �, . � Neo � dooE7' d 'o O u 65 y3wy ys. 0490 Gy d o ✓ 44) Gop nu.' d'G`' O 9 r x 3✓ dq t ° i p 0 y o v N Oy 0 (Al, Q �� .°,. y U Q C O �+ a4) -, 3 '. ash as1: v Y br'`'15y� d r. Cid G✓ " w O V d 01M N O10 ° 0 w @ w ✓,, s. U GS i✓ d .0wp CIA A 7 d s. •OZ, w � Com ra D www a O �y E" 10c5 d v` 00 c c� o �.� `Gy V+ -0 06 u vu � . c' v O N � CYy d p Nd r U d � ai g W A 2,13 v G d 7 14 m y i v E' d d-• m o d >,w r w i a� c o o m m w.. i mw i i w E L 1] m C L m O d ° d L m•'A L L O O O+• O 11 C� O r G.`.Cmi `� O.+ w rn:: �'.� C� v7a .r p >, a+ C d C v +' i',� 00. � Cow m m w �+ c O d C C m C C 'D w al•C y In,6i C :+ d L U O O.v.�_m v•� O 'C •' O o•� V r ar .+ m a)'O ., >,... a > > U w al a/ v 3 0 y rn x s. m e^mo an d = O 0. y«% Q E C '�« °' d o ba) « F^� ' von, c° > 3" € C ° �" acicr`� � y" �c ��mpv a �p EV c . E ;:d " dam '.,aH« da`rm " eomn o� aa' u° n« o y m« > a Q.. d mL c v cL v t E o a x °p o d m 5 > c v D-" as tw 3 th °�o m= co.0 O 0 «C. d 3�a) F om � E� Eowcd O `' 4) 03 O o n m v r 3 0 61 a o c a° c "N c d c c o ` �cL" ` �E � c v c E«m o o.c« d .o y c ` o«Q E ca �, tic °�o E ' d3•- c.0J- � a > c�•+ OLJ*vUy. d41,v °:c ydm � � m � C7 0 C w'u U o 0— V O p O•C C.a) O N X p.UC O L 7 b0 a)L O O ° m a) U a)L« d a ayr0 FUEd...-6vo 91. w ... cr. czVo ZI3r, a' ...r�E«M it; z o C7 F - gw ` a=ide •v,ocvco 0Yyc C n u o m o'er `°am c Ln3 ° gv « W p Q t>m.'- d vi>m O 0 m c «C a`' W .� O a.+ .� C vl'� v°i 7 m w � C pa pV 4) L, 3 cmc w E" c F-- a m c� 3 d� may"- ~ y Q L UZI b m O a+ .3 G m p y gym+ a) > c. CD E.� m C, E y « Ga) co.0 d p °` vcoczyyr, d Cw > cO rm. o oxeow « 1 > olomc^ cC: ° 0.. v v, vi W W a 2 5- O 7 d w ca .L+ w o y U o.r m = c .� a. oQ, ` >>a3 Fn d='d °•m y and d m s >° o E F c� E y . v V U e c v c L Gia o v' m oa k. ¢ oycato „ c°. oc.. a• E y ` CJ G.p C E CL al - U G OAR.. L C11 — 3 Q CA C. W E c vi d P F. W CO 2 U � • S y� 7_ E•• a G � fn N W 2-14 4 G o V t✓ ✓w Vi 0 w'a o�y N � K d ,�] G ✓'w •v ✓ � .�,U a'w i G� mi Ir. U � m N 7 •C7 '' ✓ d a� O✓ : V •a ad.+w as % to U G O a9 O d caw ,,abcar °.'✓ a,3 � �P y' O 0 G� c od G v C O O rd" v rG ✓ G 3 " N 3 ,+ 0 cd as cc O da � °' �� ° c°°`.°A0 O tJ O to r " N v 4 _ O eG¢ U�O Z p v OC p Wit 0 in d d r W G G O C y r O c6 G QS L u 901 4)O C6. E G 4z .• 3 ,, w d G to- p✓ x 4E d oo m° m v.0g bd G rE� yd v � � dN d �,tWUy`' drte rG ^A GY" W ��, � >•+ ¢ d d °s a . v vim` A � off ✓ � `°� cn d: oc � YzE r Cl,o V to «+ N y .1 10 d r q d y °� G r"... a m E+ o y � � ,°�,� 65d ✓ ; � r U V O d N C > oU C)0 V oT tq G N m a5 ✓ ✓ ^U � d 0 F' N O p� � G U� y0 0clcw , E' •o ✓ W � G A U N U v d 3 w � O ! i �Z �� 03 � N✓ f N p ! v G w 4 4•++ d o a3 G N °� G w p U s°+ > 01 p✓ «y+ V U t6 C °v N `1 d O+ C y y° "' O�N °C SO >L Y co r-r- d 11 as Qy +- i °.�' ez o � Gshm aa,t) tico .5- 5p n !°- ommo. d '4eodc c.. dUs > y p G 0,ai U 6> C 3� ': x Eu L nio "'m Nva w 3:+ ds `Y O o •,,, c o � � c as �is�.U � per. R� N a bD o G O' v of d O V m y O V s 4) V�L o (s, y 3 O W m C "v d ° d N O 4 «+ O as L d « tia W ° � 3 c. ✓`� �w G m m vo U"" ` c0.o°� t O " N :g N N W DD y y a c ° °B 00 0 C)4v�C t-0 E3 y v m 65 O O m ;,, to 3 o -- c .- o d R} v G d v C C a 3�U'w y t x y~ . F a ° a U W W a d U d a a � CA d v � � � d 3 F �n x d 2-1G 1 0 0 0 t: I WL'�. C4 0 '0' 0 r- Ti cl, w ti Q cz 0 es tn 0 E W IZ a E rN tn r-,co 0 tA tn • 0 IS �tn—ca U 0y. 'o tn cc cd v cz 0 ca W V 0 W 0 0 =tIA w o 0C'0. C�L. IZ as 0— 0 0 0ej X Cd PC w I u cu o'3 r- t *� = t; , �41 ECS 4) o 0 V,?: w 0, v as 041- 0 0. 0 ul ce, Ord tn 0 0, C, aci G. 0 w 0 v C 0 C4 -0 bD 0 cw IV JE wo O t'D 0 C: as s Va ddNm 0,0 -0 > 0 —cd Zo. cis 0 0 tn O IV 0 rn d d r 'i va- tr t O „a D �G �d d,dV � da' ai �v U 'UOGw �, p •„°�,,, '� v� Q, o d U o� o or''3' d t3 O o.•�+ v a Td VK7 CQ.. � . Q H H w y omsGv �. •o radvd.. N �v ° a c �.y � d ✓ y m � °'+ o v ;;� add a; � s� avG aNd V N U� Q Q✓ EG Q ? -.6 ".CS `✓ `° 3 �r °osen� ta'' o ,6 a mF p d ieco 03 Q ofr- F U _ t adNyol ^Q G m bD N O"QO 7 d V y f 7 ++ d No CO VS, a� d � C bDvaSy o o d E C d Cn 4y U 0 p©. CJS '''w cz f o a W G ✓ UG '+ O73 � mG m .a o °a.d d v � � sPfl, a 4 y mo to y U d to ° V-C v�:•y °' vcz Q . C 1 of T °w O w✓'� d a *. 0- Is s c E" L W fi U� Us.. G� to m(•) ""q G N V'.p «U+�✓• eCE O'.� Sig c Q• rq �.'U U L _"' O > �' y . d 5 W 2 W d � U n � a ti 3 � a da• 2-1° 6 r� N W 6y C•p 43 �✓ � 45 y C c O y N •G0 CO'p411 Lr' N cG• G zip`�' 0+' C G Oi d C- O 0 O .p,+ d x w C G•O t0 G C y "� C +'Ge s'a" !✓3 p tU••d t .,DA) O O o • ✓? C „pp. 4-•`"• +N' yt.+ 61 p,L i 03 oz p 1? yp p O vi 0 0 -tn 03 YCN ' _C - _ vczO ? p yU aw vw , B•O p d G ? CN 10 A O GC idV S L uo In W Ij F' C C. .� U .p� d T tpt �-a 3 •,N•1. d:rd,,, m tn >'O w .p..H N'ictl $ ° O Y OG7 A W N > x�...0 F 6{a la) 0"•' .c) F r7s+a.^' 0 � •�� 'o o•cavi sG�.�.0 ts�.p >.v � C p {" o � • dG ✓ C3 p'v N a Z r d ' Q GbO G W 'r ^' O✓ww ro 4-1O co C . W ,O bo�+ y C o a.. d V {C y f0 4 Q up" d❑ * •030 E � tn r� s y `� cz o ✓••- 4• N d Y y d Y ( 4 7 F od vp � o� yyCEo� o U eco p �11 � xoa0 oo � oaU C v EO, a°' tc d•'�' Vi n'N�Cp N py O 'd O cz t Q A d •C s + O ✓Y d fU G G yi0 G dN O dw O C F oc v + T C-G3 6 C O a d � vo � a co E o.'o ✓ c� d C3 E W v ia U a C •� d d � i � � > 2-19 -01 0 ID, .0 > 4) 0 U) ins. C E -40, tn E r- .,.5401 E ;z 2 E cts En oo 4) CL Ed X03 5 0.0 . it� od CA 1:4 in KCSA C> 0 0 ) as cn IV = 4) O to VAA v cn LM cz E -042,1� Cd L. 0) co tz.0 z 0 0 E hry'D to 0 ar S! -a s go 0 .-10—= � =0 -g Q1 N U tri U . bb'o= r— w w ° oH CJ tn C: 0 0 cr W to P z 03 4 :D 46 2-20 C4 - 1 •p U w v d w U.: C 0 .G O Q O >r o ': O . _ G oso._ c o E U3 v � o 3 3 i Cry E�oC o w OU e. > Y O G .w +• O yr O co U ho b y C) anu3 ° pE F O y G t" CII Y .�.+ G U.0. .O > d G U oy .O d 'y1. a m C. E .0 r >.d d w d CSL U W C P, IV gn vCC) Z ° Q °.0 E co CO L. ri z c f+x Q OF FU er.° co` O c O �dov2 u'>w y c O O F auiv`" a'v O •°� G� O - F CL a co 0 3 ° En d .2mwy A as0a) Di > c u E U rA U G O C / a O 1 \ w m is E C4 a fn as �• z Y U w a a a a a E E E E E d d d d d C7 ° ° u o k� > > > > > 0 cd co co co d� 10 10 cz x ° E ed co 03 cu cc U :o u u u u u •� Aw bD3 eo eo e� eco co rd d •d 'o v �' •p'O d•y •m 0� b y •�' d •"' O w U Y Y N Y q 03 `� a z °c z °e z °c z c° zc° CC4 .; .: 14 .: E N d u c. w z a e w cr 0 0 x M co cc z � o Col d a T e0 N y a x > ¢ w > � a > 2-21 Ln 0 C13 &. 4) :, o o Wo 0 lz V S CZ 4) En • 0 > L 0 � cn cz .1 z 0 P 0 Q)V= T) > 0 ej 0 tx 03 V-v lb,-D W to m w t) bo.1 9o .�j q. C: CZ 0 0 Cr CL, tn tr) c z V E 0 m E co a (z > 0 Q* 01 -1 ar :� 4) 4) 03 t ItS t; 0, CDL lz d..4) E dui d� C4 V co c 0 tn br M Q a 0-t-_ 0 o C: 0) 03 0 > E tt, co —M >0 a., 0 m cr C, 0 c cq as Ln 44 EO 0 v 0 CO .2 E rE -F b,c, E rr bD 10 b2o c":6 3: ^ w waw :3 4) 0 . 0,., C) 0 =0 E Lrr- a 0 C)� .� 0-, 0 N aN duosE > 0 W100E 00= 0 0 G. 4. ti 0 Q E E iZ Z .0 0 0 - = t, 4, 0 C Ur o ri -0-0 F 0 Owt; OE ;> B! E e 0"0 �vo rl- E to' 0 N ma llo W w c E cc 0 (t w 10 10 9. 0 r- 9? CL 0-0 =0 X, r. c: 0) c a E c,' F c .2 40) s W r- r- 0 V 0 =41 ro- 0 t) 0 Z 0 CL 0.0 41 L. 0 u 1,7 0 - OE 2 .2 E ca �t, C. 3� Cam W, Ctl) x bp 0 0 E o E E 0 0' .. v lu .0 bO -o— 0 E >w r bl)E L; &a 0 0, CO IZ 0 tt rr- -a) 'r- CLI.- a) (z 0 co f- R Or 0 C) > on z 0 z E x 0 W co Q) W c. E 11.1 0 t'n OC bD '0 iz 4). to EEO Q .0 17 .0 4) bb r 0 q � C 4) 0 cl, r- W *v V) w E 8 1p 0 0 0 0 ria Or- 4p .0 ho c bO a3 't7 > E m 0 lz 0 tn ri lu rw W V E OZ w C> 0 0,tr 0 cc CL 0 Cc t; 0 -0 t 4) C AZ cl 0 0 0 V= C4 E w z on C4 �-23 >�c.o ov � � cavo 00 `� dc�y oasv� gNo oNmm ovr °'c a,aa ' c~ I > > „«. ma 000� !. p .o omcT ocioa� m �v`"� m ° o ami U o c� o c tt) ° w mcoos o�y� mmoc ado•> 3 " d3uo � U cE .r Tao dcm � mo O w c 3 E n dL a o°o m v E ,c- c._ o � 4toa GWwcd W L. m GV1cisw+ No v� 93 (� o h o �.o L. o ` +'� m oY o 3 my d m d o W . . a) m ' a)•O a.. N U O - d - Cm d y m� 3 a) m= a) y aoi d V 0310 o.or H o:° E a�� o. c°n'� m rn E« o0 L4 t0 e•� N z 0. 0 F U = U w Ee." omE ova, 6'c o" c °"' y > E. 3m O 3.. E- �womC° oNd O� tea) coo 0 mo av d w— Z O C ,C^_, > 47. 1 G U > U > O++ a) C m y 41 9.2 a0+ L.m �• d) CC bD co H CC m > a).0 o � v E �I p Q a) o•p 7 C�j c a� 41- C d O d O U O T Y � o m O X 3•�r.+ w, O Cxc. 3 � 3 3 d� c�i d3 3a` �'ilaaxi I a w E- i o c HI z E_•" c m�a d� y m v c�+%M d O++ +m,,d 67 0 y,4U.. T �. Y O m a+ U O O�.'� d Do tT. ay y �L+ ccvymm� ash > y U, cd c v� 3U f1 fA O C V 7 m m C •C CO �' G^ L m y U Ur.+ ?r... al O CM �,. ._y. 7Q r G,oU d N a10« .v U v 0.4 U o U� C v c>U kC a' In} m= o m m my U�d ait E U " _ O f 0 N o � acit d cUU 4) o -01 — ; aI V ` cU. O c. ` o m t`i>^L' aiBr v e F •d � N d .0 7 N mI N E 3 0 o c �' C> "''> d rp cc o z E� E o.c.E 3 O of 3t � l~�UA�� o C7 w m z U p m 0 z W m d a O > V N W 2-24 { did bIl3 " v y ` EL a � as dYas � c cd � .2r �, Noo E � NL3 >tL d ° o --ry cr : i, d.EH ay E t c°a �, erg ybor,�G Ec� aso• Q'V O O a) O a) as > O > cd00a) V •� V Ecc• wx3.NG [ 0 4. ., c. CD Q3a LL 3 V c+•w z c' 0 bo O C ' tia w vci bD L c — 3 to as O of�' +•+c C,-0 L y c ° V 4 bc Mobn j= c.. C CL L 3 C a) d� FR' h C c0'"O"' C - - e! w Lr H • a7 > bn A 6o a) C E ` ce �v $ d$ a�='a CIS :3 E o oEi o z V 0. C4 a w �a z � O ....NE v V w c m d o� a) a a c � VdLpaY E E oll 3V— d'0 L V ma)w > > x �, >L o V a ° o oos m c Lon E Ga°i �ip �caa)) u v Q y E d GC V� ate+ d m d a) a) w m � w U to 0 ai W o V D Ui z 2-25 N hn w O r d V C •1 V w' +p 0 cOMx Od - ... x d w V bndy , w v E d C p d Z C f U f � f cv �Mv OO v to. rnT r C.. w 4> T N .-+w wo m '•' 0 fn w C y€C+�- O ° .� O c N O o y $ 3 C;c :; .R:� E 'r3 ?O O CL w Q d S., O — v 0 O .0 6CY w •� W> C � a � oyi � Et�wu > v3� c'r �� as C0tbwyo�i > k a5E °= ry vdv cs °or� o `v flop ` �t> bc�� m d q my'4j Z t,t, ° = o u � C 3 E o o v w E- c xo o m ° � mwo � yo w3Em rr d rn,O v A+ cC C O w, v .vn E w m �'+ F w O C C ed 10 E N C G d W ,C G O O vw O G W C 0 � - v 3 c `,t u Gw w a3 G v C O;+ v ° .�� YY v v .odc- vp,eT: z ° V o .; a � C « Co Cu 0 00 � c 4 V d .. f f V� � U C•Q> cao 00 fU8 y UG 2 O p p t. "'N O -0 w .L.+ �L^.✓r O V a3 w Sz, e� O 6 w G V U ^ V to G d w w � v CLQ Gn LA N' m C Y N rn C O C, O y w rn Bo O h'> - ✓ q� .r.o , �A',,, ICn r� y` - .dH.. C W rjOm C n yCO^v c. w ` C& 43 — w V ° Vcis V C m0 as 'it Ic wD jm o IL x c C •» sato (y N �� Ss3 O z _ ° U (r^ r C � C p v Q y Vw C�GOO m t .0 �' O •�» to C; d +O+ "' O O toms CO v G'O w't d N Opp N t N G T3 ,„ o m m v 3 os �•o l6 E' E d G E v O m O V FO X61 d Q'V V �rJ. ' N N c� O C" ,,,,, d d 05 bP N N N G N mac. O W wd i' .0 w 7+ 3 a6 i✓ r ?'+A' C d O N� 'N OL c,d � d � V � NC �EO"'' ~ va' "` ,t3iys. 3,� ca y to wd �,,, �Y O d .CrN� ;' �M (1) r y O O.G �'�U ppQ O ✓�w to F V w N O y W G G, dE9:: Ow.O ✓ d > o w as 0vow dE S � 'Ow i i •�.+d da,,w+' yD 6 ,wr,wp"U . 3yo < ooh �- Uw w.r o O c m.� C o d C+b.. Q r d t op d C•p G O d DA Off `' -3; S o o r- 0 y E' O U7 V O N WO 3 csm0 o cflt °'ronmrd °5 O• O.0 5 O O m W fD Cn O ++ yE mE o O C0v � a °iw CI,. O w O 1 d•o am o t i. O y G r +O+ by d NN bD w C O C O HvOEp �•O SO W hti a 0 C, :O t) C E O v C V O v O r N � O -0 d O w Or d C N K7 m w % 0 IV o C. IV 0 ;30 a2 , - 0 p m m o �vw � ,p +' d v .Q bD V y -U B O O O CS m w O w✓ U'�'' V CIA E::: A � Ern O O O'r a• d ✓ C r V rG o U N y d a'o d Z W D Z 0r w Z v 2_21 d N oz r- 0 00 C,3 10- 4) r- 4, co cts o t, El. civ 9. V a yc5. and 4) to c V V 0 r- U) r- 0— 10 m0 o� 5 00.0 1, m 0-0- S' o o IZ 40. Bo IV K ro---r- r- ,o ca E 0 r- 4) 0 .0 r :V cr cc o in 0 0,.o. 003 0 > 0- *W, a ss C ro- 'o 4) 4) V tL Q) U) 2L a 00 0, —cs"g,,� 0 lz ar 4) S. -.�p i LOD V 0 03 Iz r- 4) Im W co 3� 4) 0 Z t C.a CL r ol yr as z 0 E-* I) o 4) & -bI OF in (a Cr ro- w r- 0 a or E CL lz `a- ag Yro a O_z rr m o 10 or- 'run U) 0 cz Ic r 0'. 0. (�,C3,0 t) c W tn iwn ON 0 'co E E o Ir 0 > tp co 0 m v o o W CA bf) -r_ C y O m 0 —0 M W4) > W W 9 > tn 0 Cd 7. lz 0 z E" 0 r z 0 z bO a) CIO 0 > z 9-23 O Q) 3 C L C C V'Ci •D > 6D L O C _ d d co _o u cx Ecc C)i uoa y CO� my � yo� °' vm p ac y «« « rn d w d o bp r a) � U •y a) a/ 61 m ' c o LenN'C E a`i E E y a neo . oc da: E "= > DD y•v« V`' 7 dam... o. 7VE E°'c t>_' C.NC• � a�i Gvac C4 Cz 0 F d L F ;5Ey c� dc cc ^r Eccea� Nu p N V o N O 0 y G mu 3o B. o' c W V� Tea 'O y U - O C t�.>.cc > d d y y w o 3 c 3 L«c > u u •� •O O'0 Y N a) al c ., 4 a).,, of O L U E- La uo ` O E�°L' ve� m:y d a ww V a;_ y O « U U y a� aEi.X •p c«. C Own CL.E o > c wvuvd 10 a H a«c m Q c" 4w a). c a� o c v o r y L of a1 c d �; O G):5 •> y 0 3 in c c t f O•O .V+. y LD y,� w,,.., m E 7 cC Oa ` m (U r- « W o y ++ o«+ UI r-L A c 0 3 G'> C y o y d u cu U« c� asp rWn u° 3L o n w E 3 E m L m c Ew c E .. a F ,°n 3 n N 0 cc 3 u zcc p o N M d' t!> .-i N p«a) C O 'aG w0 L p3 � y— O yL « E oC s- 0 0 U p o 0 O rf p p to L. 0 O L ` $ m Ew E d L h mw y ac'" O c a` >� �. d p y V « L �COiC CO y « « U m..1+ V c O 41 0'> o 0, �•y � fl E ,• `c > uLm Sao nay > o va' 0W .. o 0 V dE.c " E u E d «! u w y uL. c� o O bo v as �^ E yw W d o Baal C U ,,,... 'O 7 'O i O o d V'•O" Q'U y O u d u m ttE L U m a b a« y d VD 0 C •0p = ` a ` c3 «m•om � 0V) ° 0 3 y G d cU 0 3 v N M Vim' N .•i N �i y�y8 °z F z � w � a o �o ao ca W -W -29 1 ... , •�- D1'O 1 '� b4 c... 1 .r , •p b•p .+ , I y , , In •0 w C °" d tM� y b0 rn LO c d.-U. bo 0 61 °N a p.+w0 , 41zl m'ES. �dti0c+L'•'^rpcU...wi7., w.sy0r� UO �an.O mVi val •0O+vC�w.r�vv+a—Cvl 0 '.pC' Ub >>> .`dU aHUCa+iL'•OagiL'.Uv•`v�+CaU"' dv3° m •OdO� 0= cd 0 dt p EmU bo be C 0)A O Nm by d .O ,,d U d NhU=0. wO LC.tdUObD w0 o� m p 0 d o t a °mnCG D m V boo0 '� 0C0'nL3 ~ ° E �Gc. y Cm� _ N� ) — E° L. C) pu E W CUOov0p CL tmOaCoEvoow.—w .0 > U) >>C. , - m C) 1 N M t z 0 F FUI 0 dm OHO O dlz C O.O drn x od3 �m v � v, C7d o-m C in w :� •00� '� bo V. 0 -cg• go, 0 3 d C lI S mamiE 3C) oda dd F L O 0 L d d m 14^/ 'NO .00 bo 7 d 0 '... N ti U > C •0 C F 3 O v,> m .o >1 :; :v 3 O bt m v9 d o E a°' �t o•- rn -. o ` >m r ao 9.~ 3.0 v w v E o d o m U'G « to C C C a0+ r >,w co bo O U r y QC o (op m� °' oma °'•^°'• ° °' mem C.>.n o ai --�' o) u p O.y O d W bo .m voi w+�' wcM o^>,a0ccd 0.0 U - 0 w m e. E U W E O- 0 L y C U •O O ev a ai D 77 cd d '0•' dCL W In 0 a O h e f1' 0 bo:- L C 'ie Y ^D p m F O Cf ? U m 0 d O= E C < `W0 w3rD w o m a CL �'` V ho 3 d 0�„U .0 0 /n C 0 m O tr dbo bD c O z U to D R7 cc Gy Q z r= U r O .r Z z c C" a < :D 49! z 2-30 Q`lG`laryi•co al °'� :�� mcuou � NyNcvd ._.��•p m w V•� .r cc c m m 0 7 L O UO•0 o m a d��C c 3 00 al `CO GI ., mac o3Glc° 000 ny Ys_° �c mry cc= am �od3 �.: co U) e m F;= dmmmG,l.yc.Odc.�"m'w•ovGolN� m s�- U.Ta.>�dI3n w".+ Ca`3'l'w.°�+¢.,, e '`"dco3,, - m ,> t, 2eal = cX E'0 I 0:5 m2 o 0 o d4z (Uco 0 ° « bowE } 0 C O ayNc c d.t apHoeo E : 4z ; c cew•^1vU cc ° � oQt°cJE ` 2! 0otm — ` CO o y My E v >,-1v coca: > � Glal: . jatr coE G« c°' u n•moA,0Aa �� ZACc aclGWW H N z O C7 E- _ W C aWEkCs-. ym�'c ary•Y� C O ' 3w d y� � ` ' w�mdNdm c0 n7dry•w.ory+ vdv, w`C oaweo O4c° oo o � GCpld `:d E c >>GCv o NmNv.Ec aL. E � E ' wQl QcoE u ° vGiaacG � c t v ° > a o� moi vo. °c0 01v3 � `° ° QmsEnGcn � m a tmi > m ' E OCo N A _ d "> o � ° doa� 3 ` E " mry • cQ0 ` 3 � > 0EvccE «; an = ��= oec_ bp�n o c mo p ry4!'V 3 Q`, c u o o E .`+ 3 `c " d.°+ 3 c " mdTv 0 i=1 u h:+ w d O N cry.. y 6D C d" CO 3 Y Ol.d+ ~ Gl Q1 ry ry U.`.� m•'7 Q ry p d Cn L'Cal ° ° '% C d �.0 d w '- O a'V1 ` o^ E ° m " c C•C 4z d d d o ` c �°.,lz E do^U` a d d °�C \ O d G m` GO tmii d'D m `O C) ry �"' d o ° U a+•p C o o•p y G z Jl 0 � °va 3U o � m a 3 � o a°i.`• a0 v0.0 �av, m >.S m Ea` 0.cd y� M4 v Ql U•C G) c•C c d d C ry�•+ O C, Via°+ Qi rrw.0-� O�°,.i U bo Z m v a Y U w U Ql N dy d- D ry ry y .Ui E'->W c Oa ' ry•C d m T 0 O it ry h E c ct+ E cU. 7 U a L ca 75 7 7 L .0 U c. .a. c ° c'...'t-. cU..'u d O C o c c o ry o 0 30 d U U c o U r Gl bo•p 0 al O C d c C U ,., m 6l >•in 2.6 +5 do cm L•- U� o F a c Tc aci 5 p o f 0E h m:: d E ° U m x c° �� yr� � daxcY � Gcim `li° = e d - 0 to a °' vc do c - U U � o w ao E 3 � a°i'cry�� 3 c.`U� °U o ° rl N Q a W o � 0 `� T iyz f. w a. 0 a V] CV W � 1 2-31 'vEd dmtnmd pp .� .' d• 7•p'..V. a macc,', d O d a •' m i 1 cis • o°c y `M da Z,so� mc �s3mxmEWc m i v d� ^�U `c 0 w �3 0 d CL z M p F OF W 'O C c 'CO d `w=bC .c°.-p dvO OOCho %A v0a O o C m . m O CO d 0o � 0 Emw ?. L. 11 m L.MO AP,c C vro._ m o c m cm3 �. y F a c mr 21, c'> d o m 4, o d o� 3 c �s. « «s� o� u ° m 02; to d Gxi m .0 dc.0 c .+ mw c. L p 7 C O d C E Ecu rn c a O d h V C -0'^ m c. i' [m.7 .`V•, 3 .` cE— Lo Ev o c . °� �°0 °�« « Emmmo 3N4u ooi�� —0 Lo 0 W E ac acia�iEb`r.LF•. cn . 0 ° m w e ;? 6:_$: Lz bD u, m ami _ m., m$ u 0s d m C Y N 0 c m w °dE " yb' In,Oc m . a O C d: to 3x`=.5 ° o bo Q, ° ed E >� E OEw � oc0 > °° � °cm1;vn. d deo � ccz o3o0cz0wala � °, OLy41 >1�muwm > EE oO�O M 1140, d °c $ o .. v d y a 3 O � d 3 C0 C E o o o E oro ° d y 0 a y a N�y c F ° E0 >,m'� « tJ V).c O d c ca L 7 d °c E ° y m o E E z 0°'0 > m C7 A W W z W a U rn FO a z F z w d a p � :1 x Val CV W 2-32 U 6 « I I U •C, ' C.C O n p y > d U 3 U vUi LL d w o,c U y q7 y C oc c _>. m Gv�ti:F lf! r! r N r+ z 0 F d L FF ~w •O d +-''O C w aJ d L c.. 1 « 1 L y ty 1 y C C' to 0 N y O — O 6G d L 0 m•_ C O « G « >m y N C U O .v L Lo. C U« CG E 0 d C m o C p �' a1p w a> > W v Lt wc ,,, '- > a-' Eoc « > d y y° +� m�cC F �` v � O m cU v m o d t O t«n+� C UO Qi^ U 0 d w a c° aaG r y E c y� b a d> o > o y c u y n'4 O o X ena� > o ° F 3 d ° aya `.. �� o 0 c 0 � a c amT m a'S w O ar c 'o ._ 5 c 3 c m o o 0 as" y a. QIV14.O cU,'m U v x .O> y « �'�'� w « w d E O a cm.� _«� y > v �� c � ami J �°iai do �� zdc _ u 4v 4« ` y L d C d c. .p+ C d U d d w WC�D•H w m C y « y« 0 C C m y b« =co y a L > -0 ., L t (/1 N O m G_ V. C s a^ t� y O Kid mm� Xo3� m� mE a' odo � °ivcctia� a c U 'E' w8EL°a c .- uc ts' mc v3 � � zc z Q+ C If; �-d N •-I 1 1 w c u c o m o aci cui > nci WOE °� o� a«' E aci y c0. O a .y w 0 60 y d-w V1 y Q y'O d > U 3'O C cc C9 b0 U U o fal d N 0 C O « O 0.0 d 0 0 m O 0E cm aa' d '0c0q mu >'g «17 0 oomcmo � a0� Y. bfi U U O ~tn C) L V0i U U �O .O C C C or- 2!d E m V O 7.: y^�' M O u c cn r_ 0,oa `o « y o - ayi Eu.. oy ;. yam >� « m •, F' }, � d ``" r C a: Q'U 'd U U N .�+ N L.p C d m U C co ¢ � �� m � Cc Q � a > � �Eya>ic o« c� Eec> a' 3 p O d` y 61 ar m O U.�. V O C.�+ c0. C rn N' o" d e� y « y U « y .>' d Y a x Uw0 U a.0. U y am. UL..r C C C +-' d G N•^ O. eU.. a 0 c u - = X o'x a OF Oa o d c a' o 0 a °''0 0 ° u �0 U U.4 m y y d n. w o a u« E U vi C13 E ad .:'7- a c vaa F- t0 y w N ri Q a w t/) v v y > U � zz F o 1 z o a J c z Q zN ~" .� v� ea w '°' 2-33 ° •' cz N o � •o O � t7 d d a 4 t NU �6 O•U oe ?, .N O T pQ , r ..+ yF r' 01 ✓ -L" i� v O N t p C' 4 p a5} m M t tipNGO .Uym UO 01) o 6t G G U U Lt+ V O C) q ° d 0"v, Q y r U d X >'p,s. C" �. d d {� '9 m✓ 7 G V a'r o3 w..- � Y y��' r..d Ol G � �} Q1 `T O. G V O o m,w''fl C rG O1 � v ° Gcat > G p Q1 eC d w C � u •= �, 3r N r w a OS a� Y d W ° r V m � I w � d x w d u� y T g � d � ao �•m boy ✓ U ay:d toll. 65 d N �O 3'.�..�••� SCS W �O d W ✓ i" WlC'O N V�Opy W ' V d N o Cy.� d d,ap�✓ � Y VS G, � � � W rA d ✓ ✓ a�9o5 vias'' ✓ ✓ � UyO TA as � •-� w r o� G 7U O a t0.0 .. v W u O � P �� J-0 O may' Y � N 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND The Acme Transfer Station is a proposed project of the Acme Fill Corporation which owns and operates Acme landfill. The project would be built on an existing borrow pit site on the western part of the Acme landfill property (Figure 4). The Acme Fill Corporation is a private-sector commercial venture. Its stockholders include the owners of a number of refuse collection companies that serve central and parts of eastern Contra Costa County, including the San Ramon Valley, the Orinda-Lafayette-Moraga area, Concord, Antioch, and the northwestern community, of Rodeo. These collection companies now discharge almost all of their collected refuse at the Acme landfill site. Members of the public also deposit waste materials at the existing landfill. As previously noted, the landfill has a limited allowable and physical capacity. The current 97-acre main disposal area is subject to a federal permit which expires in June 1989. Some areas of the landfill,'however, would continue to be used for a longer period for the disposal of specialized waste, such as Designated Wastes. As also noted, the applicant proposes to construct a transfer station because of the flexibility it would provide in meeting future disposal needs. New landfills may restrict access only to transfer station vehicles and to other commercial vehicles which must have direct access to a landfill (such vehicles may include trucks transporting demolition materials from construction sites and dewatered sludge from water filtration and iwastewater treatment plants). Similarly, public policy may limit the kinds of vehicles directly accessing landfills to control traffic and litter, for public safety reasons or to promote resource recovery operations. New landfills may also be located in areas distant from where refuse is generated, thus lower overall solid waste management transportation costs could be effected through the use of long-haul transfer trucks. 86130 3-1 LAND OWNERSHIP MAP FIGURE 4 INTERIM TRANSFER Rpt4lffO CO N ................::.. STATION SITE :::;,..... 'r`, •• ��, 040 ACME FILL ................ CORPORATION Radio' I? fiq Towers ?ry PERMANENT ENT TRANSFER sa - � " STATION SITE �=_-s ,f ,� - :MARTINEZ ;............................... .. 'GUN CLUB - � : - a �0 :.:: .:•.•..........:....::: _......:..:.:........:..:..:.:.:......:.., fy .. Q L, OIRP •,.+ --,� �`�f '\ '\ \. G HENRY'S TREE e III / SERVICE ~` '` '�� , i FEET SOURCE: R Y OU CE: TORREY d TO RE INC. eip 0 500 1000 2000 m 3-2 3.1 Project Background The development and operation of transfer station facilities is an established feature in solid waste management planning. A number of transfer stations are currently in operation in the Bay Area. All of San Francisco's wastestream is processed through a transfer station, for ultimate disposal at the Altamount Pass Landfill in Alameda County. There are transfer stations also operating in Berkeley, Pleasanton, San Leandro, and San Carlos. The applicant proposes to construct the transfer station at the Acme landfill because the site: o is owned by the applicant, o is in an area zoned for industrial development, o is reasonably proximate to the anticipated service area, =� o is readily accessible to freeways (I-680 and Highway 4) serving the anticipated service area, o is already associated with refuse disposal activity, o would have general traffic patterns similar to those already established for the existing landfill. o would enable a part of the Acme landfill property to be rehabilitated and reused. o would readily accommodate a two-level facility (on an existing borrow pit site). Contra Costa County requires that solid waste disposal site applications in the county be accompanied by a Comprehensive Project Description prepared by the applicant. The application consists of initial geotechnical, site design and operations, and transportation studies. The County also typically requests information on cultural resources, geology and soils, biological resources, noise, and air quality reports. The County uses the Comprehensive Project Description in processing the application and in directing preparation of an environmental impact report. The proposed transfer station is described in the applicants report submitted to the County Community Development Department entitled Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Project Description and is dated July, 1986. Copies of this report have previously been provided to the County Board of Supervisors, County Planning 86130 3-3 3.1 Project Background Commission, County Solid Waste Commission, and cities and waste collection and franchising agencies in the proposed service area, as well as other agencies involved in the review of the project application. The report is available for inspection at the County Community Development Department. As described in the project application, the project consists of the construction of transfer station buildings, recycling center, service yard, and administrative building located on a , 22-acre site on Acme property. The proposed site development plan of the project is shown on Figure 5 of this report. Existing changes in level on the site would be used to create a two-level discharge and loading operation for the transfer of solid wastes. The permanent transfer station would be designed to accommodate refuse loads projected to the year 2010. It would be built to handle up to a peak weekday daily tonnage of 3,600 tons (average 2,000 tons daily) and a peak hourly tonnage of 540 tons (currently, 360 tons). Peak hour weekday incoming traffic in the 2010 design,year is projected to be 90 mechanically unloaded vehicles (packer and drop box collection trucks) and 165 manually unloaded vehicles (self-haulers). Transfer trucks would typically accommodate about 20 tons of refuse, roughly the combined loads of 4 or 5 collection vehicles; or from 10-to-40 (or more) self-hauler vehicles. The applicant anticipates that transfer station traffic would utilize the main I-680 Waterfront Road-Waterbird Way access corridor currently used by landfill traffic. A change in localized traffic patterns could result when the anticipated extension of Waterbird Way to the south is completed. The total cost of the transfer station project is estimated to be $22.9 million. Construction costs are estimated at approximately $16,000,000. The site plan for the permanent transfer station provides space for a future waste-to- energy facility, however the project applicant has not presented plans for this facility and it is not part of the Transfer Station project application. The present Transfer Station project application includes a proposal for an interim transfer station to be activated in the event that solid waste must be directed to another landfill before the permanent transfer station is operational. The interim transfer station would be an outdoor temporary facility. It would be located on the Acme landfill site to 86130 3-4 -- — — -- Q s Q � H31N3p`JNIlOAa3li , 77bM`JNlNId13y 33N3d'� 3 / l 0 t ►it} ,ice r 00 100, _ °000pO ° J w 32 C3 �. 5 Itis -OC m J a 0 Uf iw•-S cc I ON 4 O �' Y p lI t sY sw t N o (/ Q✓v 3y� bm V>w 19 w�J}Jw�i bw✓6 QK 4 lop rii) Ow a t' +w tW17� 3 O °d O v O$ a O W W N 3.1 Project Background the north of the permanent transfer station site and would not impede the construction or operation of the permanent transfer station. Environmental issues with respect to the interim transfer station are addressed in this EIR. r 86130 3-7 3.2 Project Characteristics I 3.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed project provides for the development of a permanent transfer station and improvements to existing public and private roads in the immediate vicinity of the project site (Figure 6 and 7). Consequent with the development of the proposed permanent transfer station, the right of way for the planned extension of Waterbird Way to the south would be accommodated on the western portion of Acme property. Existing intersections in the immediate site vicinity would also be redesigned (Figure 8). Proposed roadway configurations are,discussed in detail in Section 4.2, Traffic and Circulation. Existing roadway configurations would not be altered as a result of the development of the proposed interim transfer station site. The proposed site of the permanent transfer station is currently a large ground depression formerly used as a borrow pit for cover and construction materials used in fill operations at the Acme landfill site. The approximately 22-acre transfer station site is bounded by Arthur Road to the north, the Martinez Gun Club to the east, two Contra Costa Water District storage tanks to the south and the Vine Hill residential neighborhood to the west. The site is currently zoned HI, Heavy Industrial (Figure 5). 'A number of alternate locations on the Acme Fill property were considered for the L transfer station complex. However, the area selected for the proposed project was the only undeveloped site large enough to accommodate the facility on an area not previously landfilled and not considered wetlands. The proposed site would also not require the extensive excavation of existing hillsides. The permanent transfer station is designed to supplement and ultimately replace the Acme landfill when that facility converts to a limited use landfill. The proposed transfer station would continue to receive most of the wastestream currently delivered to the adjacent Acme landfill site. The transfer station would export solid waste, delivered to the facility by a variety of short-haul refuse collection trucks, construction material trucks, private automobiles and pick-ups -- that is, the same vehicles now arriving at the landfill site, to an available landfill site in specially designed long-haul transfer trucks and trailers. 86130 3-8 �D sUP t � W L6 v W W WKU! z O duLLiO =O add • d0d 4F� USW 044 N C13 uj cc O o0=I" arc 2 u 4 �' ! Oil) T� 0 ':OFZ Q= Q W e00o G ''i, ��, � Iilp Z F 4 U tib i I. '(i�j' , N LLI W. L s.O " '' �:i i;1: W 1 + d m ,tl! , i14 i�i r'i��! {( ' q - a Z a w WIL co w OO z' a 1- 0 O� arQ O}- a Q Q_. ofl j A 3�QaF J ��-` Q, .�r W Q F 0 � �: i; a0 01.-a-co 10 La ,, d cc In 4 cc ix EUJWOZ tC Jf ' Zo r ya0 jj(( G:�:5Lu Z s ,�\ J w 000 CC Z Z 2 O Z ! M i - 7ylr;j x Wol ZF-�,. 1 W (J V p----------- Z - T o- -------------- 0 L") , x Q• _ W j i a wN a o arc a +� a cFr) N LL - ON Oa � a tL[C N N 0 4 'o 1 z 1 11 C7 WO c� ` t z co ul 1 1 a-j04ujoz + :OC _ , 5 .p-_► _ a � a rtd- Q ., . C! aW, OD1-WtC wp OOaWv z ccwxzmNa �c ° Q►Q - 3 ac O~ Cc W w ju O p z Ott W W Q J V O Z N \ V O CC cc S p w Z z go ul ,A . ' zd d CC'►d- W-4rWF -N r �tt r z w a: UJ LLJ cuw , - �r i►w+- -'uzirx-oQa N 2,40� _ _ - ;.;, rb w Ns[ rw� awl 1 wLUWL Um -� �- 44 {aSa w ` `� _. .i. .� �. � � �`..\\�i�,i+�,u�i�% \\�• --`,'tire LIN fh- OV081NO8:f831bM' J p¢ a,a • w W W Z z w - r� w cn Ltt/ av 1� O a uj m t- o Vr Uj w W0 z l Z emo u to LL a WM' 0QNQ C: t 20 , \ Q0z t t W�. ,• . .a;! is CC CC UJ l� t•tt L_.i �.--✓ !�`; .' sit-�� i _Q 0,13p p w i! J 1 i jw,,,, I' grnr►- Q 1, m F' ull 3: Icc cr. o o � Z' � oC' as U bnt fl o f o c� U. w 0W � � Cj � , i, ; cc d ,4 . cc Z 1 Pogo W � t Z a dA 3-13 3.2 Project Characteristics The wastestream that would be processed at the proposed transfer station would consist of municipal waste and small amounts of construction debris. Municipal refuse includes domestic solid wastes generated by residences, retail stores, restaurants, bars and offices; and non-hazardous wastes produced by the industrial ' and commercial customers. Construction debris consists of construction and demolition materials such as wood, metal, glass, concrete and asphalt. A list of certain wastes, currently disposed at the Acme landfill, that would not be accepted at the transfer station may be found in Section 3.4, Solid Waste Classifications of this report. Project Schedule Significant project dates are anticipated as follows: Action Date Permitting Process Begun July, 1986 Air Permit Obtained October, 1986 Finance Application Submitted December, 1986 Draft EIR Released June, 1987 Final Design Begun May, 1987 Permits Obtained February, 1988 Project Financed April,,1988 Construction Started August, 1988 Construction Completed February, 1989 Should the permitting process be completed at an earlier date, the project schedule could be shortened. PERMANENT TRANSFER STATION The proposed facility would contain the following elements (Figure 5): o Main transfer building and loading tunnel o Public disposal building o Administration building and visitor center , o Vehicle maintenance building o Recycling center/waste recovery area o Wood chipping operation o Fueling station o Scale house and pay booth area, plus a segment of access road o Space for the provision for a possible waste-to-energy facility (not a part of the present application) o Parking areas for employees and visitors o On-site roads, utilities, outdoor lighting, fencing and landscaping. J 86130 3-14 3.2 Project Characteristics The 22-acre site of the permanent transfer station would be south of a new 4-way road t intersection at the former entrance to the Acme landfill. The site would be separate from the proposed vehicle scale house and pay booth area associated with the development of the transfer station complex. The vehicle scale house and pay booth area, for both commercial customers and the public using the permanent transfer station, would be located on an access road leading across Acme property north of Arthur Road. The proposed interim transfer station site would be located on Acme property approximately 1400 feet north of the permanent transfer station site (Figure 4). The permanent transfer station site would contain support facilities necessary for the function of transfer station operations. These would include weighing facilities for transfer trucks (computerized scales); a transfer truck. maintenance area; fueling and parking space; and a recycling area for use by the general public and salvaging operations by station employees. Operational Characteristicsl In 1985, the Acme Fill landfill received approximately 515,300 tons of waste. The majority of tonnage (79%) was received Monday through Friday. Deliveries fell into three ' general classifications: ' o Franchised haulers (refuse collection services). o Commercial users with monthly charge accounts (e.g., landscapers, building contractors, roofers, etc.). o Commercial users without monthly charge accounts (infrequent users). o The general public (self-haulers). Of the 515,300 tons of waste received in 1985, approximately 73,400 tons of waste, or approximately 14%, would not be accepted for processing at the proposed transfer station. The 73,400 tons of unacceptable waste consisted of 4,400 tons of sewage sludge incinerator ash; 68,000 tons of construction/demolition debris; and 1,000 tons of manifested waste (such as bags of asbestos debris). These figures can be used as a guide in estimating the amount of material that would be delivered directly to an available landfill site. In a typical week 15 loads of sewage sludge incinerator ash; 80 loads of construction and demolition debris (in large quantities) and 80 loads of manifested waste were delivered to 86130 3-15 3.2 Project Characteristics the Acme landfill. This material would continue to be delivered to the Acme landfill site, in decreasing amounts, for about 10 years. Beyond that date, ultimate destination of this material is undetermined pending selection of a new landfill site. Overall waste tonnage for the service collection area is projected by the County to ,. increase at approximately 1.7% per year.2 Using this factor, estimates of future tonnage can be projected as follows: Year Projected Tonnage 1985 515,300 I 1990 561,000 2000 664,000 2010 785,fl00 Operations Plan -- The Acme Fill landfill is currently open to the general public and charge customers seven days per week from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Franchise haulers use the landfill seven days per week, 24 hours per day. Traffic counts for a one week period in April, 1986 are given below (April is a seasonal high period for the delivery of solid wastes to the Acme landfill). Vehicle Count Total for Week During Weekend Franchised Haulers 1,585 130 Charge Customers 968 104 General Public 3,851 2,025 The Acme Fill Corporation's Report of Station Information, October, 1986, provided the traffic counts cited above., The report also provided the following information for the base year 1985. Of the 1,585 franchise hauler vehicles, 540 or 34% arrived between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (Monday, 86; Tuesday, 101; Wednesday, 90; Thursday, 138; Friday, 88; Saturday, 30; and Sunday, 7). The total tonnage carried by franchise haulers in these hours was approximately 1,350 tons. The applicant proposes that the transfer station would be open to the general public and charge customers the same days and hours that the existing Acme Fill Landfill is open: every day from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Franchise r 86130 3-16 3.2 Project Characteristics hauler trucks would use the facilities 24 hours per day, seven per week. However, approximately 60% of the franchise hauler trucks would arrive Monday through Friday between 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM. The daily operation would consist of receiving and sorting material; loading the transfer trucks; general repairs; and vehicular and facility cleanup. Waste transfer operations would occur on weekdays and on the weekends as required. Waste material would not be allowed to remain in the transfer station for longer than 24 hours per the BAAQMB Permit to Operate. Additional hours or additional shifts would be added to the work shcedule to handle peak loads. A detailed analysis of traffic and circulation conditions, for both the existing,landfill and the proposed transfer station can be found in Section 4.2 of this report. MAs noted, certain waste loads including e.g., sewage sludge, liquid waste, dead animals, septic tank pumpings, manifested waste, auto bodies, large,construction and demolition ' loads and sewage sludge ash generated by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District facilities, would not be accepted at the transfer station. Automobile bodies and similar ` } material would be directed to a salvage yard. Other materials would be directed to a landfill. Transfer station operations could include the development of programs designed to reduce the amount of wastes exported from the transfer station site. For example, construction companies could be encouraged to separate wood from concrete and other forms of demolition.debris. Salvaged loads could then be recycled or sent to the wood chipping operation. The composting of material would result in a smaller amount of sewage sludge delivered to a sanitary landfill. The applicant would institute a program to inform customers of the kinds of wastes that can be accepted at the transfer station and those that would not. The program could take ' the form of a leafleting campaign and/or notices placed in monthly billings to charge customers. The public would be informed of any changes in policy regarding the kinds of 1 waste accepted at the transfer station as opposed to the wastes deposited at a landfill. i i 86130 3-17 ■ 3.2 Project Characteristics Procedures that would be undertaken should unacceptable wastes be delivered include the following: o Vehicles carrying unacceptable waste would be refused access to the site and not allowed to deposit any waste materials. o If identified after deposit, unacceptable waste would be removed to an area designated for unacceptable waste storage for transfer to an authorized site by a company licensed to handle hazardous waste. A possible disposal site would be the adjacent IT Corporation's Vine Hill Plant. o A staff training program would be established for purposes of identifying unacceptable waste. The program would include identifying unacceptable. loads and unacceptable materials within otherwise acceptable loads. Employees would be trained in: - Detection and recognition methods - Station handling methods - Emergency equipment operation handling methods - Ultimate disposal methods Facility Staff The proposed project would employ approximately 32 staff workers, not including transfer truck drivers. The number of transfer truck drivers would vary depending on the location of the available landfill. Various job classifications would be as follows: Number of Classification Employees Station Manager (1) o Clerical (2) o Supervisor (2) o' Weighmaster (5) o Bulldozer/Loader Operator (9) o Spotters, Sweepers, Recyclers, etc. (6) o Mechanics/Maintenance (7) The above list does not include transfer truck drivers the number of whom will vary depending on landfill location. The transfer station manager would have overall operational responsibility for the facility. Two supervisors would report directly to the manager; a facilities operations supervisor and a transfer truck operations supervisor. The facilities operations supervisor would have the responsibility for receiving and loading operations in addition to vehicle maintenance. The transfer truck supervisor would be 1 86130 3-18 3.2 Project Characteristics 1 responsible for transfer operations. The training of operations staff would be conducted by supervisor personnel prior to the start-up of the project. 4 Facility Equipment A proposed equipment list for the transfer station is noted below. Quantity: Equipment (including spares) o Bulldozer 3 o Rubber-tired loader 2 o Skip loader 2 o Forklift 2 o Scissor lift 1 o Sweeper 1 o Backhoe/crane 2 o Truck platform scale 3 o Truck axle scale 2 sets o Baler 1 o Scale house computer/software 1 o Wastewood tubgrinder 1 o Drop box containers'(50 cubic yards) 7 o Tiltframe rolloff truck 1 If critical pieces of station equipment,;such as the prime waste mover (i.e., bulldozer) are inoperable, the efficiency of the station would be impaired. Therefore, backup equipment would be maintained on-site. 4 Transfer Trucks A major operational feature of the proposed project would be the introduction of transfer truck vehicles to the site. The number of transfer trucks to be provided cannot be be precisely determined at present until a decision is made on the location of the landfill to be used for transferred materials. As the distance or travel time to the landfill increases, so does the requirement for number of transfer trucks. Approximately 10% of the ultimate fleet would be purchased as spares. As future tonnage increases, additional trucks would be acquired. Photographs showing different kinds of transfer trucks are included in the Appendix of this report. Refer to the Section 4.3, Traffic and Circulation of this report for a discussion on traffic impacts. r 86130 3-19 r 3.2 Project Characteristics It is currently anticipated that the transfer trucks to be employed at the facility would be self-unloading semi-trailers pulled by a tractor. These vehicles are similar to transfer trucks presently used at the Berkeley transfer station. Wire mesh covers would be used to prevent debris from blowing or spilling out during trips to the landfill. Dual rigs similar to those used at the Davis Street transfer station in San Leandro may be considered for the project. Self-unloading trailers are more flexible than the possom-belly trailers employed at San Francisco ai,d San Carlos in that they do not require a large tipper at the landfill to assist in unloading. The only landfills using tippers are the Altamont landfill and the Ox Mountain landfill. If a Contra Costa County landfill were sited prior to 1989, the landfill might be equipped with tippers making possum-belly transporting possible. The possom- belly type of trailer is capable of hauling an additional three to six tons of waste per trip, thus reducing future vehicular traffic and improving fuel and operational efficiency. When not in use, the transfer trucks would be parked at a yet to be determined location on the Acme Fill Corporation property,. either on the permanent transfer station site or on another part of the Acme landfill. They would be serviced and maintained in the proposed Vehicle Maintenance Building. Facility Design The proposed project would be designed to transfer 340 tons of waste materials per hour, or 2,720 tons over an eight hour period. The average daily tonnage, peak daily tonnage, and peak hourly tonnage are given below. The flow of waste materials would fluctate on a seasonal basis. Past experience at the Acme landfill indicates that April is a seasonal high period with about 15% over average monthly loads. December is the seasonal low period with about 12% decrease in average monthly loads. For the purposes of design efficiency, vehicular traffic into the Transfer Station would be functionally separated into two major groups: manually unloaded vehicles (i.e., general public and approximately 65% of charge customers on a tonnage basis) and mechanically unloaded vehicles (i.e., franchised haulers and 35% of charge customers on a tonnage basis). 86130 3-20 3.2 Project Characteristics 1 ; To provide a context for discussing on-site traffic movements, present (based on 1985 vehicle counts) and projected (year 2010) traffic and tonnage data is presented below for the proposed project. The majority of wastestream tonnage delivered to the site (79%) would be received Monday through Friday. For the 2010 horizon .year (24 years from 1986), the average daily tonnage, the peak daily tonnage and the peak hourly tonnage is projected to be as follows. 1 Existing Projected Monday - Friday 1985 2010 Average Daily Tonnage 1,340 2,000 Peak Daily Tonnage 2,300 3,600 Peak Hourly Tonnage 360 540 The majority of vehicular traffic (71%) would be generated by manually unloaded vehicles. Manually unloaded vehicles would be heaviest on the weekends while mechanically unloaded vehicles would be heaviest Monday through Friday. ` During the period from the present to the planning horizon year, the peak hourly traffic is projected to be as follows: Peak Hourly a Tr ffie Mechanically Unloaded Manually Unloaded Vehicles Vehicles Year 1985 Year 2010 Year 1985 Year 2010 Weekday 58 90 111 165 Weekend 20 33 156 235 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION The anticipated traffic flow for the permanent transfer station is shown in Figures 9 ' through 18. In principle, traffic generated by franchise haulers, charge customers, and the general public would be segregated from transfer station employee and transfer truck ' traffic. All incoming franchise haulers and public traffic bringing waste to the permanent transfer station, as well as visitors to the transfer station, would enter and exit the Acme property at the new (1987) main entrance to the Acme landfill site located on Waterbird Way close to its intersection with Waterfront Road. Traffic would turn off the landfill road on a proposed new access road to arrive at the proposed scale house and pay booth r, area (Figures 9, 10, 11, 12, and 15). Transfer station employees and transfer truck traffic r 86131 3-21 3.2 Project Characteristics would approach and leave the facility using the existing Waterbird Way route (Figures 13 and 14). Employees and visitors to the IT Corporation site and the Martinez Gun Club would also continue to use Waterbird . Way, a public arterial road, to reach their destinations (Figures 17 and 18). At the scale house and pay booth area, located north of Arthur Road, three incoming traffic lanes (including two scale lanes) and three outgoing lanes (including one scale lane) would be provided. All franchise hauler trucks and charge customer vehicles would be weighed in and weighed out of the facility at this location. Franchise hauler trucks and charge customer vehicles that have an.empty truck weight (tare) recorded at the scale house would not be required to weigh out. Ownership and billing data relating to franchise haulers and charge customers would also be maintained. The general public (self-haulers), arriving in private vehicles, would not—generally be weighed at the scale house, unless they are transporting more than a pickup truck load of waste. The public would be charged a standard minimum fee, or a fee based on estimated volume, as is the case at the existing landfill. A specified rate would be charged for specific items such as white goods, tires, etc. To expedite traffic flow, three incoming lanes at the scale house would be manned at peak traffic periods. After passing through the Scale and pay booth area incoming traffic would travel south to access the permanent transfer station site. Incoming and outgoing traffic would be required to cross a proposed intersection with a realigned public access road leading from Waterbird Way to the IT Corporation facility and the Martinez Gun Club (Figure 8). All traffic would be required to halt at the proposed 4-way stop intersection when arriving r and leaving the permanent transfer station site. IT Corporation and the Martinez Gun Club traffic would also be required to stop before passing through the proposed intersection. The new intersection would be constructed as pert of the proposed transfer station project. Future public traffic continuing along the planned Waterbird Way extension south would not be required to pass through the realigned intersection. As shown on Figure 7 and Figure 25 a future alignment of Waterbird Way south would carry through traffic to the west of the transfer station site. 86120 3-22 3.2 Project Characteristics } Traffic Flow: Franchise Haulers - Debris Box Trucks (Figure 9) and Charge Customers (Figure 10 Within the permanent transfer station site all franchise hauler debris box trucks and mechanically unloaded charge customer vehicles would access the east side of the enclosed Main Transfer Building and exit on the same side of the building before returning to the scale house and pay booth area (Figure 9 and Figure 10). Vehicles that do not have ' a tare (empty truck) weight on record would be weighed again to assess fee payments. Vehicles would travel north to exit the site on Acme's private access road leading to the ' main entrance of Acme property on Waterbird Way. Traffic Flow: General Public (Figure 11) The general public and manually unloaded charge customer vehicles accessing the permanent transfer station site would proceed to the south end of the station_and back into the enclosed Public Disposal Building on either side of the building (Figure 10 and Figure 11). Manual unloading would be carried out in an area separate from mechanically unloaded commercial vehicles using other portions of the facility for reasons of public safety and operational efficiency. r Waste materials placed in the Public Disposal Building would be pushed by rubber-tired loaders to the Main Transfer Building and into the waste storage pit. About thirty vehicles would be accommodated at one time within the building (approximately 225 vehicles per hour). By the year 2010, some vehicles would be required to wait before unloading. It is estimated that the maximum waiting time would not exceed 10-15 ;.� minutes. General public and manually unloaded charge customer traffic would exit from the public unloading area of the building and merge with debris,box trucks and other charge customers exiting the Main Transfer Building. Outbound traffic would return to the scale house and pay booth area crossing the 4-way stop intersection and exiting the site via the main entrance to Acme property on Waterbird Way. Two bypass lanes to the right of the outbound scale house would be provided for exiting traffic that would not require to be weighed when empty. 1 ' 111131 3-23 CD N ( \ V a t dCC V 4 r p ! J z� 5 1 a d@6 4 yG CCo Co (j) p � 4 C i C6a- w � Q � 110 ow 3_24 0£i9B r� n w ,� a� 2 ' cr OR CO QOn : °�WY 1 J 'amu- _ 4 -7 a� � o %A W04 7- 0.o. Owl � dx a 0 _ ° X40 . W o ! N Wo to © Z t0 0 Bpd,. d up Vw � WOO � d ,-- �E�98 1` O _... r - -' '- - - ` ba r cl cr CIO 'po W194, .............. w d j w io J� ZC Ul OJO 1 p N g o 04 3.2 Project Characteristics � ) Traffic Flow: Franchise Hauler - Garbage Trucks (Figure 12) Franchise hauler-garbage trucks would arrive at the main entrance to the facility, weigh in at the scale house, proceed to the transfer station site and follow the outer circuit road around the south end of the transfer station to access the west side of the Main Transfer Building. These trucks would unload waste materials on the west side of the storage pit and also exit the building on the west side. They would leave the transfer station site using the same route as other transfer station traffic, returning to the entrance to Acme property via the private access road across the existing landfill. Traffic Flow: Transfer Trucks (Figure 13) Transfer trucks would be routed along Waterbird .Way and directly access the transfer station site. They would not use the public entrance area to Acme property or require access to the scale house and pay booth areas. At the transfer station site they would use an access ramp leading to a transfer loading tunnel located below the waste storage pit loading slots. Prior to entering the loading tunnel, the driver would remove the screen covers from the top of the transfer truck. The trucks would advance into one of the two 1 available loading tunnels at a rate of one truck per tunnel every seven minutes during peak hour operations (two trucks may load simultaneously). The trucks would be placed on scales to control maximum loads. The transfer truck, dispatched by an automatic signal, would stop outside the tunnel to allow the driver to adjust screen covers before exiting the transfer station site area via on-site roadways and ramps. Transfer trucks would use Waterbird Way to access the regional roadway network. Traffic Flow: Employees (Figure 14) and Visitors (Figure 15) Visitors and employees to the site would access the Acme property at the main entrance area off Waterbird Way and proceed to the Transfer Station. Truck Servicing (Figure 16) Figure 16 illustrates transfer station vehicular access to the maintenance, repair, and refueling areas on the north side of the Main Transfer Building. Vehicular movement in this area would generally coincide with the beginning and end of a standard work day and thus would be confined to off-peak transfer station traffic hours. 86130 3-27 �Et98 f N i w � ol cr 04 ` L_ ` k v l t C o Jz� °v= a r,2 O p ct) O Y uo '00' x J oWV a wUW a W 2�6 CID \ 00 04, � \� tib � rY �� a- ♦` 7d O 1 O 1 11� . a 131 ,a,O ✓1 � J, J�by 0 9s 4414 1► w `� W W '` d VIA 3-2° dd C� N S� GG Z\ 0 y V 11V ti 1, 1 i QO CC a Ovf cA W= ul 4 W O N UJ O a a, m 0 p7d CG ul �6 wW 3..30 LIP _ �S9 011. WOO C4, 06 7 C 4 G 1 ulC t4 Zd o'q Cd? QILU ,dt O � pdr W QO j 00 .• J �. w � J � O v 3..31 d cty . 0£t98 r r a Ml MITI co Q o� 0 f 1 .10 q ` -' Zd dd4 cc a- C)"F N d = 0 � Ul a i w ON u3 0 t'' 2 Q a n m b aa _ d d w W "Not a 3_32 dW 3.2 Project Characteristics Traffic Flow: Martinez Gun Club (Figure 17) and IT Corporation Traffic (Figure 181 Traffic destined for the Martinez Gun Club and IT Corporation facilities is shown on Figures 17 and 18. The development of a proposed modernization plan for the IT Corporation site, currently in progress, may lead to a modification in site access to the IT site. To facilitate traffic movement and operational safety all on-site roads, as well as public intersections separating the scale and pay booth area from the main transfer station area, would be striped. Traffic control signs and display boards would also be provided to aid on-site circulation. FACILITY BUILDINGS Main Transfer and Public Disposal Building The main transfer station would be designed to handle peak hour vehicle traffic operations through ,the year 2010. Most transfer station and waste recovery operations would take place inside the main transfer station buildings. The disposal of waste materials would be primarily carried out inside the Main Transfer Building and the Public Disposal Building. / Waste received from mechanically unloaded vehicles would be placed directly into a 20- foot deep concrete storage pit (Figures 19 and 20). The waste storage pit would consolidate bulky items and increase the density of the loosely dumped waste. This action would facilitate optimal payloads for transfer trucks and aid in the efficient compaction of waste materials at the available landfill disposal site. . Sixteen vehicles would be able to unload at a given time (approximately 120 vehicles per hour). On the floor of the storage pit, two specially designed bulldozers, equipped with enclosed air conditioned cabs, would maneuver waste materials toward transfer loading slots located at the ndrth end of the building. Waste material would fall by gravity through the loading slots into waiting transfer trucks stationed below. Transfer trucks would be filled with a minimum of 20 tons of waste at each of the two loading lots. Loading operations would take about seven minutes on average. Waste would leave the transfer station for a specified landfill during peak periods at a maximum rate of about 340 tons per hour (two transfer trucks with 20 tons every seven 86130 3-33 . ice''•+... �tt i Z 9 ` J Z ul 4 a v , d&d W cc 06 N 4 Z 0 � Q i per p + N W o Z 0 { C> (} CO 004. CC u ► o� r� 00 ww W 0. O Z OR V Off- O o ° a �� s��y �`•� �` Q d144 ul t-4 cr�s'b�w O v 7 iWd� = W oZ�3�r- a LO 4 r , la a soq � I {J � N N W Z to vi 0 NQp d l 0 (p I ? Q 004 .70 71 Ul t pQ t � o �► p" v W O 4 3_35 3.2 Project Characteristics' minutes, or about 17 trucks per hour). This would equal about 2,720 tons of exported waste in an eight hour period. At an outflow rate of 344 tons per hour backup storage space would need to be provided for periods when the waste inflow exceeds outflow. The storage pit in the Main Transfer Building would be designed to accommodate up to 5,000 tons of wastes depending on the density achieved in the pit. As the quantity of incoming waste increases with time, the project applicant would monitor the length of time waste material remains in the storage pit. To minimize storage time an acceleration in transferred'-waste loads would be achieved by increasing scheduled transfer truck trips. The transfer station complex would be designed to achieve the lowest operating costs within the designated capacity of the station. The peak daily tonnage in the year 2010 (3,600 TPD) would need to be transferred over an 11-hour day. Loading Activities During truck loading activities an operator would note the`gross truck weight of the vehicle, registered on a wall indicator mounted above the transfer loading slot. As the transfer truck fills, the operator of a mechanical clamshell crane mounted above the loading slot would monitor the equal distribution of wastes and remove excess material when maximum permissible loads are reached. The operator would also check the axle load of the transfer truck. When the truck is loaded the operator would activate a traffic signal and dispatch the vehicle from the building. With the next transfer truck in position, the traffic signal would be again activated and loading recommended. The two clamshell cranes used to monitor and assist in the loading of the transfer trucks would be electrically powered/hydraulically operated cranes on a fixed mounting with 1/4 cubic yard capacity clamshell. Transfer station and waste recovery activities would permit vehicular disposal operations from both sides of the Main Transfer Building. This would also facilitate the efficient separation of waste in the storage pit area if the future waste-to-energy facility is built. Station equipment would operate on both sides of the storage pit in maneuvering wastes toward the waste storage pit and the waste-to-energy facility. Debris box truck wastes, however, would be restricted to the east side of the building and pushed towards the transfer loading slot to be hauled to an available landfill. Packer truck waste would be deposited on the west side of the building and maneuvered to the waste-to-energy facility 861--O 3-36 ? O. w0-,f1 •O•,44 e • H O - o a - -o-tt ,a•oa -o-u ,o-.I „veva .0;vdr.l.•1 ,v;u o•ot ,o�tt N ]1NM01 OMI°•0 I NIA Viil M•Y1 O `�.�- _ — - - 11►.N _ •JNIN/•'l1V � � ,o • � r Q 1II1111i OCC V cc �f�=- �� a •t i ° y�'_ �O - -►t OnIN/IfJV 0 - - v m � o oop ., � a U e CL O (oil.•]., 0 owls l)iuw■ 'J\ c - zyzt fire� as 0• U r7J�MOD 1 m �;iT,.�•ti,o•e o:•I „v•tl v-u OQ .��t1 „O�St „O'�Of .O,O( �O;ff 7•tf—_ �jr 0-MDM IL.• r,0 ! I 1 W �+ c •� p 'W'wAZ_W o ZQZ Qpncc „ LO N w a: ij Z O 0 1 _ I p 1 V I I ,o•,oi U 2 I ? N tl x _i Z i m y � � o cc .1 W V M Z Z W Z W W m Z - p i ;o C3 J f E it 0 _ F• a W I 4 = z p I - 1 , z _ W z CL z Z QRZ 1 �E O (.�• U w cn Z .. Fly vJ Q 3.2 Project Characteristics (when complete) adjacent to the transfer loading tunnel. A hydraulically operated metal plate would cover the opening of the transfer loading slots when not in use. The transfer truck loading tunnel would be two lanes wide and would accommodate two transfer trucks simultaneously. The trucks would be placed on a scale while they are loaded. The scales would automatically record the trucks' gross weight, and would be capable of reading the weight of each truck axle independently to prevent overloads. A comparison of gross and tare weights (tare weights for each vehicle would be kept on file) would determine the net weight of transported wastes. A record of total accumulated waste transferred to the available landfill site would also be maintained. Administration Building and Visitors Center The Administration Building would contain air conditioned office space for the transfer r station manager and clerical and reception staff. The building would also include a small conference room for briefing employees or visitors, and restroom facilities available to. the public. The building would be located on the east side of the Main Transfer Building { adjacent to the Martinez Gun Club. A parking area at the north end of the building would ( � serve employees and visitors. t r Vehicle Maintenance Building" The Vehicle Maintenance Building would provide complete vehicle maintenance for the transfer trucks and on-site equipment. Franchise hauler trucks would not be serviced at the transfer station site but would continue to be repaired at their respective corporate yards. The vehicle maintenance building may be expanded in the future to centralize the maintenance of franchise hauler trucks. No time has been set for expansion and the proposed expansion is not a part of this project. r • The Vehicle Maintenance Building would include two drive through service and repair bays, two workshop bays, miscellaneous shops (e.g., tire, transmission, machine), parts room, and oil products storage room. All repair and service bays would have roll-up doors. Office, lunch and restrooms would be situated at mezzanine level. Cleaning and degreasing of parts and vans with steam and detergent would take place on an exterior concrete wash pad. Wastewater from this wash pad would pass through a greasetrap prior 1 86130 3-41 r 3.2 Project Characteristics to entering the sanitary sewer. Lube and oil fluid changes and replenishment for �i bulldozers and loaders would be performed on a separate concrete repair pad at the south side of the Public Disposal Building. Recycling Center/Waste Recovery Area To facilitate the recovery of recyclable materials from the waste stream, a recycling l center would be provided along the west side of the Public Disposal Building (Figure 5). r The public would deposit recyclables in bins spaced along a loading dock. The bins would be placed at a low level to allow the deposit of materials. Recycled material would be periodically picked up for shipment to reclaimed materials dealers. In addition to the public recycling area, a portion of the Public Disposal Building would be designed to accommodate the recovery of recyclable materials from debris box loads. �) Station employees would sort through wasteloads in a manner similar to current landfill practice. In 1985 Acme Fill recovered an undetermined amount of paper products and �I approximately 1,700 tons of various metals (ferrous, tin, aluminum, cast iron, copper wiring, motor blocks, and batteries). At the proposed transfer station, cardboard would be bailed. The other sorted materials, would be taken to the recycling center where it would be loaded into the recycling bins. Wood Chipping Operation Wood debris loads would be directed to the north end of the Main Transfer Building in the area of a possible future waste-to-energy plant. Wood wastes would be chipped in a tub grinder, or similar piece of machinery; and stored prior to shipment off-site. The most likely market for this material is the Louisiana-Pacific power plant in Antioch for use as a boiler fuel. If a future waste-to-energy plant becomes operational, wood wastes would be combusted at the permanent transfer station site. Equipment for crushing concrete materials would not be provided as part of the transfer station project. This equipment may be installed on another part of the Acme landfill site in the future. However, there are no definite plans for its installation at present. 86130 3-42 r 3.2 Project Characteristics Fueling Station Fueling of transfer station vehicles would take place at the main fueling station shown east of the Vehicle Maintenance Building and at an auxiliary station for the bulldozers and rubber-tired loaders in the transfer station. Drivers would fuel their own vehicles -- no attendant would be required. The pumps would be actuated by a key or card device held only by drivers. The fueling station islands would be lighted but not covered with a roof. Fuel storage tanks would be buried underground. Fuel from the main station storage tank (10,000 gallon capacity) would be pumped to a tank at the auxiliary station. Bulldozers and rubber-tired loaders working in the transfer building would be fueled at the auxiliary fuel station located at the south end of the Main Transfer Building. A dispenser and hose reels would also be provided for air and water. Scale House and Pay Booth Area The proposed scale house and pay booth area would be designed to accommodate peak traffic flow and accumulate full accounting data on tonnage and vehicles arriving at the transfer station, while minimizing the personnel and operational costs. The scale house and pay booth area would be located approximately where the existing landfill pay booth is located. All incoming customer traffic to the transfer station would pass this area. Traffic stacking space would be provided north of the scale house and also between the scale house area and the new 4-way public intersection (to the south) to accommodate peak period traffic volumes. Three scales are proposed — two inbound and one outbound. All trucks and vehicles carrying more than a pickup load of waste would be Iweighed. The two inbound scales would be on either side of the scale house. Franchisee hauler trucks would use the outermost scale. Charge customers would use the inner scale. The remaining inbound lane would be used by the general public. The pay booth would be located on the driver side of this lane to allow the collection of fees. During peak periods the public would be directed to use all three inbound lanes to reduce waiting time. An additional pay booth would be located on the driver's side of the adjacent scale lane to facilitate the collection of fees. This pay booth would be manned during peak periods. J 86130 3-43 3.2 Project Characteristics i All exiting vehicles requiring a weigh-back (to determine the empty weight of the vehicle) would use the outbound scale. Other traffic exiting the site would use the two designated outbound bypass lanes. The scale operation would be automated. Weights would be registered automatically, displayed on electronic digital displays, recorded, and stored for daily accounting. Individual truck tare weights would be stored and recalled as necessary. Future Waste-to-Energy Facility A possible waste-to-energy facility would be located at the north end of the Main Transfer Building. No firm date has been established for adding this extension and/or initiating waste-to-energy operations. The proposed expansion is not part of the proposed project considered in this EIR. The unstable energy market and the high capital and operating costs of specialized equipment and associated facilities make the project nonviable at present. However, the cost of developing and operating a waste-to-energy facility are related to a number of factors including energy costs and tax-exempt state bonds. Changes in either of these areas could make the project economically viable. Please refer to Section 3.3 Solid Waste Collection for a discussion on waste-to-energy projects in general. An alternative use of the site area could be anticipated. County staff suggests that consideration could be given to the development of a full-scale resource recovery and waste recycling center on this portion of the site. This possible alternative use would respond to issues of resource recovery and energy savings addressed by the possible waste- to-energy facility, although in a different way and with different technology. The planning function of a full-scale resource recovery would therefore be compatible with the project applicant's intention to provide for the development of waste recovery systems on the site. The development of a resource recovery center would be consistent with the solid waste management uses proposed for the site. The environmental impacts generated by the resource recovery center would be similar in general to those associated with a transfer station facility. If the project were to be submitted to the County, the possible development of the resource recovery center, as with the possible development of a future waste-to-energy facility, would be subject to a separate environmental review and permitting process. Potential environmental impacts associated with the recovery center would be identified at that time. Appropriate mitigation measures to reduce potential 1� J 86130 3-44 3.2 Project Characteristics impacts to a less than significant level would also be identified in the environmental F1process. FINTERIM TRANSFER STATION Should the transfer of waste materials from the Acme landfill site be needed prior to the anticipated completion of the permanent transfer station (February 1990), an interim transfer station would be provided on the existing Acme landfill site. It is estimated that this facility could be operational within a matter of months after a decision to implement is made. The interim transfer station would be an outdoor facility and would use the site that Acme Fill has used in the past for waste unloading operations during winter. The facility would consist of an unenclosed elevated unloading pad with a transfer truck loading area at a lower level. The loading pads and access ramps which transfer trucks would use to access the area would be constructed using oil-packed gravel surfaces (Figure 21). No major private access or public road realignments would result from the construction of the interim transfer station facility. Franchise haulers and the public would use the existing entrance to the Acme landfill off Waterbird Way close to Waterfront Road to access and exit the site. Vehicles arriving at the interim transfer station site would first pass an existing scale and pay booth area where fees would be collected. Vehicles would then be directed to the elevated pad where wastes would be unloaded. Facility personnel would be available to assist arriving vehicles in finding an available space to unload. Unloaded wastes would be moved by rubber-tired loaders to the edge of the loading pad for placement in transfer trucks located on the loading pad below. Transfer trucks would consist of open-top trailers with wire mesh screen covers pulled by tractors. These vehicles would handle an average of 20 tons of waste per trip, and would access and exit the interim transfer station site from the south using a separate traffic pattern via the existing alignment of Waterbird Way. 86130 3-45 OE 199 �i N LU u OL 0� � o F- o a i ... aY < tr Li. Aja /Y) CC Z � © a F- LL w a U Cl) LUcca Z a o � Z D D O } a a a O -- a CC) �....�. d a cr d Z LLIZ O0- o � a 0 a LLI uj a z 4 P H �0 N a 8 4i � � y UJ 0 O� D zcoj 23 MM tt }} CL o a-� W �V Q a �LUa r; ¢ 'tied cn ;O;d CC CA ;Z U tti ,w LIJw LLJ C7 w < W E-. z �o°d o z z 3-4G 3.3 Solid Waste Collection 1 3.3 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION The Acme Transfer Station project is proposed as a site for primarily nonhazardous municipal solid waste. In Contra Costa County solid wastes are collected by 14 privately- owned waste collection companies. The County is divided into 23 collection areas served by refuse collection companies. The collection of solid waste is regulated by franchise agreements between the collectors and the franchisor -- a city or special district. The franchise is a contract by which exclusive rights to collect municipal refuse are granted to a company. The County does not franchise, provide collection services, operate landfills or transfer stations, or have explicit statutory authority to direct the waste stream for eventual disposal. Existing solid waste collection areas are shown on Figure 22. Existing County Landfills Contra Costa Count has three existing landfills permitted to receive nonhazardous Y g P wastes of the municipal solid waste stream. These landfills also receive dewatered 1 sewage, sludge, and incinerated sludge ash. The location of existing landfills in Contra JCosta County is shown on Figure 22. The areas served by the three existing landfill sites are shown on Table 1. Each of these landfills are scheduled to close within seven years or sooner. Acme Landfill. Acme Landfill, located near Martinez, receives over half of the County's municipal waste; an estimated 1,300 tons per day. Acme Landfill serves central Contra Costa County, the City of Benicia in Solano County and receives part of the wastestream of the City of Antioch. The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District also utilizes the Acme Landfill. Incinerated sewage sludge from the facility is disposed at a rate of 22 tons per day at the Acme site. Acme Landfill was expected to have capacity to serve its collection areas until the 1990s, but portions of its site intended to be filled in the 1980s and 1990s were determined to be historic and seasonal wetlands subject to the permit jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The current U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit to fill the primary disposal area of the Acme Landfill will expire on June 15, 1989. West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill. The West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (WCCSL) in Richmond receives solid waste from the West County, commercial wastes from the City of Berkeley in Alameda County, Southern Marin County wastestream, and dewatered sludge from the West County. Its daily estimated waste tonnage for 1986 is 800 tons per day accounting for 34.2% of the wastes disposed in Contra Costa County. A proposed expansion area for the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill has been determined to be wetlands under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. Depending on availability of landfill expansion permits, the WCCSL will reach capacity between 1993 and 2002. 86130 3-47 OE19B D. N >. CL z LV W U Q Uir J r Yr.*q 0 z Q �� LL. 1+i O ' U a FM w O af ; z; W y K W v HJ J; ;r V> Z W <F H y- w u Z2 2 u <V J Q < H Rd -- In w IIS OU O V • W � w Y.- O a Q a u N V p<W i zr.Y y w s >� V; p w < ' 3 r L 6 J < r y� O O Z - o O H Q 3 O �•r W llj _- 2 2 m�l $V Zu w < < /O/ J w- M H • .. H J Y W; < )'90d UOS < N O = W v o> H u H VR Z yp 7 ' O W ;N > Y O = C—Jw, i 4 I m y It V < W 3-45 3.3 Solid Waste Collection TABLE 1 EXISTING LANDFILL SERVICE AREAS West Contra Costa Contra Costa Waste Acme Landfill Sanitary Landfill Sanitary Landfill Concord (most) Crockett Concord (part) Alamo - San Ramon EI Cerrito, Brentwood-East County Lafayette Richmond, Pinole Pittsburg Martinez San Pablo Shore Acres Moraga - Orinda Hercules Antioch (Res/Com & Ind, Pleasant Hill Kensington only) Walnut Creek - Danville Rodeo (Const/Demo, only) Oakley Clyde - Mt. View Southern Marin Co. Delta Diablo Sanitation Clayton Berkeley (Commercial District Dewatered Sludge ' Rodeo (Res/Com do Ind, only) Waste only) Briones Hills West Contra Costa West Pittsburg Sanitary District Benicia Dewatered Sludge Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Incinerated l Sludge Ash Source: Modified from Central Contra Costa SanitaryDistrict and Contra Costa County, Y, Solid Waste Management Project Report, Vol. II, February 1985, TM7, p. 10. _l 86130 3-49 3.3 Solid Waste Collection Contra Costa Waste Sanitary Landfill. The Contra Costa Waste Sanitary Landfill , (CCWSL), locally known as GBF, is located near Antioch and serves East County. It receives 17.44% of the county's wastestream and has an estimated daily tonnage of 437tons. The Contra Costa Waste Sanitary Landfill also receives an average of 50 cubic yards of dewatered sewage sludge five days a week from the Delta Diablo Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Plant located near Pittsburg. The composition of this material is approximately 85% water and 15% solids. The weight of the 50 cubic yards of Delta Diablo sludge discharged daily to the CCWSL is estimated to be 40.5 tons of which about 6 tons are solids. If it continues to serve its present collection areas, the CCWSL's closure date is estimated to be between 1992 and 1994. Table 2 shows estimated solid waste volumes disposed at the three existing county landfills in 1985. The CCCSD/Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Report provides an analysis of the projected longevity of the three active landfill sites noted above. The analysis assumes the continued disposal of wastestream products currently discharged at County landfills and that no new landfills or expansions to existing landfills are permitted. The report estimated that under these conditions the capacity of all sites in Contra Costa County will be exhausted by 1989. . (CCCSD/Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Project Report, Technical Memorandum 7.) Related Projects and Studies This section of the report discusses steps taken to alleviate the severely reduced capacity of existing landfills in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa County has developed estimates through the year 2020 of waste quantity projections generated within the County, including waste that would be imported from other counties and taken to County landfills. At present, Contra Costa landfills receive out-of-county wastes from the City of Benicia in Solano County; from Southern Marin County; and some commercial wastes from the City of Berkeley. (Prior to February 1, 1986, residential wastes from the City of Berkeley were discharged to the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill in Richmond. These wastes are now taken to the Vasco Road Landfill in Alameda County.) Table 3 summarizes growth projection estimates from the CCCSD/Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Project Report. The table also shows solid waste projections for individual collection areas in the County and for Benicia and Southern Marin County. (Sewage sludge quantities are not included in these projections.) 86130 3-50 3.3 Solid Waste Collection TABLE 2 SOLID WASTE VOLUMES DISPOSED AT COUNTY LANDFILL SITES, 1985 (Estimated tons per day) Total Solid Percentage Waste Quantities of Total Landfill Tons Wastestream Acme Landf ill 1,144 45.65 West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill 925 36.91 Contra Costa Waste Sanitary Landfill 437 17.44 Total 2,506 100.0 Source: Draft Revision, Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan, April 14, 1987, Table 9-4. 1. Solid Waste Management Study Report In July 1984, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD), in cooperation with Contra Costa County, undertook a study to identify and describe potential municipal solid waste disposal sites and solid waste management alternatives as a first step toward the early closure of Acme landfill. The study reviewed site characteristics of three privately proposed new landfill sites and identified 14 additional sites that could potentially be developed as landfills. The study also evaluated the cost-effectiveness and possible locations for transfer stations and evaluated resource recovery alternatives such as recycling, composting and waste-to- energy, and the impact of these alternatives on future landfill life. The Solid Waste Management Study Report also developed a comprehensive Countywide solid waste data base. 2. Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment On January 29, 1985, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved a Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment delineating a landfill siting schedule. The landfill siting schedule would enable a new landfill to be permitted and developed by July 1, 1988, approximately a year after the anticipated closure of Acme Landfill on June 15, 1987., The US Army Corps of Engineers permit for landfilling operations at Acme has been extended to June 1989. This Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment supersedes the implementation schedule for a new landfill site contained in the 1982 Revised County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP). The CoSWMP ' called for the development of a replacement landfill for Acme in the mid-1990s. A draft revision to the 1982 County Solid Waste Management Plan is in preparation. State law requires that each County update its Solid Waste Management Plan on a 86130 3-51 3.3 Solid Waste Collection regular basis. After comments on the draft revision are received the Solid Waste Commission will prepare a final plan for approval by the Board of Supervisors. The revised draft contains information on all aspects of Solid Waste Management including collection, transfer station, landfill disposal, recycling, composting and waste-to-energy activities. It is a comprehensive plan for the county for solid waste management. The plan must be approved by a majority of the cities in the county containing a majority of the incorporated population of the county. The plan would be presented to the California Waste Management Board for final approval in June . 1987. 3. Proposed County Landfills o Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill. This project is a proposal to develop a sanitary landfill on a 480-acre site located off Kirker Pass Road between the cities of Concord and Pittsburg. This site is proposed for development by Sid Corrie and Associates, doing business as Land Waste Management of Alamo, California. This proposed site would serve Contra Costa County and possibly West County. It would have a_design capacity of about 26 million cubic yards, which would provide an operating life expectancy of between 25 and 45 years depending on the actual rate of use. (If it took the entire County's wastes on opening, its life expectancy would be about 13 years.) 0 East Contra Costa County Sanitary Landfill. This project is a proposal to develop a sanitary landfill on a 850-acre site located south of the City of Antioch in the Los Medanos Hills. The proposed landfill would occupy 330 acres of the site. The site is proposed for development by S&J Investments Company, a corporation composed of refuse disposal firms doing business in Contra Costa County. The proposed site would serve East Contra Costa County and could be utilized for all of the County's municipal solid waste when the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill closes. The proposed landfill would have a capacity of 71 million cubic yards. The operating life of the landfill would be dependant on the service area established for the landfill. Three development scenarios are proposed by the applicant. The minimum service area scenarios would provide a site capacity for 100 years and longer. An enlarged service area scenario would provide for a 50-year site life. Under a total County service area scenario the new landfill would have a site capacity of 41 years (Table 3, i.e., if it took the entire County's wastes on opening, its life expectancy would be about 41 years.) 4. Southeast County Landfill Siting Study On December 10, 1985, the County Board of Supervisors authorized an additional reconnaissance-level landfill siting study for the southeast area of Contra Costa County. The purpose of the Southeast County Landfill Siting Study is to identify additional potential backup landfill sites to those already proposed for development the Kirker Pass, and East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfills. The study was funded by the Delta-Diablo Sanitation District. Although separate from the 1984-85 CCCSD/Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Study, the Southeast Landfill Siting uses a similar approach. The study was intended to provide the County Board of Supervisors with an understanding of the opportunities and constraints in landfill development in Southeast County. The southeast area of the County was selected because of its remoteness to population centers. Subsequent to the study, the Delta Diablo Sanitation District identified sites VI-A (Marsh Creek) and VI-9 (Brush Creek) as its preferred sites. 86130 3-52 3.3 Solid Waste Collection TABLE 3 PROJECTED SOLID WASTE VOLUMES, 1980-2020 Solid Waste Projectionsl Tons Per Day, 7-Day Week Collection Area 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2020 1. Crockett 14 15 14 15 12 13 2. El Cerrito 69 72 73 73 74 88 3. Richmond, Pinole, San Pablo, Hercules 383 419 458 493 509 613 4. Concord 248 268 291 306 316 414 5. Alamo, San Ramon 98 118 146 168 190 319 6. Lafayette 50 54 55 57 58 67 7. Martinez 59 64 66 70 76 115 8. Moraga, Orinda 79 87 91 94 97 121 9. Pleasant Hill 72 86 93 97 99 121 10. Walnut Creek, Danville 236 255 275 291 300 356 11. Brentwood, East County 41 62 89 114 156 228 12. Pittsburg 78 85 95, 97 103 140 13. Kensington 32 33 34 36 39 52 14. Clyde, Mt. View 43 50 58 64 69 137 15. Shore Acres 33 38 43 49 52 71 ! 16. Clayton 51 41 44 46 50 73 17. Rodeo 25 33 34 36 35 34 18. Briones Hills 8 9- 11 12 12 17 ( 19. Antioch 135 150 165 177 236 364 20. Oakley 17 21 24 30 34 60 21. West Pittsburg 27 33 37 39 47 58 Subtotal (Contra Costa County) 1,798 1,993 2,196 2,364 2,564 3,461 22. Southern Marin County 103 113 117 122 126 139 23. Benicia 56 88 128 134 142 209 Total 1,957 2,194 2,441 2,620 2,832 3,809 1Projections include residential-commercial waste (approximately 60% residential and ' 40% commercial), construction-demolition waste, and industrial (non-hazardous) waste. Projections do not include imports from Alameda County or any sludge. Source: CCSD/County Solid Waste Management Project Report, Volume II Technical Memorandum 6 (Modified). l 86130 3-53 3.3 Solid Waste Collection i 5. "Blue Ribbon" Task Force on Landfill Siting As a result of the complexities associated with the development of a new landfill site(s), the County established a Blue Ribbon Committee to identify and evaluate landfill opportunities in the County. The Task Force was established by the Board of Supervisors in December 1986. The 13-member Task Force includes 2 supervisors, 5 City Council representatives, and 6 representatives from public interest groups. The Task Force was requested to evaluate and compare all feasible landfill sites and recommend its preferred alternative(s). The Task Force was also asked to recommend management policies to accompany new landfill(s) and to recommend a plan of action to ensure prompt siting. A final report to the Board of Supervisors was requested by June 30, 1987. Members of the CoSWMP Technical Advisory Committee also assist the Task Force in its work. 6. Waste-to-Energy Projects The following is a general discussion of issues relating to waste-to-energy projects. There is one general waste-to-energy plant operating in California at the present time. The plant is located in Los Angeles area. The LP plant at Antioch is a specialized waste-to-energy facility. However, there are about 35 general waste-to- energy projects proposed for development in various locations in California in the near future. Waste-to-energy technology is seen by some officials and industry representatives as the preferred long-term solution to the shortage of available landfill -space in the state. Benefits associated with waste-to-energy projects, besides energy production, are that they do not produce odors, and are smoke-free. They also do not pose a risk from gas emissions and have a less than significant fire risk. Land use implications associated with establishing large tracts of land devoted to sanitary landfills are mitigated by the creation of waste-to-energy facilities. Controversial issues associated with waste-to-energy projects relate to the production of possible toxic waste and air quality issues. The end product of the waste-to-energy cycle is incinerated ash products that are potentially hazardous. Ash classified as a designated waste under California regulations must be disposed at a Class II or Class I landfill. Some incinerated waste-to-energy ash may contain heavy metals and concentrations of lead or cadmium. The issue of air emissions is also an important factor in the development of waste-to- energy projects. Particle emissions from combustion stacks have been analyzed at existing facilities in Salem, Oregon and Los Angeles, California. The results of these tests show that both facilities would meet all applicable air quality standards for California. These include standards set for dioxins. However, the installation of filtration systems and other protective measures to meet state requirements places a financial burden on facility development that may be further exacerbated through recent changes in tax regulations. An increase in stringent state and federal environmental regulations regarding the treatment and transportation of potential toxic waste may also lead to delays in the establishment of new waste-to-energy facilities. Waste-to-energy for the rest of the county would be reviewed after the costs of new sanitary landfills are known, PG&E develops a new energy sales contract for waste- to-energy projects, and results from new waste-to-energy projects in California are available. A discussion of their current status is noted below: J 86130 3-54 1 3.3 Solid Waste Collection 1 , ' o West County Agency (a Joint Powers Authority Between the West Contra Costa Sanitary District and the City of Richmond) Waste-to-Energy Project. This project is a proposal to build a facility to burn 750 tons per day of sewage sludge and solid waste from West Contra Costa County. The project would be located on a 9-acre site in an industrial area about a mile from the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (WCCSL) in Richmond. A supplemental EIR for this project ' was certified in September 1985. The West County Agency would perform a _ health risk assessment study as a part of its application for a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. i.' The West County Agency Waste-to-Energy project could start construction in 1988 and be operational by 1990. The WCCSL currently processEta about 900 tons is per day but in the future wastes from Marin County would not come to the ' proposed Waste-to-Energy facility. Of the 750 tons per day of waste handled at the proposed facility, about 450 tons per day would be placed in two combustion ffurnaces to produce electrical energy. The remaining waste material would be recycled as compost or form part of a wood chipping operation. The proposed project is identified in the Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan as an alternative facility to the provision of a transfer station project for the WCCSL service area. Financing mechanisms for the project have not been finalized and are dependent in part on the implications of the new tax law for municipal bond issuance and on the details of contractual arrangements with PG&E and the California Public Utilities Commission. Two waste-to-energy projects have been proposed for Contra Costa County. The 1 revised draft of the CoSWMP, April 1987 supports the construction of the West County Waste-to-Energy Project (Integrated Resource Recovery Project) provided the project is economically feasible and able to meet pollution control { requirements. + o Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Solid Waste Fuel Energy Plant. In April 1982, a report describing the potential of a solid waste fueled energy project providing for mass burning of 900 tons per day of municipal solid waste from Central Contra Costa County was published. A recent update of economic calculations for this project show the financial break-even point for this facility to be 4 to 14 years after the first year of operation. The project is not being actively pursued. 7. Recycling The following discussion is drawn, in part, from the revised draft Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan, (CoSWMP), dated April, 1987. rThe County agrees with the goals of the California Waste Management Board emphasizing a reduction in waste generation, the recycling of reusable materials, processing and burning refuse for energy and providing for the safe and efficient disposal of the refuse. The revised draft of the CoSWMP, April 1987 notes that solid waste resource recovery (including recycling, composting, and waste-to-energy) shall be encouraged 86130 3-55 i 3.3 Solid Waste Collection so as to extend the life of sanitary landfills, reduce the environmental impact of solid waste disposal, and make use of a valuable resource provided that specific resource recovery programs are economically and environmentally desirable. The Solid Waste Commission, through its Technical Advisory Committee, is directed to develop realistic recycling goals for Contra Costa County. The Plan encourages all communities to implement and expand recycling programs. These programs would include the following. Curbside Recycling. The Plan encourages all communities to implement curbside recycling programs. Curbside recycling is most effective in terms of volume diverted from the wastestream, but may not be appropriate for all communities. Each community "should look at factors such as expected participation, demographics and geography to determine the best type of recycling programs. Communities are encouraged to group together to develop joint curbside programs that could share processing facilities. Dropoff/Buyback Recycling. The "Plan recognizes the importance of dropoff and buyback recycling centers. The California Beverage Container Recycling Act (AB 2020) will make major changes in dropoff and buyback redemption programs. After the redemption centers are established, the Solid Waste Commission should-determine if there is an opportunity and need for additional dropoff and buyback recycling programs. Commercial/Industrial Recycling. The Solid Waste Commission shall conduct a review of the feasibility of hiring a Coordinator to implement commercial and industrial recycling programs. The Recycling Coordinator would work with businesses and industries to modify manufacturing practices and waste disposal practices to encourage more recycling. Construction/Demolition Recycling. The Plan encourages concrete and asphalt recycling. Local agencies are encouraged to allow use of recycled products in construction specifications. The Solid Waste Commission shall work with disposal site and transfer station operators to discourage landfilling of these types of wastes and directing recyclable,construction/demolition wastes to recycling programs. the Plan also encourages chipping of wood waste for sale to the Louisiana Pacific power. plant in Antioch. Vegetative Waste Resource Recovery. The Plan encourages recycling and composting of vegetative wastes. The Board of Supervisors has indicated that new landfills in the County are expected to conduct pilot composting programs using vegetative wastgs. In reviewing the feasibility of a permanent composting program, the Commission shall determine if there is a useful purpose for the compost produced. Transfer stations are encouraged to process vegetative waste for chipping/shredding and for composting. Processing of vegetative wastes shall not be limited to only landfills and transfer stations, other locations may be appropriate. �i Public Education. The Plan recognizes that public education is a vital part of any resource recovery effort. Local government, with assistance from State and Federal governments, will participate in public education concerning resource recovery. 86130 3-56 i 3.3 Solid Waste Collection r When examining methods of financing resource recovery, funding for resource r recovery information and education will be included. `t Other Recyclable Items. This Plan encourages the recycling and market development of other items not now being regularly recycled. Use of Recycled Materials. This Plan encourages the use of products containing a recycled materials. Local government shall set an example by using as much recycled material as possible for its own operations. Methane Recovery. The extraction of methane gas from landfills is seen as a useful source of energy and a way to prevent the migration of methane gas. This Plan supports the construction and operation of methane recovery projects. The applicants proposals regarding a Recycling Center/Waste Recovery Area to be rprovided as part of the project are noted in Section 3.2 Project Characteristics of this report. the Recycling Center/Waste Recovery Area would respond to the draft provisions of the CoSWMP in supporting the recycling of reusable materials and establishing a dropoff/buyback center. The proposed transfer station would also provide for a wood chipping operation to facilitate a reduction of construction and demolition material in the wastestream. A methane gas recovery program is already in operation for the existing Acme landfill site. The use of recovered gas as a power source would be investigated in the final design of the transfer station facility. The provision of a future waste-to-energy plant (not a part of the proposed project) is indicated on the site development plan prepared by the applicant. However, a firm date for initiating construction of the plant has not been established by the applicant. Section 3.2, Project Characteristics, contains a description of the applicant's waste-to-energy proposal. 86130 3-57 3.4 Solid Waste Classification 3.4 SOLID WASTE CLA5SIPICATION5 The proposed transfer station would be designed to accommodate in general the same types of wastes that are currently disposed at the existing Acme landfill, with certain specific exceptions. Solid waste classifications are noted below for reference purposes. Classification systems used by California agencies to describe solid waste and solid waste disposal sites are contained in regulations established by the California State Water Resources Control Board (California Administrative Code, Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 15). The Acme landfill receives about 1,300 tons of waste per day of which approximately 200 tons is composed of sewage sludge, incinerator ash, large construction/demolition loads, and manifested wastes (approximately 15% of the waste-stream). Manifested wastes are those wastes which are recorded on the manifest sheet of truck drivers log which records time, place and volume of disposed material. These wastes would not be accepted at the transfer station but would be directed to an appropriate landfill. A description of the types of waste which would not be received at the transfer station appears in Section 3.2 Project Description of this EIR (Operations Plan). Some of these wastes may be directed to specific portions of the existing Acme landfill that would remain open after mid-1989. The State Water Resources Control Board Subchapter 15 classification for categories of solid waste are based on an assessment of the potential risk of water quality degradation of each category of solid waste. These waste category classifications are as follows: 1. Hazardous waste (which is defined under Section 66300 of Title 22 of the California r Administrative Code) can be discharged only at a Class I site. This waste would not be accepted at the transfer station site. 2. Designated waste which is either nonhazardous waste that contains pollutants that could be released in concentrations in excess of applicable water quality objectives, or is hazardous waste that has been granted a variance and can be discharged at Class I and approved Class II sites. This waste would not be accepted at the proposed transfer station. 3. Nonhazardous solid waste. All putrescible and nonputrescible solid, semisolid, and liquid wastes, including garbage, refuse, construction/demolition wastes, etc., which can be discharged at any classified landfill authorized to accept such waste, ordinarily a Class III or Class II site. Dewatered sewage sludge and incinerator ash 86130 3-58 3.4 Solid Waste Classification i i are currently categorized as nonhazardous wastes, but they would not be accepted at the proposed transfer station site. ' . 4. Inert waste which is waste that does not contain hazardous waste or soluble pollutants at concentrations in excess of applicable water quality objectives, and does not contain significant quantities of decomposable waste. Inert wastes, such as construction debris, do not need to be discharged at classified waste management units. r r r r J 1 r . r r r 86130 3-59 r 3.5 Legal & Institutional Considerations 3.5 LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS A number of public agencies in Contra Costa County exercise regulatory approval over the disposal of waste materials, either directly, or through published guidelines enforced by other entities. The Acme landfill site is designated in the County General Plan as a waste disposal ' facility. County staff considers the existing land use designation adequate for a finding of General Plan conformance for the proposed transfer station facility. It is unclear, , however, whether the California Waste Management Board will concur with the conclusion that a General Plan designation already exists for the proposed transfer station as a separate solid waste facility. Subsequent to the filing of an application for a Land Use Permit, therefore, the applicant and County staff agreed that the applicant should also file for a General Plan Amendment to specifically designate the site as a Solid Waste facility, transfer station/resource recovery facility. The General Plan Amendment would assure compliance with County planning regulations and could be accomplished without extending the time schedule for processing the project. The project would also require a Solid Waste Facilities permit from the County and the State. A revision of the County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP) amendment covering the facility would have to be approved by the County, Cities, and the State. An update to the CoSWMP is currently in preparation. The draft revision of the CoSWMP notes that a transfer station for the Central/South County shall be developed prior to, or coincident with, the closure of the Acme landfill. The proposed transfer station would be consistent with the revised CoSWMP and would meet the requirements, also noted in the CoSWMP, for the provision of a new East County landfill. Construction and operating approvals from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District would also be required (obtained in October 1986). The applicant expects the permit and approval process to take about 18 months, and the project to be in operation by early 1987. Permit approvals and amendments required by the project are discussed below. 1. County of Contra Costa General Plan Amendment, Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and Land Use Permit. The County's permit process for a waste disposal facility is initiated after the County Community Development Department has determined that an adequate comprehensive project description has been submitted for the proposed site. The 86130 3-60 , 3.5 Legal & Institutional Considerations Department's acceptance of the comprehensive project description normally initiates two actions: o a General Plan Amendment review; o the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). After certification of the EIR, the County Planning Commission and County Board of Supervisors consider and take action on the General Pian Amendment and Land Use Permit. The General Plan Amendment would provide for designation of the Acme Transfer Station project in the General Plan. Land Use Permits for disposal facilities differ from regular County Land Use Permits in that they require approval by the County Board of Supervisors. As with any Land Use Permit, the County would have the ability to apply appropriate conditions related to land use. Rezoning for the proposed project would not be required. The site is zoned H1 which allows for consideration of ' a Land Use Permit for a transfer station. ( The relationship of the proposed project to relevant County General Plan policies is discussed elsewhere in this EIR. The issuance of a Land Use Permit is the main discretionary action by the County. Land Use Permit applications for refuse disposal facilities are generally covered by ' Chapter 418-4 of this local planning code. Land Use Permit applications are l submitted to the Board of Supervisors for final action. / 2. Contra Costa County Health Services Department (the local enforcement agency) and California Waste Management Board, Solid Waste Facilities Permit Submittal of an application and a Report of Disposal Site Information are required to ' initiate the Solid Waste Facilities Permit. (California Administrative Code, Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 5, Enforcement of Solid Waste Standard and Administration of Solid Waste Facilities Permits.) The Facilities Permit regulates the manner in which the transfer station is to be operated. The applicant is required to describe the facility's environmental controls, pursuant to the Environmental Impact Report. An application for a Facilities Permit is submitted to the California Waste Management Board after the Board of Supervisors has taken action on the Land Use Permit. Once ' the CWMB concurs with the Facilities Permit (following a hearing and public review), the County Health Officer issues the permit. ' 3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Authority to Construct and Operate Permit This BAAQMD permit pertains to the control of dust and odors (Bay Area Air Quality ' Management District Regulation 2-1-301 Authority to Construct, 1972, Re-Codified, effective January 1, 1980; Regulation 2-1-302 Permit to Operate). The emission sources associated with a transfer station are not the type of sources which have traditionally been specifically regulated. The BAAQMD also has a specific regulation for odorous substances; Regulation 7. Rule 7-302 of Regulation 7 sets a limit on odorous substances in ambient air at or beyond the property line. The rule states that a person shall not discharge any 86130 3-61 3.5 Legal & Institutional Considerations odorous substance which causes the ambient air at or beyond the property line of sucb. person to be odorous and to remain odorous after dilution with four parts of odor-free air. In this case, "person" would refer to the transfer station owner or operator. The BAAQMD permit for the proposed project appears in Appendix A. of this document. Other Agencies In addition to the agencies noted above, a number of other public, state and federal Rgencies have been contacted in regard to the proposed project. The following provides a discussion of responses received from the agencies in question. 1. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Waste Discharge Requirements The California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) administers regulations promulgated by the State Water Resources Control Board for disposal of wastes to land (California Administrative Code, Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 15, Waste Disposal to Land). These regulations govern sanitary landfill waste disposal, but not transfer station sites. On August 18, 1986 Acme Fill Corporation filed a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD), pursuant to Division 7 of the State Water Code. On September 18, 1986 the Water Quality Control Board determined that a ROWD was not required for the project based on the fact that no discharge of wastes to State waters is proposed. The Water Quality Control Board noted that when Acme Landfill, as distinct from Acme transfer station, submits a revised ROWD for compliance with Subchapter 15, Title 23 regarding post-closure activities for the landfill site, the revised ROWD should include a report providing details of the transfer station project.3 2. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, BCDC Inquiry File No. MC. MC. 7415.14, Permit Jursdiction. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) regulates development proposals that occur either within the tidal waters of San Francisco Bay or on the shoreline within 100 feet of the line of highest tidal action. The proposed project would not occur within either of these areas of jurisdiction and, therefore, would be outside the Commission's permit jurisdiction and would not require BCDC approvals. The proposed project would be located in a previously identified water-related industry priority use area (Bay Plan Map No. 17). Policies on water-related industry note that sites designated for such purposes should be reserved exclusively for such industries. On January 15, 1987 BCDC revised its designation for the project site because of a lack of demand for water-related industry in the project area and .' because geologic conditions on the site made the possibility of extensive development unlikely. BCDC would not, therefore, have a regulatory role in the development of the project.4 : .l 86130 3-62 3.5 Legal & Institutional Considerations 1 3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, Department of the Army, Department of Defense, Regulatory Branch No. 16662E59, Permit Authorization. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates development projects associated with coastal waters in the Bay Area and along the coastline. An on-site inspection of the proposed project site was conducted by the San Francisco District staff on September 18, 1986. The Corps of Engineers also reviewed site location drawings submitted by URS/John A. Blume and Associates. After a review of file material the Corps of Engineers determined that the proposed project would not involve the discharge of dredged or fill material into a body of water of the United States, including any adjacent wetlands, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). As a result of this review finding, a Department of the Army permit regulating activities of the proposed project would not be required. The Corps of Engineers have requested that they be notified when construction work for the proposed project is scheduled to begin, and also that they be informed upon completion of the project to enable an inspection team to determine that no work has been carried out that is not in conformance with the Corps of Engineers jurisdiction and authorizations.5 4. Contra Costa County and Cities, California Waste Management Board, County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP). The adoption of a Solid Waste Management Plan for Contra Costa County is required by state law (California Administrative_ Code, Title 14). The Solid Waste Management Plan is reviewed on a three year basis and revisions to the Plan are currently being developed by County staff. Revisions to the CoSWMP must be consistent with the General Plan. The proposed revisions are initiated by County ' staff in concert with the County Solid Waste Commission. Draft revisions are 1 reviewed by the California Waste Management Board (CWMB), the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and cities within Contra Costa County as well as waste collection companies and interested members of the public. The proposed revisions to the Plan must be approved by the County Board of Supervisors and by the California Waste Management Board. The proposed Acme transfer station and waste recovery facility are included in the latest (1987) revisions to CoSWMP currently under review-6 1information in this section of the report is drawn, in part, from the project applicant's report entitled Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Project Description, dated July 1986. ti 2Central Contra Costa Sanitary District/Contra Cost County, Solid Waste Management Project Report, February 1985, Volume II, Technical Memorandum No. 6. 3Harold Singer, Chief Industrial Division, California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region, personal communication to James Pezzaglia; Gordon, DeFraga, Watrous do Pezzaglia, September 18, 1986. 86130 3-63 3.5 Legal & Institutional Considerations 4Information drawn in part from communications with the Contra Costa County Community Development Department staff, BCDC correspondence, and articles appearing in local newspapers (Tribune, January 16, 1987). 5Jack E. Farless, Chief, Construction-Operations Division U.S. Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, personal communication to Charles A. Zahn, Planning Coordinator, Contra Costa County Community Development Department, October 9, 1986. ,6DavidOkita, Senior Civil Engineer, Contra Costa County Community Development Department, personal communication, March 30, 1986. 86130 3-64 �l 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES PERMANENT TRANSFER STATION 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING Y The proposed transfer station is a project of the Acme Fill Corporation which owns and operates the Acme landfill. The project would involve the provision of industrial type buildings similar to those of a light industrial complex or a truck terminal. An industrial setting for the facility would be appropriate to its use. Planning Transfer station operations would be carried out on two levels. At the upper level. P PP commercial refuse trucks and self haulers (the general public) would unload waste materials onto a concrete pad within an enclosed building. The waste material would be [ placed in a storage pit and loaded into transfer trucks that access the lower level of the building. i ' Potential impacts of the project would relate to aesthetics, noise, odor, litter and traffic. Perimeter landscaping and screen walls would mitigate visual impacts. A management program to control litter on the site would be instituted. Noise and odor impacts would be controlled by enclosed buildings. Traffic accessing the site would be controlled by limiting the hours of operation the facility would be open to the public. Commercial and self hauler (public) traffic would supplant equivalent traffic volumes at a landfill site. Impacts generated by transfer trucks would relate to the location of the transfer station and the location of the landfill site to which wastes are transferred. Depending on the landfill location, the transfer station could reduce overall vehicle miles travelled and energy costs. 86130 4-1 4.1 Land Use and Planning ■,, 4.1.1 . SETTING The proposed project would be located at the Acme landfill site (Figure 5). The landfill is part of Acme Fill Corporation's 535-acre tract of land located east of I-680 approximately three miles from central Martinez and approximately three miles west of the U.S. Naval Weapon's Station at Port Chicago. The project application also includes a proposal for an interim transfer station which would , become operational;" if required, during` -the construction of the permanent transfer station (Section 5.1). The permanent transfer `, station site plan also includes space for a possible future waste-to-energy plant or expanded recycling facility. There are no plans for the construction of this facility in the immediate futuren analysis. and �t is not part of the protect application and the EIft y Project Site The project site is dominated by a former borrow pit used as a source for cover materials for the landfill. The site area is approximately 22 acres, bounded by Arthur Road to the north, the Martinez Gun Club to the east, two Contra Costa Water District storage tanks to the south and the Vine Hill residential neighborhood to the west. The site is currently zoned HI, Heavy Industrial. Figure 24 shows surrounding land use at the site.l The applicant considered a number of alternate locations on the Acme landfill property for the transfer station complex. However, the site of the proposed facility is the only area large enough to accommodate the complex on an area not previously used for landfill or on wetlands. The proposed site development would not require the extensive excavation of existing hillsides. Surrounding Land Use The proposed project would be located on part of the western portion of the existing Acme landfill site. Land uses which surround the project site, indicated on Figure 23, are described below. A 240-acre tract of undeveloped land north of the project site between Arthur Road and Waterfront Road is currently used for cattle grazing. It was formerly owned by the Shell Oil Company but is now owned by Keeneland Associates. It is sometimes referred to as the CAZ Development Company property, after the name of the company which recently J 86130 4-2 LAND USE MAP FIGURE 23 FEET 0 1000 2000 4000 CGCSD OUTFILL •'+• :,.��;"�' _'.: . t.. . IT CORP. �i(j1't`.11f*a Sru VINE HILL PLANT 'i LANDSEA TERMINAL PROPOSED ..•' •• ••••. :ti•;� �a =: TOSCO REFINERY >� _• INTERIM ��,,.•.,• , `TRANSFER , •;••• •. •.•+ rJ , i STATION SITE :►••• •.,�� •••�: ••. '•'� •..• 10 ,a•'!'r :: • - ACME •. a .""'""."..".. .j .... � LANDFILL \' • � :K KEENELAND ASSOC. .-.! .•• �� ,�'�` . , r' (VACANT) \ ' o•• •,7••/•• - -- MARTINEZ GUN CLUB SHELL REFINERY •, if . .: . .•-:..; a \`;`'•, ��;,•�•,, :'.rr— IT COPR.BAKER PONDS PROPOSED PERMANENT < ' }t� _` • • i••�• '• 22 ACRE ACME LANDFILL TRANSFER STATION SITE' :��,•" •`• J _ {BORROW PIT) 40 0 ��. ♦••�►�,♦ + CC WATER DISTRICT �''� +' •\ -LANDFILL s. « • • _ • Cf Hill �/. . CORP. '. . . �` • ,,••"'� `HENRY'S TREE SERVICE •, •�•.• • t1' L `NN rte ' —�e ss• ri!' O • • • + •. • • j `A• ...� c ` . - ,-, \ '.\ �w. • - ...... . . ms's..'�.` f• ..1� 4-3 eip 4.1 Land Use and Planning attempted to gain approval from the City of Martinez for a business park on this tract of land. A north-south ridgeline runs the length of the parcel and screens the transfer station site from views from the west. The western portion of this property is a seasonal wetland which would be unaffected by the proposed transfer station project. The area beyond Waterfront Road to the north is mostly Bay marshlands with large intermittent areas of fill. Large oil and gas storage tanks owned by the Land-Sea Corporation (terminal) are located near the intersection of the Waterbird Way and Waterfront Road. Directly north of the landfill site is an automobile wrecking yard. Waterfront Road and the Southern Pacific Railroad line cross the Walnut Creek flood control channel on bridges near the northeast corner of the Acme Fill property. The Tosco oil refinery is located east of the project site across Pacheco Creek and the Walnut Creek flood control channel. Refining operations are located near Waterfront Road, the main refinery storage tanks are located to the south of this area. A spur of the Southern Pacific Railroad crosses north-south through the refinery. East of the refinery site are mostly marshlands and open grasslands owned by Tosco, and the 168-acre Mallard Reservoir operated by the Contra Costa Water District. The Concord Naval Weapons Station and the Port Chicago Naval Magazine are still farther east. Directly across Pacheco Creek from the southern portion of the Acme landfill are the IT Corporation's Baker facility evaporation ponds for treating hazardous wastes. The IT Corporation's Vine Hill Plant is located northeast of the permanent transfer station site. A modernization plan for the Vine Hill Plant is currently being developed by the IT Corporation. A Comprehensive Project Description for this project entitled IT Corporation Vine Hill treatment Plant Proposed Modernization Project, was submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Development Department on November 26, 1986 in support of an application for an amended Land Use Permit. ' The Acme Corporation proposes improvements to on-site access roads leading from a proposed scale house to a new four-way intersection at Arthur Road. The entrance location to the IT Corporation's plant would be influenced by the proposed roadway improvements for the transfer station. Discussions regarding site access are currently underway between the IT Corporation, Acme Corporation, and the Martinez Gun Club. 86130 4-4 4.1 Land Use and Planning The results of these discussions could lead to design modifications in Acme's proposed roadway and intersection improvements. An area of high ground to the south of the permanent transfer station site is controlled by Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). The CCWD area is bounded on all sides by Acme f Fill Corporation property. The parcel contains two water storage tanks belonging to t CCWD. Water contained in these tanks has been designated by the CCWD for purposes unrelated to the transfer station site. Refer to Section 4.11 Utilities and Services for a discussion on water use. The existence of the CCWD storage tanks and the steep terrain of the area would preclude the extension of the transfer station site to the south. A portion of land containing Henry's Tree Service farm is located to the southeast of the permanent transfer station site. The parcel, reached via Central Avenue, is contiguous with Acme Fill Corporation's property but is not contiguous with the permanent transfer station site. The location of this property would be a component influencing the future alignment of Waterbird Way extension to the south of the permanent transfer station site (Figures 23 and 25). To the west of the permanent transfer station is the Vine Hill residential neighborhood. IThis neighborhood, located between the southern part of the Acme landfill parcel and I-680, consists of approximately 300 predominantly single-family dwelling units built in the 1950s and 1960s. There are 19 single-family homes on the east side of Irene Drive adjacent to the property line of the project site. The back yards of these homes end at the property line of the Acme landfill. Some units are within 100 feet of the proposed site boundary and within 400 feet of the main transfer station building. Plans and Policies The County General Plan already designates the Acme landfill as a waste disposal facility. Subsequent to the submission of the transfer station project, the applicant and the County staff agreed that the applicant will request a General Plan Amendment to ensure that the general plan specifically designates the site for a transfer station/waste recovery facility.2 86130 4-5 4.1 Land Use and Planning 'ed for a Land mi operate both the interim and The protect sponsor has apple Use per t to p . i permanent transfer station facilities. The permanent and interim station locations as well as the access road/entrance facility, are already covered by Acme Fill Corporation's Land Use permit. The purpose of the new Land Use permit is to specifically approve a transfer station/recovery facility at the Acme landfill and to enable appropriate conditions of approval to be imposed. Based on the proposed use of the project site the project sponsor must: o Request the County to approve a land use permit to allow the permanent transfer station on the project site and the interim transfer station on adjacent landfill property. ` o Apply for a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Authority to Construct and Operate Permit (obtained October 1986). o Apply to the Contra Costa County Health Services Department for a Solid Waste t Facilities Permit (operations permit). - r ■ Refer to Section 3.5, Legal and Institutional Considerations, for a discussion on permitting requirements. General Plan and Land Use The Acme property and surrounding lands fall under the jurisdiction of Contra Costa 1� County and its General Plan. The Acme landfill site and expansion plans were recognized in the Refuse Disposal Plan, a part of the County General Plan which was adopted in 1973. In 1975, the County adopted a General Plan amendment for the Vine Hill -- Pacheco Boulevard Corridor which designated Acme land as "Controlled Industry." Within this category the County zoning ordinance permits heavy industry, including waste disposal facilities, as a conditional use. These uses are subject to land use permits. Several components of the County General Plan are applicable to the Acme landfill area and are cited in appropriate discussions in this report. These are the Land Use, Noise, Seismic Safety and Circulation Elements. It should also be noted that Waterfront Road is designated as a scenic route in the County General Plan. 86130 4-6 4.1 Land Use and Planning } The project area falls within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Martinez, which may ultimately annex the area. The Martinez General Plan designates Acme land as industrial with a conservation overlay giving additional attention to existing wetlands and landforms. The City Zoning Ordinance suggests rezoning the Acme lands as a combined Environmental Conservation District and Heavy Industrial District. ISolid Waste Management Plan Provisions governing transfer station projects are included in the draft revisions to the g g County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP), April 1987. The revisions recommend that a transfer station facility for Central/South County be developed prior to, or coincident with, the closure of the Acme landfill. The capacity of the transfer station I . should be large enough to accommodate Central and South County wastes that currently go to the Acme landfill. The proposed Acme transfer station would meet the requirements of the draft CoSWMP revisions and would be consistent with the solid waste management plans for the county.3 ISubdivision Ordinance (Drainage) Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, Section 8.2-2.014 requires the project to comply to requirements of Division 914 (Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance. ( q ( g ) I Contra Costa County Grading Ordinance (Project Exempt) Under provision of this Ordinance (Article 716-4.106(5)), a grading permit is not required ' for refuse and refuse disposal sites controlled by other regulations. In this case, the project site is regulated, and would be regulated, by a land use permit. 4.1.2 IMPACTS If approved, the solid waste transfer station and resource recovery facility for the project would result in the conversion of approximately 22 acres of land (borrow pit) that is part of the Acme Fill Corporation's 535-acre landfill tract located approximately three miles from central Martinez. The project would include the construction of a Main Transfer Building and loading tunnel (2151x212'), a Public Disposal Building (210'x1301), an Administration Building (501x50'), and a Vehicle Maintenance Building (150'x751). A recycling center, scale house, two pay booths, three sets of scales, two fueling stations, 86130 4-7 4.1 Land Use and Planning 33 parking lots for employees and the public, on-site roads, utilities, outdoor lighting, fencing and landscaping are also part of the proposed project. General Plan and Land Use The proposed transfer station is located on the Acme landfill which is recognized in the Refuse Disposal Plan - of- the Contra 'Costa General-`Plan. The Land-Use Element �. designates the site as controlled industry. Development of the proposed project would be �t in substantial conformance with the County General Plan and existing zoning. A Land Use permit for the transfer station project was officially accepted by the County 30 days after submission in August 1986. Issues relating to Land Use permit applications procedures would be dealt with administratively and would not have a significant impact on County policy. a In general, the proposed use of the site would be compatible with existing surrounding industrial uses the Martinez Gun Club and the Contra Costa Water District storage tank facility. The project would have the potential to be incompatible with the Vine Hill ` neighborhood unless mitigation measures are employed to minimize specific impacts related to traffic, noise, visual quality, litter and odors. Construction Impacts Potential impacts would be felt in the Vine Hill residential area during both construction .of the transfer facility. Possible construction impacts would include the migration and accumulation of dust and also the generation of noise from construction truck traffic and on-site equipment. The potential impacts noted above would be reduced to an insignificant level by appropriate mitigation measures. Refer to topic sections of this report. Potential construction impacts on the Vine Hill neighborhood would also be mitigated by limiting hours of construction. ` Operation Impacts ' The operation of the transfer station would involve loading and unloading of solid waste materials. Most transfer station activities would take place within an enclosed building area. Certain amounts of dust (airborne particles), litter, noise and odor would be associated with the transfer station operation. These impacts are expected to vary with 86130 4-8 4.1 Land Use and Planning degree of activity and wind direction at the facility. They would not be considered significant if proposed mitigation measures are employed. General Plan: Circulation Element The project, as submitted to the County, would not include provision for the extension to Waterbird Way to the south to comply with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. This impact which could be significant, would be mitigated by provision of a dedicated right-of-way on the permanent transfer station site. Specific environmental impacts are noted in relevant sections of the report. Long-term potential impacts are not considered significantly adverse given appropriate mitigations. 4.1.3 MITIGATION MEASURES Measures which would mitigate anticipated project impacts have been incorporated as 1 part of the proposed project plan and are noted in appropriate sections of the report. Further mitigation measures, proposed by the preparers of this report, are also noted in 1 topic sections in the documents. All potential impacts generated by the project can be *J ■ mitigated. 1 Measures Proposed by the Applicant General Plan and Land Use To mitigate the impact of potential land use inconsistencies the project applicant, after consultation with County staff, has agreed to request a General Plan Amendment that specifies the proposed site for a Transfer Station/Waste Recovery Facility. The project �* applicant has also applied for a new Land Use permit for the proposed project so that appropriate conditions of approval can be applied to the project. Project Operation The project would include landscape screening, fences, noise/retaining walls and enclosed structures in order to mitigate noise and visual impacts. The project would also provide an 80-foot wide buffer zone between the Vine Hill residential neighborhood and the western boundary of the project site. 1 86130 4-g 4.1 Land Use and Planning Specific mitigation measures related to specific impacts are noted in the relevant . 1 sections of this report. Further Mitigation Measures Construction Impacts In order to mitigate possible adverse impacts on the Vine Hill neighborhood, construction activity should be limited to the following time periods; 7:00 am - 7:00 pm Monday-Friday and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday and Sunday. This mitigation should be made part of the conditions of approval for the project. This restriction would apply to outside construction work and would not apply to work on interior finishes, electrical wiring in site structures, painting, etc. The applicant can apply for permission. to extend construction activities beyond these hours, for a limited period of time, if exceptional circumstances warrant such action. General Plan: Circulation Element In order to implement the Circulation element of the County's General Plan a right-of- way for the extension of Waterbird Way south would be provided on the western boundary of the project site. The right of way would be located in the 80' buffer zone provide on the site. A minimum 10-foot high concrete wall, similar to those seen along freeways, would be constructed along the western property boundary to minimize noise impacts and screen views of the project'from the Vine Hill neighborhood. The screen wall would be returned along Arthur Road for a distance of 150 feet to mitigate impacts on homes along Donna Drive. Please refer to Section 4.3, Noise and 4.9, Visual Quality for further discussion on this topic. Acme Fill corporation and other surrounding land owners would be asked to participate in future in a benefit district assessment to provide for the implementation of the Waterbird Way south extension. The transfer station project would accommodate Waterbird Way South by reserving a right-of-way across Acme Fill Corporation's property. The County would not require the Acme Fill Corporation to construct the roadway. Rather, the County would expect to recommend in the conditions of approval that the applicant survey the alignment of Waterbird Way South, both as it crosses Acme property east-west to the north of Arthur Road, and as it parallels the western property line of the 86130 4-10 4.1 Land Use and Planning permanent transfer station site. The County would also require as a condition of approval that the right-of-way .be dedicated to the County at a time in the future yet to be determined.4 IBrown, Vence & Associates, Project Description, Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station, July, 1986. 2 Personal communicat ons, Charles A. Zahn, Planning Coordinator, Contra Costa Community Development Department, May 11, 1987. 3 _ Draft Revision, Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan, April 14, 1987, p.7. 4Telephone communication, Charles A. Zahn, Planning Coordinator, Contra Costa County Development Department, June 4, 1987. i 86130 4-11 4.2 Traffic ac Circulation 4.2 TRAFFIC & CIRCULATION The issues of traffic and transportation to the proposed transfer station were addressed in a study prepared by Brown, Vence & Associates for the project applicant.) Data from that study has been used in this chapter of the EIR, supplemented by data collected by Abrams Associates, transportation consultants for this EIR. ) 4.2.1 SETTING All vehicular access into and out of the site currently occurs on Waterbird Way. This road connects to Waterfront Road, which has a full interchange with I-680. From this interchange, the Acme landfill traffic then distributes on various roadways to destinations throughout Contra Costa County. The existing roadway network in the vicinity of the site is shown on Figure 24, along with estimates of 1986 average daily traffic volumes (ADT) on these roads. Previous Access to Acme Landfill Access to the Acme landfill has changed through the years. When the landfill first opened, Arthur Road was the primary and only access road to the site. As the adjacent Vine Hill residential area continued to develop, the use of Arthur Road by a growing number of landfill trucks became an increasing problem. In response to this concern, the County, the Acme Fill Corporation, IT Corporation and Shell Corporation cooperated in the construction of Waterbird Way, which was opened to traffic in 1982 becoming the main access road to the site. Landfill truck traffic has since used the Marina/Waterfront Road interchange from I-680 to travel to site. Local traffic, including public traffic using the landfill, is currently precluded from using Arthur Road to access the landfill site due to the recent (December 1986) construction of a traffic barrier on Arthur Road near to the intersection of Donna Drive. The Martinez Gun Club is now permitted to use Arthur Road for special events. Since the closure of Arthur Road, the only access to the landfill site area is via Waterbird Way. Existing Roadway System The characteristics of existing major access roadways serving the proposed project site are discussed below. J 96130 4-12 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK FIGURE 24 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1986 SOURCE:CALTRANS-CONTRA COSTA COUNTY:ABRAMS,ASSOCIATES 04 a 70,000 0 5,800 UP 31p 3,900 67,000 oo p '300 �� 1,950 tiVq $' 00 (1 Ro 1 t T f RR �T 10 RaAp l r ARTHUR RD, ACME FILL �� M �,. W I.T. 5,900 W �Q MARTINEZGUNCLU9 PQO c c�NT�q! PROPOSEDLEGEND PERMANENT 170 TRANSFER "r STATION SITE PEAK HOUR(4:30-5:30) �- 3,900 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 77,000 3 0 44,000 o x co � d IMHOFF RD. 38,500 1,800 32,000 2,200 4 Aq HOt 4 �flO 80,000 b r� • 4-13 elp .p m 4.2 Traffic &.Circulation 1 Waterbird Way is a two-lane County roadway extending a distance of 1.1 miles south fromI Waterfront Road to the existing landfill entrance. Waterbird Way currently is not a through street and therefore there is no through traffic on this road. All traffic on � Waterbird Way is destined for either the Acme landfill, the IT Corporation site, or the Martinez Gun Club. The current average daily traffic (ADT) is 3,100 vehicles per day. Waterfront Road is a two-lane roadway that serves industrial areas between I-680 and the Naval Weapons Station at Port Chicago. It connects the Martinez area to the Pittsburg/Antioch area. It has .i full interchange with I-680 at Marina. Waterfront Road has an ADT of 5,800 vehicles per day in the vicinity of the I-680 interchange. The U.S. Navy has made a proposal to eventually close a portion of Waterfront Road east of Solano Way. Negotiations between the Navy and Contra Costa County are currently taking place. Solano Way is a two-lane north-south arterial between Highway 4 and Waterfront Road. It serves as a major access roadway to the Tosco refinery. Through traffic uses this road as an alternative route to avoid congested freeways during peak hours. It is also used by some collection trucks on weekdays and the public (self-haulers) on weekends to access the Acme landfill, via Waterfront Road and Waterbird Way. I-680. In the project vicinity I-680 is a four-lane freeway. It runs north-south through Contra Costa County, from the Benicia Bridge to the Alameda County line and south to San Jose. With the exception of local Martinez trips, all vehicles accessing the transfer station would use I-680. Current traffic volumes on I-680 reach. 70,000 vehicles per day, and are continuing to grow. There is frequent congestion and slow traffic speeds in the northbound direction of the freeway during evening peak hours. Traffic delay and congestion is particularly acute on holiday weekends. Hizhway 4 is a four-lane freeway, with a full clover leaf interchange with I-680 approximately 3 miles south of Waterfront Road. Traffic destined for the east county areas of Pittsburg and Antioch, as well as west county areas and Richmond would use Highway 4. The most serious traffic problem for this highway is westbound morning peak traffic congestion at the Willow Pass grade area. 86130 4-14 4.2 Traffic do Circulation Future Roadway System Access to the project area would be changed in the future when Waterbird Way is extended south to connect to Imhoff Drive. This extension is currently proposed in the County's General Plan Circulation Element. It would likely include a grade separation at the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad tracks south of the project site. The project site plan would be arranged to accommodate the planned southerly extension of Waterbird Way, as shown on Figure 25. The future road extension would be a two-lanf- roadway with turn lanes at various intersections. It would be located on the western property line of the permanent transfer station site adjacent to the Vine Hill residential f 1 area. The road would provide a grade change and buffer zone between the site and the residential neighborhood. The construction of Waterbird Way southward would implement the County General Plan. Existing Traffic Volumes �! Traffic data generated at the existing Acme landfill has been collected by Abrams Associates, by the project applicant, and recorded as a part of several other traffic studies.2 For this study Abrams Associates made a full 10-hour count of all vehicles accessing the Acme landfill, the IT Corporation site, and the Martinez Gun Club in March, 1987. Existing traffic generated by users of the landfill can be placed in three general classifications: 1) franchised haulers, 2) commercial users with monthly accounts and (3) the general public. A breakdown of these trips for a typical weekday is shown on Table 6. Additionally, trips are also made by landfill employees and by service vehicles used to maintain equipment on the site. Roughly, the same number of total trips would be generated when the transfer station starts operation as are currently generated at the landfill site. Total traffic generation would be expected to increase in future years (Table Traffic distribution shown on Figure 26 illustrates average weekday hourly traffic patterns at Acme landfill. Peak-hour loads occur in the mid-morning when the collection trucks arrive at the landfill with their first bulk loads. Traffic stays fairly constant through the day, with a smaller peak occurring at about mid-afternoon when the trucks make their final trip of the day. Also shown on Figure 27 are the relative traffic volumes 86130 4-15 FUTURE EXTENSION OF FIwRE 25 WATERBIRD WAY SOUTH f FEET ■ 0 1000 2DD0 4000 • .\ i\ H 14 • O � ••, I NtpO�'1N R ^ ' N i•••> �PfPG i�GU ,_�> , '.�•;•• Avon •Npt • t 1 Aasilciate � q. �YUy,�� eriu j — P 450 14 .0 kFRY at to • f,/ - .1 iv,,,,Santo - ST/NCgCkgy PERMANENT.,, . . .,_ ��. �i,.' '+ " Dr° ��.• TRANSFER �� STATION SITE 000 `' Or orf J ♦.♦ �D �• • i 11111 fit .� `• •. .1 ` - � • •\l . 0 •-� t�1c Hill k'r,x rtrtr. ` ias.T�ntas \ - ,,•" ._ ` _ \ •'" • •\• • •,; 4- f - s.. .fit_` i ._ ;;... O ., • • O J _ZI -" • a PGP . �. Of-- ,�- : ■�. � r�M 1. NJ \i. HIGHWAY 4_ _ 4 Legend: — — - Proposed Alignment SOURCE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT eip •-•-•-- Alternative Route DEPARTMENT JANUARY 1987 4-1C i EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC - FIGURE 26 ACMELANDFILL, 1986 SOURCE ABRAMS ASSOCIATES 80 3,200 70 60 2,400 o as =U50 U 1 0:40 \ \ \ 1,600 F a 1 > C30 w z w O \ L6 ' m 20 \ 800 � � 3 s Z 10 C� 0 ` 0 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 AM PM TIME PERIOD PEAK 30 MINUTES - 9:30 TO 10:00AM LEGEND HIGHWAY 4 FREEWAY TRAFFIC TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION @ ACME LANDFILL (AVERAGE WEEKDAY - 1986) 4-17 elp 4.2 Traffic do Circulation 4 on Highway 4. It should be noted that the landfill does not generate large traffic volumes � at the same time of day that off-site traffic reaches its peak volume on adjacent highways. Traffic volumes for the proposed transfer station would be expected, in � general, to follow this traffic pattern. ` The landfill currently generates approximately 2,100 vehicle trips (1,050 entering vehicles) on an average weekday. Truck traffic accounts for about 60% of this traffic, or 1,260 truck trips (two-way) per day. On weekends total daily traffic volumes are similar to weekdays, with 2,420 trips counted on Saturday, and 2,310 trips on Sunday. However, these are days of the highest use by the generalP ublic, and the amount of weekend commercial truck traffic is much lower. Trucks are approximately 25% of the Saturday traffic, and only about 8% of Sunday traffic. Trucks are defined as vehicles with more than 4 tires. They do not include pickup trucks. Existing traffic volumes on roadways in the vicinity of Acme landfill are shown on Figure 24. Figures 27 and 28 show existing traffic volumes at the existing intersection entrance to Acme landfill during morning and evening peak hours. As shown in Figure 27, there are 240 trips in this area between 7:30 am and 8:30 am, the morning peak hour for off-site commuter traffic on adjacent roads. This compares to the 425 trips during the peak morning traffic hour at the landfill, which extends from 9:00 am to 10:00 am weekdays as shown on Figure 28. Figure 27 also indicates a total of 160 trips passing through the existing intersection entrance during the off-site commuter evening peak-hour on adjacent roads which lasts from 4:30 pm to 5:30 pm. Figure 28 illustrates the weekday average daily traffic (ADT) at the existing intersection entrance to Acme landfill as well as average daily traffic volumes at the Martinez Gun Club and the IT Corporation site on a typical weekday. To further illustrate existingtraffic conditions Table 4 gives a breakdown of average � � g daily traffic volumes currently generated by the Acme landfill. The table also shows the types of vehicles and trucks that currently use the landfill. On a weekday, nearly 60% of traffic is heavy trucks, while on weekends only about 10% to 15% of the traffic generated is trucks. 86130 4-18 INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 27 MORNINGAND EVENING OFF-SITE SOURCE:ABRAMS ASSOCIATES PEAK HOURS, 1986 LANDFILL ENTRANCE 63 ARTHUR RD. TOTAL I T. 240 INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES: OFF-SITE PEAK MORNING HOUR, 1986 (7:30AM-8:30AM) 3' MARTINEZ N GUCl o� BORROW PIT tea• LANDFILL ENTRANCE Q- q. RTHUR RD. I.T. A TOTAL 5 160 INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES.- OFF-SITE OLUMES:OFF-SITE PEAK EVENING HOUR, 1986 ►� N C E (4:30PM-5:30PM) LUS r BORRDW PIT eip 4-19 a INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 28 LANDFILL OPERATION PEAK HOUR SOURCE ABRAMS ASSOCIATES (AND ADT), 1986 o y LANDFILL ENTRANCE 0� ARTHUR RD. r-20 I.T. Q* TOTAL 30 425 INTERSECTION TRAFFIC: F\ MART PEAK HOUR LANDFILL OPERATION - 1986 NEZ (9AM-10PM) LUB o BORROW PIT -�� LANDFILL Q4 ]ENTRANCE m� 3m ti 1 ARTHUR R0. O I T. ESTIMATED AVERAGE N �� DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) - 1986 m 90 (TYPICAL WEEKDAY) MARTINEZ iI GUN CLUB eip 4-20 BORROW PIT m 4.2 Traffic do Circulation TABLE 4 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT ACME LANDFILLI (EXISTING CONDITIONS - 1986) A. Average Daily Traffic Traffic Entering Landfill Types of Weekday Saturday Sunday Traffic Activity 24 hrs. 24 hrs. 24 hrs. Landfill Users Franchise Haulers - 290 120 10 Charge Customers 175 70 30 General Public 480 960 1,070 Subtotal 945 1,150 1,110 Other Trips Employees, Visitors 105 60 45 1,050 1,210 1,155 Total Two-Way Traffic 2,100 2,420 2,310 B. Types of Vehicles Using the Landfill Weekend Weekday Peak-Hour Weekday Peak-Hour Sunday (24 hours) 9:00-10:00 am) (1:00-2:00 pm) Percent Peak Percent Peak Percent Entering of Hour Of Hour of Types of Vehicles Traffic Total Traffic Total Traffic Total Autos, pickups 380 36.2% 30 19.5% 128 79.0% Auto, pickup with trailer 40 3.8% 10 6.5% 24 14.8% Two-axle trucks 140 13.3% 26 16.9% 8 4.9% Two-axle box trucks 120 11.4% 32 20.8% 2 1.2% Three-axle trucks 145 13.8% 23 14.9% 0 0.0% Three-axle box trucks 215 20.5% 29 18.8% 0 0.0% Four-axle trucks 10 1.0% 4 2.6 0 0.0% 1,050 100.0% 154 100.0% 81 100.0% 1Based on the traffic counts conducted by Abrams Associates and Brown-Vence Associates, March, 1987. Note: Traffic counts used in this report vary with traffic counts used in recent EIR's for landfill sites in the County. The variations, which are slight, are due to the fact that the counts were conducted at different times of the year. The differences would fall within the normal range of variation used for traffic analysis. l 86130 4-21 4.2 Traffic & Circulation Roadway Ca aci Traffic to IT Corporation and the Martinez Gun Club. Traffic volumes at the IT Corporation site have a more typical commuter peak profile. than Acme landfill traffic. IT employees arrive between 7:30 am and 8:30 am, and leave at about 4:00 pm. Throughout the day, however, trucks and visitors travel to and from the IT Corporation site. Existing average daily traffic is estimated to be 900 vehicles per day, with a peak hour volume of 85 vehicles between 7:30 am and 8:30 am. The Martinez Gun Club is estimated to have 90 vehicles per day on an average weekday. ' The peak times are at the lunch period, and during the late afternoon from 4:00 pm to 6.00 pm. When special events or activities take place at the Gun Club, generally on weekends, these traffic counts would be higher. Transportation Improvement Plans The major transportation changes that are expected to occur in the vicinity of the project site involve improvements to I-680 and Highway 4 (S.R. 4). These plans could include the widening of the Benicia-Martinez Bridge, or the construction of a parallel span, and the widening of I-680 from four to six lanes. In addition, future traffic in this area could also be affected by the possible closure of Waterfront Road east of Solano Way. The I-680/I-580 Metropolitan Transportation Commission corridor study, August 1986, forecasts the following improvements that would relate to access to the project site.3 Figure 29 shows the expected year 2005 traffic forecastsfor these roadways improvements. Corridor-By-Corridor Components Corridor Improvement 1. S.R. 4 o Widen to 4-lane freeway east of S.R. 160 o Widen to 8 lanes from S.R. 242 west to Bailey Road --.2 lanes for high occupancy vehicles (HOV) o Widen to 6 lanes from Bailey Road to S.R. 160 861311 4-22 YEAR 2005 TRAFFIC FORECASTS FIGURE 29 I=68011-580 MTC CORRIDOR STUDY / SOURCE.CALTRANS-CONTRA COSTA COUNTY:ABRAbS ASSOCIATES T 95,000 Estimates by Abrams Associates 10,400 7,700 80 w�TFgFg0NTqO � qD NEW BARRIER 90,000 a -4,700- ARTHUR RD. ACME FILL 8,000 W W -1 T. ¢ � z MARTINEZGUNCLUB tl( a PROPOSED PPS�JP PERMANENT TRANSFER STATION SITE 3 0 104,000 m 0 o uj 62,000 IMHUFF Ro CO O Q a 58,000 4 56,000 115,000 AgNUCo I NOUSTR1gC eip 4-23 4.2 Traffic & Circulation 2. I-680 o- Widen Benicia-Martinez Bridge to 6 lanes north of o Widen to 8 lanes between Benicia Bridge and Willow Pass Road S.R. 24 o Widen S.R. 242 to 8 lanes o Widen Vasco Road to 4 lane freeway The roadway improvement project with the greatest potential effect on access to the planned the is proposed transfer station site p extension of Waterbird Way south to intersect with Imhoff Drive (Figure 26). The County foresees the need for this roadway as commercial and industrial development in the area advances. With the extension in place, some trips by the general public to the transfer station site would be diverted from existing patterns. The extension project is identified in the County's General Plan_ Circulation Element, but it is not scheduled for construction, nor is there as yet any dedicated funding source. As noted earlier in this report, the first segment of Waterbird Way was built to provide access to landfill users. The Acme Fill Corporation, the IT Corporation, the County (Plans) together with Shell Corporation contributed to the cost of its construction. The right-of-way for the future extension of Waterbird Way along the western boundary of the permanent transfer station would be provided for by Acme Fill Corporation and the IT Corporation. The County would require that the provision of Waterbird Way on Acme Fill property would include a survey of the road alignment, the reservation of the road right-of-way (ROW) and the dedication of ROW to the County. The County would expect the Acme Fill Corporation and IT Corporation to participate in the provision of the Waterbird Way ROW. P P P P P Y The County would not require the construction of the roadway as a condition of approval. The County would expect that the applicant commit to joining a future benefit or assessment district-in contributing to the cost of its construction. The development of Waterbird Way south of the Achison, Topeka and Santa Fe railroad line would come about as a result of commercial and industrial development adjacent to the new roadway. A timetable for commercial and industrial development and the construction of the last segment of Waterbird Way has not yet been determined. J 86130 4-24 4.2 Traffic do Circulation lProject-Related Traffic Additional traffic volumes associated with the proposed project would include the introduction of transfer truck vehicles to the transfer station site. Employee and service _ maintenance vehicles that currently access the existing landfill would be redirected to the new transfer station. Project-related traffic arriving at the transfer station site would also include some new employee vehicles, some new vehicles related to waste recovery operations, and some new service and maintenance vehicle trips to the site. For the purposes of analysis, it is assumed that traffic using the transfer station would be similar in nature to current users of the-landfill site with the following exceptions. In the future, sewage sludge incinerator ash, large loads of construction and demolition waste, and manifested wastes would not be delivered to the transfer station, but would be delivered directly to the site of an operating landfill yet to be determined. For an undetermined period, however, some of this material may continue to be disposed of at Acme landfill after its scheduled closure in mid-1989. The traffic forecasts presented here assume that the service area for the transfer station l would be generally the same as that serviced by Acme landfill at the present time. This area is primarily Central Contra Costa County, and it currently includes the Rodeo r Sanitary District and Antioch. The City of Benicia in Solano County would also continue to be served by the transfer station. Transfer station facilities would be available to the general public much as they are today at the existing landfill. - It is possible that future editions of the County's Solid Waste Management Plan may revise the service area served currently by Acme landfill and served, in the future, by the, proposed transfer station. For example, the City of Pittsburg could be added to the service area, or conversely, Benicia and/or Antioch, or Rodeo may be dropped. The amount of recycling may be more or less than estimated. Any of the above changes, however, would not substantially change the conclusions of this analysis. Tonnage In 1985, Acme landfill received 515,300 tons of waste, or an average daily tonnage of 1,340 tons. Given the projected population growth of the area of the County to be served l 86130 4-25 4.2 Traffic be Circulation i b the transfer station this amount is expected grow to 2,000 tons per da b the year Y P Y Y Y 2010. This is the equivalent of a 1.7% per year growth rate.4 For the purposes of the i traffic forecasts, a linear growth rate is assumed for the 25-year projection period. Based on the above assumptions, project-related traffic is expected to increase to the levels shown on Table 5 in future years. The forecast years of 1990 (station opening), 2000 and 2010 have been used in this analysis. Additional traffic volumes, noted in Table 6, would result from a combination of several factors, including: o Transfer vehicle trips to a landfill. Each transfer vehicle is estimated to carry an average load of 20 tons, if self-unloading vehicles are used. If "possum-belly" transfer trucks are used the average load per truck could reach 24 tons. If the transfer station were open today, it would generate 68 transfer trips per day. _ It is estimated that the permanent transfer station would generate 100 trips per day in the year 2010. The permanent transfer station would be designed to load two transfer trucks every seven minutes at a rate of 17 trips per hour. o Additional staff and employees at the project site. The project description estimates that there would be 32 employees, not counting transfer truck drivers. The number of truck drivers is related to the location of the designated landfill, which is not yet decided. If Altamont Pass were to be used, 34 drivers would be required, assuming that each driver makes two round trips to the landfill. It is expected that these drivers would park their personal vehicles at the transfer station site during the day. Traffic growth projected for the transfer station generally parallels the expected growth in County population and changes in recycling activities. Total traffic generated by the transfer station would grow from 2,100 trips in 1986 to 4,380 trips per average weekday in the year 2010 (Table 5 and Table 6). Cumulative Traffic Growth There would be two components to potential cumulative traffic growth in the vicinity of + the project site. These would relate to changes in the. operation of the IT Corporation site, and the usage of the Martinez Gun Club. At the present time, there is no indication that activities at the Gun Club would change or increase significantly in the near future. For the purposes of analyses, traffic generation for the Gun Club is, therefore, assumed to remain at its existing level. J 86130 4-26 4.2 Traffic be Circulation 1 TABLE 5 - FUTURE TRAFFIC FORECASTS: PERMANENT TRANSFER STATION A. Traffic Entering Transfer Station on an Average Weekday Types of Year Traffic Activity Existin 1990 2000 2010 Landfill Users - Franchise Haulers 290 310 378 473 Charge Customers 175 205 250 312 General Public 480 543 686 880 Subtotal 945 1,058 1,314 1,665 Other Trips - - Employees, Visitors 105 180 210 245 Transfer Vehicles 0 72 86 100 Recycling Center 0 80 120 180 ' Subtotal 105 332 416 525 TOTAL 1,050 1,390 1,730 2,190 Total Two-Way Traffic 2,100 2,780 3,460 4,380 B. Composition of Vehicles Using the Transfer Station Types of Year Traffic Activity Existin 1990 2000 2010 Autos, pickups 380 585 810 1,122 Auto, pickup with trailer 40 60 75 95 Two-axle trucks 140 165 188 215 Two-axle box trucks 120 130 150 175 Three-axle trucks 145 148 168 195 Three-axle box trucks 215 220 240 272 Four-axle trucks 10 10 13 16 Transfer Vans 0 72 86 100 1,050 1,390 1,730 2,190 lEstimates by Abrams Associates. 86130 4-27 4.2 Traffic & Circulation TABLE 6 PROJECTED IMPACT OF WATERBIRD WAY SOUTH EXTENSION ON TRANSFER STATION TRAFFIC, 20101 (Average Weekday) Without Extension With Extension Number of Trips Number of Trips Type of Waterbird Way Traffic Activity Waterbird Way Waterfront Rd. South Extension Landfill Users Franchise Haulers 473 363 110 Charge Customers 312 222 90 General Public 880 620 260 1,665 1,205 460 Other Trips Employees, Visitors 245 170 75 Transfer Vehicles 100 100 -- Recycling Center 180 110 70 525 380 145 Total (One-Way Trips) 2,190 1,585 605 Total (Two-Way Trips) 4,380 3,170 1,210 lEstimates by Abrams Associates, based on minimum travel times and travel distance. 86130 4-28 4.2 Traffic do Circulation The recently (1985) proposed development of the Waterfront Business Park on a tract of land north of the transfer station site by the CAZ Development Company was not approved by the City of Martinez. The site may be developed however at some time in the future and therefore the Waterfront Business Park EIR offers a guide to possible future development on the site. The Supplemental EIR for the project noted that the Business Park would generate 9,720 vehicles on a weekday accessing the site from Waterfront Road. The projected intersection service levels for the project indicated that the intersection would operate at near capacity during the morning and evening peak hours. The IT Corporation is currently in the early stages of developing a comprehensive modernization program for its facilities adjacent to the proposed transfer station site. A Comprehensive Project Description for the project entitled IT Corporation Vine Hill Treatment Plant Proposed Modernization Project, November 26, 1986 has been submitted to the County. The proposed modernization program would be expected to result in changes to internal circulation and traffic patterns. These changes may also potentially influence entrance and exit locations to the IT site. Proposed changes may also potentially influence circulation patterns and intersection improvements planned as part of the proposed transfer station. An additional component of, cumulative traffic. growth would result from future .traffic generated by anticipated growth on property adjacent to the extension of Waterbird Way South. Possible future projects could include a County corporation yard and other industrial uses. There would also be a potential diversion of traffic from existing land uses on Imhoff Drive using the new roadway extension. Future Waterbird Way South Extension ! Assuming land use changes noted above future traffic on Waterbird Way South is estimated to be approximately 9,000 vehicles per day in the year 2005. At this level of traffic volume a two-lane cross-section roadway would be sufficient to accommodate the projected traffic increase, as long as turn lanes are provided at appropriate intersections and driveways. The planned Waterbird Way South extension may additionally result, however, in the need for a traffic signal at the existing Waterfront Road and Waterbird Way intersection. 86130 4-29. 4.2 Traffic & Circulation The impacts of the Waterbird Way extension on traffic flow related to the transfer station can be seen by the comparison of traffic distributions shown on Table 7. Without the extension, 100% of traffic using the transfer station would use Waterbird Way. With the roadway extension, approximately 28% of the transfer station traffic would be expected to use Waterbird Way south in the year 2010. It is not expected that the transfer truck traffic would use this route due to travel time differences to a future designated landfill and ease of access to existing freeway intersections. jl The future extension of Waterbird Way South would cross the existing alignment of Arthur Road immediately north of the permanent transfer station site (Figure 8). The future alignment of Waterbird Way South, on the west side of the. permanent transfer station site, would also result in the need for a (second) new intersection where Waterbird Way South intersects the existing alignment of Waterbird Way leading to the permanent transfer station site, the Martinez Gun Club and IT Corporation site (Figure-5 and Figure 8). The provision of the second intersection noted above is not a part of the proposed project. The County would require that the project applicant would construct the intersection as part of the permanent transfer station project or pay for the construction of the intersection at a future date as directed by the County. 4.2.2 IMPACTS Transportation impacts that could result due to the development of a transfer station at the proposed location include impacts on highway safety, pavement integrity, roadway and intersection capacity, and site access congestion. To evaluate these impacts, estimates were developed of additional traffic volumes that would be generated by the proposed project. Impacts on Residential Areas Traffic generated by the proposed transfer station would not travel through adjacent residential areas. Arthur Road would remain closed to the general public. Access along Arthur Road would be restricted to emergency vehicles only. Project-related traffic impacts would, therefore, not have a significant impact on the Vine Hill residential area. 86130 4-30 4.2 Traffic & Circulation l The construction of Waterbird Way south is not a part of the project. This extension project would be subject to a future independent environmental review. There would be the potential for some traffic impacts in the vicinity of Imhoff Road and Blum Road when. the Waterbird Way south extension is completed. The degree of impact cannot be measured with accuracy at this point. Potential traffic impacts and mitigation measures specific to the planned extension of Waterbird Way South would be identified and analyzed at that time. Impacts on Roadway Capacity Since the proposed transfer station is located on the current site of the Acme landfill, the Project would have only a slight impact on existing roadway capacity. For example, the intersection of Waterfront Road and I-680 . would not experience a change in Level of Service due to the proposed project. Similarly, roadway capacity impacts at the intersection of Waterfront Road and Waterbird Way would not be changed as a result of the proposed project. Both intersections currently operate,at Service Level "A", and would continue to do so after completion of the proposed transfer station. 1 t� At the intersection of Waterfront Road and Waterbird Way traffic impacts due to the introduction of the transfer trucks, and an expected growth in daily trips to the site of the proposed project would not result in the need for a new traffic signal. Through traffic on Waterfront Road, unrelated to the proposed project, would need to grow at a considerable t rate before the introduction of a traffic signal would be warranted by traffic conditions. t� There are, at present, no known future projects in the vicinity of the transfer station site that would generate this level of traffic growth. Impacts on Site Access There are several roadway intersections in the immediate vicinity of the project site that , would potentially be affected by the proposed project. They are: 1. Waterbird Way/Acme Landfill Entrance (1987) 2. Waterbird Way/Acme Pay Booth/IT Corporation/Martinez Gun Club 3. Waterbird Way/Arthur Road 4. Waterbird Way/Waterfront Road 5. Waterfront Road/1-680 86130 4-31 4.2 Traffic h Circulation 1. Waterbird Way/Acme Landfill Entrance 1987 Public access to the transfer station site would be via a recently constructed entrance to Acme landfill on Waterbird Way. A private access road would lead to a new scale house and pay booth area. Expected peak-hour traffic volumes at the entrance location are shown on Figure 30. The new entrance would provide access to the transfer station across the Acme landfill. A potential conflict would result from transfer station traffic making left-turn movements at the new entrance intersection on Waterbird Way. Safety features would be included in the final design of this intersection to offset potential traffic hazards. Traffic impacts at this intersection could be significant unless mitigated as required. 2. Waterbird Way/Acme Pay Booth/IT Corporation/Martinez Gun Club The proposed project calls for the reconstruction of the existing intersection entrance from Waterbird Way to Acme landfill and improvements to an unpaved access road on the Acme landfill site. Existing access driveways to the IT Corporation site, the Martinez Gun Club, and the proposed transfer station site would also be reconstructed. A proposed 4-way intersection at the entrance to the permanent transfer station site would result in a significant improvement over current access conditions to the Acme landfill (Figures 7 and 8). The entrance layout to the proposed transfer station could potentially have a significant impact on access to the IT Corporation site and the Maritime Gun Club. Plans for the modernization of the IT site are as yet in the developmental phase and traffic data related to proposed on-site changes have yet to be developed. It is assumed, therefore, for the purposes of this report that traffic volumes and road configurations developed for the proposed transfer station would not result in conflicts with the eventyal layout and design of the IT Corporation site. It is expected that matters of mutual planning concern between Acme Fill and the IT Corporation would be resolved as specific site development plans are finalized. Acme Fill and the IT Corporation have both expressed a willingness to cooperate on matters of mutual planning interest. 86130 4-32 OCs98 O yr w �r u ul 4000 cr C'I ° o f . LL LLI V � NO ZW O 0 Zw alp ,..-- ..--- 90 F- CL t/3 Z o- -'" WATERBI WRY C � w r.L , N Q a O o •• a ul 4' ui Z $0 W 280 Q J � 220.•--- � � ._Y...-+.305 �� 4.350 Q Li. Zo Cl LAW 4R Z "m 'Q 0 ° ° t �Hoz w 0 °� s� w o aa° ,.o U Z z QCp �p� 1w 4-33 R 4-33 4.2 Traffic Circulation The access to the Martinez Gun Club may also a si ifican 1 affected b the y a b gn ty y . reconfiguration of the transfer station entrance intersection unless appropriate mitigation measures are adopted. The Acme Fill Corporation has informed the Martinez Gun Club of its intensions regarding the development of the transfer station. The Martinez Gun Club have indicated a preference for continued communication regarding the layout of the new intersection, and traffic control measures included in the design. Both the Acme Fill Corporation and the Martinez Gun Club have expressed an interest to cooperate in future investigation of this matter. 3. Waterbird Way/Arthur Road The existing alignment of Waterbird Way merges with Arthur Road, a private access road for the Martinez Gun Club, immediately west of the proposed entrance to the permanent transfer station site. Arthur Road is used by the Martinez Gun Club as an alternative route for through traffic for a limited number of special events averaging about 10 per year. As proposed by the project, a new access road and ramp would directly connect transfer trucks and other transfer station vehicles with the existing alignment of Waterbird Way (Figure 8). The action would prohibit the availability of Arthur Road to the Martinez Gun Club and would prevent use of the road by official vehicles during a police or fire , emergency. Unless mitigated this could have a significant impact on County emergency services. In the future, the proposed alignment of Waterbird Way South would cross the existing alignment of Arthur Road at another point close to the western property line of the proposed transfer station (Figure 5). This action could also prohibit the use of Arthur Road by Martinez Gun Club traffic and emergency police and fire vehicles. However, the construction of this future intersection is not a part of the project transfer station project. It would be covered by a separate environmental review at the time of its construction. 86130 4-34 r ■ 4.2 Traffic do Circulation 4. Waterbird Way/Waterfront Road Existing traffic accessing the Acme landfill, the IT Corporation site, and the Martinez Gun Club all use the existing intersection of Waterbird Way and Waterfront Road. The existing intersection is a 3-way intersection that is unsignalized, with northbound traffic making a left or right turn onto Waterfront Road from Waterbird Way, controlled by a stop.sign. A left-hand turn lane is provided for southbound traffic turning onto Waterbird Way from Waterfront Road. Some additional traffic would be added to this intersection by the transfer station project but this traffic would not have a major impact on its fuction. In the future traffic accessing the proposed transfer station, the IT Corporation site, and the Martinez Gun Club would continue to use this intersection. In the long term, with the completion of Waterbird Way South as a north-south arterial connecting Imhoff Road, additional traffic would pass through this intersection. 5. Waterfront Road/I-680 This interchange is the last major interchange on I-680 northbound for traffic leaving the County. The proposed transfer station would not significantly affect the traffic capacity of this interchange. The interchange is substandard in design due to poor pavement design and poor geometries (e.g., existing pipeline "humps"). Depending on the type of vehicle selected for the transfer station, the use of this interchange by transfer trucks could have a potential impact on the pavement structure. Because of low ground clearance and long body-length transfer trucks, particularly "possum-belly" transfer trucks, may have some difficulty negotiating this interchange. Impacts on Pavement Integrity The proposed project would involve the operation of a significant amount otheavy truck traffic. The majority of this traffic, however, currently accesses the landfill site using existing roads. Future traffic impacts on pavement integrity would result from transfer trucks traveling from the transfer station to the landfill. These trips would amount to about 68 per day at the opening of the site, and would grow to about 100 per day by the year 2010. 86130 4-35 4.2 Traffic be Circulation The state highways (I-680 and Highway 4) are designed to structurally accommodate the volume of heavy truck traffic that is expected to be generated by the proposed project. Similarly, Waterfront Road and Waterbird Way have a pavement structure capable of dealing with expected traffic loads. Given the location of the transfer station at the site of the existing landfill, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on roadway pavement maintenance. Some impacts on the Waterfront Road/I-680 interchange could result from transfer truck traffic as noted above. The potential effects of vibration due to transfer truck traffic on the structural integrity of existing roadways is a possible impact of the proposed project. The condition of the P subsoil is an important factor in establishing that structural characteristic of a roadway. This issue could be an important consideration in evaluating potential vibration impacts on Waterfront Road. Sections of Waterfront Road are built over Bay Mud and are prone to subsidence and flooding. The project applicant would consider potential impacts when purchasing transfer truck vehicles. Impacts on Roadway Safety The analysis prepared as part of this report has not disclosed any specific traffic safety problems that would not be dealt with as a part of the development of the project. Traffic plans call for the complete elimination of public and commercial traffic through the Vine Hill residential area, and therefore no additional safety problems are expected to impact the neighborhood as a result of the project. Access to the Martinez Gun Club would be via the same route currently traveled on Waterbird Way. -The 4-way intersection immediately adjacent to the Martinez Gun Club would be signalized. Emergency access to the proposed transfer station and adjacent land uses would be maintained along Arthur Road. Emergency access to the Vine Hill residential neighborhood from the east would also be maintained. on Impacts Regional Traffic P � The current distribution of refuse collection traffic and public vehicles accessing :the project site would remain essentially the same as present access to the Acme landfill. A new regional traffic component would be trips generated by transfer trucks travelling to 86130 4-36 4.2 Traffic & Circulation f _ and from a new landfill site. Contra Costa County may approve a site or sites for one or more new landfills within the County in the near future. Alternatively, transfer trucks could potentially access the Alameda County landfill site at Altamont Pass. The number of transfer trucks employed would relate to the distance of a landfill from the project site and allowable travel time. If the Altamount landfill is used a transfer truck would require about 27' to 3 hours to complete a round trip; allowing for loading and unloading. The transfer truck could make approximately 3 trips in an 8-hour work shift. This would result in a fleet of about 45 transfer trucks, including a 10% additional capacity for maintenance and reserves. If the Kirker Pass landfill was used, for example, a transfer truck would require about 11 hours to complete a round trip, loading and unloading time included. Over an 8-hour work shift the transfer truck could make about 5 trips to the landfill. This would result in the need for about 25 transfer trucks, allowing for 10% reserve capacity. The above figures represent a hypothetical case and are meant to show the relative differences in time travel and the number of transfer trucks in a fleet. They are not provided as a definitive analysis of traffic impacts. Existing freeways that would be used by transfer trucks to access a designated landfill ' site are among the most seriously congested roadways in the region. However, the impact of the proposed project on these roadways is not expected to be significant in terms of traffic capacity as long as current traffic patterns for vehicles accessing the Acme landfill site continue to be followed in the future when the transfer station is in operation. -� Continuance of these existing traffic patterns would result in few additional trips during peak traffic hours. The project applicant would also control the scheduling of transfer trucks to avoid locations and time periods when potential traffic congestion would occur. 4.2.3 MITIGATION MEASURES Many of the potential traffic and transportation impacts discussed in the impacts section would be mitigated by the project applicant as part of the project. Additional mitigation measures recommended by the EIR traffic consultant as a result of this traffic analysis are noted below. 86130 4-37 4.2 Traffic Circulation Measures Proposed by the Applicant In order to process vehicles and collect fees, the applicant proposes that all franchise hauler, charge customer traffic, and the general public accessing the transfer station would enter the project site via a left turn from Waterbird Way at an existing entrance to Acme property. A private access road would lead to the new scale house and pay booth area. Traffic leaving the transfer station site would also return along this road. The access road would route public transfer station traffic away from the Vine Hill residential area. This action is intended to improve traffic noise and congestion relative to the residential area. Use of the new entrance and access road is also intended to result in �M improved traffic conditions and traffic flow at the 4-way intersection entrance to the permanent transfer station site. The applicant proposes to reconstruct roadway intersections with the IT Corporation site and access driveways to the Martinez Gun Club. These access points are--unpaved and uncontrolled at the present time. The project proposes °a 4-way intersection at this location. The proposed project would improve both safety and traffic flow in an area where access to all three adjacent facilities is currently congested. The final design details of the new intersection are currently being studied. Further Mitigation Measures A number of traffic management and operational actions are discussed in this chapter. The project description notes that the applicant may operate transfer trucks on a 24-hour day schedule, as required by the volume of waste deposited at the transfer station. The project applicant could be required to minimize the number of trips made by transfer trucks, particularly during peak traffic hours. This action could be accomplished by the applicant preparing a schedule of expected time periods for transfer truck operations. The E applicant would be required to periodically review truck schedules with County transportation staff. The goal of this measure would be to minimize transfer truck traffic on westbound Highway 4 between 6:30 am and 8:30 am, and eastbound on Highway 4 between 4:00 pm and 6:30 pm. Similarly, northbound transfer truck traffic on I-680 would r be limited between 4:00 pm and 6:30 pm. The specific traffic schedule adopted for the transfer station would be based on the location of the new landfill site, when selected. 86130 4-38 4.2 Traffic & Circulation Residential Areas In order to prevent impacts on residential neighborhoods, the applicant could be required to prevent any transfer station traffic from using public streets in the Vine Hill residential area after the opening of the transfer station. This action would preclude the use of residential streets by transfer trucks, employees and the public who access the transfer station. Transfer station management personnel would participate in all plans involving the closure of Arthur Road, including the provision of additional signing, permanent barricades and other control devices as required by the County. Arthur Road would not be used for through access, except for emergency vehicles and occasional use by the Martinez Gun Club. The project applicant has indicated his support for this concept. The applicant could be required to prevent any transfer station traffic from using streets in the Blum Road residential area when Waterbird Way is extended to the south. Transfer station management would participate in plans involving trafi'ic management in this area, including the provision of additional signing, the use of barricades and other traffic control devices, in coordination with the County. The public use of off streets in the Blum Road area to access Waterbird Way south extension, and thereby the transfer station site, would be expected to be highly localized. • Site Access 1. Waterbird Way/Acme Landfill Entrance (1987) As described in the impacts section the existing intersection of Waterbird Way and the new entrance to Acme landfill (1987) accessing the proposed scale house and pay booth area for the transfer station, would be impacted as a result of the proposed project and additional traffic hazard would be introduced on Waterbird Way. This intersection should therefore be designed to accommodate a southbound left turn Pane on Waterbird Way and new pavement marking and signing would be installed. These would include a left hand turn lane and stop sign for southbound traffic entering the new entrance area from Waterbird Way. A stop sign for northbound traffic approaching this intersection would be maintained in the final design of the facility. 86130 4-39 4.2 Traffic & Circulation 2. Waterbird Way/Acme Pa Booth/IT Cor oration/Martinez Gun Club , In order to off-set potential traffic hazards, the proposed 4-way intersection adjacent to the proposed permanent transfer station would be signalized to improve traffic safety and expedite traffic flow through the intersection. Security lighting would also be provided to facilitate traffic circulation during nighttime hours and inclement weather conditions. Access requirements to both the Martinez Gun Club and the IT Corporation site would be taken into account in the final design of driveways leading to and from the intersection. 3. Waterbird Way/Arthur Road To provide for emergency access a new roadway connection at grade would be provided and maintained at the intersection of Waterbird- Way South and Arthur Road to allow passage of emergency vehicles along Arthur Road. Public traffic would be prevented from using Arthur Road by means of a lockable barrier or similar control device. Traffic to the Martinez Gun Club would not use Arthur Road under normal conditions. On a number of occasions averaging about 10 per year, Gun Club traffic would be allowed to use Arthur Road when special weekend events take place at the Gun Club. The applicant should provide future realignment improvements for an intersection at this location when Waterbird Way is extended to the south as part of the implementation of the General Plan. The future extension of Waterbird Way to the south would also result in an additional intersection. of Arthur Road close to the northwest corner of the permanent transfer station site. A date for the construction of this intersection has not been determined. It is likely that at the time of its construction traffic volumes and patterns in the project area would be affected by the level of development in the area and therefore the characteristics of the new intersection cannot be specifically determined at this time. c, County staff believe that there would be a 3-way intersection at this location in the future. The section of Arthur Road to the east of the intersection may be abandoned. The section of Arthur Road to the west should be accessible by emergency vehicles and be available for occassional use by the Martinez Gun Club until Waterbird Way South opens. 86130 4-40 4.2 Traffic be Circulation >. 4. Waterbird Way/Waterfront Road The construction of the proposed transfer station would not cause the need for traffic improvements at the existing intersection of Waterbird Way and Waterfront Road. However, the proposed project would contribute to the potential need for a future traffic signal at this intersection. There may also be the need for additional improvements on Waterfront Road between I-680 and Waterbird Way to improve road drainage and pavement slopes. The applicant of the proposed project would therefore be required to participate in a future benefit district that would be formed to finance these and other specific roadway improvements as defined by the County and the City of Martinez. 5. Waterfront Road/I-680 The reconfiguration and redesign of this intersection would enable the movement of transfer trucks, and other vehicles, onto the freeway system. As a mitigation measure the applicant should provide an operations study to ensure the provision of a safe and workable interchange. The project applicant should be required to make interim improvements to the design of this interchange made necessary to accommodate transfer { 1 trucks. The project applicant would also be asked to participate in a future benefit / assessment district, with others, to fund the reconstruction of the interchange. The development of a long-term solution for the I-680 interchange would be coordinated with provisions for a possible parallel span for the Benicia-Martinez bridge,. the widening of the bridge and possibleP rovision of extra lanes on I-680. Pavement Integrity Included in roadway improvements would be measures to prevent periodic flooding and measures to offset vibration effects on*the pavement. The applicant should provide interim improvements to roadway sections of Waterfront Road made necessary to accommodate transfer truck traffic. The project applicant woultd be asked to participate in an operations study and a maintenance surcharge program to implement long-term roadway improvements. The operations study may lead to recommendations to improve the structural pavement of Waterfront Road to prevent potential vibration impacts. Improved roadways would result in an increase in the rated Traffic Index (TI) for Waterfront Road. 86130 4-41 i 4.2 Traffic & Circulation ,. i The Traffic Index (TI) is a measure of the structural loading capacity of an engineered pavement of roadway. The TI of a roadway is a standard measure for pavement structural integrity. The methodology for establishing the TI of a roadway was developed by the ,E American Association of State Highways. The TI methodology takes into account both the bearing capacity and the soil over which a roadway is constructed and the loading �{ capacity of pavement design. An operations study could establish the TI for Waterfront Road and possible effects of truck vibrations on the pavement structure. I 1 { Brown, Vence & Associates, Acme Fall Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Project Description — Report of Station Information, July, 1986. 2 . ,k Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Contra Costa County, January 1986. 3 I-680/I-580 Corridor Study, Year 2005 Travel Trends and Highway Impacts Report, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), August, 1986. 4Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Solid Waste Management Report, February 1985, Volume 11, Technical Memorandum No. 6. 86130 4-42 4.3 Noise 4.3 NOISE 4.3.1 SETTING The proposed site is surrounded by other industrial land uses on all boundaries except to the west where an existing residential neighborhood, known as Vine Hill, is situated. The residences are single-family detached dwellings. The eastern portion of the neighborhood is oriented such that its rear yards face the site. Presently the lowest elevation of the project site is depressed about 45 feet relative to the first row of homes. r- > On November 25, 1986, a 24-hour noise m-onitor.was installed on the eastern property line of 4117 Irene Drive, adjacent to the project site boundary (Figure 31). The A-weighted R average noise levels ranged from 51 to 57 decibels during the 24 hourly periods and the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) was 61 decibels.1 The principal noise source (� was distant traffic on U.S. I-680 which was visible from the monitoring site. Other intermittent noise sources consisted of general aviation overflights from nearby Buchanan t Field, local vehicles, dogs barking, children shouting, a distant horn, and occasional skeet shooting from the nearby Martinez Gun Club. At the time of the measurements Arthur Road, on the northern boundary of the residential area, was closed to through traffic. Short-term measurements conducted at curbside along Irene Drive resulted in average t background noise levels about 10 decibels less than measured by the 24-hour monitor. This difference is probably caused by acoustical shielding from I-680 provided by the first _ row of dwellings on the north side of Donna Drive. Criteria The 1975 Noise Element of Contra Costa Count contains a policy which states that the Y P Y exterior noise environment (CNEL) in existing residential areas should remain less than 60 decibels. Thus, the proposed project would be in conformance with this policy if it did not significantly increase the 24-hour noise level (CNEL) at the common property line.2 86130 4-43 i NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS FIGURE 31 , CCWD STORAGE TANKS � � 1 loc / I PROPOSED PERMANENT TRANSFER / STATION SITE _J 0a a RECEPTOR LOCATION 0� a \ o LEGEND X29 • 24-HOUR MEASUREMENT • SPOT MEASUREMENTS eip 1 4-44 4.3 Noise 4.3.2 IMPACTS Future Conditions The principal noise generators anticipated for the proposed project are classified as follows: 1. Engine powered station equipment (e.g., waste-handling bulldozers) 2. Franchise hauler garbage and debris box trucks 3. Departing transfer trucks 4. Arrival and departure of vehicles used by general public 5. Wood chipper operation 6. Miscellaneous (vehicle maintenance operations, building exhaust fans, etc.). Engine-powered equipment operating within the main transfer building are forecasted to generate a maximum A-weighted noise level of 85 decibels at 50 feet.3 The steel frame disposal buildings proposed as part of the project, would provide approximately 25 decibels of noise reduction; therefore, engine-powered equipment operating within the building would probably not be audible at the property line of the adjacent residential neighborhood. The debris box and charge account trucks would operate on the east side of the building complex about 700 feet from the closest residences. The transfer building would provide some acoustical shielding for these operations so,that the sound of diesel engines and potential impact sounds from debris box handling operations would be barely audible to the residents of the Vine Hill neighborhood. Refuse collection trucks would discard their material on the west side of the Main Transfer Building and pass within 200 feet of M the western property line. Approximately 70 transfer trucks per day would arrive on the west side of the transfer building. The truck operations are projected to intermittently generate 65 decibels at the western property line assuming that the combination noise barrier/retaining wall for the project is in place before transfer station operations commence. This traffic volume would not cause a measurable increase in the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) at the nearest homes in the Vine Hill residential �l neighborhood during daytime hours. J 86130 4-45 4.3 Noise I I The departure route for transfer trucks would pass within 100 feet of the residences on the western property line of the project site. The transfer trucks would intermittently generate from 65 to 70 decibels as they pass near residences, assuming that the combination noise barrier/retaining wall is in place, as shown in the project description. - Since the average material estimated for initial transfer station operation is 1,340 tons per day, approximately 68 transfer trucks (20 tons each) would exit the site each day and pass near the residential neighborhood. This truck traffic volume would not increase the property line CNEL, assuming that the bulk of the operations would occur from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm. The applicant proposes that the transfer station would be open to charge customers and the public seven days a week from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm. The applicant further proposes that franchise haulers would access the transfer station 24 hours a day seven days a week.4 r During April 1986 a total of 1985 franchise hauler vehicles accessed the Acme landfill. In that time period 540 vehicles (34% of the total) arrived at the landfill between 5:00 pm and 7:00 am, i.e., during overnight hours.5 This would equate to about 77 vehicles per night during a 12 hour period, which trnaslates to an average 6 to 7 vehicles per hour. Approximately the same number of franchise hauler vehicles can, be expected to access the transfer station over a typical week when it begins operation. The number of transfer trucks accessing the proposed transfer station during the evening, in time, and early morning hours is not yet determined. The total number of transfer trucks used at the site has not been defined because the location of a new landfill is not yet identified, and therefore the type of transfer vehicle, and the size of the load it could carry, is not yet decided. Contractual stipulations regarding the export of waste to another landfill may require i that a "second shift" transportation scenario be used at the transfer station site thus ■ restricting the transfer of wastes until after the evening peak traffic hour.6 It is also possible that the departure of loaded transfer trucks may be delayed overnight and commenced after 7:00 am. 8610 4-46 i 4.3 Noise The noise element of the County's General Plan may be contravened by the operation of transfer trucks after 7:00 pm. A transfer truck would generate approximately 65 to 70 decibles at the property line, with the sound barrier retaining wall in place, during the day. From 10:00 pm to 7:00 am the CNEL would increase this value to 70-75 decibels. This potential impact would be significant without appropriate mitigation measures being implemented. The average weekday daily tonnage of materials exported from the site is anticipated to be 2,000 tons in the year 2010. The average number of daily transfer truck departures in this year is estimated to be 100 per day (20 tons per truck). This increased volume would represent a less than 2 decibel increase in the daily noise level due to truck operations alone and would not affect the present property line CNEL. The peak weekday daily material tonnage in the year 2010 is projected to be 3,600 tons, resulting in 180 daily transfer truck departures. This "worst case" condition would result in a less than one decibel increase at the property line CNEL during daytime hours. The arrival and departure of the general public's vehicles would occur on both sides of the Public Disposal Building and on the east side of the Main Transfer Building, about 700 feet rfrom the Vine Hill neighborhood. Noise generated by these operations would be barely 1 audible to the residents due to shielding provided by intervening project structures and the distance to the unloading area. Miscellaneous noise generated by vehicle maintenance activities and fixed noise sources are estimated to cause a negligible change in the daily noise environment in the Vine Hill neighborhood. This finding is based on the distance to these noise sources and on-site observations made at the San Francisco transfer station facility. ' Construction Noise Effects Grading and other site preparation operations at the project site would generate short- term noise levels comparable to those from the project. In the absence of a noise barrier/retaining wall, the CNEL at the Vine Hill neighborhood property line would increase by about 5 decibels during the construction phase. If the proposed noise barrier is installed prior to other on-site preparation activities, project construction noise would not be significant. 86130 4-47 4.3 Noise �) During the project construction period, the interim transfer station, a temporary open site, will be used for handling the transfer of waste materials. The interim transfer station site would be located approximately 2,200 feet northeast of the residential neighborhood. This distance is adequate to prevent a significant increase in noise levels in Vine Hill neighborhood. Waterbird Way Extension (South) The proposed project would accommodate an extension of Waterbird Way to the south by reserving a right-of-way through Acme property along the western boundary of the proposed permanent transfer station site. The project applicant, together with the IT Corporation, would contribute to the construction of this roadway at a future date. The extension of Waterbird Way to the south would implement the Circulation Element of the County General Plan. The selected road alignment would pass between the transfer station and the Vine Hill neighborhood. If significant traffic occurs on the road, the property line noise level could increase somewhat, causing a potential environmental noise impact. Transfer trucks accessing the transfer station would not use the planned extension to Waterbird Way south. They would use the existing Waterbird Way and Waterfront Road route because of the proximity of existing access to the I-680 freeway intersections. Future traffic on Waterbird Way South is estimated to reach 9,000 vehicles per day in 2005, depending on development proposals for the area. Noise generated by this volume of traffic would probably exceed the County's noise element unless mitigated by sound attenuation features. These future impacts are not however attributable to the proposed transfer station. The future construction of Waterbird Way South would be the subject of a separate environmental study. Noise mitigation measures would be defined in that study. 86130 4-48 i 4.3 Noise I 4.3.3 MITIGATION MEASURES IMeasures Proposed by the Applicant The project applicant would provide a sound barrier/retaining wall on the east side of the 80-foot wide buffer zone/right-of-way. This wall would be 10-foot minimum in height and ` would protect homes in the Vine Hill residential neighborhood from noise generated by t transfer station operations and from transfer trucks using on-site roadways to access and exit the transfer station. Additional traffic noise resulting from the extension of Waterbird Way south should not be attributed to this proposed project and the project rapplicant would be required to contribute to the attenuation of this future potential impact but only to the degree of impact generated by,transfer station operations. [ Further Mitigation Measures rAs an additional mitigation measure the project sponsor could place a noise barrier/retaining wall on the western property line, adjacent-to the Vine Hill neighborhood in order to improve noise reduction performance for the first row of homes along Irene Drive. Potential noise impacts could be mitigated by relocating the project noise barrier/retaining wall westward to the residential property line so that it would reduce both project-generated noise and also noise resulting from future road traffic on Waterbird Way extension to the south. The barrier height would be increased to r approximately 15 feet so that the projected "line-of-sight" between the homes and { transfer truck operations is intercepted by at least five feet. As an additional measure, the noise barrier on Arthur Road could wrap around the northeast corner of the Vine Hill residential area and continue westward for approximately 150 feet in order to protect homes fronting Donna Drive from exiting transfer trucks proceeding north along Waterbird Way. Noise barrier walls on the western property line of the site and on Arthur Road would bL- constructed at the start of construction activities for the transfer station complex. The iheight of the retaining wall proposed by the project sponsor on the east side of the 80-foot wide right-of-way could be reduced so that it functions simply as a retaining wall. The sound wall located on the western property line of the site would attenuate noise generated on the site to a level of insignificance. It is recommended that Federal Highway Administration publications be consulted in the design and surface treatment of this sound wall.7 86130 4-49 'I 4.3 Noise As a further mitigation measure trasfer truck operations might be limited to daytime working hours. For example, this operation of transfer trucks might be limited to between 7:00 am to 7:00 pm seven days a week. To mitigate the potential impact of transfer truck noise operation during the 7:00 pm to 7:00 am period the following measures could be implemented: o All transfer trucks could be equipped with sound supression systems to control noise. The radiators could be equipped with fluid drive systems, the engine compartment could have a sound-proof casing, and mufflers would be placed on exhausts. o The County could limit the conditions of approval to ensure that a breach of community standards relating to noise would not occur. The established CNEL would be maintained along the property lines of the transfer station site. A monitoring system should be established to ensure compliance. o If the applicant demonstrates to the County's satisfaction that transfer truck noise can be held to below the CNEL limits a request to operate transfer true cis overnight would be submitted to the County for approval. The applicant should consider reversing the traffic flow of transfer trucks exiting the project site, if nighttime operations are instituted, to minimize noise impacts on the Vine Hill residential area. 1See appendix for an explanation of environmental noise terminology. 2Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). A descriptor for the 24-hour A-Weighted average noise level. The CNEL concept accounts for the increased acoustical sensitivity of people to noise during the evening and nighttime hours. Sound levels during the hours from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm are penalized 5 dB; sound levels during the hours from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am are penalized 10 dB. A 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived to be twice as loud. . . i 3A-Weighting. A standard frequency weighting which is commonly employed to measure the loudness or "noisiness" of sounds. A-Weighting is a frequency technology filter which treats the microphone signal in a manner which correlates well with the sensation of human hearing. Use of A-Weighting measures is required by most federal and state agencies including the U.S. EPA, the Federal Highway Administration, OSHA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). A 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived by people to be twice as loud. All noise data in this report are A-Weighted. 4 Acme Fill Corporation, Report of Station Information, Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station, October 1986, p. 5. 5Ibid, p. 5. 8613) 4-50 4.3 Noise 6 . Telephone Conversation, Tom Reilly, Project Manager, Acme Fill Corporation, June 15, 1986. 7Refer to Highway Noise Barriers: Selection, Design, and Construction Experiences - A State-of-the-Art Report, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1975. i 1 86130 4-51 4.4 Soils, Geology & Seismicity 4.4 SOILS, GEOLOGY $ SEISMICITY Geotechnical information for the proposed permanent transfer station site is contained in the 1983 Final EIR/EIS for the Acme Landfill Expansion.1 As shown in _Figure 32, the proposed site is completely within the Acme landfill property. Studies carried out by Harding Lawson Associates from 1971 through 1983 were the basis for the Acme Landfill EIR geotechnical analysis.2a-2e The reader is referred to the Acme Landfill EIRIEIS for an extended discussion of the surface soils, underlying bedrock, and seismic conditions of the area. Please refer to Section 6.4 for a discussion of environmental issues relating to the proposed interim transfer station. Information pertinent to the proposed permanent j transfer station site is included in the following discussion in summary form below. �C The site of the proposed permanent transfer station would be located on an existing borrow pit area not previously used for landfill operations, other than to provide cover materials (Figure 32). The bulk of the proposed permanent transfer station facilities and f buildings would, therefore, not disturb existing fill areas. ' However, additional on-site 'f improvements associated with the permanent transfer station would include the construction of a new scale house and pay booth area, excavation for weighing scales and utility services and the construction of permanent road surfaces and grade changes (filling) on the existing filled portions of the Acme site. The following discussion therefore mostly relates to potential impacts resulting from the possible disturbance of areas of existing fill. 4.4.1 SETTING The proposed site of the permanent transfer station at the Acme landfill site is located in the Coast Ranges physiographic province. The Coast Ranges are a series of northwest trending mountains and valleys that have undergone a complex geologic history including periods of sedimentation, folding, faulting, uplift, and erosion. The Carquinez Straits, ` north of the Acme site, were eroded through the East Bay Hills as the hills were elevated in Late Tertiary time (2 to 25 million years ago). Alluvial and marsh deposits, or Bay Mud, in varying amounts, overlie bedrock and cover most of the Acme landfill site. The bedrock consists of sedimentary rocks of Cretaceous age (70 to 150 million years old) known as the Panoche Formation. Depth to bedrock varies from less than 1-foot to more than 100 feet. 86130 4-52 SOILS GEOLOGIC / SEISMIC CONDITIONS FIGURE 32 INTERIM TRANSFER "` "'`� \ Jr\ � \I tai' ! / \il\� • �/ \+ \ STATION SITE ..i_ii'�trt�itr�ir:rt"t,,\Il,wJ:I �f,"` '` t/i t� +- ✓.#�� •\.�/,'y�' I..a `1;;[J.�r'fl�.1M/I'`\�/♦\`I=a t I�I` \1/�{,�! ,`'1�;J;7 JI .::�7i.' i '- i' i\r^f FaM1/'t♦talt wll��l�t�rr`atiti tr /{r !�. !. tr '`,;. .t' _�„i'Rt I\n "r1Y14S, ./belIy�rr//� J/,+!,�itiltlltat� ri- J }..My '� \ii;l,t�.t�a ��y`*�r�i/,f+/fvl`►.1+1~•liafi�;r1"''�tl:{�'{�I.. 'i\.��atfl /�/liti```iri'~+alf` \rlr� � \ /„j l'_�t't-/-`w{ii Yt .4`ijt.`iysv`^SX�.x��R�`'j+r�♦•w_!� >..+��` tf' t,� .r ,a Ira-"i„I,r t`„ ,� /al tri ' M♦ " p ci _!_�i"}�tr,/_`P�,ai._y_,.,„{1}�Mt.fLJ.i,,�ti,.},i�.�1t�`�wItryr'�`t`,,\`r\,rte�1 t!,t-Jti4lK!y+t',!`:r�l.'�ti"r's3!.',�,l1 i:rrti"5"',k`..��/1�ltai.f♦♦`f`/`�ry11ry7:.i rii'�it..ti�.1;�,+d!�1r#tM.`'l,hy."t�flS,ij}A:�r \.aY.I r„�..-.♦fy,�Ylat{ \-1/�t/r♦-• AU:”L`l `CONCD ` ! Y +r rpt r.�.�yl♦ r�*i�,4'„ 1 r ♦w)♦ ITt ti r`�t 1>I'va'!-!.t�r� _!"1. �/t �/_�- \- e.r ... _�,�'p"i !tr_ r'i.` �' iLf � ..\,J•-t � 1'i• t�+�w♦. t„ \r.' , -Ir ...E .. ': _ /-aA!)✓'H`. ♦� `� 11,,4`w ija./�ice:. i,r .. ra r�/, r1` iltr '� : ,' ,-_.....� `\ . ��i`rl♦ ♦ i\\ �a�ri�-);.� �'I`r- .Ori a!, .\�_ r y`r t',r �/t! `I,;i �, \ L,.., ' Li,`i.a.+s 1,tj-"" t y-i Y.t.•�\r'Y va,. �t-t!_ \ \^ f :,y` ' r -! -- `` - ;t 1�� h .na �l i:+:�::y ii.t'_{a�- �a/tJ to/i• �, ,t. !1%' ,r s_i rl� � � �'\: •. s ;f^`l1 l��/j*I- `/��ir* ialili+'tXt-a^'t �-IrI!i\♦ .' 1'{�`i aii i� _ r ,lam _ �� 5:_,.\ ` �.•'..L?��`4,. tI' ,i�"(!,_ 4/ 1iY-��t�i,. .! _\j�'��j Wit':- -ti'rJ tf.f_a - ! •;;laa � S PERMANENT TRANSFER ;-'jj-. ; •� '}7;�,? ;:" STATION STATION 14 -i \._!V`'�f�/ti/�,',i t .� \\\\+ fir* a1 / • �` / t 5 !; l� -♦ ` - r, ^♦moi �' �� a, Avon segment :',; rs►-m of Concord Fault ® Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Bay Mud(Omni Soils) '� \ $�!`.��`;�'1✓ ;:;�,L-01r Residual Soils over® Bedrock(Altamont clay) h0f1 Residual Soils over Bedrock (Lodi silty clay foam) „• f FEET SOURCE: TORREY 6 TORREY INC. lip Q 500 2000 SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 4-53 4.4 Soils, Geology do Seismicity The part of the Acme landfill including the permanent transfer station site has not been studied in detail. It is generally characterized by stiff residual silts and clays in the upland areas including the site of the permanent transfer station. In the lowland areas it contains Bay Mud and alluvial deposits of medium to stiff clayey silt, derived from adjacent hills. The alluvial clayey silts probably interfinger laterally with Bay Mud and vary from less than 1-foot to at least 35 feet thick. A major portion of the permanent transfer station site has been excavated to bedrock level. Additional excavation on the site would be required to accommodate the foundations for proposed building, roads, surface parking and underground fuel storage tanks. The soils underlying the unexcavated portions of the permanent transfer station site are of the Omni,. Altamont and Lodi series. The marsh deposits of Bay Mud are-the "Omni soils". The Altamont and Lodi soils occur on the hill northeast of the site and on Vine Hill area west of the site, respectively. M When loads, such as the weight of fill material, roads or structures, such as the temporary transfer station, are applied to Bay Mud the water it has absorbed slowly escapes by travelling to and through the most permeable layer available or to the surface. The mud consolidates and its surface settles as water previously absorbed by the mud escapes. As it consolidates, this material also gains strength. Settlement of landfilled areas above Bay Mud occurs during and after the period of refuse disposal due to.four mechanisms: o compression of the refuse fill, o refuse decomposition, o migration of finer refuse particles and soil cover into voids in the refuse, o consolidation of underlying marsh deposits beneath the refuse fill weight. Total settlement of 7 to 11 feet is anticipated after 30 years where the Bay Mud is more than 60 feet thick. 86130 4-54 4.4 Soils, Geology & Seismicity \ The Altamont clay consists of well-drained soils underlain by shale and soft, fine-grained } sandstone. The soil is found on slopes of 15% to 30%. Depth to bedrock is typically 31 to 5 feet. The Lodi silty clay loam consists of excessively drained soils underlain by soft sandstone and shale. The soil is found on slopes of 9% to 50%. Depth to bedrock is generally 1 to 1$ feet. Collectively these soils are predominantly clays, have low permeabilities and moderate to high shrink-swell potential.3 The western branch of the Concord Fault underlies the eastern part of the Acme site, as . shown in Figure 32, and is believed to be active. The Fault is approximately 3,000 feet from the permanent transfer site at its nearest point to the site. Measurement of the fault's activity is based on suspected fault creep effects on the Waterfront Road bridge immediately north of the Acme site and on the A.T. & S.F. railway bridge about 2,500 �- feet south of the junction of Walnut Creek with Pacheco Creek. Between these points there are no surface manifestations of faulting. Based on these fault creeps, suspected creep on a parallel branch about 2,000 feet to the east, and creep evidence in downtown Concord, as well as earthquake and aftershock sequence in 1955, the State established a Special Studies Zone covering part of the Acme landfill site. The permanent transfer station is located approximately 2,000 feet from the special studies zone boundary. The three closest faults to the site are the Franklin, Clayton, and Concord. -Estimated Richter Scale magnitudes, distances to the site and peak accelerations are shown below, as given in the January 1986 Preliminary Draft (update) of the Contra Costa County ' Seismic Safety Element. Magnitude of Distance Peak Maximum Credible To Site Acceleration Fault Earthquake miles (�) Franklin/ Calaveras 6.5-7.3 5.0 0.25-0.50 Clayton 5.5-6.3 4.0 . 0.15-0.40 Concord 5.7-6.5 1.0 0.15-0.45 86130 4-55 4.4 Soils, Geology do Seismicity The maximum surface offset that could be expected along the Concord Fault from a Richter magnitude 6 earthquake would be approximately 5 feet. Surface fault rupture is unlikely to affect thick Bay Mud deposits. The probability of rupture resulting from an earthquake propagating through 80 feet of highly plastic silts and clay is extremely remote for earthquakes up to Magnitude 6 or so. S Other major San Francisco Bay Area faults which could generate ground shaking at the Acme site include the San Andreas, Hayward, and Antioch faults. Analysis of magnitudes, distances and peak accelerations for events on other faults in the region indicate that those faults are less critical to the stability of the project site. 4.4.2 IMPACTS The site of the proposed permanent transfer station is an excavated borrow pit. Development on this site would not involve disturbance to an existing landfilled-area. The borrow pit site would contain an underground fuel tank for station vehicles. The proposed transfer station scale house, weighing scale chamber (underground), and access road improvements may cause minor disturbance to existing landfilled areas. This disturbance would not have a significant effect on existing soil stability. Settlement and Erosion Impacts �+ Total and differential settlement of the underlying Bay Mud also could affect the design and performance of foundations for structures and roads built over Bay Mud. For example, in areas where more than 60 feet of mud is overlain by 40 feet of fill, the settlement will range between 5.1 and 8.2 feet during the next 30 years. Roads supported by decomposing refuse would be subject to tilting and sinking which could damage the r road base and/or surface. In general, expected settlement would be less on older portions of the landfilled areas.4 During excavation and construction for the permanent transfer station the existing soils and soil cover could be subjected to increased erosion potential. This is particularly .true if the construction period extends into the rainy season. The significance' of erosion impacts is not likely to be great but appropriate mitigation measures should be adopted. 86130 4-56 4.4 Soils, Geology & Seismicity Seismic Impacts The primary effects of fault movements are generated by vibrations that are felt as earthquake shaking and, occasionally, the propagation of a fracture to the earth's surface, either as sudden fault rupture or fault creep, which can result with or without small earthquakes. Each of these impacts can be mitigated through project design and is not considered environmentally significant. 4.4.3 MITIGATION MEASURES Measures Proposed by Applicant To reduce impacts on the permanent transfer station road grading would be designed to resist differential settlement and to accommodate total settlement. Future Mitigation Measures To off-set potential erosion impacts the project applicant should submit an Erosion Control Plan to the County as a condition of approval. An erosion control plan for the site should include temporary protection for the soils ' during the construction operations. The type of information and recommendations to be included should be similar to the following.5 a. Heavy earth-moving operations should be limited to the time of year when rainfall is minimum — June through September. If this is not practicable, temporary dikes, sedimentation basins, drainage ditches and diversion ditches should be used to prevent erosive overland flows and to control storm drainage if construction is extended into the rainy season. Following the completion of construction for the season, either mechanical or vegetative cover should be provided for exposed soils until appropriate natural cover is developed. b. Roads should be located outside major drainageways. ic. Runoff should be discharged into small drainage-ways at frequent intervals to avoid buildup of large, potentially erosive flows. d. Disturbed areas should be kept to the minimum size necessary for grading operations. . l 86130 4-57 4.4 Soils, Geology & Seismicity vegetative e. Disturbed areas should be stabilized as quickly as possible, either by ve g or mechanical methods. f. Stormwater runoff velocities should be kept low. g. Slope lengths and gradients should be kept to a minimum. h. Runoff should be kept away from disturbed areas during construction activity. Building and containment structures should be designed to meet current County, state and federal seismic standards, as applicable. A detailed Earthquake Preparedness Plan should { be prepared by the project operator as part of an operations plan regulated by the Solid Waste Facility Permit. The specific language of such plans vary, but concepts to be adhered to included the following:6 o Make structural and non-structural elements secure from the effects of expected levels of groundshaking. — o Assign specific personnel primary and back-up responsibilities to be carried out ; during a seismic emergency. o Provide supplies of emergency water, food and shelter for project personnel to remain on-site for at least 3 days, which is the length of time during which personnel could be expected to maintain themselves before organized governmental aid could be made available to the site in the event of a major earthquake. o. Provide training for personnel in First Aid, CPR and other emergency response r procedures. ' o Carry out practice drills of emergency response procedures. r. o Provide an emergency evacuation plan for members of the public visiting the site. 1Final EIR/EIS, Proposed Expansion of Acme Landfill Operations. Contra Costa County, California, prepared for Contra Costa County Planning Department & US Army Cgrps of Engineers by Torrey be Torrey, Inc., June 1983, pages 52 through 69. 2aHardin Lawson Associates, Daniel A. Babiani, personal communication and additional Harding logs of borings 8, H-1, I-1, March 15, 1983. 2b Harding Lawson Associates, Sanitary Landfill and Dredged Material Disposal Pond Development, April 28, 1982. 86130 4-58 ' 4.4 Soils, Geology & Seismicity 2cHarding Lawson Associates, Phased Landfill Development Plan, North Part of Southern Parcel, Acme Landfill, Martinez, California; April 14, 1981. 2dHardingLawson Associates, ; Geotechnical Investigation, Slope Movement, Acme_ Landfill, Martinez, California, November 21, 1978. 2eHarding, Miller, Lawson do Associates, Laboratory Testing of Dredge Spoil, Pacheco Slough, Contra Costa County. Prepared for Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, July 1971. 3U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California, 1977. 4EMCON Associates, Designing and Planning for. End Use of Sanitary Landfills, by J.G. Pace, President, EMCON Assoc., undated. 5Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), "Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures," Berkeley, revised, June 1981. 6Red Cross Disaster Resource Center, "Corporate Disaster Planning Guide," Golden Gate Chapter, American Red Cross, San Francisco, 1986. 1 f .1 . 1 1 1 86130 4-59 4.5 Hydrology & Water Quality 4.5 HYDROLOGY do WATER QUALITY The existing hydrologic regime for the Acme property is described in the 1983 Final EIR/EIS for the Acme Landfill expansion.I The proposed permanent transfer station ■ would be located on the southern part of the Acme property, the interim site would be on the northern portion. The reader is referred to the Acme Landfill EIR/EIS for extended discussion of surface water, groundwater and erosion in the project vicinity. Information pertinent to the proposed permanent transfer station project is included in the following ' discussion in summary form. 4.5.1 SETTING Surface Water The Acme landfill site is bordered on the northeast by the Pacheco Creek/Walnut Creek Flood Control Channel. The gaging station at the City of Walnut Creek reports a mean ' daily flow of 28 cubic feet per second (cfs). This flow varies from an average of 2.1 efs during September to 83 cfs during January.2 The flood control channel empties into the Carquinez Strait-Suisun Bay area approximately 6,000 feet from the northeastern corner of the Acme property. On the southeastern border is the 6,000-foot long dredged Pacheco Creek Channel. A number of drainage ditches, constructed by the Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District, flow across the existing landfill site to a tide gate at the levee. The tide gate allows water on the site to drain during low tide, but is closed against incoming flow at high tide. It is the only point of discharge for flood water and is maintained by the Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District. The southern portion of the Acme r: landfill is bordered on the east by the southern end of the Pacheco Creek Channel and on the west by the Contra Costa Canal. The Canal supplies water through a series of siphons to the Martinez Reservoir about a mile to the west of the site. The Acme property is in an area that ge ner ally receives 15 inches of precipitation per year.3 The USGS estimates that 0.5 to 1.0 inch of the precipitation could be expected to flow off the area as runoff if the land was in natural condition.4 The path of this runoff and the general drainage patterns on the properties are shown in Figure 33. 86130 4-60 SURFACEHYDROLOGY C FIGURE 33 TIDEGATE' �. INTERIM TRANSFER _ ,,.:;i nx:�:iY:>::>: ..,. .r kir .'� %g�v''.' i* STATION SITE —K STATION ::::.:::.::::..:'.;: . 97 ACRE LANDFILL ' WASTE POND '� ....fir! -..1,,,yT„'�K f�`•\' �:d'e 4\�:. PERMANENT TRANSFER sa�� STATION SITE .--.... ..................:.........•.:•;:::::y$�.: ` :: `\� 4 ,\� \,": �� •�,,� ' :?tE�titcci[tcciictiit"-w_�; VIP Aj \ i`\\\, .'\ ✓ ; .. . ``\� fes. t �S G7:S]7ttL� .,....... WASTE POND .. • f`, �� R v�-• atm, ;i � qk r ` �', alt 4\ `t `� ► � ,.�•''�;'t4 �1• h*.t'.:`:'::� -_ Tidegate .\ is , - \ ��► Nn Direction of Surface Flow ! �\ 1\ fi} S I%, 4✓ `'' I..r --- Intermittent Stream •�- \.' - r ` i Seasonal Ponds Waste Chemical Ponds . [•'" t;iX�l�76 • ' —� >t. '•..�``,:,�":•. "'ti ,.��7; ` , `.,a.l\ •\�_.J� u�:M .` �.--. I' r 1^. �*fit! FEET SOURCE: TORREY&T RR Y INC. eip 0 500 1000 2000 4-61 4.5 Hydrology do Water Quality Areas of the Acme property were shown (in 1969) as areas subject to occasional flooding.5 The Vine Hill neighborhood and adjacent hills were shown not to be subject to flooding. Maps prepared in 1977 by the Department of Housing and Urban Development show the current Acme landfill outside the flood hazard boundary due to its elevation.6 The existing flood control levee along Walnut/Pacheco Creek and perimeter levees around the landfill provide 100-year flood protection of the site. The RWQCB, as part of Order No. 76-37, required Acme to protect the landfill site from inundation which could occur as a result of floods having a predicted frequency of once in 100 years. 4.5.2 IMPACTS Surface drainage at the permanent transfer station site is inward toward the center of the site. Because of this situation there is no opportunity for leachate streams to reach surface waters by overland flow. However, there is a potential for runoff to reach the groundwater table through percolation into the residual on-site soils. This—infiltration ' would be reduced or eliminated by surface drainage controls (see below). Groundwater migration away from the site is restricted by the existence of Bay Mud and other heavy clay soils on the adjacent parcels. Facilities discharging wastewater to the sewer system (other than domestic facilities) include the wash pad adjacent to the vehicle maintenance building and the. storage pit sump located in-the transfer truck loading area. The volume of wastewater discharge is not.considered significant. There is a potential for spills from oil changes and refueling activities. 4.5.3 MITIGATION MEASURES Measures Proposed by Applicant For the permanent transfer station, storm drainage of all buildings and open areas would be provided in accordance with County requirements. The final design would provide positive drainage by using minimum ground slopes of 2%. Storm drainage would be collected on-site and delivered to a conveyance facility installed along the access road parallel to IT Corporation's Industrial site. At the levee, drainage would flow south until it reached the existing flood control gate where it would enter Pacheco Creek. Storm drainage collected at the lower site elevations would be pumped into the storm drainage conveyance system. 86130 4-62 4.5 Hydrology & Water Quality } Water used for cleaning and dust control inside the transfer buildings would be drained toward the storage pit and absorbed by and transferred with the refuse. Runoff water from buildings and all other open areas outside the wash pad would drain directly to the storm drainage system. In addition to passing wastewater from the wash pad through a grease trap, wastewater flows (other than from domestic facilities) may require additional OF pretreatment (e.g., passing such flows through a settling tank). Further Mitigation Measures During construction activities a temporary erosion/sedimentation control plan should be in effect. The plan should be prepared by the project sponsor's civil engineer for review by, the County. The use of temporary dikes, diversion ditches, silt fences and sedimentation basins/stilling ponds should be considered and addressed on the plan. See Section 4.4.3, Soils, Geology and Seismicity, Mitigations for other techniques to be considered. A permanent erosion/sedimentation control plan also should be prepared, along similar lines, for the operational period of the transfer station. A detailed surface drainage system should be included in the project design plans. The plans should locate drainage channels to 'remove rainwater in a quick yet non-erosive manner. The plan also should indicatea method ofcontaining and disposing of the 4 . collected rainwater. An evaporation pond located away from the refuse areas would be- one alternative. A storage Yank to hold the water for later use in dust control is another alternative method of disposal. This could involve a collecting pond with a pump to place water in an enclosed elevated tank. Water trucks would then be filled by gravity flow from the elevated tank. Because it is important to prevent contaminated runoff from entering drainage channels, the surface drainage plan should be reviewed by Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Spills from oil changes and refueling of equipment or tanks should be done in a sealed catchment area from which residue is collected periodically and trucked off the site to be recycled. This catchment area would have no outlet to the storm drainage system but would be drained through the pretreatment systems previously described before entering the sewer system. Water from the steam cleaning of equipment also should be collected 86130 4-63 , 4.5 Hydrology & Water Quality a in a similarly sealed catchment. Fuel tanks should be stored in catchment areas to prevent accidental spills from entering the storm drainage system. 1 � I Torrey & Torrey Inc., Final EIR/EIS Acme Landfill Expansion, June 1983, pages 70-85. 2Jorgensen, L.N., et al, California Streamflow Characteristics, U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report, 1971. 3 I Contra Costa Public Works Department, Mean Seasonal Isohyets, compiled from precipitation records of 1879-1973, Drawing No. B-166, 1977. 4Rantz, S.E., 1E Mean Annual Runoff in the San Francisco Bay Region, 1931-1970, U.S. Geological Survey, 1974. 5 U.S. Geological Survey, Map of Flood Prone Areas, Port Chicago Quadrangle,-1969. 6Department of Housing and Urban Development. Flood Hazard Boundary Maps., Revised E September 1977. t 86130 4-64 4.6 Vegetation & Natural Resources 4.6 VEGETATION do NATURAL RESOURCES The proposed site of the permanent transfer station is an abandoned borrow pit once used for soil to cover refuse in the .adjacent active landfill area. This site has not been actively used in the last 1-1/2 years. The site was surveyed on foot on December 22, 1986.1 Plants and animals were identified on the site using various field guide manuals and with the aid of binoculars. 4.6.1 SETTING The vegetation of the proposed permanent transfer station site is badly disturbed and currently supports very little native vegetation and wildlife habitat areas. The bottom, and the west and northern slopes of the borrow pit are essentially devoid of vegetation with bare rock and soil the predominant surface cover. There is greater vegetation cover on the south and east slopes where annual grasses and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) are the dominant cover species. Other plant species occurring on these slopes are various thistles (Carduus spp.), Lupins (Lu inus spp.) and small areas of vegetation commonly associated with moist habitats including willows (Salix sp.) and rushes (Juncus sp.). Except l for a narrow band along what appeared to be a drainage channel at the southwest corner of the borrow pit, willows on the site are associated with small seep areas on the south slope where groundwater emerges possibly from a perched water table. There is no wetland community on the site except for the small willow thickets described above and a' small stand of cattails in the bottom of the pit around a small pool. None of these small wetland habitats are considered large enough nor pristine enough to warrant preservation. Wildlife associated with the site are expected to be those species commonly found in disturbed grasslands and willow thickets.. Small mammals such as jackrabbits, cottontails, pocket gophers, mice and moles would be expected in those areas of the grassland nearest brush and tree cover. Larger mammals such as the coyote and deer may pass through the site, however, fencing around the site is expected to minimize large mammal passage. Common atypical bird species would be killdeer, mourning dove, hummingbirds, horned larks, ravens, seagulls, starlings, house sparrows and various finches and warblers. Red- tailed hawks and turkey vultures no doubt hunt in the area and may occasionally feed on the site. To a very limited extent waterfowl may utilize the small pools in the bottom of the borrow pit as a resting site during migrations. These grasslands and pools may also J 86130 4-65 4.6 Vegetation do Natural Resources support a few amphibian and reptilian species including the Western spadefoot frog, Pacific treefrog, bullfrogs, Western fence lizards, garter snakes and the Western rattlesnake. The site is not prime habitat for any of these wildlife species except those which are most adaptive to urban disturbances. A list of rare plant and animal species known to occur in the project region and in similar habitat occurring on the site is presented in Table 7. None of these rare species were found on the site, and given its high degree of recent disturbance none are expected to occur on the site due to a lack of suitable habitat. 4.6.2 IMPACTS Essentially all existing vegetation and wildlife habitat occurring on the site would be eliminated. However, landscape plantings would replace most of the wildlife habitat values on the site. Wildlife species that are adaptable to urban settings would-be favored such as the mourning doves, house finches and sparrows and ravens. Those wildlife species dependent upon the water pooling areas in the bottom of the borrow pit would be eliminated and not return to the site. None of these impacts are considered significant, requiring mitigation measures. _- 4.6.3 MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required, however, the project's landscaping should conform to the County's policy for landscaping. The use of native plant materials would be favored '!i over non-native species to conserve on the use of water. It is recommended that landscaping should be provided at the sound barrier/retaining wall. 86130 4-66 1- 4.6 Vegetation & Natural Resources TABLE 7 RARE SPECIES IN THE PROJECT REGIONI Species Status Notes ANIMALS Alameda Striped Racer T/C/4 This snake prefers brush covered areas and (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) intermittent creeks. It is known to occur in the Oakland Hills and Mt. Diablo area. It may occur on the site, however, the habitat is not that good due to lack of brush cover species. Berkeley Kangaroo Rat / /BU This sub-species of the common Heermann (Dipodom_ys Heermanni Berkeleyenis) Kangaroo Rat has not legal standing at this time. The taxonomy is still not clear and more study .i* needed before this animal can be listed. It prefers loose friable soils for burrowing and rock or brush for cover. It too may occur on the site, however, the lack of cover and compact clay soils suggest it is not prime habitat. PLANTS Alameda Manzanita E/C/List 1B This bush is known to occur in the hills to (Arctostaphylosalp Lida) the west and east of the site and on Mt. Diablo. No manzanita plants were found on the site. Procumbent Cordylanthus R/C/List 1B This prostrate, annual forb has only been (Cordylanthus nidularius) found on Mt. Diablo. It favors serpentine soils which do not occur on this site. Rock Sanicle R/C/List 1B This perennial herb is known to occur on (Sanicula saxatilis Mt. Diablo and Mt. Hamilton only. It seems to favor serpentinized volcanic rock outcrops and talus slopes in chaparral. Neither serpentine soils nor chaparral occur on this site. I� 86130 4-67 4.6 Vegetatioi 'i & Natural Resources TABLE 7 continued r Species Status Notes Santa Cruz Tarweed E/C/List 1B This annual herb is associated with (Holocarpha macradenia) grassland habitats. It was seen at the north end of San Pat Flo Reservoir south of the site and in the h ills to the west. It is susceptible to g razing and other disturbances, conset juently it is very unlikely that it occur: ; on this site. iThis list was generated from data supplied by the California Natur,- it Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for the following U.S.G.S. Quads. t January 24, 1985 - Port Chicago, Benicia, Briones Valley, Corde lia July 2, 1983 - Clayton, Las Trampas Ridge, Diablo, Dublin July 19, 1985 - Richmond, Briones Valley, Las Trampas Ridge — 2State Listings/Federal Listings/Other Listings T = Threatened R = Rare E = Endangered i C = Candidate Species BU = Possibly threatened more study is needed (CNDDB) _ List 1B = Rare and Endangered Plants (California Native Plant Society 1984, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California; i I 1Survey conducted by Ricardo Villasenor, B.S., M.A., Senior Biol( gist, EIP Associates. Mr. Villasenor, who also prepared this section of the report, ha s completed Doctoral studies in Natural Resource Science (Forestry) at the University of ' California, Berkeley. 1 ' He is co-author of articles in the field of Ecosystems Management : and Impact Modeling. 86130 4-68 4.7 Air Quality 4.7 AIR QUALITY Issues regarding air quality for the permanent transfer station project are discussed in this section of the report. 4.7.1 SETTING Climate The project area has a mild two-season climate: a warm, dry season occurring from May through October, and a cool, wet season extending from November to April. The climate of the area is also influenced by local topographical features and by exposure to marine air drawn inland through the Carquinez Strait. The prevailing wind direction is from the west, especially in spring and summer. . In winter, winds are more variable. West winds still predominate, but periods-of calm and t light easterly winds also occur. Annual average wind speeds are relatively high (about 9 mph). Wind speeds are highest in the spring and summer, and lowest in the fall. l Temperatures are generally mild throughout the year. Summers average about 70 degrees J Fahrenheit (F), while in winter average temperatures drop to between 40 and 50 degrees F. The warmest temperatures (85 to 95 degrees F) typically occur when the flow of cool, marine air through the Carquinez Strait is interrupted. Precipitation in the project area and throughout the rest of the Bay-Delta region is highly seasonal. Almost 90% of the annual precipitation occurs from November to April. Mean annual rainfall is normally between 12 and 15 inches. Air Pollutant Problems and Trends The Clean Air Act of 1967as amended in 1967 and 1977 established federal air quality � , q a ity standards for several pollutants. The act outlines primary standards designed to protect public health and secondary standards to protect public welfare from effects such as visibility reduction, soiling, nuisance, and other forms of damage. Ambient air quality standards were established in California starting in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford-Carrell Act. The state and federal standards provide acceptable durations for specific contaminant levels. Federal standards are supposed to be attained by 1987 and maintained thereafter; the state standards do not have a specific attainment date. 86130 4-69 4.7 Air Quality The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) operates a regional air quality monitoring network in order to gauge the Bay Area's progress toward attainment of ambient air quality standards. A federal and state q y t monitoring stations throughout this network, readings are taken regularly of five major "criteria" air pollutants: photochemical oxidants (ozone), carbon monoxide (CO), suspended particulate matter, measured as total suspended particulates (TSP), nitrogen dioxide WOO, and sulfur dioxide (SO2).1High concentrations of ozone produce eye irritation and respiratory impairment. High concentrations of CO can impair oxygen transport in the bloodstream, aggravate cardiovascular disease, impair central nervous system functioning and cause fatigue, headache, dizziness, and confusion. Long exposure to high TSP concentrations can interfere with respiratory function and, in combination with atmospheric SO2, produce acute illness A five-year summary of the data collected at the Concord station (located at-2975 Treat Boulevard, about 6 miles south of the project site) and the corresponding federal or state air quality standards, are shown in Table 8.2 Summary data collected at the .Concord Station was used in the report rather than data from the Martinez Station because the data collected at Martinez contains only SO2 data. The data in Table 8 indicate that air quality in Concord is not in compliance with federal and state ozone standards. Air quality does comply with standards for 1-hour average CO, NO2, SO2, and the 24-hour and annual average TSP levels. • Because elevated ozone levels are a regional problem, � P , concentrations measured at the Concord station are likely to be representative of conditions at the project site. In contrast, the levels of pollutants such as CO and TSP are more sensitive to nearby sources; the Concord data, therefore, may not adequately represent on-site conditions. s On the basis of monitoring data from Concord and other stations in the Bay Area, the California Air Resources Bbard (CARB) has designated the Bay Area a non-attainment area with respect to the national ozone and CO standards. Comparison of the data in Table 8 with readings taken at other BAAQMD monitoring stations throughout the Bay Area reveal that air quality at the Concord monitoring station does suffer significant degradation because of its location downwind of many pollutant sources in the north and west Bay Area, and from the presence of factors that govern the r 861311 4-70 4.7 Air Quality TABLE 8 CONCORD AIR POLLUTANT SUMMARY 1981-1985 Pollutant Standard 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Ozone (ppm)1 Highest 1-Hour Average 0.12/0.10 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.15 Days > Fed. Std. (0.12) 2 1 4 3 1 Days > State Std. (0.10) _ 9 12 16 15 10 Carbon Monoxide (ppm) Highest 1-Hour Average 35.0/20.0 14.0 18.0 13.0 12.0 11.0 Days > Fed. Std. (35.0) 0 0 0 0 0 Days > State Std. (20.0) 0 0 0 0 0 Highest 8-Hour Average 9.0 5.1 6.4 5.6 5.9 5.3 Days > Fed./State Std. 0 0. 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide (ppm) Highest 1-Hour Average 0.25 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.10 Days > State Std. 0 0 0 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide (ppm) Highest 24-Hour Average2 0.05 0.017 0.010 0.012 0.012 0.017 Days > State Std. 0 0 0 0 0 Suspended Particulates (ug/3)3 Highest 24-Hour Average 150 110 111 80 141 131 Days > Fed. Std. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Geometric Mean 60 43.6 41.3 38.4 45.6 43.0 Ippm: parts per million. ZBAAQMD, Air Currents, March issues, 1982-1986. r.` 3ug/m3: micrograms per cubic meter. ' Source: California Air Resources Board, Air Quality Data Summary, 1981-1985. i� 86130 4-71 4.7 Air Qualilty occurrence of high pollutant episodes, such as the high frequency of light winds, frequent occurrence of inversion conditions, plentiful sunshine, and the restriction of horizontal dispersion by mountainous terrain. Regionally, the most severe and complex air quality problem is the relatively high level of ambient ozone experienced during warm, meteorologically stable periods in the summer and autumn. Ozone is not emitted directly from pollutant sources. It forms in the atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving reactive organic compounds (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). No single source category accounts for a majority of the ROG and NOx emissions, and the many sources are spread throughout the Bay Area air basin. Although the Bay Area's highest ozone levels can fluctuate from year to year, standards are exceeded most often in the Santa Clara, Livermore, and Diablo valleys. The problem is most severe in Santa Clara County, where ozone levels occasionally have approached the first-stage Health Advisory Level (0.2 parts per million). Both federal and state ozone standards have been exceeded in Concord over the past five years. Since the project site is located further upwind of more ROG and NOx sources than is Concord, and is also closer to Suisun Bay, which moderates the temperature and improves ventilation, it probably experiences slightly lower ozone levels. In contrast to ozone, CO is a sub-regional problem in the Bay Area. CO is a non-reactive pollutant with one major source: motor vehicles. Ambient CO distributions closely follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic, and are strongly influenced by meteorological factors such as wind speed and atmospheric stability. One-hour and eight- hour CO standards are occasionally exceeded in those parts of the Bay Area subject to a combination of high traffic volumes and frequent air inversions during the winter months , (i.e., northern Santa Clara, western Alameda, and southwestern Solano Counties).3 Levels of TSP in the Bay Area typically show a pattern of low values near the coast. They increase with distance inland and reach their highest levels in dry, sheltered valleys, such as the Santa Clara, Diablo, and Livermore Valleys. The federal standard is occasionally exceeded in many Bay Area communities, including Concord. The most important 1� particulate sources in the Bay Area are demolition and construction activities, and motor vehicle travel over paved and unpaved roads. TSP levels at the project site are probably J 86130 4-72 4.7 Air Quality slightly lower than those at the Concord monitoring station, because of the lower densities of traffic and population. The major sources of NOx, compounds which have an important role in the formation of ozone, are vehicular, residential, and commercial fuel combustion. Concentrations of NO2, the most abundant form of ambient NOx, are highest in the South Bay (where the standard was last exceeded in 1980 at the San Jose monitoring station), although a secondary peak is centered on the Livermore valley. The NO2 standard has not been exceeded anywhere in the Bay Area since 1980. The burning of high sulfur fuels for activities such as electricity generation, petroleum refining, and shipping are the major sources of ambient SO2. The highest levels of SO2 are recorded by monitoring stations located in a relatively narrow crescent centered on the bayshore of northern Contra Costa County, where the major sources are located. Bay Area seasonal maximums, however, rarely exceed 50% of the,standard and SO2 levels at most Bay Area monitoring stations are less than 10% of the standard. The SO2 standard is currently being met throughout the Bay Area. As a result of violations of CO and ozone standards in the region, BAAQMD, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) released ,the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Maintenance Plan (AQMP) in 1982. The AQMP called for the imposition of additional controls on stationary and mobile sources of ROG and CO, and set forth a schedule for adopting and implementing these controls. If these control measures are successful, national.ambient standards for all five criteria pollutants discussed above could be met by 1987 and maintained below the set standards through the year 2000. A key CO strategy in the AQMP includes a motor g Y Y 8Y Q vehicle inspection/maintenance (I&M) program. In 1984 the State of California adopted a ' mandatory I&M program that is expected to reduce CO in the Bay Area by 16%. No additional control measures were recommended for TSP control. This latter problem is difficult to control with currently available methodologies, and BAAQMD only _ recommended further research on the problem. Bad odors are an occasional problem in the project area. Northern Contra Costa County has a high concentration of heavy industry, which is often the source of.such odors. The 86130 4-73 4.7 Air Quality site is near the Shell Oil Refine across I-680 to the west IT Corporation's protect si Refinery, , . evaporation ponds for treated Group 1 wastes, across Pacheco Creek to the east, and the Tosco Oil Refinery, across Solano Way to the east. The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's sewage treatment plant is located near Highway 4 to the south. BAAQMD has the authority to investigate odors and require control measures if BAAQMD inspectors determine the odors to be excessive. 4.7.2 IMPACTS Project air quality impacts comprise two categories: temporary impacts due to project construction and long-term impacts due to project operation. Construction Impacts The site occupies an existing borrow pit. Excavation on the site would still be required for roads and buildings. The Vine Hill residential community could be a sensitive receptor of air quality impacts. Construction activities would create a temporary increase in dustfall, and therefore an increase in TSP concentrations, near the project site. Equipment and vehicles generate dust during clearing, excavation and grading. Construction vehicle traffic on unpaved access roads would also increases dust, as would wind blowing over exposed earth surfaces. State and federal 24-hour average particulate standards could be violated in the vicinity of construction site. It is not possible to estimate accurately the particulate concentrations that would occur at or adjacent to the construction sites because of the complexity of local meteorology and topography and variations in soil silt and moisture content. However, measurements taken during apartment and shopping center construction in the southwestern United States provide a rough indication of construction impacts on logal particulate emissions; these figures indicate that approximately 1.2 tons of dust are emitted per acre per month of construction activity.4 Construction vehicles and equipment and worker commute vehicles would emit exhaust at the construction sites, which would contribute to local and regional pollutant , concentrations. The amount of the increase, however, would not be significant and would not cause violations of any air quality standards. �r. r 86130 4-74 i 4.7 Air Quality Operational Impacts Once the project is complete, emissions from vehicles associated with project operation would contribute to the regional air pollution burden. According to the transportation analysis, there would be an average of 2,400 daily vehicle trips generated by the project. The project would generate about 80-100 additional 1-way trips, less direct to the landfill, on opening. Based on an average trip length of 10 miles and an average speed of 25 mph, the traffic-related air quality impacts would be as shown in Table 9. f These amounts are small with respect to the regional totals and their impacts would be too small to effect regional air quality. The project would effect air quality on the local scale, especially CO levels near heavily traveled roadways. Future projections of CO concentrations were obtained by separately estimating the expected changes in background and local CO components. Both components were calculated by following procedures outlined in the BAAQMD's publication, Air Quality and Urban Development. The components were then added to obtain the total CO concentration. Table 10 shows the worst-case curbside CO concentrations along the it .� project access roads, where project traffic is expected to have the greatest impact. Regardless of whether the project is built as planned, CO concentrations would decrease from 1987 levels because of emission control strategies implemented in accordance with the 1982 Air Quality Plan. Maximum project effects would be felt on Waterbird Way and on Waterfront Road west of the intersection with Waterbird Way. CO levels along these roadways would increase by 0.2 ppm and 0.1 ppm for one-hour and eight-hour averaging periods, respectively. No present or future violations of the one-hour or the eight-hour CO standards are projected. Bad odors could result from waste dumped in the project's Main Transfer Building and Public Disposal Building, and from waste that may be temporarily stockpiled in the event of a system breakdown. Odors would most strongly impact the Vine Hill residential district, some units of which are within 100 feet of the western site boundary and within tr400 feet of the Main Transfer Building. Potential impacts would be of limited duration and minor in nature. 86130 4-75 4.7 Air Quality TABLE 9 EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC (tons per day) BayArea AirBasin Pollutant Project l Tota12 Carbon Monoxide 0.245 2,170 Hydrocarbons _ 0.028 560 Nitrogen Oxides 0.018 492 Sulfur Dioxide 0.006 34 Particulates 0.061 754 1Project emissions were calculated by using the California Air Resources Board URBEMIS#1 model. 2The regional totals given here are for the year 2000. The BAAQMD has not forecast regional emissions for subsequent years. 86130 4-76 4.7 Air Quality TABLE 10 WORST-CASE CURBSIDE CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS AT SELECTED LOCATIONS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY (in ppm)1 Without With Averaging Existing Project Project Location Time 1987 2005 2005 Waterbird Way 1-hr. 7.4 6.6 6.8 (South of Waterfront Road) 8-hr. 4.3 3.8 3.9 Waterfront Road 1-hr. 7.6 6.9 6.9 (East of Waterbird Way) 8-hr. 4.4 4.0 4.0 Waterfront Road 1-hr. 7.9 7.1 7.3 (West of Waterbird Way) 8-hr. 4.7 4.1 -- 4.2 t Waterfront Road at 1-hr. 8.0 7.1 7.2 Waterbird Way 8-hr. 4.7 4.1 4.2 Background 1-hr. 7.0 6.4 6.4 8-hr. 4.0 3.6 3.6 1The tabulated concentrations are the sums of a background component which includes the cumulative effects of all CO sources in the project vicinity, and a local component which reflects the effects of vehicular traffic on roadways. Background and local components were obtained by using procedures outlined in Air Quality and Urban Development, BAAQMD, November 1985. Traffic data was provided by Abrams Associates. IF l 4 86130 - 7? 4.7 Air QualJty 4.7.3 MITIGATION MEASURES Measures Proposed by the Applicant Dust generated by the unloading.of vehicle and the loading of transfer truck activities would occur inside the station buildings and external dust generation would be minimized. Internal dust control measures would include providing completely enclosed, air- conditioned cabs for bulldozer and rubber-tired loader operators; water mist sprayers over the pit areas and dust masks for personnel to avoid dust inhalation. When mixed refuse has been allowed to accumulate in an environment conducive to putrefaction, objectionable odors occur. To minimize these conditions, waste would be transferred as soon as practical. In addition, the applicant proposes to sweep and clean �. floors, walls and accessible equipment. Periodic deodorizing would be employed as required. Further Mitigations Measures suggested by the preparers of this report are listed below. Construction Impacts Dust emissions related to construction can be reduced approximately 50% by watering exposed earth surfaces during excavation, grading and construction activities. All construction contracts should require watering in late morning and at the end of the day; the frequency of watering should increase if wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Conditions of approval would also require daily cleanup of mud and dust carried on to street surfaces by, construction vehicles. Throughout excavation activity, haul trucks should use tarpaulins or other effective covers. Upon completion of construction, contractors would take measures to reduce wind erosion. Replanting and repaving would 'be completed as soon as possible. During construction, any intrusion into the landfilled wastes should be done only when the wind will not blow odors toward the Vine Hill residential area. Operational Impacts s All waste dumping would take place within the proposed transfer and public disposal buildings so that particulate matter would be retained indoors. A water spray would be r 86130 4-78 4.7 Air Quality applied to the waste storage pit during periods of concentrated activity to reduce particulate emissions. Since TSP levels cannot be predicted accurately, it is unknown if the above measures would lead to complete compliance. To control odors, the detention time of waste in the storage pit and storage areas would be minimized. After construction and during operation, odors can be minimized by regular and frequent cleaning of the transfer station. During times when bad odors are noticeable in the project vicinity, deodorizing chemicals would be applied to the source or sprayed in the area to mask odors. If such odors are found to be persistent, air processing equipment could be added to the Main Transfer Building and Public Disposal Building as required. Application of these measures would adequately control expected odor impacts. These measures can be required by the County or the BAAQMD if the proposed control measures are less effective than anticipated. _ Mitigation measures suggested by Abrams Associates to facilitate traffic movement f ! l would also reduce air pollutant emissions. CO concentration shown in Table 13 assume J that suggested traffic mitigation measures are implemented as part of the project. The above mitigations would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. lAcceptable concentration levels for some pollutants are chosen after careful review of available data on health effects. Pollutants subject to federal ambient standards are sometimes referred to as criteria pollutants because the EPA publishes criteria documents to justify the choice of standards. 2California Air Resources Board, Air Quality Data Summary, 1981-1985. 3 An inversion is a condition under which warm air aloft limits upward movement of pollutants contained in a colder layer of air near the surface. 4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Third Edition, October 1980. 86130 4-79 4.8 Energy 4.8 ENERGY The proposed site of the permanent transfer station is currently vacant, therefore, no significant energy consumption occurs on-site at present. 4.8.1 SETTING New buildings in California are required to conform to energy conservation standards specified in Titles 20 and 24 of the California Administrative Code. The State allows developers to comply with the standards via the component performance standards method, which requires that a project sponsor do one of the following: use non-depletable energy resources, or demonstrate that the building would consume no more than a certain quantity of energy than is specified for different types of building uses. Documentation showing compliance with these standards is submitted with the application for the building permit and the relevant standards would be enforced by the Office of the State Architect. Electric and gas service to the site would be provided by the Pacific Gas do Electric Company. Electric lines from the site could be connected to an existing 480 volt, 3 phase line at the intersection of Waterbird Way and Arthur Road. Similarly, natural gas could be supplied to the site by connecting to an existing line at the intersection of Valley Road and Arthur Road. 4.8.2 IMPACTS Construction Energy At this time it is not possible to estimate precisely the amount of energy that would be consumed during project construction. However, research has shown that fabrication and transportation of building materials, worker transportation, site development, and building construction activities would require about 2000 Btu of gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas, and electricity for every dollar spent on construction.2 The total cost of the project would be $22,000,000. Assuming construction costs of approximately $16,000,000, a total of 33 billion Btu would be consumed during project construction. These impacts are not considered signif icant. 86130 4-80 4.8 Energy Operational Energy Project electrical needs would be for lighting, various electrical motors (including two clamshell cranes in the loading tunnel area), electrical pumps (for gas dispensers, storm drains, sumps, etc.), electronic scale equipment, and maintenance building tools. Electrical demand is estimated at approximately 1000-1500 kVA. Natural gas would be required for space heating, hot water, and steam generation (for pad cleaning). These energy demands would not be considered significant. Project-related vehicles would cause off-site energy consumption. For the proposed project an estimated 251,000 gallons of gasoline per year would be required. This estimate is based on a projected trip generation of approximately 2,400 vehicles per day averaging 10 miles per trip at a speed of 25 mph.3 The estimate of 2,400 vehicles per day is based on the number of vehicles accessing the existing landfill which would continue to access the transfer station on opening, plus approximately 70 transfer trucks. -Converted to a common thermal energy unit, estimated gasoline use would equal about 35 billion Btu per year. 4 The project would be designed to comply with the standards of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. 4.8.3 MITIGATION MEASURES Measures Proposed by the Applicant The project's need for natural gas could be offset by using gas supplied from the gas recovery plant adjacent to the station. The project applicant has indicated that the use of gas recovered from the adjoining landfill would be investigated during the final design of the project. In the case of a power failure for an extended period of time, waste materials could still be loaded into transfer trucks in the loading tunnel or the material can be sent directly to a landfill. No other measures required. J 86130 4-81 4.8 Energy �. 1The British thermal unit (Btu) is the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit at sea level. 2Hannon, B. et al., "Energy and Labor in the Construction Sector," Science 202:837-847. 3Gasoline consumption due to project-related vehicles was calculated using URBEMIS #1, the California Air Resources Board's computerized transportation emissions model. 4Energy conversion factors: one gallon gasoline = 125,000 Btu one kilowatt (kw) = 10,239 Btu one therm = 100,000 Btu one cubic foot of natural gas = 1,100 Btu at source one barrel of oil = 5,600,000 Btu �1 86130 4-82 4.9 Visual Quality 4.9 VISUAL QUALITY 4.9.1 SETTING The site of the proposed project is located in an unincorporated area east of Martinez characterized by industrial development interspersed among grassland and areas of rolling hills. Vistas .to the north and east of the project site are characterized by stretches of undeveloped land containing industrial structures. Views to the south and west are confined by topographical features. The project site is located at the south western edge of an existing landfill. The project site is an open borrow pit. The existing landfill, which is nearly at capacity, will eventually be graded with top soil and landscaped to harmonize with the surrounding topography. When complete, the existing landfill would consist of undulating grass hills leading from Waterfront Road to the project site. Waterfront Road is designated as a scenic route to in the Scenic Routes Element (1974) of the Contra Costa County General Plan. The existing terrain would block views of the proposed transfer station from Waterfront Road. Land immediately east of the site is occupied by club house buildings belonging to the Martinez Gun Club and open areas used for shooting ranges. Farther to the east of the Gun Club lies Pacheco Creek and IT Corporation's Baker facility evaporation ponds. The terrain south of the project site consists of open landscape and rolling hills. Two Contra Costa Water District storage tanks are prominent visual elements in the physical environment south of the project site. Topographic features and hillsides would prevent long-range views of the site from future development which may occur south of the project site in the vicinity of Imhoff Road: West of the project site lies the Vine Hill residential neighborhood. This area abuts the western property line of the project site. The residential area consists of mostly single family homes developed in the 1950's and 1960's. An existing grassy knoll parallels the property line along the rear of homes closest to the project site on Irene Drive. This feature would help block views of project buildings and on-site activities from the back yards of existing homes. All of the homes along the western property line of the project �J 86130 4-83 4.9 visual Quality site currently have high fences which block potential views of the project from the public streets (Figure 34 and Figure 35). The existing knoll which would block views of the project site from the Vine Hill neighborhood was originally constructed as a temporary feature. Its value as a visual buffer and sound barrier represents an important element in the physical environment of the area. Some area residents have expressed the opinion that nighttime views of industrialf structures in the project vicinity have a strong aesthetic appeal. Project-related actions ` and mitigation measures, including the provision of a sound barrier/retaining wall, would �f block views of the transfer station site and industrial development that forms a backdrop ` to the site. 4.9.2 IMPACTS The scale of the proposed transfer station building would contrast with existing industrial development in the immediate project vicinity. The proposed Main Transfer Building, for example, would be larger than other structures in the immediate project area, but not unusual for an industrial-type building in a heavy industrial area. However, the siting of proposed structures, at lower elevations on the project site, and the provision for low- profile roof elements would help mitigate visual impacts. A preliminary grading plan for the facility is shown on Figure 36. Extensive landscaping would also further reduce potential adverse impacts. Development of the project on the site of an existing vacant borrow pit would contribute to the visual appearance of the area. It would not result in a significantly adverse impact. Beneficial results from the construction of the facility would result from the conversion of an open borrow pit to the proposed use. Structures The transfer station complex would be designed as a group of functionally related industrial buildings. As proposed, the building structures would be of steel frame construction with metal sidings and reinforced concrete foundations (Figure 19 and 20). Each building element would have a compatible architectural treatment and color scheme. Photographs illustrating the existing site and the proposed development are provided as a frontispiece to this report. 86130 4-84 M N OL r7. W GL z Q � O W b31k4j ONr70� VM 03 DA"N", b O L7 z 3JN3! O 0 1 OP o,l � g ',Oio s 5 xW ,�'' ' 'y ysy)�N✓ !ca -SECT,ON 2 '� 0 p LS W ui O• a d U J cc tu z ' dy \se _ S _ d a oy yo djJb s'oy \sy� 3 x lilt - �';- OO OOpOOO ood� UO O 0 0 r8 F o _ 5 a O Z O t� O cr 04 O , O r V J H W Z N � r W "� !I yo o� r6 O jJ W Q � M1 1I '" 4 � j U WA I� uj 7 Ln cx h wig 7 r t U cr t r Z i t t 1 4 r r r � r tt t r + � t t 4 + t r a W + z i N 1 4 ( + t r r 2 i t + p + O. it t t Zr o r O I C7 r + N y 1 + W + x + t W + Zrr t W \1 fC - -- p l ►" Z-A t 71 yS r 0 X0 l Ot M t M �t z / r N W t 07 r © H R d I _ 2 H G N W rr.�- �vt7i i W rn 3 z ,,, z � r 15 LL ' r t 1lVM�Nt10S °� W W3 iC y W a s oW cc z r p ti !- J cr W LL W K F tu WW cc H Q �2 � O cC k m � K O¢ W y II. _.. Z ; Z IL � " z u 4 +,+ H m Q c z "' z W E W o F N 1 W ' m OL W o c m c y L6 O od uy y ' 6 y m io 3 u ae u 4 a • WF } } Z cc O 6 �LL ( I IL a Af 0 CIS. Lnz kk __ � + 2Ay f/ \ ,•' "fir Q 1 �R � dybby��i � << .• d cc !/ ccM UA 0 i F-Ul 30 ! Ww =w �{{ X I + cr �i IWC i V Q � Z2¢i I, z A LL o U O 7o i f J J¢ W { W �w Q wm # 4 q az W_� 2 Q 4 m y m ... y�♦ O a a^' W o i11�M Zp 3Nit A1tGdOF+d� 4.9 Visual Quality The Main Transfer Building would be 215 feet wide by 212 feet long. Its roof would be r approximately 45 feet high measured above the tipping floor (El. +40). The total height of the building from the level of the transfer truck loading area would be approximately 85 feet (Figure 20). The building would contain 16 bays (8 on each side) however, ingress and egress would be limited to two bay openings on either side of the building. Each of the four openings would be about 25 feet wide by 22 feet high. As proposed, these openings would be permanently open and would not contain doors. At the north end of the building, a structure enclosing the transfer truck loading tunnel would be constructed. This structure would be about 50 feet wide by 96 feet long by 45 feet high. The top would rise to about the floor level of the Main Transfer Building. The loading tunnel would be constructed with removable walls at the north end to facilitate the installation of a possible future waste-to-energy facility on the site. At the south end the Main Transfer Building would adjoin _the Public Disposal Building i enclosing an area for public access. This building would be about 130 feet wide by 210 feet long,.containing 12 bays (6 on each side) with roll-up doors at each bay door opening. { J Public restrooms would also be located in the building. The exterior end and side walls of the Main Transfer and Public Disposal Building would be painted corregated aluminum siding. A 4 foot high translucent fiberglass panel would run the length of both sides of the main elevation of the building above door head height to allow natural light into the building. A 2 foot high wall opening would appear above the fiberglass panel to aid air circulation. The building would have a pitched roof (slope 2:12) made of corregated aluminum with fiberglass panels inserted into its length to provide natural light. Natural ventilation would be provided through the open doorways, wall openings at the eaves line and through roof ventilation devices running the length of the ridge line of the buildings. The buildings would not be heated, therefore fhle stacks or chimneys would not be a part of the proposed development. The Vehicle Maintenance Building, 75 foot wide by 150 foot long, would be similar in appearance to the Main Transfer Building. Roll-up doors would be provided at all door openings similar to those used in the Public Disposal Building. The roof would also have ridge ventilation but would have a flatter pitch to other buildings. During the final 86130 4-91 4.9 Visual Quality design, floor heating and circulated air space heaters would be considered for interior spaces in the building. No flue extensions above the roof line would occur. The Administration Building would be a 50 foot by 50 foot, 1-story structure containing office facilities for the station manager, restroom facilities and a conference room for t use by plant operating personnel and for presentations to visitors. The building would have a low profile flat roof and eaves overhang. The building would be designed to have , architectural and color treatments compatible with other buildings on the site. They would not have an adverse affect on the environment. The permanent transfer station would be fenced at the property line to prevent unauthorized entry by persons or vehicles. Additional landscaping would be provided to cover sloped areas and to create an aesthetically acceptable appearance. All internal roads and points of entry would be signed to clearly direct traffic. Signs__would also provide information relating to the name of station operator, a schedule of charges, the hours of operation and a list of the types of wastes which would not be accepted at the facility. The scale house structure north of theerman n f p e t transfer station site would be a small metal building housing electronic scale equipment. The building would have large windows to provide clear visibility of the scale area and any approaching vehicles. The building would have a box-like appearance and would conform architecturally with other small- scale structures on the site. The intersection separating the scale and pay booth area and the main transfer complex would be well lit and marked with appropriate signing. Outdoor lighting would also be provided at the scale and pay booth area, as well as throughout the permanent transfer complex. None of the physical features of the development would be expected to have a significant adverse impact. ` Views A view of the project site would be possible from locations along Arthur Road and Waterbird Way, in the vicinity of the project site, and from portions of CAZ Ridge land beyond. The view of the project from the north would be screened by a perimeter fence 86130 4-92 4.9 Visual Quality and landscape vegetation along Arthur Road. A photomontage shows how the proposed project would appear from Arthur Road immediately north of the site (Figure 37). The project would potentially be seen by members of the public using both the club house and the shooting ranges at the Martinez Gun Club. The shooting ranges are to the 4 northeast of the club house facilities. A photomontage shows views of the project site from the approach road to the Martinez Gun Club facilities (Figure 38). Possible views of the project along Irene Drive in the Vine Hill residential neighborhood would be prevented by existing homes and rear yard fences. The proposed retaining wall and sound barrier, located on the western side of the project site, would also help prohibit views of project structures (Figure 39). Parts of the roof outline and profile of project E buildings would potentially be viewed from the rear of some single-family residences ti along Irene Drive. In general, the project would not block important views and therefore would not create a significant adverse effect in this regard. - Perimeter Fence and Screen Walls A security fence and landscaped screen would be located on the property line of the project site. The fence and new landscaping would block most of the views of the project site from the Martinez Gun Club and from club members using the shooting range out on the ranges. The project fence would also block most or all views of the project from existing industrial development northeast of the project site. Some area residents consider nighttime views of industrial structures to have aesthetic appeal. Perimeter fencing, retaining.walls and other project-related actions, as well as proposed mitigations, would block views of the transfer station site and the industrial backdrop to the site and may be considered by some people as an adverse impact. The level of significance of this impact would be minor. In general, perimeter fencing and landscape screening would not have an adverse affect on the visual environment of the area Potential views of the project site would be possible from sections of the future alignment of Waterbird Way extension to the south. The location of a proposed 10 foot minimum high sound barrier/retaining wall on the east side of the Waterbird Way alignment would _J 86130 4-93 4.9 Visual Quality prevent most views of the transfer station site from the future roadway, thus eliminating 1 P Y� g the potential affect of visual intrusion. A portion of I-680 to the northwest of.the project site would provide a partial view of the project site. Because of the angle of the view, southbound traffic would be able to view the project from some points on the highway. However, southbound traffic would view the project site intermittently through the on-coming traffic. Views from the highway would not be significantly affected. The production of litter both on-site and off-site could have a minor effect on the visual environment. Litter generation from collection trucks and the general public could accumulate in specific areas of the site unless controlled by appropriate mitigation measures. The project applicant would have a responsibility to control potential litter impacts on approach roads to the site as well as on the project site. 4.9.3 MITIGATION MEASURES The proposed project would alter the existing visual conditions on the borrow pit site. The project would not generate significant visual impacts. Measures to improve the aesthetics �y t of the project have been introduced as part of the site development plan. Measures Proposed by the Applicant There are relatively few visual reference points in the area of the proposed project that can be used as a guide for the physical development and appearance of the transfer station buildings. The design and external appearance of the proposed structures would be compatible with the development of a group of industrial buildings. As proposed the buildings would be steel frame structures--with metal siding exterior finishes. As presently proposed the project would be on a site at the end of a non-thrpugh street and would ' therefore have limited public exposure. The form, scale and mass of the proposed project would be consistent with. the development of an industrial complex. The siting of the proposed structures would be arranged so that building elements are as distant as possible from the existing Vine Hill 86130 4-94 nW c "CL (� ig •I FJ L . W l () 1 z f w z ;Z +•a:l Zul i s; 577 Ug HQ � cS _ _ z W A W� 1$ �f W z } Z. c Z` m r Q t ' eti o Q � ..,. Q W f � f Q Q � t LL UJ a' a "s t` 4 __ 0 in �� ..'..L to cn til J. •s ��.�,-.4 E•.fy:1 6 • ca rrl co GO i9' Pyrk.; s e • .. PHOTOMONTAGE C FIGURE 391 1 SOURCE.EIP ASSOCIATES I l i Ike y, .'tl'.':" ,0046W4 From Irene Road Looking East. NOTE: Views of the transfer station building would be prevented by existing buildings and landscape. 1 eip o ' 4-99 4.9 Visual Quality ' residential neighborhood. The distance of the Main Transfer Building from the main on- site internal access road would be kept to a minimum. The slope of the road grade leading to the transfer truck loading tunnel is a major determinant in siting the Main Transfer Building. The existing grassy knoll and change in grade on the western property line of the site would remain as part of the site development plan. A sound barrier/retaining screen wall would be constructed near the western property line. As described in the project applicant's proposal, the retaining wall would be located about 80 feet from the western property line. The intervening space would form a buffer zone between the project site and the Vine Hill residential neighborhood. The future alignment of Waterbird Way south right-of-way would be located within this buffer zone area. The proposed retaining wall would help block views of the project site from homes along Irene Drive and Vine Hill residential streets. The retaining wall/visual barrier would also act as a sound_wall and help mitigate traffic noise. _ The applicant proposes to establish a litter control program to cover on-site and off-site litter generation. Accumulations of litter would be removed on a routine basis and areas of the site and approach roads would be inspected for litter deposits. The collected litter would be placed in the disposal storage pit for transfer with other wastes. Transfer trucks would be equipped with removable covers to prevent litter generation. Refer to Section 4.10, Public Safety for a further discussion on inspection programs. Further Mitigations As proposed the project would provide screen walls that would also serve as retaining walls and noise barriers. The location of noise barrier elements are noted elsewhere in this report. The provision of a sound wall on the western property line would assist in noise attenuation and off-set potential. visual intrusions in the Vine Hill residential neighborhood. In general, noise walls provided as part of the project would be constructed of concrete. The surface areas of these walls would be textured to soften.a hard edged appearance. The surface texture of the screen wall facing the Vine Hill residential neighborhood should be made compatible with the wishes of Vine Hill residents living on Irene Drive. The face 86130 4-100 i 4.9 Visual Quality of this wall could be sloped and/or indented with a textured pattern. The extension of the proposed wall along Arthur Road would be treated with a similar texture (see Section 4.2 Noise). Concrete wall surfaces would be painted to be compatible with the comprehensive color scheme established for the site. The following measures are suggested to improve the aesthetic qualities of the project. Views of the permanent transfer station would be mainly from the north and northeast. From these locations facility buildings would be viewed against a backdrop of undulating terrain. Potential visual intrusion into the existing view shed would be mitigated by the provision of low profile roof structures, as noted above, and the construction of-screen walls and fencing. A minimum standard for perimeter fencing would be Redwood slats on wood framing. Additional security features would be placed along fence-tops in certain locations to prevent unauthorized entry. Landscaping elements would include the provision of mature tree species and plants so that the landscape plan for the facility would be brought to l implemented shortly after the completion of the facility buildings. Engineering studies of road grades on and off the site may allow for the relocation of the Main Transfer Building to the east while maintaining required truck access conditions. The potential relocation of the Main Transfer Building to the east would influence the location of the main on-site internal access road leading from the 4-way intersection at the entrance to the permanent transfer station site to the Administration Building. To accommodate this mitigation measure it would be necessary to relocate the proposed Administration Building and its parking area. This action would potentially allow more circulation space at the entrance to the permanent transfer station and allow for the possible relocation of the entrance as part'of the new intersection design for the facility (Section 4.3, Traffic and Circulation). The proposed grade elevation of the floor of the Main Transfer Building would be +40.0 foot and the floor elevation of the transfer loading tunnel would be +2.0 foot. Final engineering studies for the site, and the possible relocation of access roads easterly, may allow these elevations to be lowered. This adjustment would allow the overall height of J 86130 4-101 4.9 Visual Quality the Main Transfer Building to be lower and thereby present a lower profile for facility buildings. In the future the project would form part of a general development scenario for future planning in the area. A proposed modernization plan for the adjacent IT Corporation site, , re-use of the Acme landfill, possibly for open space, and the possible development of a trail on the flood control levee, along with the potential development of the CAZ Ridge property for commercial or industrial purposes, are contributing elements to future planning efforts in the immediate vicinity of the site. } � t Industrial and commercial development south of the project site in the area of Imhoff Road form part of the general development pattern for the area. The consistency of the Acme transfer station buildings with County planning scenarios may be enhanced by the provision of up-graded building materials and finishes. The use of tilt-up concrete structures should be considered in the final design of the facility. The provision of tilt-up concrete structures would lend a distinctive character to the facility that would gain additional exposure to the public when Waterbird Way is extended south. The use of tilt-up concrete structures can also have a beneficial effect on overall maintenance and energy costs and help maintain the long-term attractiveness of the facility buildings. The project is planned to have a 25-year to 30-year life span. An upgrade in construction materials would also relate in a compatible fashion to the extensive landscaping and perimeter fencing planned for the project. Tilt-up concrete construction would also help noise attenuation on-site. Exterior lighting elements would be located to avoid nighttime intrusion and be focused away from residential areas. Proposed security lighting for future traffic along Waterbird Way extension would be designed trot to intrude into the Vine Hill residential neighborhood. Lighting elements would be located as low as possible to avoid potential disturbance to local residents. Signage and transfer station information boards would be designed and located as part of, the overall planning for the facility. Sizes, colors, proportions and lighting elements for signage features would be arranged as as not to prohibit traffic and pedestrian circulation. 86130 4-102 4.9 Visual Quality The exterior color scheme for project buildings would consist of muted tones to modify the potentially dominant appearance of large-scale buildings set in an open landscape area with few visual reference points and few existing structures. Accent colors would be used to define entrance doors and functional separations. Muted colors for roof and wall surfaces of the large transfer station structures would also lessen the possibility of reflective intrusive glare, generated on bright sunlight days by large plain surfaces, affecting site users. The physical character of the Administration Building would be distinct from that of the main transfer buildings, indicating its different function. However, the color scheme for the Administration Building would compliment the other buildings on the site. The Solid Waste Facilities permit should require that regularly scheduled inspections are conducted to control litter generation on approach roads and entrance areas to the site. The applicant should collect and deposit on-site litter on a•daily basis. Portable litter collection fences should be installed as required to prohibit wind blown litter accumulating along roadways or around project buildings. F . . �.1 1 1 86130 4-103 4.10 Public Safety ' 4.10 PUBLIC SAFETY The following discussion concentrates on public safety issues associated with the permanent transfer station facility. 4.10.1 SETTING Public safety issues associated with the proposed Acme Transfer Station have a similarity with public safety impacts at sanitary landfills. They would stem from the operation of station and user vehicles and equipment; the potential incubation of vectors such as rodents, rats, and insects; exposure to bacteria-laden water, fire, hazardous or infectious wastes; and the temporary storage of recycled"materials. Employees, public and private users of the station, unauthorized intruders, and nearby residents could potentially be affected. The California Waste Management Board, the Contra Costa County Health Services Department, CAL-OSHA (California Occupational Safety and Health), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and the Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board all have regulations, implemented through the permitting process, that control potential threats to public health. 4.10.2 IMPACTS 1,2,3 Construction Impacts Construction of the transfer station would also pose potential short-term public safety hazards. Construction excavation could present a danger to site visitors, workers, and unauthorized persons. Unauthorized persons could operate unattended construction machinery or be endangered when passing through hazardous areas of stored building materials. This potential impact is not considered significant. Operations Impacts The transfer station would have the following range of potential impacts. The operation of some station equipment would create the risk of personal injury. The intermixing of large collection trucks, transport vehicles and private automobiles would also create the risk of potential accidents. Vectors create the potential for the transmission of disease. Fires could occur in the storage pit or in collection trucks due to spontaneous combustion. Additionally, heavy equipment used to move and compact the waste material could themselves start a fire through electrical malfunction that would spread to oil, grease and 86130 4-104 4.10 Public Safety refuse collected on the station machinery. If the truck washing facility utilized recycled water, workers could be exposed to bacteria-laden water and mist. Some disease producing bacteria could accumulate with each recycling of water. The transfer station itself would not accept hazardous or infectious waste. Small quantities of hazardous household waste may inadvertently become part of the non-hazardous waste stream material. The possible affects of this potential impact would be minor. 4.10.3 MITIGATION MEASURES4,5,6 Measures Proposed by the Applicant The risks posed by unauthorized access to the site should be mitigated by fencing, signs, patrol personnel, and the disabling of equipment when not in use. The risk to workers from operating transfer station equipment should be mitigated by training personnel in their safe use and through the development of emergency procedures in the case of accidents. Risks to station personnel would also arise due to contact with refuse. Personnel should be trained and equipped in handling hazardous materials that might inadvertently enter the transfer station, as well as in handling recyclable materials. A systematic program for screening loads for hazardous and combustible materials would 1 lower the risk to which workers are exposed. All applicable OSHA regulations would need to be followed. 1 The risk of vehicular accidents should be mitigated by operating an on-site traffic control system that included separate entrances for public and commercial collection vehicles as Y P ' well as the supervision of the general public during the unloading of refuse and materials to be recycled. Transfer trucks would be segregated from general transfer station traffic and use separate access ramps within the facility. Vectors would be controlled initially through facility design and operating procedures that minimize potential problems. If landscaping on slopes is required, a vector control program specifically focussed on vectors that would use such landscaping for protective cover would be developed. Programs to monitor the development of any vector problems would be implemented and would include measures for the eradication of pests if needed. Rodent traps would be placed strategically around transfer station buildings as required. 1 86130 4-105 4.10 Public Safety The retention time for waste materials in the refuse transfer storage pit would be minimized to prevent the creation of conditions conducive to insect breeding and , reproduction. The potential for disease transmission would be minimized in a transfer station because solid waste would be moved quickly through the facility and not permanently deposited on-site. Standing water and moist areas would be controlled to prevent mosquito breeding. A fire control contingency plan would be developed to augment fire sprinkler systems required by the building code. The plan would include measures to minimize the potential of a fire starting and spreading inside the waste storage pit, and measures to minimize risk to workers and transfer station users during such an event. The potential for fire during precompaction activities in the transfer storage pit of the Main Transfer Building can exist if screening and inspection practices are not..Stringently adhered to. Fire potential would be reduced by the installation of an automatic sprinkling system in the refuse receiving, storage and loading areas of the transfer buildings. The oil storage room of the Vehicle Maintenance Building would also be provided with automatic fire sprinklers. The potential danger of explosion due to the migration and concentration of methane gas from landfill areas would be alleviated by the provision of ventilation systems. Because methane gas is heavier than air, concentrations of the gas can form in areas of buildings or underground chambers that are not well ventilated. Sensors for monitoring the concentration of methane gas could be installed. The existing Acme landfill has a gas recovery system installed on the site. The gas is piped to a processing plant operated by Getty Synthetic Fuels, Inc., located adjacent to the existing landfill gate house. The plant processes and delivers processed gas to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. The underground chamber for the computerized weighing scales would be ventilated to preclude the build-up of gas concentrations. The scale house and pay booth buildings would also be ventilated to prevent the occurrence of gas build-up. The underground fuel storage tank chamber would also be ventilated according to state and county regulations. , Proposed actions taken as part of the project to ventilate confined areas would reduce the potential risk of public hazard to an insignificant level. 86130 4-106 4.10 Public Safety The risk of exposure to bacteria-laden water or mist would be minimized by adding a disinfectant such as chlorine to the water reclamation system (if one is used for truck washing). Odor producing bacteria would be chemically controlled. Water from the truck wash pads would be the most highly bacteria-laden. It would not be recycled but would go directly to the sanitary sewer, pre-treated if necessary. Water used to wash truck exteriors would not be expected to contain high levels of bacteria and would be controlled with chlorine as necessary. As a last resort, if problems persist the use of the water reclamation unit could be discontinued. The beds of transfer trucks would be sealed so that liquids cannot escape.7 The risk of exposure to unauthorized hazardous or infectious waste would be controlled at the point of entry through truck inspections and then through emergency measures designed to counter exposure should it occur. The potential health threat arising from bacteria on, or within, recycled materials or materials recovered from the solid waste stream would be mitigated by a number of methods. Waste storage time would be minimized. If storage facilities were found to be necessary they should be enclosed. Glass products would be broken and cans and metals crushed or "nuggetized" to offset potential injury. The short-term risks during.construction should be minimized by erecting barricades and warning signs in excavation areas and at the fenced perimeter. Construction machinery should be disabled to prevent unauthorized use. The site should be fenced and patrolled to guard against unauthorized entry during non-work hours. Further Mitigation Measures E� The Bay Area Air Quality Management Board (BAAQMB) Permit to Operate the transfer station, obtained in Ocobter 1986, specifies that wastes would not be allowed to remain at the transfer station site for more than 24 hours. The County Health Services Department may also require that all wastes would be 1� removed from the waste storage pit daily and the storage pit washed down on a daily basis to control odors and bacteria. At the end of each day any remaining wastes could be loaded into a transfer truck and stored overnight. 86130 4-107 4.10 Public Safety Transfer station workers shall be provided and required to use safety glasses, safety shoes, coveralls, gloves, and noise reducers for ears. An emergency eye bath and emergency showers shall be installed in the facility.8 The project applicant would establish an inspection program to identify and isolate t hazardous or infectious waste. The County would require the program be acceptable to the County's Health Services Department and that the program be made part of the Solid Waste Facility Permit. 1ENVIRON, Technical Supplement to the DEIR - Solid Waste Resource Recovery and Transfer Station Complex, San Leandro, CA, proposed by Oakland Scavenger Company, June 1977, pp. 144-148. 2Brown and Caldwell DEIR on Solid Waste Disposal Alternatives prepared for-the City of Sacramento, August 1980, pp. 4-24/5. 1 3 Torrey dTorrey Inc. Final EIR/EIS, ACME Landfill Expansion, prepared for Contra Costa County Planning Department and the U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, June 1983, p. 112. 4Op. Cit., Environ. 5 Op. Cit., Brown and Caldwell. 6Op. Cit., Torrey & Torrey Inc. 7William B. Treadwell, Contra Costa County Health Services Department, personal communication, December 16, 1986. 8William B. Treadwell, Contra Costa County Health Services Department, personal communication to Charles A. Zahn, May 5, 1987. 86130 4-108 ' 4.11 Utilities & Service 4.11 UTILITIES & SERVICES The utilities and services that would be affected by the proposed project are water, sewer, fire, and police. They are discussed individually below. 4.11.1 WATER Setting The Contra Costa Canal located close to the southeastern property line of the project site is a partially subterranean and partially open concrete channel which carries water, via several siphons, to the Martinez Reservoir at the west end of the Vine Hill residential neighborhood. This water is used as drinking water by the City of Martinez. The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). Total water treatment capacity of its two sediment ponds is 90 MGD (million gallons per day). Average daily use is approximately 34 MGD. There was some question over whether 90 MGD could actually be transmitted through the delivery system, but transmission capability is at least 63 MGD as that is the present maximum daily demand.l J Impacts The proposed project would have an insignificant impact upon the District's water supply, although it would have a significant impact on the water delivery system presently serving the site. Domestic, fire, and landscaping water demand would be supplied to the site by the Contra Costa Water District. Domestic water demand would be 10,000 - 12,000 gpd (gallons per day). Water demand for landscaping would be 10,000 - 14,000 gpd initially, and 3,000 gpd once landscaping was established. Thus, total water demand on a regular basis would be approximately 13,000 - 15,000 GPD.2 This would represent an increase of `�. 0.04% over current use on the Acme landfill. Present plans are to supply the site from an existing 8-inch main located at the intersection of Waterbird Way and Arthur Road. The installation of this service would have an insignificant effect on the physical environment. The feasibility of using, wastewater treatment plant effluent for irrigation water would be considered in the final design of the facility. 1 86130 4-109 4.11 Utilities do Service ' Plans for the proposed project anticipate that demand for water during a fire would be , met by installing a separate fire main system with hydrants located around the transfer station buildings. Project plans indicate that water flow would be 1,250 gallons per minute.3 However, Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District records indicate that the water flow at the site has been inadequate in the past, and that firefighting operations would require the use of tanker trucks.4 As a result, significant improvements to the present water delivery system (a dead-end 8-inch pipe), would be required to provide adequate water flow for fire protection. Fire Department standards require 5,000 GPM (gallons per minute) or 3,000 GPM if buildings are equipped with automatic sprinkler systems. A typical fire hydrant will deliver 1,000 GPM with 20 pounds of reserve pressure. Thus, three to five fire hydrants would be required for the permanent transfer station.5 Mitigation Measures _ r The project sponsor would be required to pay for the capital costs of extending service to the site including. improvements required by Building and Fire Codes, as well as hookup charges. (Refer also to subsection, Fire 4.11.3.) 4.11.2 SANITARY SEWER Setting The Acme landfill is bisected by the LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) Sphere of Influence boundary separating the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District (CCCCSD) and the Mountain View Sanitary District (MVSD). The MVSD treatment plant has a treatment capacity of 1.6 MGD ADWF. The Mountain View District assumes that the CCCCSD would serve the site .and would not object to the annexation of the entire site by the CCCCSD.6 The CCCCSD has one treatment plant with a newly increased capacity of 45 MGD ADWF (average, dry weather flow). Current permitted capacity is 38 MGD, although application is being made for a permit on the recent capacity increase.8 Current flows to the CCCCSD plant are approximately 36 MGD ADWF.9 86130 4-110 4.11 Utilities do Service Impacts The proposed project would have an insignificant impact upon the capacity of the County sewer system. The applicant proposes that sewer service to the site would be provided by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD).10 This would require annexation into the District which would in turn require an adjustment of the LAFCO Sphere-of- Influence boundary between the CCCCSD and the Mountain View Sanitary District. A boundary line adjustment would be considered a significant impact by the County. Arguments for the bounrary adjustment would be presented at a public hearing of LAFCO and would be based on a concurrence between the two Districts on the most efficient resolution to the issue.11 Present plans are to service the site by connecting to an existing 36-inch gravity line in the area of the intersection of Waterbird Way and Arthur Road. Depending on the flow capacity of the sewer CCCCSD's existing pumping facility, located adjacent to Henry's Tree Service property east of the project site, may require enlargement. Wastewater generation is estimated from total water demand minus water used for irrigation. This would amount to between 12,000 to 15,000 GPD and represent an insignificant increase of 0.04% over current average dry weather flows to the CCCCSD plant. Facilities discharging to the sewer system (otherthan domestic facilities) include the wash pad adjacent to the vehicle maintenance building and the sump located in the transfer truck loading area. Water used for cleaning and dust control inside transfer buildings would be drained toward the waste storage pit to be absorbed by and transferred with exported refuse. Runoff water from buildings and all open areas would drain directly to the storm drainage system. As part of the permitting process, the quality of water sewered to the CCCSD would be determined. Mitigation Measures Project sponsor would be required to pay for the capital costs of extending service to the site as well as District hookup charges. A prorated portion of the cost of expanding CCCSD's nearest pumping facility, should this action be required as a result of the proposed project, would also be charged to the project sponsor. The project applicant should apply to LAFCO for a Sphere-of-Influence boundary adjustment. The adjustment of the LAFCO Sphere-of-Influence boundary would mitigate 1 inconsistencies in the sewer service to the site provided by two separate .sanitary rdistricts. 86130 4-111 4.11 Utilities & Service 4.11.3 FIRE � Settin 12 The potential for fire at a transfer station is equivalent to that of similar operations at a landfill.13 Fires can occur due to the possibility of spontaneous combustion of compacted wastes, to smoldering loads igniting surrounding material, and to the electrical malfunc- tion of station equipment in contact with refuse. The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District. The transfer station would comply with local fire ordinances. Under the 1979 Uniform Fire Code adopted by the District, an owner or occupant of any property where a fire occurs must immediately notify the local fire agency. A report must be made even if the fire has been brought under control. Standard procedures require the local fire agency to visit the site to inspect and confirm that the fire has been extinguished. The District reports that it has not had to respond to any fires on the Acme landfill property in recent years. In addition, the applicant would be required to notify the Sheriff and County Department of Health Services (DHS) of any fires as soon as possible under the permit conditions from the County DHS. Impacts The Fire District would not be able to meet its service standards of 1.5 miles distance from the first station which would respond; and 2.5 and 3.0 miles respectively for the second and third stations which would be expected to respond to a fire emergency.14 In. the event of a fire, the Fire District would respond from Station #12 (2.8 miles) located at 1240 Jones Street in Martinez, from Station #9 (3.5 miles) at 209 Center Street in Pacheco, and from Station #14 (5.5 miles) located at 521 Jones Street in Martinez. The resulting extended response times from the three stations (6.6, 8, 12 minutes respectively) is a major concern of the Fire District. .Fire Battalion Chief 2 has authority in the area. Engines 12 and 9 both have additional reserves that can be called in as necessary. However, Station #12 may be relocated if the recent facilities plans are approved. It would then be closer to the proposed project site and provide a shorter response time. This impact of the project would not be considered significant because of appropriate mitigation measures. 1 86130 4-112 4.11 Utilities do Service A further primary concern of the Fire District is the inadequate water supply presently at the site. Major improvements in the water delivery system would be necessary .as discussed above in the water service section. Additionally, adequate emergency access to the whole site would be necessary.15 Mitigation Measures A fire sprinkler system would be provided to the Main Transfer Building and the Public Disposal Building. Fire suppression measures would t: taken to prevent fires in the storage pit. The oil storage room in the Vehicle Maintenance Building would have fire sprinklers. A fire -control emergency plan would be established and training programs created. The water circulation system would be designed so that emergency access to the water supply adequate for all areas of the site would be available at all times. On-site transfer station equipment, such as bulldozers, would be able to assist in the case of limited fire emergencies. Further Mitigations The primary mitigation suggested by the Fire District to address extended response times would be the installation of automatic fire sprinkler system in the transfer station's buildings. The inadequate water delivery system should also be brought up to the Fire Districts requirements. Additional mitigation measures to be considered for such a facility include the following: Contingency plans should be developed and followed in the event of a fire. Fire-fighting equipment specified by the Fire District should be available on-site, including bulldozers. Smoldering loads and wastes with a high fire potential should be extinguished and is separated from material with a low fire potential. Vehicle inspections (biweekly) focusing on electrical shorts and hydraulic or fuel line leaks, along with periodic washings to eliminate the accumulation of refuse and to loosen grease and oil, would be carried out to minimize the risk of vehicle fires. Automatic fire sensing and suppression systems can be installed on equipment. The sprinkler system should be timed to relate to the emergency response time of the Fire District. Consult with the local Fire Prevention Officer. Fire r 86130 4-113 4.11 Utilities & Service retardent building materials and roofing should be provided for project structures. The , , County should review all measures when project drawings are submitted for review and approval. Manual systems can be provided for added protection. These systems would need to be properly maintained. �i 4.11.4 POLICE Setting �I The Contra Costa Sheriff has jurisdiction in the area. The Acme landfill site is presently part of patrol beat #20. Calls for police service have been minimal in the past.16 Impacts r The impact of the proposed project on the Sheriffs Department would be insignificant. The Contra Costa County Sheriff would provide police services to the project site. The site would remain within patrol beat #20.17 Past calls to the landfill site have been infrequent and it is not anticipated that serving the site would require additional resources. 18 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures would be required. 1 Gordon Torngberg, Division Engineer, Contra Costa Water District, personal communica- tion, December 15, 1986. 2 Brown, Vence & Associates, ACME Fill Waste Recovery And Transfer Station Project Description/Report Of Station Information, prepared for ACME Fill Corp., July 1986. p. 27. 3Ibid. 4 Darrell Harguth, Assistant Chief, Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District, personal communication, December 15, 1985. 5Ibid. 86130 4-114 4.11 Utilities & Service 6Randy Leptien, Chief Engineer, Mountain View Sanitary District, personal communica- tion, December 16, 1986. 7Jack Case, Engineer, Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District, personal communi- cation, December 12, 1986. 8Ibid. 9Ibid. 10 Op. Cit., Brown, Vence and Associates. 11DeweyMansfield, Executive Officer, LAFCO - Contra Costa County, personal communi- cation, December 15, 1986. 12Op. Cit., Torrey & Torrey Inc., pp. 111-114. 130 . Cit. Environ. . 146. 14DarrellHarguth, Assistant Chief, Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District, personal communication, December 15, 1985; also letter from Harguth to Charles Zahn (Contra Costa County Community Development Department), September 22, 1986. 15lbid. 16� Lt. Shinn, Contra Costa Sheriff Department, personal communication, December 5, 1986. 17Ibid. 18Ibid. 86130 4-115 4.12 Socioeconomics 4.12. SOCIOECONOMICS Costs, Taxes, Property Values, Employment and Income Factors associated with the development of the permanent transfer station site are discussed in the following section. 4.12.1 COSTS Settin Contra Costa County household costs for solid waste disposal will be increasing in the near future as landfills located within the County close and waste materials are transported over longer distances to landfills, possibly outside the County. The County presently has the use of three landfills: the ACME Landfill located near the intersection of Highway 4 and I-680; the .West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (WCCSL) located in Richmond; and the Contra Costa Waste Sanitary Landfill (CCWSL) located near Antioch (see Table 1 for a list of the areas currently served by each landfill. The weighted average cost (tipping fee) of transporting and disposing of refuse at the Acme landfill has been estimated in a recent study at $15 per ton.1 This excludes the costs of local collection that would remain the same regardless of disposal alternatives. Expected cost increases have been estimated for. a number of different disposal scenarios.2 The "direct haul, no transfer station" alternative, i.e., public access to a landfill, was estimated to be approximately twice as expensive as the transfer station alternative.3 Impacts Table 11 summarizes the total cost of the proposed project. It would be approximately $22.9 million if financed using industrial development bonds (IDBs). The cost estimate does not include transfer trucks because the quantity required would not be known until a new disposal location is identified. The IDBs would be issued by the California Pollution Control Financing Authority. The Authority, on February 25, 1987, adopted an initial 1 resolution to issue and sell bonds for the applicant's project, not to exceed $31 million. One of the typical qualifying requirements for such bonds is securing long-term commitments from franchisers corresponding to the term of the bond issue. Operation and maintenance (O&M). costs are summarized in Table 12 (excluding O&M costs for transfer trucks as above). O&M costs are estimated to total approximately $2.3 million annually.4 J 86130 4-116 , 4.12 Socioeconomics TABLE 11 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS PROPOSED ACME WASTE RECOVERY & TRANSFER STATION COMPLEX Cost Element $ Cost (1000s of Dollars) Div. 1 General $ 900 Div. 2 Site Work 3,100 Div. 3 Concrete 2,400 Div. 5 Metals 590 Div. 7 Moisture Protection 1,100 Div. 8 Doors & Windows 60 Div. 9 Finishes 90 Div. 11 On-Site Equipmentl 1,800 Div. 13 Special 250 Div. 15 Mechanical 230 Div. 16 Electrical 530 Subtota12 $11,050 Contingency (15%) 1,660 General Conditions (10%) 1,110 Cost Escalation3 (8%) 880 Subtotal $14,700 Bonding/Insurance (2.5%) -370 General Contractors Fee (9%) 1,320 Engineering(10%) 1,470 Subtotal $17,860 jFinance Fee4 690 Other Fees 280 Debt Service Reserve Funds 2,350 Capital Investment (Net)7 1,710 Total Project Costs $22,890 i lEquipment costs do not include transfer trucks. 2Mid-1986 dollars. 34% per year to mid-1988, start of construction. 4Assuming use of industrial development bonds issued by the California Pollution Control Financing Authority, 3% of issuance. 5Legal fees, accounting fees, printing costs and all other costs of bond issuance, 1.2% of issuance. 6A requirement of industrial development bond financing is that one year's debt service (9%, 20 years) be held in reserve in case project revenues become temporarily insufficient to meet debt service requirements, 10% of issuance: 7Interest included in the total issuance of debt to overdraft until the project can generate revenues net of construction fund interest, 7% of issuance. Source: Brown, Vence & Associates and URS Corporation, ACME Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Project Description/Report of Station Information, July 1986, p. 33, Table 1. 1 86130 4-117 4.12 Socioeconomics r l TABLE 12 ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST PROPOSED ACME WASTE RECOVERY & TRANSFER STATION COMPLEX Category Annual Costs (1986 Dollars) A. Station Director Labor Including Fringe Benefits $ 1,000,000 B. Utilities 70,000 I C. Station Maintenance ,I Supplies $ 10,000 Spare Parts 15,000 Miscellaneous 5,000 Subtotal 30,000 D. Contract Services Janitorial 15,000 Landscape ° 20,000 Plumbing & Electric 20,000 Subtotal 55,000 E. On-Site Stationary and Mobile Equipment r Gasoline, Oil do Maintenance Supplies 150,000 F. Insurance 300,000 G. Administration (other than labor) 20,000 H. Taxes (property) 130,000 I. Equipment Replacement Fund 310,000 Subtotal 2,065,000 J. Contingency (10%) 207,000 TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 2,272,000 Source: Brown, Vence & Associates and URS Corporation, ACME Fill Waste Recovery do Transfer Station Project Description/Report of Station Information, July 1986, p. 37, Table 2. 86130 4-118 4.12 Socioeconomics The proposed transfer station could result in a smaller imminent increase in household i costs than "direct haul" solid waste disposal without the transfer station depending on the (� location of a new landfill. The Acme landfill's 97-acre main disposal area was originally scheduled for closure in mid-1987. In the future, as noted in the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and Contra Costa County, Solid Waste Management Project Report Vol. 1I, February 1985, the waste stream which previously went , to Acme might be divided between the two remaining County landfills. The resulting increase in household costs would range between $1.00 - $2.00 per month over the current costs for Central County residents.5 However, the Acme landfill and the two remaining landfills are now ' expected to close in 1989.6 The resulting increase in monthly household costs once all the landfills close are based upon disposal at the Altamont Landfill. Central County residents ' could expect an increase ranging between $2.50 - $3.00 per month using "direct haul" without transfer station facilities and between $1.50 - $2.00 per month with the use of transfer stations.7 Impacts of this magnitude are not considered significant. These are representative costs which could be increased substantially for a variety of reasons, including the imposition of additional recycling and waste management program requirements. ' Mitigations None would be required. 4.12.2 PROPERTY TAX REVENUE Setting Contra Costa County collects basic property tax revenue amounting to 1% of the appraised value of land plus improvements. This increases at 2% per year until such time as ownership changes. At this point the property's market value is reappraised to full market value as per Proposition 13. ' The proposed project is situated on three parcels (APNs: 380-030-017,031,005) within Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) 76041, 76008, and 76053. Total property tax paid on the parcels of the ' proposed project site in 1986-87 was $14,551, and Table 13 summarizes its distribution. J 86130 4-119 wwt- t- mM -4MM07U-) WLM001PJ r-1 ooCDOM aM " MMNONMM to x c• N a tfi M M 00 to to o O H a N a E• 0 a 40%. OCN Lnt- MNMt- .rt- tf) OltDOOtfJ O O m . M alp N O M O O " t- M M N t- x tli N M UM M O t` r-I to N . C N eM M it �--1 CL .A d, 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2Rf2Rc* 2R2R2R2R2R2R o OONOOMC� t� C Z9cl IJ OCJ � O N .4tD0000ti00 m " min " m F ttD M 4 N o DD to 00L. el� L- � .� OOr4MN� -+ SOON +-400 .-� O A) ?C N to .� .-� N tp O f1. H e M m 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R o .� O Q� e7 .-iLl- tl7N N d' Nd 0 vmU114 0 O W QOI atter- NOOMTOON00M00� 00 r+ .-a rn NOOOOOOc; C40; 1� 00 C] A F M ..-I M _ H X Q F .r x � v� � •--� ooNaa .-, oo � � Noo t-- ai s. p, 0C .� ,..� �• V a0 +r4 eI► w O a O a m ?R2R � 2Rc 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R ?R 2R 2R o U5 OiMNt'- tt) NNaNd' 00aM000 O V)i < -W erCAt� NOOMT00N00MOO! OO ti to n» o V t- 0000004= mC-i .-+ tnoo Q F ti M .ti co) x 0y 'h C O _ >1 U Go ` cis co .0 C G > G L. ~ d d C to 6! H d y 00 C ca O io >+ co UQ O v 0 u (u - N >, to cc Co a4 C cam. O :+ y C U O C T2 O O C7 � c:, c� 3tz o3 A � cn N = wU U C 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ¢ . O c O ow 0 = J UL) UUUU � UmImwu � uuu �. En 1 1 4.12 Socioeconomics Impacts r._ The proposed project would significantly increase property tax revenue by approximately 900%, from $14,551 to $131,285. It would involve improvements conservatively estimated at $13 million and land valued at $128,500.8'9 This would generate approximately $131,300 in property tax revenue. Table 14 summarizes its approximate distribution based ' upon each agency's average share calculated from Table 13. Mitigation Measures None would be required. 4.12.3 PROPERTY VALUES AND ALTERNATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS Setting The vicinity of the project site is zoned HI, Heavy Industrial. The project site would be situated in the former borrow pit on the Acme landfill. The site would remain a part of Acme property. However, the current main use area (the 97-acre 1984 expansion) of the f landfill would be closed in the near future (mid 1989). The future use of the closed I' �) landfill would be as some type of open space.10 Surrounding land uses are primarily industrial with an adjacent residential neighborhood of predominantly single-family dwellings built in the 1950s and 1960s (see Land Use and Planning Section 4.1 for a more detailed discussion). Impacts The proposed project would foreclose alternative uses of the site during the life of the ! transfer station. The only alternative use expected at this time would be as a depository for inert material.11 In general, the proposed project would not be expected to negatively affect property values. Property values can be affected by changes in use of adjacent properties that increase or reduce the attractiveness of using surrounding properties for existing uses. The area is already zoned for industrial uses, thus, the proposed industrial use of the land would not be expected to have a negative effect. This would be the case for the adjacent residential Vine Hill neighborhood. This neighborhood has existed since the 1950s and the 86130 4-121 4.12 Socioeconomics TABLE 14 ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAX DISTRIBUTION PROPOSED ACME TRANSFER STATION Property Agency Sharel Tax2 County, General 33.93% $ 44,533 County, Library 1.90% 2,492 County, Fire 17.43% 22,871 County, Flood Control 0.26% 342 County Water Agency 0.05% 65 County, Res. Consv. 0.02% 30 Mosquito Abatement _ 0.32% 419 County Water District 0.93% 1,217 BART 0.80% 1,054 BAAQMD 0.23% 308 E. Bay Regl. Parks 3.82% 5,014 County, Sup. Schools 2.30% 3,022 Martinez Unified 30.52% 40,063 Community College 5.85% 7,680 County, Flood Zone 3B 0.33%. . 439 Central County Sanitary D. 1.-30% 1,707 TOTAL 100% $131,255 1 Average share from Table 13. ZEstimate based upon conservative estimate of $13 million in capital costs, plus the land value of 22 acres estimated from the average 1986-87 assessed acre value of the parcels. Source: EIP Associates. economic impact of adjacent industrial land use would have already been incorporated into current market values. Furthermore, studies of the effects of sanitary landfills (a use similar to that of the proposed project) on the values of adjacent properties have found no significant statistical difference between values of site area housing and those of the comparison housing areas.12,13 The transfer station may have the potential for a small positive impact on adjacent residential properties. In addition, the proposed project would construct a ten foot high (minimum) concrete wall along the site's boundary adjacent to the Vine Hill neighborhood in order to minimize potential noise and screen possible views of the transfer station from 86130 4-122 • 4.12 Socioeconomics the neighborhood.14The screen wall was not present during the borrow pit operations and therefore the proposed project would represent an improvement over conditions of past use of the.� property. The planned expansion of Waterbird Way to the south aloe the g eastern edge of Vine Hill neighborhood would also be screened from view by a sound barrier wall at the property line. The net result is that the proposed project could improve the aesthetics of the existing land use over that of an existing borrow pit, and r this could be expected to enhance property values somewhat. Mitigation Measures None would be required. 4.12.4 EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME Settin 15 Total employment projected for Contra Costa County in 1985 is 233,200. Contra Costa County is experiencing rapid growth in office space and service oriented employment.16 The five-county Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) had the sixth largest concentration of office space in the U.S.A. in 1980. One factor contributing to the Central County's growth is the shift of office employment and population from San Francisco to outlying suburban areas. Acme Fill presently employs an average of 29 full- time employees.17 Impacts The proposed project would insignificantly affect employment in Contra Costa County. Construction employment would amount to approximately 245 person years.18 The station would employ approximately 32 people plus drivers. Therefore, the net employment impact of the proposed project would be an addition of 3 full-time jobs. This would be an increase of 0.001% over the 1985 County-wide employed population. However, the transfer station would also offset the small potential employment loss of Acme positions once the landfill closed. Income affects on aggregate demand would be of a proportionate and insignificant nature. Mitigation Measures None would be required. 86130 4-123 �i 4.12 Socioeconomics � 4.12.5 PUBLIC SERVICES Settin See Section 4.11, Utilities and Services. Impacts Public service impacts would be insignificant. The proposed project would marginally increase demand for water, sewer, sheriff, and fire services (Section 4.11, Utilities and Services). The project sponsor would pay the capital costs for water and sewer services as well as user charges. The project would riot require any additional police or fire capital resources. Additionally property tax revenues would contribute approximately $1,217, $1,707, $22,871, and $44,533. to the Water District, the Sanitary District, the Fire Department, and the County General Fund respectively (Table 17). Mitigation Measures None would be required. 1Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and Contra Costa County, Solid Waste Manage- ment Project Report, Vol. II, February 1985, TM7, p. 12, Table 7-3. 2Ibid., TM20.. ll� 3 Ibid., TM10. 4Brown, Vence & Associates, ACME Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Project , Description/Report of Station Information, prepared for ACME Fill Corp., July 1986, PP• 32-37. 5 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and Contra Costa County, Solid Waste Manage- ment Project Report, Vol. II, February, 1985. TM7, p. 13, Table 7-4. 6Ibid., TM7, p. 7. 7Ibid. TM7 . 14-15 Tables 7-5 and 7-6. These figures were developed in an extensive > PP � i'u P analysis of direct haul and transfer station alternatives over a range of waste volumes and distances to landfills. The cost of the transfer station itself is only one component of the total costs discussed above in terms of increases in user charges. Other 86130 4-124 4.12 Socioeconomics components include transportation costs and tipping fees. Thus, the possibility exists that the proposed project might cost more than that estimated in the study, but total costs would not be increased proportionately. In all probability, the other components of total cost as well as the relative costs of direct haul would also face the possibility of having increased over those estimated in the study. The usefulness of the study to the issue of fiscal impact on users is in illuminating the relative costs of direct haul vs transfer station costs and the general order of their magnitude. In this regard, it can be concluded that the transfer station would be cheaper than direct haul, and that the monthly increases in user charges would be on the order of a about $2.00 per month per household. Even adding a 100% margin for error only raises user costs a few dollars to between $3 and $4 per month per household from the estimate of $1.50-$2.00 per month per household. Although the proportionate difference is large (10096), the absolute difference is small-(a couple dollars) and the order of magnitude of the increase remains low. BOp. Cit., Brown, Vence do Associates, pp. 33, 37, Tables 1 and 2 for estimate of project cost. Contra Costa County Assessors Office, personal communication, December 12, 1986, for 1986-87 assessed land value. Land value calculated by using average value per acre in the three parcels multiplied by the 22 acres of the proposed project. 10 Charles Zahn, Community Development Department, Contra Costa County, personal communication, December 16, 1986. 11Ibid. 12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, The Effects of Solid Waste Disposal Sites on Property Values, 1972. 13LosAngeles County Sanitation Districts, Property Value Impact Study Puente Hills Landfill, 1983. 14 Op. Cit. Brown, Vence & Associates, p. 5. 15ABAG, Projections '85, July 1985, p. 86. 160. Cit., Torrey be Torrey, p. 169. 17 Martin, Acme Fill Corporation, personal communication, December 17, 1986. M 18 Construction cost estimate of $17,860,000 (Table 14), fifty percent is estimated as labor with one person year of labor costing $36,400. Less equipment costs the construction of this project would cost approximately $16,000,000. 86130 4-125 4.13 Cultural Resources 4.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES The proposed project has the potential to affect archaeological resources, if they are present, during construction of the proposed permanent and interim transfer stations. The J California Archaeological Inventory, Northwest Information Center, conducted a literature/archival search of the project area. This location contains no cultural resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places nor in the California Inventory of Historic Resources. There are no recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological sites listed with the California Archaeological Inventory. Less than 5% of the project area has been archaeologically surveyed (Fredrickson, 1976).1 4.13.1 SETTING The project area is situated on a peninsula extending into marshland. Nearby prehistoric cultural resources have been identified within similar environmental settings and there is the possibility of prehistoric cultural resources near the site. However, there are no recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological sites within the project site. 4.13.2 IMPACTS Most of the project site has been altered by the excavation of a borrow pit. It is unlikely that there are any undisturbed areas within a 30 - 40 foot deep borrow pit at the site of a sanitary landfill. However, there remains a slight possibility of uncovering cultural ' resources in the remaining undisturbed areas on the site. In the opinion of the preparers of this EIR adverse impacts are not likely to occur. 4.13.3 MITIGATION MEASURES The Northwest Information Center recommends archival and field study be conducted to identify cultural resources which should not be adversely affected. In the opinion of County Staff a study is not required given the amount of excavation that has occured on the site. `In the event that during construction unanticipated cultural resources are encountered within the project site, it is recommended that all earthmoving activity in the area of impact cease and the project sponsor retain the services of a qualified archaeological consultant, who shall examine the findings, assess their significance and offer J 86130 4-126 4.13 Cultural Resources recommendations for any procedures deemed appropriate to either further investigate and/or mitigate adverse impacts to those cultural resources which have been encountered. 1Brian Terhorst, Researcher I, Northwest Information Center, California Archaeological Inventory, letter, December 19, 1986. J� 86130 4_127 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES INTERIM TRANSFER STATION The interim transfer facility would be located on Acme landfill property, northeast of the proposed permanent transfer station. The interim transfer site would cover about one third of an acre. The site has been used by Acme Fill in the past for unloading waste during winter operations. Because of its temporary status the interim facility would not be enclosed. The site area would consist of an elevated loading pad, a lower loading pad and truck ramps. The pads and ramps would be oil-packed gravel. 5.1 LAND USE The purpose of the interim transfer station would be to provide temporary transfer capability, if required, during construction of the permanent transfer station. The permanent station is expected to be completed in February, 1989. The interim transfer ` station site could be operational within a few months if approvals from the County and 1 � other jurisdictions have been,obtained. l 5.1.1 SETTING The site for the interim transfer station is entirely surrounded by the Acme Landfill t property northeast of the permanent transfer station. To the north is Waterfront Road running in an east-west direction and in the east is an expansion area for Acme Landfill Corporation. To the south of the interim site is the IT Corporation (International Technology) Vine Hill Treatment Plant, which occupies a site of about 40 acres. Hazardous/toxic liquid wastes are processed in this plant and pumped to evaporation ponds elsewhere on the parcel and on the company's Baker facility across Pacheco Creek. West of the site is a ridge which reaches elevation of 150 feet in one location. This ridge screens the interim site from views from I-680. The land is currently used for cattle grazing. The western half of this property is a seasonal wetland. In 1984, a business park was proposed on the east side of the ridge by the CAZ Development Company. The project was not approved by the City of Martinez. 86130 5-1 5. Environmental Issues Interim Transfer Station Local Plans and Zoning The site lies within an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County, east of the City of Martinez. The County General Plan includes a Refuse Disposal Plan which was adopted in 1973. Although much of the plan was superseded by later state legislation mandating countywide Solid Waste Management. Plans, it does recognize the Acme Landfill as a disposal site.2 The provision of the interim transfer station is noted in the draft revisions to the County's Solid Waste Management Plan, June 1987. The draft revisions state, on page 7, that the construction of an interim transfer station at the Acme landfill would be consistant with the CoSWMP. The County's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance permits heavy industry, including solid waste disposal sites, as conditional uses on Acme property. The area for the Acme landfill is noticed by the County Land Use Permit 615-60, originally issued in 1958 and since modified, which permits solid waste disposal on the site. Subsequent to the submission of the transfer station project the applicant and County staff agreed that the applicant would request a General Plan Amendment to specifically cover the interim transfer station site. The interim station site is covered by Acme Fill Corporation.Land Use Permit. The applicant has applied for a new Land Use Permit to specifically approve the interim transfer station site and enable appropriate conditions of approval to be imposed. The interim transfer station is noted in the draft revisions to the County's Solid Waste Management Plan, April 1987. The interim transfer station site also falls within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Martinez which ultimately expects to annex the area. The Martinez General Plan currently recommends industrial use for the property with consideration for its wetlands, topographic features and other natural environmental characteristics. There are no wetlands associated with the interim transfer station site. The General Plan also designates Waterfront Road as a scenic route. 5.1.2 IMPACTS The interim transfer station .would use the same site used for unloading waste during winter operations. The effects of loading and unloading activities would include potential dust, litter, noise and odor impacts at the site. However, because of its distance from J . 86130 5-2 V 5.: Environmental Issues Interim Transfer Station Vine Hill residential neighborhood, loading and unloading are not expected to significantly affect residential uses. Limited impacts from dust and litter in the immediate site vicinity would be expected. These effects would vary with level of activity and wind direction at the site. These impacts are expected to last for a short period of time and are not expected to be significant. Dust impacts would be minimized by sprinkling and other control methods. Litter impacts would be controlled by the use of litter containers and portable collection fences positioned at locations downwind as required. The operation of the interim transfer station would not impede the construction of the permanent transfer station. However, a net increase in the volume of traffic in the project vicinity would occur. This increase would be due mainly to the introduction of to transfer trucks that would be used to export wastes to an available landfill. Potential impacts from involving traffic generation are discussed in Section 5.2 of this report. l Transfer truck traffic would access the interim site from the south using an existing access road. Customer traffic would access the interim site from the north using an existing but currently non-operating access road and entrance gate off Waterbird Way. In general, the same number of customer and employee vehicles accessing the site during its period of operation would be. similar to the number of vehicles currently accessing the permanent transfer station at opening. �+ The proposed project would require a Land Use permit from Contra Costa County because it is located on a portion of the Acme landfill which is not covered by an existing land use permit. Before project approval Acme would require a Solid Waste Facilities permit from the County and the State. A revision to the County Solid Waste Management Plan to include the interim facility is included itt the revised Plan currently under review by County staff. � 86130 - 53 S. Environmental Issues Interim Transfer Station 5.1.3 MITIGATION MEASURES Measures Proposed by the Applicant Mitigation measures to reduce or prevent the anticipated impacts generation of dust, litter, noise, odor, and visual quality from the interim transfer station should include the installation of temporary control fences during the period the facility is in operation. Mitigation measures including measures for traffic noise and visual quality are discussed g � g � 9 Y elsewhere in the report. Further mitigation measures for air quality, noise, and water quality would follow those outlined for the permanent transfer station in relevant sections of the report. Further Mitigation Measures Development of the interim transfer station is an integral part of the proposed-permanent transfer station project. The scheduling for these two facilities is closely linked. To ensure completion of the entire complex, i.e., the full development of the permanent transfer station site, County approvals of the interim transfer station facility should be conditional on a commitment from the project applicant to complete the development of the permanent transfer station within a stated time period. The interim transfer station should also be required to cease operation when the permanent transfer station opens. 1Brown, Vence & Associates, Project Description, Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station, July, 1986. 2Torrey & Torrey, Inc., Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact w1 Statement, Voll, June, 1983. 5.2 TRAFFIC & CIRCULATION The interim transfer station would be located within one-quarter of a mile of the permanent transfer station site. The temporary facility would be located on the Acme landfill to the north of the existing scale house area. The same number and type of vehicles accessing the existing landfill would continue to access the interim transfer station. The introduction of transfer trucks to export wastes from the site would 86130 5-4 5. Environmental Issues Interim Transfer Station represent an increase in traffic volumes associated with waste disposal activity on the site. 5.2.1 SETTING All vehicular traffic would access the site via Waterfront Road and the existing alignment of Waterbird Way. Section 4.2, Traffic and Circulation for the permanent transfer station provides a description of existing conditions. The traffic and roadway conditions outlined in Section 4.2 would apply to the interim transfer station site. Traffic volumes for existing roadways and intersections would also. apply to the interim facility given its location proximate to the permanent transfer station site. An existing entrance leading to a private access road on the Acme landfill would be used by customer traffic entering and leaving the interim facility. This entrance point is located on Waterbird Way close .to its intersection with Waterfront Road. Ingress to the Acme property at this point is presently by means of a left-turn for southbound traffic. Customer traffic leaving the interim facility would make a right-turn at this entrance and proceed to Waterfront Road and the regional highway system. Acme employees and transfer truck traffic would access the interim facility from r ' Waterbird Way at its existing intersection with Arthur Road using the existing entrance to the Acme landfill and scale °house area. No roadway improvements are projected as a result of the interim transfer station alone. However, the development of the interim transfer station is contingent on the development of the permanent transfer station. Road improvements for the permanent facility are noted in Section 4.2 of this report. i 5.2.2 IMPACTS Impacts associated with the interirq facility would be the same as those identified during the start-up period for operations on the permanent transfer station site. As noted in Section 4.2, significant transportation impacts during the start-up period of operation at the permanent transfer station would be similar at the interim transfer station. A change in traffic patterns in the immediate vicinity of the project site would come about as a result of the development of the interim facility. Customer traffic entering 86130 - 55 5. Environmental Issues Interim Transfer Station and leaving the entrance to Acme property directly from Waterbird Way would represent a new element in traffic circulation in the area. Transfer truck traffic on Waterbird Way would also represent a new element in existing traffic conditions. Impacts relating to both of these new traffic elements are discussed in Section 4.2 of this report. The traffic pattern that would be established by the permanent transfer station would be the same in most respects as that established by the interim transfer station. The main difference in traffic conditions relating to the two facilities would be that the permanent transfer station would accommodate a greater volume of traffic in future years. Refer to Section 4.2 for a discussion of traffic issues. ' 5.2.3 MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigations for interim transfer station traffic would be the same as those noted in Section 4.2.3 of this report. Mitigations relating to traffic accessing the Acme landfill entrance are noted in Site Access 1. Waterbird Way/Acme Landfill Entrance (1987), Section 4.2.3. Further mitigations relating to transfer truck traffic on Waterfront Road and potential impacts on pavement integrity should also apply to the operation of the interim transfer station. As a condition of approval the County would require that roadway improvements relating specifically to the -construction of the interim transfer station be carried out in advance of the operation of the facility to ensure the safe movement of traffic and pedestrians. 5.3 NOISE The issue of noise generation on the interim transfer station site would be similar to noise issues associated with the permanent transfer station. 5.3.1 SETTING The interim transfer station site would be an exposed open area. It would not contain any buildings. Waste disposal and transfer operations would take place out of doors. 86130 5-6 5. Environmental Issues Interim Transfer Station The Vine Hill residential neighborhood would be the most sensitive noise receptor area in the vicinity of the proposed project. The location of the interim transfer station site would be about 1,750 feet from the permanent transfer station site and about 2,500 feet from the nearest homes in the Vine Hill neighborhood along Irene Drive. The site would be located in an area that would be shielded from view from homes in the Vine Hill residential neighborhood. The access road for commercial customers and the general public accessing both the interim and permanent transfer station site would be located immediately to the west of the interim transfer station. The grade elevation of this road in the vicinity of the site would be the same as the unloading area for public disposal materials. The loading pad area on the east side of the interim transfer station would be at a lower level than the waste receiving area. The loading pad area would be accessed by transfer trucks and by transfer station equipment. l e 5.3.2 IMPACTS Operational Impacts The location of the interim transfer station site would preclude the possibility of potential. significant noise impacts in the Vine Hill residential area from on-site operations. The transference of noise impacts is determined in large measure by the "line-of-sight" i r a n characteristics of the project ion loc t and a sensitive nose reception area. The existing topography of the Acme landfill would effectively shield the interim site from homes in the area. This factor, in addition to the distance from the, site to the Vine Hill neighborhood, would be sufficient to prevent significant noise increases in the residential neighborhood. Transfer Station Traffic The access routeollowed by commercial customers and the general public accessing the interim transfer site (and the future permanent transfer station site) would cross the Acme landfill. Existing topography on the Acme landfill and a ridge to the west of Waterbird Way would preclude noise impacts from this traffic. The removal of commercial customer and general public traffic from Waterbird Way as it approaches the existing scale house and landfill would cause a decrease in traffic noise levels generated 86130 5-7 5. Environmental Issues Interim Transfer Station at the present intersection of Waterbird Way and Arthur Road. Noise levels along access roads to the interim transfer station would not increase significantly over noise levels currently experienced in the vicinity of the Acme landfill. The introduction of transfer trucks to the interim transfer site would offset gains made in decreasing noise by removing commercial customer and general public traffic from the lower portion of Waterbird Way on to the access road across the Acme landfill. The level of noise impact associated with transfer trucks would be similar to that generated by the permanent transfer station since transfer trucks would follow the same route along the length of Waterbird Way and, at the start-of operation of the facility, would generate the same number of trips. Transfer truck traffic noise for the permanent transfer station is analyzed in Section 4.3 of this report. The findings reported in.this section of the report note that under "worst case" daytime conditions in the year 2010, accounting for increased traffic volumes, noise levels at the Vine Hill residential area property line would have a less than one decibel increase in the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). Please refer to Section 4.3.2 for further discussion of this issue and on the noise impacts associated with transfer truck traffic. 5.3.3 MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation measures for the interim transfer station site would include the provision of noise barrier/retaining wall construction as noted in Section 4.3.3 of this report. As a further mitigation measure the preparers of this report recommend the provision of a barrier on Arthur Road to protect homes fronting Donna Drive. As a mitigation measure the sound wall barrier on the western property line of the permanent transfer station protecting homes along Irene Drive should be built prior to the start of any construction ] of the interim transfer station facility. 5.4 SOILS„ GEOLOGY do SEISMICITY A description of general seismological and geological conditions at the Acme landfill �. appears in Section 4.4 of this report referencing the permanent transfer station site. Please refer to that section for further details regarding the proposed project. 86130 5-8 5. Environmental Issues Interim Transfer Station 5.4.1 SETTING The proposed interim transfer station would be located on a landfilled portion of the existing Acme site (Figure 21). The construction of the interim transfer station would not involve the construction of new buildings, scale house facilities, or access roads. Existing landfill facilities would be employed for interim transfer station activities. The development of the interim transfer station site would involve the modification of existing roads, access ramps and grades in the vicinity of the existing, unenclosed winter disposal site on Acme property. 5.4.2 IMPACTS Preparation of the interim transfer station site also may involve changes to the existing topography of the selected site and adjacent areas of fill. Impacts resulting from these changes would be minor. It is worth noting, however, that landfill settlement resulting from decomposition will reach approximately 25% of the refuse thickness with much of the settlement occurring within the first five years after refuse is deposited. Most of the remaining settlement occurs within 10 .to 15 years of refuse placement. The differential settlement of fill would have its major impact during the first five years after the final filling actions. ISeismic Impacts ` The primary effects of fault movements are generated by vibrations that are felt as k, earthquake shaking and, occasionally, the propogation of a fracture to the earth's surface, either as sudden fault rupture or fault creep, which can result with or without small earthquakes. Secondary effects that result from ground shaking consist of slope failures, settlement, vibration damage to structures, liquefaction, seiche (a sloshing of water in the basins of deep closed bodies of water) and tsunami (large seismic sea waves that cross oceans and may reach shorelines with potentially destructive force). Liquefaction occurs in loose saturated clean sand and silts. The Seismic Safety Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan indicates that such material may be present on the Acme landfill site (interim transfer station). However, no such materials have been found in borings at the site, so liquefaction should not occur. No deep closed bodies of water or open-ocean shoreline are present near the project site, thus seiche or tsunami effects are not expected to affect the site. 86130 5-g 5. Environmental Issues Interim Transfer Station Fault displacements on the order of 1 to 3 feet have occurred in the Bay Mud underlying the existing landfill without showing evidence of cracking at the surface of the refuse fill. Based on the experience with the existing fill and the maximum seismic displacement calculated (5 to 8 feet), the consequences of seismic deformations will most likely be slight to moderate cracking of the refuse fill surface with little or no slumping. The development of a large failure is unlikely because the factor of safety against sliding would remain well above 1.0 (1.25) after an increase in pore pressures of 75% due to a seismic event. The two-level interim transfer station loading pad area could be impacted by surface fault rupture and result in minor damage. This impact, and others noted above, can be mitigated through project design and is not considered environmentally significant. 5.4.3 MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigations Proposed by the Applicant Road grading would be designed to resist differential settlement and to accommodate total settlement. Design settlement for the interim transfer station and nearby slopes . would be analyzed for static stability and predictions should be verified by fill monitoring systems during and after construction. The road and pad designs would include the least amount of cut possible to avoid reducing the thickness of final cover on landfill areas or exposing the final cover to possible erosion. Future Mitigations To off-set potential erosion impacts the project applicants Erosion Control Plan submitted to the County as a condition of approval for the permanent transfer station should also include the interim transfer station. Mitigation of seismic risk for the operation of the existing landfill site is discussed in the Acme Landfill 1983 EIR/EIS (pages 65 through 67). As noted in the report potential liquefaction, tsunami and seiche effects appeared to be insignificant. Surface faulting was considered unlikely and would not affect the currently proposed project because the Concord Fault passes northeast of the proposed site. 86130 5-10 5. Environmental Issues Interim Transfer Station 5.5 HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY The general environmental conditions of the Acme landfill and the interim transfer _ station site are noted in Section 4.5 of this report. 5.5.1 SETTING IF In the sense of a usable water supply, groundwater does not exist at the Acme site. The groundwater in the low-lying portions of the site is saltwater loosely bound within the cellular structure of the Bay Mud. Grou,. dwater is not known to underlie the hills on the Acme landfill. No water wells are known to exist in the area bounded by Interstate 680 to the west, Waterfront Road to the north, Pacheco Creek to the east, and the A.T. & S.F. Railroad to the south. The Acme landfill area in general has a high, slightly saline, water table. The soil is subject to occasional ponding. Construction,of drainage ditches and levees has lowered the water table to a depth of 30 to 40 inches. Leachate water is a condition formed on landfill sites. Leachate is water or other liquids which have come into contact with, or percolated through, waste refuse and become more or less contaminated. As a condition of approval of the current Acme landfill operation, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB requires Acme to monitor the groundwater conditions. Acme has established six observation wells surrounding the landfill to monitor groundwater and three wells within the landfill to monitor leachate (Figure 40). A number of water quality parameters are monitored by Acme and reported to the RWQCB. Acme's self-monitoring reports identify long-term trends in groundwater conditions. 5.5.2 IMPACTS Surface drainage is away from the interim transfer 'station location toward low-lying seasonal ponds, creek channels, and the levee tide gate. This general drainage pattern would not be altered, but a slight increase in runoff volume would be expected due to the addition of impervious oil-packed gravel surfaces (roads and loading pads) at the site. It is possible that erosion potential could increase because of the additional runoff, however, the amount would be small and would additionally be directed away from working faces. 86130 5-11 OBSERVATION POINTS AND WELLS FIGURE 40 INTERIM �`:::.. o��s.A i. ;� • TRANSFER STATION Mja t ■ 97 ACRE LANDFILL Radio `3 _�..•� f, Towers PERMANENT \ /oma _'•'''` , TRANSFER 1 \'\\✓ ; __ _-� _ J f......._ STATION10 .,. \\ , J \ -,.\'. -.-..... .-.. '.�� I........ i - LANDFILL Lr jAofI' ; Visual observation stations ❑ Wells to monitor groundwater outside landfill hOtl �' \ ® Wells to monitor `� leachate inside landfill "�`--. l� 'X176 t \• FEET p o ei SOURCE: TORREY 6 TORREY INC. 0 S00 1000 2000 m 5-12 5. Environmental Issues Interim Transfer Station It is important to prevent runoff from entering the landfill because of the potential for producing leachate streams. If leachate streams are produced, and if the streams reach surface waters, the leachate may lessen beneficial uses of such surface waters. Specific impacts of leachate in surface waters are described in Table 15. Leachate in landfilled areas is required to be contained by natural features and installations. Implementable pads and surface drainage convenience systems would prevent substantial infiltration of surface water. Surface water would be prevented from coming into contact with the working face of the landfill, or future trenches, by surface drainage features. The possibility of transfer station process water contaminating surface water would be reduced or eliminated by the construction of various drainage barriers, directors and other control measures. The impact on surface water quality depends in part on the location of drainage features between the interim transfer station site and nearby water bodies. 1 The location of refuse transfer sites in relation to the groundwater table is an important factor affecting the production of leachate a landfilled site. site. Percolation of surface water through refuse and into the surrounding groundwater could produce leachate by infiltration and horizontal flow. An leachate contamination of usable groundwater or Y surface water is prohibited specifically by the RWQCB. The potential impacts of such leachate is shown in Table 16. There is no usable groundwater at the site, but leachate in the groundwater that does occur at the site, eventually may reach surface waters, such as the creeks and Bay that are adjacent to the site. If leachate in the groundwater reaches areas that are open to tidal flow, the pollutants could be discharged into Pacheco/Walnut Creek Channel and Suisun Bay, thereby adversely affecting the water quality elsewhere. 5.5.3 MITIGATION MEASURES Measures Proposed by the Applicant Refer to Section 4.5.3 of this report. 86130 5-13 5.5 Hydrology & Water Quality TABLE 15 POTENTIAL LEACHATE PROBLEMS IN SURFACE WATERT ; Parameter Impact Associated Problems BOD oxygen depletion septic conditions, discoloration, taste and odor problems Iron rust-colored stains discoloration, slime growth on stream bottom, taste and odor problems Decreased pH increased toxicity potential problems for domestic use, irrigation, and stock watering downstream Increased pH metal precipitation blanketing of stream bottom, long-term toxicity Metals increased toxicity potential problems for domestic use, irrigation, and stock watering problems Organics increased toxicity potential problems for domestic use, irrigation, and stock watering downstream Nitrogen algal blooms interference with domestic and recreational use Phosphorus algal blooms interference with domestic and recreational use Color discoloration reduced photosynthesis and oxygen depletion, aesthetically unpleasant 1 Cameron, R.D., The Effects of Solid Waste Landfill Leac hates on Receiving Waters," Journal of the American Water Works Association 70(3):173-176. 1978. l 86130 5-14 5.5 Hydrology & Water Quality TABLE 16 POTENTIAL LEACHATE PROBLEMS IN GROUNDWATERSI Parameter Impact Associated Problems BOD oxygen depletion discoloration, taste and odor problems Iron rust-colored stains staining of clothes and fixtures, taste and odor problems Decreased pH increased toxicity potential problems for domestic use, irrigation, and stock watering downstream Increased pH metal precipitation possible aquifer clogging { Metals increased toxicity potential problems for domestic { use, irrigation, and stock watering downstream I Organics increased toxicity potential problems for domestic use, irrigation, and stock watering downstream Fluoride high fluoride levels mottled teeth Selenium toxicity possible toxicity to humans ' Color discoloration aesthetically unpleasant 'Cameron, R.D., "The Effects of Solid Waste Landfill Leachates on Receiving Waters," Journal of the American Water Works Association 70(3):173-176. 1978. 86130 5-15 5. Environmental Issues Interim Transfer Station Further Mitigations In order to eliminate the possibility of escape of the leachate from the landfill site, impermeable barriers would be constructed at the perimeter of the site by Acme Fill Corporation as part of the closure plan for the Northern Parcel of the Acme landfill.l These barriers should be both high enough and keyed into the ground surface deeply enough to prevent the outward migration of the leachates. Additional observation wells to monitor groundwater quality should be installed as required by the County. Contingency plans to_ seal the landfilled areas from tidal exchange, if it becomes contaminated with leachates, also should be required. This requirement should be made a part of the closure plan for the Acme landfill. 5.6 VEGETATION do NATURAL RESOURCES The site of the interim transfer station is a disturbed area that has been a part of the active landfill site. It was used in the past as a temporary disposal area during winter. No impacts on existing vegetation and natural resources are expected as a result of the development of this site for an interim transfer station. 5.7 AIR QUALITY The air quality characteristics of the interim transfer station for the Acme landfill are essentially the same as those of the permanent transfer station. Refer to Section 4.7 of this report. 5.8 ENERGY The site of the proposed interim transfer station is vacant. No significant energy consumption occurs on the site. The interim transfer station project would not require the construction or use of new building structures. The operation of the interim transfer station would be similar, in terms of energy consumption, to the energy use for on-site equipment and.traffic.volumes. 5.9 VISUAL QUALITY The interim transfer station would be constructed on an open site on the existing Acme landfill. Potential impacts on the existing visual environment would be nominal. J, 86130 5-16 5. Environmental Issues Interim Transfer Station 5.9.1 SETTING The location of the interim transfer station site would be set among undulating terrain formed as part of the existing Acme landfill. There would not be any structures associated with the new interim facility. Construction activities would involve the development of unloading and loading areas and access road. The site would occupy a partially developed site used for winter disposal operations. For the most part views of the site would be blocked by surrounding terrain. In the future the Acme landfill would be an open space area possibly used for recreation purposes. 5.9.2 IMPACTS The construction of the interim`transfer station would provide new graded elevations and } roadways in the vicinity of the site. Construction activities would result in improvements to the irregular layout of the existing winter disposal site. This could be considered a 1 beneficial result of the project. Views of the improvements on the project site would be limited to locations in the immediate vicinity of the site. Long range views from the west and south would be prohibited by existing topography. The site would not be visible from streets in the'Vine Hill neighborhood, Waterbird Way, or Waterfront Road to the north. The interim transfer station site would cease to operate by the time the surrounding Acme property is possibly converted to some form of open space or recreational use. The provision of the project is not expected to have a significant impact on the future possible use of the Acme property. The potential visual impact of waste litter would result in the need for a management program. Night time lighting would be too distant from the Vine Hill neighborhood to adversely affect the neighborhood. 5.9.3 MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigations would be required with regard to site development and viewshed issues. Mitigations for litter control would follow practices outlined for the permanent transfer station, as applicable. Night time lighting would be focused to provide traffic security and the efficient operation of the facility. Lighting would be arranged to not affect residential homes. 86130 5-17 5. Environmental Issues Interim Transfer Station , 5.10 PUBLIC SAFETY The issues of public safety for the interim transfer station would be similar to those for the permanent transfer station. However, the control of on-site equipment in the less structured environment of the open site interim transfer station would call for added rigor, on the behalf of station operatives. Conversely, the lack of heavy duty mechanical equipment operating with an enclosed structure would lessen to some extent the possibility of industrial accidents. The interim transfer station would be open to the effects of inclement weather. It would, however, operate for a limited amount of time. All potential impacts would be, therefore, of short duration. No potential impacts have been defined as significantly adverse. Please refer to Section 4.10 of this report for a discussion of safety issues relating to the proposed project. 5.11 UTILITIES do SERVICE The demand placed on utilities and services by the interim transfer station site would be less than those required for a fully developed and operational permanent transfer station. Temporary services to the interim transfer station site would be provided by those services to the existing Acme landfill and would be similar to those provided to the site of the interim facility during the period it functions as a winter disposal site. Refer to Section 4.11 for a discussion,of the service demands required for a transfer station. 5.12 SOCIOECONOMICS Socioeconomic issues relating to the interim transfer station site would be similar to those related to a fully developed and operational permanent transfer station. Temporary services to the interim transfer station site would be provided by existing Acme landfill services and would be similar to those provided to the site of the interim facility during the period it functions as a winter disposal site. Refer to Section 4.12 for a discussion of socioeconomics issue. 5.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES The interim transfer station site is located on an existing sanitary landfill. The site is used during the winter for the disposal of refuse. There would be no impacts on cultural resources from the proposed project. 1 86130 5-18 6 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an analysis of "alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125[d]). This report considers the four alternatives to the proposed project. They are: 6.1 NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: This alternative analyzes the impacts of a decision to take no action to develop a transfer station to process wastes currently discharged to the Acme landfill. 6.2 MODIFIED PROJECT ALTERNATIVES: This alternative consists of an analysis of modified locations for facility elements and access roads on Acme property. 6.3 ALTERNATE SITE LOCATIONS: PERMANENT TRANSFER STATION: This consists of a review of four off-site alternatives for the proposed permanent transfer station. 6.4 ALTERNATIVE SITE LOCATIONS: INTERIM TRANSFER. STATION: This section includes an analysis of alternatives' for constructing a temporary interim transfer station at the Acme landfill site. 6.1 NO-PROJECT , The No-Project alternative would eliminate potential environmental impacts associated with the project. However, all potential adverse impacts have been identified as less than significant, or mitigable to the level of less than significant. The beneficial aspects associated with the proposed project in helping provide a solution to long-term solid waste management issues in Contra Costa County would also not accrue if the proposed project were not to proceed. �l J 86130 - 61 6. Project Alternatives The rovision of a transfer station facility would reduce traffic in the vicinity of landfill P Y Y sites. The draft revisions to the County's Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP), June 1987 contains language that would require all solid waste collection vehicles, with some exceptions, to use transfer stations when new landfills come into operation as a condition of approval for new landfill applications. The CoSWMP revisions also note that recycling operations be integrated into transfer station operations. Resource recovery operations would include drop-off/pay back facilities, wood chipping and possibly concrete crushing operations. As a waste processing center transfer stations would screen incoming wastes for hazardous materials to prevent contamination of the non-hazardous waste stream. Maintaining the existing borrow pit on the Acme site as open land would preserve its possible use for future recreation or open space, or its development for other industrial or commercial uses. However, the imminent closure of Acme landfill, and other landfills in the County, would result in a need to export wastes, provided that a new landfill site is not identified and constructed within the County. The proposed transfer station would accommodate the transportation of wastes from the Central County to an available County landfill or a landfill located outside the County. The No-Project alternative would preclude the option to export wastes to a new landfill. The use of an out-of-county site to receive exported waste would involve longer haul distances, some increase in traffic on regional highways, and some increases in energy use and vehicular traffic emissions. Some potentially localized adverse impacts on land use, visual quality, water quality, air quality, traffic and noise could also be avoided by the use of out-of-county landfill site rather than the provision of a new landfill in Contra Costa County. However, the use of an out-of-county site would involve a complex permitting process and may not provide the County with long-term access to a disposal site that would accommodate future growth potential in the County beyond the year 2000. Out-Of-County Landfill Options SOLANO COUNTY In November 1984, Solano County limited the amount of solid waste that could be imported into Solano County to 95,000 tons per year (158,000 cubic yards per year at 1200 pounds per cubic yard compaction). This amount would be in addition to 546,000 tons per 86130 6-2 i 6. Project Alternatives l year (910,000 cubic yards) allowed by an existing contract with San Francisco for the period 1988 and 1993 which lapsed in March 1987. Future waste importation contracts would be limited to a 10-year period. The limitation of a maximum of 95,000 tons per year of imported wastes into Solano county would not accommodate Contra Costa County's disposal needs if a new landfill is not constructed within Contra Costa County. In November 1984, Solano County rejected the adoption of a General Plan Amendment allowing the development of a proposed landfill at Lynch Canyon. This landfill was proposed as a solution to Solano County's need for additior,-=1 landfill space generated by the anticipated closure of many of its existing disposal sites before the year 2000. By that time, Solano County would experience pressure to develop additional wastestream resources or export waste to surrounding counties. In light of these developments it would appear unlikely that the long-term exportation of Contra Costa County wastes to Solano County would be feasible. Contra Costa County staff, in early 1987, investigated the possibilities of acquiring San Francisco's disposal rights as a partial interim solution, but this proved to be infeasible. ALAMEDA COUNTY Discussions have taken place between Contra Costa County and Alameda County regarding the use of the Altamont landfill east of the City of Livermore for wastes currently delivered to the Acme landfill. On November 3, 1986 the Oakland Scavenger Company submitted a formal application to the Alameda County Planning Department to amend the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan. The application requested a modification in the Solid Waste Management Plan to permit acceptance of wastes from Contra Costa County beginning in June 1987 for a maximum amount of 2,500,000 tons. Action on modifications to the Solid Waste Management Plan would be submitted to the California Waste Management Board for approval. Alameda County has two existing sanitary landfills with project capacities beyond the year 2000. The Altamont Pass landfill with an estimated remaining capacity of 110 million cubic yards and the Vasco Road landfill with an estimated remaining capacity of 7.3 million cubic yards. 86130 - 63 6. Project Alternatives Costa Waste The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District/Contra Cos County Sold W Management Project, technical report (TM No. 7) 1985, used Altamont landfill as an example of an out-of-county site to receive exported waste from Contra Costa County. The following actions would be required if Contra Costa County were to use the Altamont landfill site as a sole waste disposal facility: o Amendment of the Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan. o Amendment of the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan by the Alameda County Joint Powers Authority. This would require amendment of the Facilities Program, approval by the California Waste Management Board (CWMB), and a determination of conformance with the Solid Waste Management Plan objectives and policies. If a policy amendment is required, approval by cities with a majority of Alameda County population is required. o Amendment of Oakland Scavenger's Solid Waste Facilities Permit for Altamont landfill by the Alameda County Division of Environmental Health. This would require approval by the County Waste Management Board. o Determination by Alameda County Planning Department regarding need for revising Oakland Scavenger's Conditional Land Use Permit and revision by the Alameda County Planning Commission, if determined necessary. o Approval by the State Department of Health Services and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board for the designated wastes presently disposed of in Contra Costa County. o Approval by the Alameda County Joint Refuse Rate Review Committee of surcharges paid for each ton of solid waste imported and disposed of at Altamont landfill. o A determination by the Alameda County Planning Department regarding the prepara- tion of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required or the preparation of a Negative Declaration (Brown and Caldwell, 1986). 6.2 MODIFIED PROJECT An analysis of a modified project has been conducted at the request of the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. The modified project involves the arrange- ment of facilities on the site of the permanent transfer station. The main intent of the modified project is to create a greater distance between the Vine Hill residential neighborhood and project building (including a possible future waste-to-energy facility). Figure 41 indicates a conceptual layout of the site and the position of relocated buildings and access roads. 86130 6-4 � W $ w 'ig w � & s a • H b 3�N3 � o B V J .� O'- z e• r Z r N rw Z_ y Z a 6 � ,° Q 4 Z: r b `d W 2 2 • O Y r l W li Z W r J _ 2__rQ2 (r I J VV U 1¢a "O p t °c O O F U. LJ � 3 133NVN3INIVW Z __J 3lOIH3n 1L J1 { nand cm ti �jilt avOtjji lev // -5] Illll �� ♦/ - 00 0oo�0 00 Z 09 /�� '. .. ".. 2n u Z< a� O jt� W3 Cc 1O o� O Z7 J! �l f °C ~_ Q W_ / cc M LL Jr ~30 O W0 10 i J/ z G00 t.' Ow � j QJW C W N¢ O V N r_ a �� O n p 1�1 . Q z a w JJ M i6. Project Alternatives > Advantages to the proposed alternative layout would include the axial alignment of the F l main transfer building with the road access to the site and a larger buffer zone between the project and residential homes to the west. The arrangement of buildings could also r- allow the development of larger areas of landscaping on the western part of the site for use by station employees and possibly site visitors. The integration of landscaped areas and employee parking areas would also be promoted by this arrangement. r The creation of a park-like setting along the western edge of the facility would visually relate the site to potential landscaping and recreational uses for the remaining Acme Fill property to the .northeast after its closure as an active landfill. Landscaping would also r visually relate to open space areas to the south of the site and existing or proposed development along the future extension of Waterbird Way. A large section of landscaping would act as a visual foil for medium-to-long range views of the site from the north and northeast, and would complement open space and hillsides adjoining the Contra Costa Water District land south of the site. ' The arrangement of buildings shown on Figure 41 would also help mitigate potential noise impacts generated by the proposed facility. Building and on-site activities would be located at a greater distance from the Vine Hill residential area. The alignment of buildings would also screen access roads on the east side of the main transfer building. Some traffic would still access the building on the west side. The area for visitors and administration employees would also be located further away from immediate access to the site. Care would need to be taken so that the proposed alternative does not intrude on to the adjacent Martinez Gun Club property. A further modification to the site plan could allow visitors and administration employees common use of the access driveway to the Martinez Gun Club. Visitors and employees involved could make a right-turn southbound at the new intersection .and utilize the Gun Club access road. This action would remove some transfer station traffic from access roads on the site. It would also result in a second point of ingress and egress that may be used in the case of emergency. 86130 6-7 6. Project Alternatives IMPACTS The layout of the site as shown in Figure 41 could also result in additional excavation grading on the site and changes to site hydrology. These changes would be expected to be nominal .and impacts would be accounted for in site engineering drawings. The alternate configuration of buildings would affect traffic circulation and access to the site. Additional complications at the site entrance and its intersection could also result. The final design of the entrance intersection may not accommodate the rearrangement of access roads proposed in Figure 41. Impacts associated with the proposed alternative layout would relate to the ease of access to the site by transfer trucks and the difficulties they would experience with negotiating a right turn at the entrance to the facility. The segregation of transfer trucks from collection trucks and self-hauler vehicles would also require careful study. It is possible, however, that the future waste-to-energy facility may not require all the space devoted to this activity on the applicants site development drawings. , Conversely the location of the future waste-to-energy facility may be reorganized vis-a-vis the Main Transfer Building and possibly turned on its axis.to create more circulation space at the entrance to the site. The remaining environmental issues involved in the development of a transfer station and discussed in the relevant portions of this report would remain unchanged as a result of this alternative site configuration. The cost of development would also remain proportionate to the applicant's project although they may be somewhat higher than the cost of the proposed project because of additional excavation and on-site landscaping. ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTION LAYOUT Discussions are underway between the applicant and the IT Corporation and the Martinez Gun Club regarding the redesign of the existing intersection at the entrance to the proposed transfer station. The layout for this intersection shown on Figure 42 represents a modification to the proposed project which is offered for discussion by the applicant. The revised layout would maintain access to the IT Corporation site and the Martinez Gun Club much as it exists at present. Pavement improvements, the reconstruction of road surfaces, and the signalization of the intersection would be provided in this alternative. 86130 6-8 rs e = 01 '� V tl31N33 ON131NOA1 30N33 a � 11pM'JNiNidl3tl- 6 \�� v N '� w I � 'r•.�OJ, a b y'yfOjf .;. � t OJ ba y YlO %� �� f � fes.•. `�� )� t 3J S i CD At 4 Y N to . �c7�u Opo d' ` r Y N a� a 'f O 2 s, tlli d it v� 6. Project Alternatives ,l The alternative layout would involve additional intersections compar ed with the proposed project. Traffic issues relating to these intersections have not been fully analyzed in this report. Further modifications to the alternative layout may be required as discussions between the parties concerned proceed. The County would require submittal of final plans for the intersection for approval prior to the commencement of any work. A resolution to potential site access conflicts between the applicants proposal and the IT Corporation and the Martinez Gun Club would become part of the conditions of approval fu., the proposed transfer station project. 6.3 ALTERNATIVE SITE LOCATIONS: PERMANENT TRANSFER STATION The project proponents application to the County did not include a discussion of alternative off-site locations for the proposed project. An extensive analysis of 1 alternative sites was not conducted because the county has not received application for development of these sites for a transfer station and there is no indication that an active planning effort to develop these sites would be pursued. Section 15126[d][5] of CEQA states, in part, that: An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Committee v. Board of Trustees, (1979) 89 Cal. App. 3d 274.) The Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District/Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Project Report, Vol. II, Technical Memorandum No. 9, identified five possible locations for a transfer station facility. One of the sites noted was the Acme Fill Corporation site, the subject of this report. As a basis for evaluating the construction of the proposed transfer station on Acme Fill property, a review of the four remaining possible alternative site locations is provided below. Results of this review indicate that the Acme site meets the criteria for a transfer station site noted in the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District/Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Project Report, Vol. II, February 1985. These criteria include: o site access 86130 6-11 6. Project Alternatives o distance from source of waste and established collection system o compatible zoning o potential for public acceptance. 1. Crow Canyon Road/I-680 Interchange There are two light industrial areas within a I mile of the Crow Canyon Road/I-680 Interchange. A transfer station facility could be sited in one of these areas located in San Ramon close to the city limits of Danville. Access to the area would be along a 4-lane divided roadway through a retail business area and an area used for manufacturing purposes. The land surrounding the potential transfer station site is zoned for light industry on the east, agriculture and planned unit development to the north, retail uses to the west and commercial use to the south. 2. Lafayette The site of a potential transfer station would be located one-quarter of a mile southeast of the Upper Happy Valley/Freeway 24/Mt. Diablo Boulevard interchange. These regional arterials would provide major access to the site. The site would be about one mile from a refuse disposal corporation yard. The yard is located at the intersection of Mt. Diablo Boulevard and Blackwood Drive. The area surrounding the project site is zoned residential, however, undeveloped land in the area may be rezoned. A site at the•Lafayette Reservoir to the south may also accommodate a smaller transfer station to serve this area of the County. 3. Highway 4/Part Chicago Highway An industrially-zoned area located at the intersection of o Highway 4 and Port Chicago g Highway includes both incorporated (City of Concord) and unincorporated property. Regional highways would provide access to the site. Surrounding land use and zoning in light industrial to the north and west and residential to the south. A public golf course on land leased by the City of Concord from the Concord Naval Weapons Reservation is to the east. Highway 4 provides the physical and visual demarcation line between residential areas and industrial development in the area. J 86130 6-12 6. Project Alternatives 4. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Access to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District treatment plant area near Martinez would be provided by the I-680/Highway 4 interchange and by the Pacheco Boulevard exit from I-680. Local roads used to access the site would include Blunt Road and Imhoff Drive which presently accommodates heavy volumes of medium and heavy duty commercial trucks as well as passenger vehicles. The Concord Disposal Service maintenance yard would be three miles east of the area with access provided along Imhoff Drive. The existing Acme landfill is about 3.5 miles north of the area which is zoned heavy industrial. The Central Sanitary District facility is located in the southeast of the area and a ready-mix concrete plant occupies space in the west. Land to the north and west is zoned light industrial and is largely vacant. Traffic l impacts and potential congestion on local streets may result from the development of a transfer station in an area already impacted by truck traffic. 6.4 ALTERNATIVE SITE LOCATION: INTERIM TRANSFER STATION The location of the interim transfer station site was selected because it is located on an area of the Acme landfill already impacted by public access and disposal activities. The area is used as a disposal site during the winter and is accessed by on-site graded roads. Additional sites were reviewed as part of the preparation of this report. The requirement that a site'not interfere with the development of the permanent transfer station site was a prime consideration in this review. Site access conditions dictated the need to locate the site on the northern portion of Acme property rather than the area south of Arthur Road. Road access to the latter area is not currently available to the public. An interim site on the existing borrow pit area itself would impede the idevelopment of the permanent transfer site. The development of a site in the immediate vicinity of the existing gate house would allow site access to be proximate to the existing approach road to the Acme landfill and Waterbird Way. The use of this site would also keep traffic from using roads crossing the existing landfill site. A small connector road could be provided immediately west of the gate house for customer traffic with transfer trucks accessing the area from the south. This solution would only provide limited traffic segregation, however, and the location of 86130 6-13 6. Project Alternatives the existing gas recovery plant would further complicate possible site development. It is i unclear if the amount of area required for the interim transfer station could be developed at this location. An additional site for the interim transfer station located near to the existing gate house entrance on Waterbird Way close to the intersection of Waterfront Road was also reviewed. The location of this site is immediately adjacent. to the existing access road on the Acme property. Development of this area on land aligning the access road would occupy space over existing fill material. Access to the site on public roads and private access roads would be adequate, although this would involve the possible co-mingling of transfer trucks and customer traffic. The interim transfer station site would be located on Acme property and, therefore, development would not include land acquisition. Given the range of operational and developmental issues involved with the establishment of a temporary disposal site the selected site for the interim transfer station would appear to present the least amount of environmental and planning concern. l 86130 6-14 7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The construction of the proposed facility would contribute to a minor increase in traffic on regional highways and local arterial roads in the project vicinity. Traffic increases on I-680 and Highway 4 due to the proposed project would be nominal. Traffic on Waterfront Road and Waterbird Way would increase in the short-term as a result of the project. This increase would be mainly due to the introduction of transfer trucks transporting waste materials from the site to an available landfill. Since the proposed project is located at an existing landfill, the same number of vehicles accessing,the landfill would continue to access the transfer station at the time it would become operational. The total number of vehicles accessing the transfer station would be expected to grow in the long-term. However, this increase would be as a result of population growth and increases in the solid wastestream that are projected to occur in Contra Costa County in the future and not as a result of the project. Any increase in traffic volumes generated by the project are not expected to be significant (Section 4.2, Traffic and Circulation). Cumulative impacts on air quality, water quality, energy consumption and noise are also expected to be nominal. The future extension of Waterbird Way south to link with Imhoff Road could lead to the potential development of areas adjacent to the roadway extension for light industrial and/or commercial purposes. The future alignment of Waterbird Way would parallel the western boundary line of the permanent transfer station site and space has been allowed for this expansion in the layout of the site. Provisions for its construction, including the location of retaining walls and sound barriers, are also included in the project. Potential cumulative impacts associated with the development of the proposed project would relate to traffic, visual quality, public services (fire, police and utilities) and 86130 7-1 7. Cumulative Impacts socioeconomics of potential development capitalization costs. The extent of cumulative impacts associated with these issues would relate to the extent and scheduling of future development. The contribution of the proposed project as a viable alternative to the solution of solid waste management issues in Contra Costa County can be considered a potentially beneficial aspect of cumulative impacts associated with the project. . 1 86130 7-2 t 8 GROWTH INDUCEMENT The proposed project would be developed on an existing landfill site. The project would not directly generate substantial employment growth in the County. The number of employees at the permanent transfer site would represent an increase over the resent P P number of employees at the existing landfill. The number of employees at the existing landfill site would be probably equivalent to the number of employees at a new landfill site. The total number of employees at the transfer station site would depend on the number of transfer truck drivers employed at the site, which in turn depends on the location of an available landfill site. The exact number of employees, therefore, cannot !� be determined at this time. In any case, the potential number of employees would represent an insignificant impact on county-wide employment growth. The proposed project would be designed so that the facility could accommodate increases c in the solid wastestream that would come about as a result of projected County growth over the next 10 to 20 years. The project, while allowing for this growth, would not in itself be growth-inducing. The lack of adequate refuse disposal facilities in the County would be detrimental to the existing population of the County and inhibit population growth. Adequate refuse disposal services would not induce growth. The expansion of Waterbird Way to the south through the Acme Fill Corporation property to ultimately connect with Imhoff Drive would be accommodated in the site layout of the permanent transfer station by the provision of a right-of-way to be dedicated to the County at a time yet to be determined. This action would respond to provisions in the County General Plan and would not be regarded as a growth-inducing action stemming from the proposed project. The actual installation of a future north-south arterial roadway would be expected to be growth-inducing to the extent that it would facilitate through access along Waterbird Way. Possible future growth along this route is anticipated in the County General Plan. 86130 8-1 r 1 9 GLOSSARY ALLUVIUM. Detrital depot its resulting from the operations of modern rivers, thus including the sediments laid down in river beds, floodplains, lakes, fans at the foot of mountain slopes, and estuaries. AQUIFER. A zone well above the surface of the earth capable of producing usable quantities of water through wells or springs. BRITISH THERMAL UNIT (Btu). The quantity of heat required to raise the temperature 1� of one pound of air-free water from 60 to 61 degrees Fahrenheit. } CLOSURE PLAN. A plan that specifies how a disposal site will be taken out of operation once the site has reached capacity. The plan includes measures required to prevent any dangers or nuisances that may occur after the site has reached capacity, the configuration and capacity of the ultimate site, and conceptual planned uses of the \ completed site. CO-GENERATION. A method of producing electric power in conjunction with process steam or heat which utilizes the energy supplied by fuel (e.g., solid wastes) to maximize the energy produced for consumption. CO-INCINERATION, CO-DISPOSAL. The use of sewage sludge and solid wastes as a fuel in a waste-to-energy facility. COMBUSTIBLES. Various materials in the waste stream which are burnable, such as paper, plastic, lawn clippings, leaves and other light, organic materials. COMMERCIAL WASTES. Waste material that originates in wholesale, retail or service establishments, such as office buildings, stores, markets, theaters, hotels and warehouses. COMPOSTING. The natural conversion of most organic materials to humus by micro- organism activity. CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION WASTES. Wastes that include waste building materials, packaging and rubble resulting from construction remodeling, repair and demolition operations on pavements, houses, commercial buildings and other structures. Includes steel, concrete, glass, brick, asphalt roofing materials, and lumber. COVER MATERIAL. Soil used to cover compacted waste in a sanitary landfill. 86130 9-1 9. Glossary t CURBSIDE COLLECTION. The gathering of recyclables that have been placed at the curb. DESIGNATED WASTE. Is either nonhazardous waste that contains pollutants that could be released in concentrations in excess of applicable water quality objectives, or is hazardous waste that has been granted a variance and can be discharged at Class I and approved Class II sites. EARTHQUAKE. Groups of elastic waves propagating in the earth, set up by a transient disturbance of the elastic equilibrium of a portion of the earth. Vibration received by waves produced by sudden slippage along a fault. EARTHQUAKE (RICHTER) MAGNITUDE. The amplitude of the shock wave recorded at a standard seismograph at a distance of a 100 kilometers from the epicenter. ENERGY RECOVERY. The conversion of solid waste to energy or marketable fuel. The conversion can be either from unprocessed municipal solid waste or from refuse- derived fuel. EPICENTER. Point on the earth's surface directly above the focus of an earthquake. EXPANSIVE SOILS. . Soils, particularly silts and clays, which exhibit volume changes (shrink or swell) with changes in moisture content. FAULT. Fracture or fracture zone along which there has been displacement of the rocks on either side of the fault relative to each other and parallel to the fracture. FAULT TRACE. A lineation or scar on the earth's surface marking the intersection of a fault with the earth's surface. FAULT ZONE. A fault that is expressed as a zone of numerous small fractures or fault gouge. A fault zone may be as wide as hundreds of meters. FERROUS. Metals which are predominantly composed of iron. Most common ferrous metals are magnetic. In the waste materials stream, these usually include steel or "tin" cans, automobiles, old refrigerators, stoves, etc. FLY ASH. Small solid particles of ash and soot generated when burning coal, oil or waste materials. With proper equipment, fly ash is collected to prevent it from entering the atmosphere. Fly ash can be used in building materials, such as bricks, or disposed of in a landfill, FRANCHISE. A contract with grants exclusive rights to collect municipal refuse to a successful bidder by the franchisor, which is some form of local government. FURNACE. Chamber of an incinerator where drying, ignition and combustion occur. GROUND RUPTURE. A breaking or fracturing of the earth's surface along a fault during an earthquake. Also called surface faulting. J 86130 9-Z 9. Glossary ' HAZARDOUS WASTE. A waste or combination of wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics may either: a. Cause, or insignificantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness. b. Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of, or otherwise managed. INCINERATION. The controlled process by which solid waste, liquid or gaseous combustible wastes are burned and changed into gases; the residue produced contains little or no combustible material. INERT WASTE. A waste that does not contain hazardous waste or solubleP ollutants at concentrations in excess of applicable water quality objectives, and does not contain significant quantities of decomposable waste. Inert wastes, such as construction debris, do not need to be discharged at a classified waste management site. INDUSTRIAL WASTE. All types of solid wastes and semi-solid wastes that result from industrial processes and manufacturing operations. r LANDFILL. A disposal site employing a method of disposing of solid waste on land without creating nuisance or hazards to public health or safety by using the principles of engineering to confine the waste to the smallest practical area, to reduce them to the smallest practical volume, and to cover them with a layer of suitable cover material at specific designated intervals. LEACHATE. A liquid that has come in contact with or percolated through waste materials and has extracted or dissolved substances therefrom. LIQUEFACTION. The process of saturated granular soils becoming liquid or "quick" under earthquake shaking. Under such conditions, the soil loses its bearing strength and may settle or flow toward a topographic depression or free face. LITTER. Improperly discarded waste material, including, but not limited to, convenience food, beverage and other product packages or containers constructed of steel, aluminum, glass, paper, plastic and other natural and synthetic materials, thrown or deposited on the lands and waters of the State. MANIFEST WASTE. A term used to define hazardous waste. The specific type of waste is noted on a manifest sheet carried by the hauler and presented at the hazardous waste disposal site for verification. MANUAL SEPARATION. The separation of waste materials by hand. Sometimes call hand-picking, manual separation is done in the home or office by keeping recyclables separate from garbage, or in a recovery plant by picking out certain materials. METHANE. An odorless, colorless, flammable gas which can be formed by anaerobic decomposition of organic waste matter or by chemical synthesis. ' 86130 9-3 9. Glossary NONFERROUS. Metals which contain no iron. In waste materials these are usually aluminum, copper, brass, bronze, etc. NONHAZARDOUS WASTE. All putrescible and nonputrescible solid, semisolid, and liquid wastes, including garbage, refuse, construction/demolition wastes, etc., which can be discharged at any classified landfill authorized to accept such waste, ordinarily a Class II or Class II site. Dewatered sewage sludge and incinerator ash are categorized as nonhazardous wastes. ORGANIC CONTENT. Synonymous with volatile solids except for small traces of some inorganic materials such as calcium carbonate, which lose weight at temperatures used in determining volatile solids. PAYLOAD. The weight of the waste material carried in a collection vehicle or transfer truck. The gross weight of the vehicle minus the Tare Weight is equal to the Payload. PERMEABILITY. The property or capacity of a porous rock, sediment, or soil for transmitting a fluid. It is a measure of the relative ease of liquid flow under equal pressure. RECOVERED MATERIALS. Materials which are recovered from solid waste by separation, collection or other means to use for sale. RECYCLING. The process of sorting, cleaning, treating and reconstituting waste or other discarded materials for the purpose of using the altered form. RESIDENTIAL WASTE. All types of domestic garbage and rubbish which are generated in houses and apartments. RESIDUE. Material that remains after gases, liquids or solids have been removed. RESOURCE RECOVERY. The reclamation or salvage of wastes to reuse, conversion to energy or recycling. SALVAGING. The controlled removal of waste material for utilization. SANITARY LANDFILL. A disposal site employing an engineered method of disposing of solid waste in a manner that minimizes environmental hazards by spreading and compacting wastes to the smallest practical volume and applying cover material over all exposed wastes daily. SLOPE FAILURE. The downward and outward movement of rock or soil as a unit or series of units. SLUDGE (RAW OR UNDIGESTED). Liquid and semi-solid wastes resulting from the treatment of domestic wastewater. Characteristically raw sludge is high in organic content, unstable, odorous and contains a substantial population of pathogenic organisms. SLUDGE (DIGESTED). Sludge that has been stabilized through the biological degradation of the organic components in the waste either in the presence of oxygen (aerobic 1 86130 9-4 9. Glossary digestion) or in the absence of oxygen (anaerobic digestion). As a result of the digestion process, sludge becomes less putrescible and the quantity of solids present for ultimate disposal is reduced. SOLID WASTE. All putrescible and non-putrescible solid and semi-solid wastes such as refuse, garbage, rubbish, paper, ashes, industrial wastes, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles and parts thereof, discarded home and industrial appliances, manure, vegetable or animal solid and semi-solid wastes, and other discarded solid and semi-solid waste, and also includes liquid wastes disposed of in conjunction with solid waste. SOURCE SEPARATION. The segregation and collection of individual recyclable components before they become mixed into the solid wastestream. TARE WEIGHT. The weight of a truck vehicle when empty or unloaded. TIPPING FEE. A fee charged to transporters of wastes to dispose of the wastes at a transfer station, resource recovery facility or landfill. TOXIC SUBSTANCES. Materials that contain or have the effects of a poison. — TRANSFER STATION. Intermediate waste handling facilities where solid wastes are transferred from hauling vehicles to a transfer vehicle and where the waste or portion thereof may undergo incidental processing, recycling or further handling before transport to a disposal site, waste processing facility or other facilities. VECTOR. Any insect or other arthropod, rodent or other animal capable of transmitting ' the causative agents of human disease, or disrupting the normal enjoyment of life by adversely affecting the public health and well-being. WASTE REDUCTION. Reducing the total volume of waste through longer product durability, better recycling, and improved packaging and consumption. WASTE-TO-ENERGY PROJECTS. Facilities where the energy value of solid wastes is reclaimed through a process such as incineration with heat recovery. WHITE GOODS. Inoperative and discarded refrigerators, ranges, washers, water heaters, and other similar domestic and commercial appliances. Sources: ,Contra Costa County, Solid Waste Management Plan, Draft 12/81, Revised 1/82. Acme Landfill Expansion DEIR, June 1983. Central Landfill DIR, April 1986. ' 86130 9-5 10 EIR AUTHORS This Environmental Impact Report was prepared for: Contra Costa County Community Development Department Administration Building, N. Wing Pine and Escobar Streets Martinez, California 94553 Harvey Bragdon, Director of Community Development Charles A. Zahn, Planning Coordinator The Environmental Impact Report was prepared by: EIP Associates 319 11th Street San Francisco, California 94703 William S. Ziebron, Vice-President, Principal-in-Charge Terence O'Hare, Senior Planner, Project Manager S B ONSULTAN U C TS TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION Charles M. Abrams, Principal Abrams Associates Transportation Engineers 2775 Mitchell Drive, Suite 117 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 r NOISE Anthony P. Nash, Associate Charles M. Salter, Inc. Acoustic Consultants 930 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94133 r 86130 10-1 r 10. EIR Authors REPORT DISCLOSURE Total Contract Value $87,285 EIP Associates 72,285 Charles Abrams Associates 9,000 Charles M. Salter Associates 6,000 l 86130 10-2 11 REFERENCES PERSONS CONTACTED DURING THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT (Partial List) Joseph A. Baldelli, Project Engineer, URS/John A. Blume and Associates, Engineers, San Francisco, CA. Philip B. Crispell, Senior Engineer, Harding Lawson Associates, Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists, Novato, CA. Albert A. Doyle, Senior Engineer, Brown and Caldwell Engineering, Sacramento. Peter Hendricks, Attorney, International Technology Corporation (IT), Martinez, CA. Eugene Herson, Administrator, San Francisco Transfer Station, San Francisco, CA. 11 Paul Kilkenny, Assistant Director, CCCCDD, Martinez, CA. Marian A. King, Project Manager, International Technology Corporation (IT), Martinez, CA. ITheresa M. Larson, Senior Civil Engineer, Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, CA. 1 Martin Mitchell, Planner, Contra Costa .County,Community Development Department, Martinez, CA. David Okita, Senior Civil Engineer, CCCDD, Martinez, CA. Eric Parfrey, Senior Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department, ent, Martinez, CA. James A. Pezzaglia, Attorney, Gordon, DeFraga, Watrous and Pezzaglia, Martinez, CA. Thomas Reilly, Project Engineer, Acme Fill Corporation, Pleasant Hill, CA. William B. Treadwell, Supervisor, Environmental Health Division, Contra Costa County Health Services Department, Martinez, CA. Gerald Valente, President, Martinez Gun Club, Martinez, CA. ' Charles A. Zahn, Planning Coordinator, Contra Costa County Community Development 1 Department, Martinez, CA. 86130 11-1 11. References REPORTS CONSULTED DURING THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT Partial List Acme Fill Corporation, Report of Station Information, Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station, October 1986. Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority, Conformance Procedures Manual, April 1983. Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority, Resolution No. 78, December 18, 1985. Brown and Caldwell, Solid Waste Disposal Alternatives DEIR, City of Sacramento, August 1980. Brown and Caldwell, Final Environmental Impact Report: Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill, Contra Costa County, January 1986. Brown Vence and Associates/URS Corporation, Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Project Description/Report of Station Information, July 1986. California Administrative Code, Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 15, Regulations .Governing the Discharge of Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Waste to Land in California (adopted November 1984). California Air Resources Board, California Air Quality Data. Annual Summaries, Volume XI-XV, 1980-1984. California Department of Health, Office of Noise Control. Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Elements of the General Plan, 1976. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Highway Design Manual, 1975 and updates. California State Water Resources Control Board, Water Quality Control Plan Report for the San Francisco Bay Region, Volumes 1 and 2, 1975 and as amended 1982. CEQA: The California Environmental Quality Act, Laws and Guidelines, January 1984. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District/Contra Costa County, Solid Waste Management Project Report: Volume II (Technical Appendices), February 1985. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District/Contra Costa County, Final Solid Waste Management Project Report: Volume I, August 1985. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District/Contra Costa County, Solid Waste Management Project Report: Executive Summary, February 1985. Cole/Mills Associates, Waterfront Business Park, Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, November, 1985. J 86130 11-2 11. References Contra Costa County General Plan Fire Protection Plan, January 1984 Noise Element, 1975 Open Space -- Conservation Plan, 1973 Parks and Recreation, 1970 Refuse Disposal Plan (Part of the Utilities Element), January 1973 Safety Element, 1975 Scenic Routes Element, 1976 Seismic Safety Element, 1975 Contra Costa County, Solid Waste Management Plan, December 1982. Centra Costa County, Solid Waste Management Plan, Amendment No. 1, January 29, 1985. Contra Costa County, Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft Revision, June, 1987. Engineering-Science, Inc., Draft Environmental Impact Report: Central Landfill, Contra , Costa County, April 1986. Environmental Science Associates, Waterfront Business Park DEIR, Contra Costa County, ' November 1984. Hart, Krivatsy and Stubee, Solid Waste Transfer Station DEIR, City of San Leandro, June 1977. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, Third Edition, 1982. } London, Wheeler, Weinsten, East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill DEIR, Contra Costa County, May 1986. City of Martinez, General Plan, 1981. Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 1985. Torrey & Torrey Inc., Final EIR/EIS Acme Landfill Expansion, June 1983. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Review of Altamont Landfill Design Capacities, December ' 17, 1985. 1 86130 11-3 1 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INFORMATION DOCUMENTS APPENDIX B: PROJECT BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS I � i 1 �1 r . �1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX A ` PUBLIC INFORMATION DOCUMENTS o Notice of Preparation (including Initial Study) o Bay Area Air Quality Management Board (BAAQMB) Authority to Construct o California Regional Water Quality Control Board Notice o California Archaeological Inventory Notice i r NOTICE OF PREPARATION R PARATIQN (Including Initial Study) 5 f STA-E C" CALIFCANIA—drfICE Cf rHE GOVERNOR I GECRGc DEUKMElIAtt. Go wrwe' -)FFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1A&0 TINTM STREET SACRAMENTO. CA 05814 E DA'L'E= September 9, 1986 TO: Reviewing Agencies RE: The County of Contra Costa's NOP for Acre Fill baste Recovery and Transfer Station SCH# 86090906 Attached for your comment is the County of Contra Costa's Notice of Preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Project. Responsible agencies Aust transmit their concerns and coAanents on the sc.-=e �i and content or the EIR, focusing cn specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of this notice. we jencourage cc=anting agencies to respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the envircr=nta raview process. ?lease direct vcurc;»r=^.z; co: r Charles A. Zahn County of Contra Costa P.O.Box 951 Martinez, CA 94553 with a cagy to the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer tc tha SCv numer noted above in all corres cnderce corcerning this project. If you have any questicrs mut t:.e review prcc�ss, call Norma Wood at 916/445-0613. Sincerely, John B. Cranian Chief Denutv Dirflctcr r; Atrac:imnts cc: Charles A, Zahn Dc'.7irCxnt Of i�7�400r'3t:0II - `) 1 ) �1� -1ct =ac" � (Q 0 f_ L/ Jerry Haynes A. Naylor, Regional Manager Departoeat of Transportation Department of ?isn and Game District L 601 Locust ISO nioa street O Redding. Cd 96001 O Eurus, CA 95301 916/225-2300 6320 ?07/445- %me-belle Gallagher Jim 56e3aeramith. Regional %hanger De artmeat of Trimmortation Department of Fish and Game �. District 2 1701 Nimbus 3aad. Suite i 157 Riverside DriveRancho CorP.am. CL 95670 O Redding, CA 96001 916/353-0922 918/246-3259 Brian T. Smith S. Bunter. Regional M- roger DepLrtment of Transportation Department of Fists and Game District 3 7329 Silverado 7=11 703 3 S t :itpa, CL 94338 .tat7sville. CA 95901 7t7/944-2011 916/741-4ZTT Wallace Rethbart G. `toims, Regional Banger Deparsment of Transportation Depar=ent of ?ish and :same ' District 4 1234 Fist Maw avenue 2.0. BOX 7310 O Fresno, Cl 93:"25 San Francisco, Ca 9.11"0 209/22`-3761 415/53T-3405 Jerry Ia, r Fred A. 3orthley Jr.. Rem. 9=2 or Department of T-anspor-..ation Department of Fish and Gar e - Disr ict 3 243 Test SroadvmF O bra Stmet O Lan; 9escts, Ca 9C8C2 -- -. San Luis Obispo, CA 9=1 213/590-5113 805/549-3161 i vatb3a Smith ?alf S. Nall 1� Dera.rtmeat of Sta_-+..ae 'resources P.egion District 7 245 Test 3r=d-,%7 /1 9�• _t?_9_: ' tj, here miles=s 3 �� T_:ar 'cane-cas -ca-M, Dim-i^• 7 -Too= Jur=cich O L �Spr_.3 st-wt State Tatar 3escu__es Cc=-3L 3ca_n Iwe Aagplell. Cl .9r012 Divl-zion of C.ean 'Tatar .;^tea 213/320-3333 P.O. Sot 1A Cu; ?ictal 9.3i=--3413Fd Antoa r ^e^a^�nt o! Tr=.aro:ati.n _y7--L:"- StTeet State 'rater Resources Con,:-mL :os-3 s3i San 3err.._:o. Cl 92 03 Di7=-z.on of "rater .1di383-Z57 ?.0. Sox 1�Q _ ;z:r�eato G 9oa01 :m :'sry�s 913;445-953 2 7ecar'sea: o! C2r7 Water R esolirces =;:o .� L 3ca3t::ec el=m Dela Tait 31stov, Cl 945_ =zlatar ?asouces_ _ D.J.? Jacs :irsica of ?s:a�' :Lis==s sol r Street =9/948-7112SaG�eato. Cl r3 14 `"J ?10/324-s71.i Ra.--meat 7t .-5`Or 1:_7a 1kegiafa1 T1. --,um .y :ca:tel 302- \`/1 San DIS�.23C:IC:t :.:5: ?C3 SM 4 3 - Seat by Less .,enc7 Y - Sent oA =arir.-Ouse Anne ;ersghty 31'-1 1hu^hy Air Resources Bo&:- Dept. Of Rousing 36 Cc=Unit7 Dev't. 1131 S Street 931 - 10th Street, 5th Floor i Sacramento, Q 9.5814 Sac.-amento, G 95at4 916/=-.6161 O 915/324-8657 Barbara 3lerbow Paige TaLley Dept. of Boating & Tateroays ,iat±ve Americas Heritage Cc=. 1629 3 Street 913 Capitol .gall, Room 3S8 { Sac.-3meato, CA 95314 Sar.^smeato, Ci 95311 916/323-3488 916/322-rnl Haas Krertzbe e Cary L. Eollou&7 Of!ice of Historic California Coastal C=+ss3 on Pr'eserration 631 3o=.rd Street, 4t3 Floor P.O. Box 290 O San F-rancisco, Cd 94105 Saczameato, Cd 95311 415/543-3555 916/445-3006 Ter.-7 %deros James It. Do7ie Cal4fornia She.^gy rte{ ioa Dept. of Parks zed Recreation O1516 `hath Street, %=. _00 P.O. Box 2390 Sac.-3mento, CA 95314 Sacr3mento, Ca 95811 91-3/324-351-9 0 916/321-0'121 CerlT=M, -- hike 3urke ( Czlt--3.4 - M74-sion of AeronauticsPubLic Qtilities C==zzioa tr O 1130 J Street O 926 J Street, S":e L-;^0 S=^--ento, Cl 95314 Sacramento, CA 95314 916/:,2-3955 916/322-7316 ,L=7 XeU7 Kirk Stewart Calt_--as - ?laming Public ,'arks 3Oa.-d O11-n Y Street O 1025 2 Street, 4th Floor Sacrj—•^ec_o, CA. 95314 Szcrsrent,. Cl 950'_1 915 i 323-79^� 913/L15-5.132 :e--' T:37-m= lei `ort. o_ Corses-r:::or. O ..i•r. o. Ilizes 3.:d Gao:o„ ::o,:_s '.ti---:...a S.F. 387 :arse^:a::or. =. (vj Di7. of ?il I=d C-as 30 7j= Ness 3secus, !--= 1011 O3= Frs:is.-.o, CA 31-1:? L=d ?escurces ?-ocect. Cai: 415/531-3630" .-Wk- Lelou:Ls --ic }hher Dept. of FoodO mzcd Ag-cal ttxe •.ali.'. Pasta 3c�-=2;o `t S:rt• 7048 104 1020 Vinth St:'ee:. Sona "OU Uarn—recto, ,a .)5.414 Sa.cra^ento, G; 35814 716/32-1392 316/322-2574 Jrr:cs Tad --uk- h+-� :e; of Forest:. stata Lars C--MEissiOn O 1413 `tLt7 Stmt. R--= 131;-? 1307 - L3:h Stant Sacrimenta, CA. 333ii Sacr7IDent0, CA ='J81i 918/32_'-313 v s-:1-r:ure Men 7euz s Ser_- of :aaenl =er•r;:as Teat. Of 7atar 7-so,L:es 1_38 'aa:`. St--as- 1413 `fi.t:. S:rmt Sacr en:o. a. ?5314 C' 95314 313/ 4 916/4 -7418 ieaceth ?.eed 3oL�arsa rPnt. Of State C,-%s-al onse:--:v. 1A ? Jtr'e,:. Ro= CI 95314 0M. laad, V% 94613 Wail to: State Cleariagbouse, 1400 Tenth m 121, Sacramento, CA 95814-916/445-0613 ser ' oEios ' NOTICE Or awLzncp Am wnxmw AI'DOt371m"r mAmKrr2AL Fm i Sai + I. PMJect Title:ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION 2. Lead Agency: C C Comm Dev. Dept. 3. Contact Pew: ruARi FS A AHN 3a. Street Address: Box 951 3b. City: Wartime; 3c. County: Contra Costa 3d• Zip: 94553 3e• x:(415).372-2026 Fsalscr LOCATION 4. Count!{-n tri rn to 4a. City/C=Munity: Unincorpnrat-ed 4b. Assessor's Parcel No38O-030-05-17W7Ution MIA Tapp. aa, Range n�a 5a. cross Streets: Waterfront Rd /W erhird Wag 5b• For;Rum I, Nearest Martinez Stile Air- Rail- Water- Walnut Creek 6. Within 2 miles: a. • I-680/Hwy.4 b ports Buchanan ° ....S.P,/A.T.S.Fd• ways Pa hero creek 7. DOCUIRMTTP8 S. LWALAMOK ,M Field 9. DgVMXFUWTM Carquinez Strut CEQA 01. _General Plan Update 01. _Residential: Units Acres O1. X NCP 06. NDE 02. New Eluent 02. ,Office: Sq. Ft. 02. Early Conn 07. t= 03. General Plan Amendment Acres Employees 03. Neg Dec 08• __NOD 04. !Waster Plan 03. _Sboppum/Cozmercial: Sq. Ft. 04. Draft EIR 05. Annexation Acres Employees Supplement/ 06. -Specific Plan 04. _Industrial: Sq. Ft. OS. Subsequent EIR (Prior Qf No.: 07. Cu^qty Plan Acres Employees 8_081001 ) 08. _Redevelopment 05. _Water Facilities: IGD 7 NEPA 09. !Rezone 06. -Transportation: Type -Draft 09. NO2 11. +EIS 30. diad Division 07. -Wining: Mineral ��6divisioo, Parcel 10. FCMI 12. EA Wap, Tract Wap, etc.) 08. Power: Type Watts CTfiE]i 11. Use Permit 09. _Waste Treatment: Tyr-1- 13. ype13. Joint Documeat 12. _,y -Waste Wgmt Plan 10. OCS Related 14. _Final Document 13. iCancel Ag Preserve 11. __XOtber: Solid Waste Transfer Station 4 ' 13. _Otber 14. _Other 10. TOM Acm: 22 11. TOM JOBS CWnW: 32 12. PBWWr IS= DISCS IN DOCUI®Pr 15. __,Septic Systems 23. X Water Quality O1. X Aesthetic/Visual 08. Flooding/Drainage 16. Sever Capacity 24. X Water Supply 02. Agricultural Land 09. Geologic/Seismic 17. _Social 25. Wetland/Ripar-an 03. X Air Quality 10. _Jobs/Housing Balance 18. X Soil Erosion 26. _Wildlife 04. -Archaeological/Historical 11. _Minerals 19. Solid Waste 27. Growth Inducing 05. Coastal Zone 12. X Noise 20. Toxic/Hazardous 28. X Incompatible Landuse 06. X Economic 13. X Public Services 21. _L_Traflic/Circulation 29. _Cumulative Effects 07. --Fire Raard 14. +Schools 22. Vegetation 30. Other 13. FumDrM (approa) Federal E O State S O ?orad S 22.9 million 14. P=Dn LAM USE AND ?ORM: Land Use: Landfill Borrow Pit. General Plan: Heavy Industry. Zoning:H. I.(Heavy Industry) 15. PEIWWr DE9BIPT1ClY: The Acme Fill Corporation proposes to install a waste recovery and transfer station on a 22-acre site on its 535-acre Acme Landfill . The proposed project is scaled to process a peak weekday tonnate of 3,600 tons and to serve Central & Eastern Contra Costa County. The facility would be accessed from I-680 and Waterfront Road. :6. SIGNA7VPB OF L£AD ACEWT E: r c - �----- DATE 9-4-86 IUM: Clear:ngboise will assig= :dent'..:cation dowers !or a'.•: :1 +ects. f a =� :tarber alreaec exists :or a project ,e.g. from a -Notice of Prepamtloo or previous draft document, please fall it in. - . ---- - •- - oo.s.icr r�tao MW D1S^RTB=CM OR REVFR�'E � � 1 _X_ Caltrans District 4— Boating/Waterways Dept. of Transportation Ping* Conservation Aeronautics Fish and Game CA Highway �.X 9 Y Patrol Forestry Housing & Community DeO t ` Colorado River Board Statewide Health PIIS ■ _ X Dept. Water Resources Health. , Reclamation Food & Agriculture Parks and Rec - Public Utilities Conn _-. Office of Historic Preservation Public Works �( � . Native American Heritage Coma Corrections � . S.F. Bay Cons. & Dev't. Coma General Services Coastal Comm OLA Energy Coma Santa Monica Mtns State Lands Coma. TRPA-CALTRPA _ Air Resources. Board X _ OPR - OIGA. Solid Waste Mgmt Board OPR - Coastal X SWRCB: Sacto Bureau of Land Management ._. _ RWQCB: Region # S_F gay Forest Service �. Central Valley(Info) Water Rights Other: Water Quality Other: FOR SCH USE OILY Date Received at SCH Catalog Number Date Review Starts Applicant Date to Agencies Consultant Date to SCd Contact Phone Clearance Date Address Notes: E. Community Contra Harvey of ommuni Director of Community Development Development Costa Department COUr�y . County Administration Building,North Wing P.O. Box 951 Martinez,California 94553.0095 Phone: September 4, 1986 NOTICE OF PREPARATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED "ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION" PROJECT (SHORT TITLE: ACME TRANSFER STATION) This letter and its enclosures constitute a Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Acme Transfer Station project. The Acme Transfer Station EIR is intended to complement the June, 1983, Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the Acme Landfill Expansion (SCH #82081001) which covered the 535-acre Acme landfill site but did not anticipate a transfer station project there. The Acme Transfer Station EIR will be separate EIR, rather than a supplement, to the 1983 EIR/EIS because the complex geotechnical , engineering, and institutional issues of the landfill expansion largely do not apply to the transfer station project. The Acme landfill Expansion EIR%EIS, however, will be incorporated by reference into the Acme Transfer Station EIR as source material . The Acme Transfer Station is a proposed project of the Acme Fill Corporation which owns and operates the Acme landfill . The corporation is a venture of refuse collection companies which serve central and parts of eastern Contra Costa County, including the San Ramon Valley, the Orinda-Lafayette-Moraga area, and the northwestern community of Rodeo. These collection companies now dispose of almost all of their refuse at the Acme landfill . The landfill , however, has only limited allowable and physical capacity. The current main disposal area is subject to a federal permit which expires in 1987, and even if extended would provide only a few additional years' capacity for general disposal . Other parts of the landfill , however, may continue to be used for a longer period for specialized disposal , such as for designated wastes. The applicant is proposing to build a transfer station because 1) new landfills �l may be restricted to access by only transfer station vehicles and commercial vehicles which must have directly to a landfill , (such as trucks transporting demolition materials or de-watered sludges from utility plants) to reduce t traffic impacts, and 2) new landfills may be located more distant from areas where refuse is generated, resulting in lower-cost transportation through the :. use of large transfer trucks. The applicant is proposing to locate the transfer station at the Acme landfill because: 1) the site is owned by the applicant, 2) it is in an area of predominantly industrial development, 3) it is reasonably proximate to its anticipated 'service area, 4) it is readily accessible off freeways (I-680 and Highway 4) serving the anticipated service area, 5), it is already associated with refuse disposal activity and 6) traffic patterns would be similar to those already established for the landfill . The general location of the site is shown on Attachment 2 of the Initial Study. The proposed transfer station is described in a report submitted to the County Community Development Department entitled Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Project Description as part of the project application. Copies of the report have been provided to the County Board of Supervisors, County Planning Commission, County Solid Waste Commission, Cities, waste collection, franchising agencies in the proposed service area and agencies involved in the review of the project application. It is available for inspection at the County Community Development Department. Generally, - the project would place a transfer station building, re cycling center, corporation yard, and administrative building on a 22-acre site on the Acme property. The generalized site plan is shown on Attachment 3 of the Initial Study. The site is a former upland borrow pit. The depression would be used to create a 2-level discharge-loading operation between collection vehicles and transfer station trucks. The transfer station would be designed to accommodate at least the- refuse loads projected to the year 2010, namely a peak weekday daily tonnage of 3,600 tons (average 2,000) and a peak hourly tonnage of 540 tons (now, 360) . Peak hour weekday incoming traffic in the 2010 design year is projected to be 90 mechanically un-loaded vehicles (packer and drop box collection trucks) and 165 manually unloaded vehicles (self haulers) . Generally, a transfer truck would accommodate about 20 tons of refuse, or roughly the loads of 4-5 collection vehicles, or 10-to-40 (or more) self-hauler vehicles. The applicant expects that landfill traffic would utilize the I-680-Waterfront Road-Waterbird Way access corridor currently utilized by landfill traffic. The cost of the project is estimated`to be $22.9 million. The transfer station site plan. provides space for a future waste-to-energy plant, but there are no plans for one and it is not part of the project application. Similarly, the project application report includes a proposal for an interim transfer. station (for use in the event solid waste must be directed to another' landfill before the permanent transfer station is operational ), but no plans or location are provided in the report. Presumably, it would be placed elsewhere on the .Acme landfill site where it would not impede the construction of the permanent transfer station. Because the interim station would be temporary and because no firm plans are available, it is not considered to be part of the project. The proposed project will require a Land Use Permit from Contra Costa County because it is located on a portion of the Acme landfill not covered by an existing land use permit. Later, it will require a Solid Waste Facilities permit from the County and the State. A. County Solid Waste Management Plan amendment covering the facility will have to be approved by the County, Cities, and the State. Approvals from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board will have to be obtained. The applicant expects the permit and approval process to take about 18 months, and the project to be in operation by early 1990. As a responsible or interested agency, an interested person or organization, or the owner of abutting property, you are invited to submit any comments you may have on this project and raise environmental issues so they can be considered in the environmental review process. Please respond to this Notice of Preparation by October 7, 1986. We are selecting a consulting firm to prepare an Environmental Impact Report; therefore the earliest contact will ensure the best coverage of any concerns. It is hoped that the Draft Environmental Impact Report will be brought to public hearing at the earliest possible date. If you have any questions on this project regarding this Notice of Preparation, please contact me at (415) 372-2026, or Dennis Barry at (415) 372-2024. Sincerely, C-f Charles A. Zahn Planning Coordinator r CAZ:vplzahn cc: EIR Working File YAACME LUP File 2122-86 Attachments Initial Study w/attachments J i i i t:. NOTICE OF PREPARATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION Contra Costa County Community Development Department September 4, 1986 ATTACHMENT I Potential Environmental Impacts The following is a list of potential environmental impacts identified during the preparation of the Initial Study for the proposed project. Its purpose is to help focus the Environmental Impact Report. Determinations of whether the impacts would be significant or not will be made during the preparation of the EIR. Similarly, the EIR will address the effectiveness of mitigation measures proposed by the applicant as well as any additional mitigation measures originated by the EIR. 1. General Plan Potential Impact: The project proposal does not clearly provide for the extension of Waterbird Way (the Circulation Element includes a proposed arterial road linking Waterfront Road and Highway- 4 - frontage road). 2. Public Concern l The proposed transfer station is not expected to generate significant ' public concern because it would be a solid waste processing facility located on an existing landfill which has been in operation for 30 years; however, the following issues could be causes for concern: a. Some transfer station traffic might use Arthur Road through the adjoining Vine Hill neighborhood if that road is connected to the station's access road. b. The placement of the transfer station next to the Vine Hill neighborhood would have potentials for aesthetic conflicts and noise, odor, dust and litter impacts. 3. Water Quality Potential Impacts: a. Contaminated water and liquids from the transfer station could flow into nearby surface waters if they are not contained. b. Increased erosion could occur during the construction of the transfer _ station and access roads if control measures are not implemented. 4. Geo-technical Considerations Potential Impacts: a. The active Concord Fault is thought to underlie the Acme Landfill site east of the proposed transfer station site. b. Grading for access roads could disturb the cover of an old landfill area, increasing the risk of erosion. 5. Air Quality Potential Impacts: a. Transfer operations could increase airborne particulates and release odors and other gaseous by-products of decomposition. b. Vehicle operations could increase the release of combustion by-products into the atmosphere. C. Grading for access roads could disturb old landfill areas, .resulting in the release of odors and particulates into the atmosphere. 6. Noise _ Potential Impacts: a. Transfer station operations could continue or increase noise levels adjacent to residential neighborhood. b. Construction activities could temporarily increase noise levels on the Acme Landfill site. 7. Utilities and Services Potential Impacts: a. The proposed transfer station site is bisected by the LAFCO sphere-of-influence boundary line separating the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District from the Mountain View (Vine Hill area) Sanitary District; the site should be in one district or the other. b. Transfer station operations could somewhat increase the need for fire protection. 8. Energy Potential Impacts: a. Transfer station operations could increase energy consumption for solid waste processing. b. Transfer station use could increase energy consumption for transporting solid waste. C. Transfer station use could help continue the land disposal of combustible materials. 9. Hazards Potential Impacts: a. Transfer station operations could increase the use of heavy equipment in close proximity to facility employees and users. b. Additional handling and compacting of wastes could somewhat increase the risk of fire and explosion. 10. Transportation Potential Impacts: a. Use of the transfer stations could change traffic patterns in the area Most Acme Landfill traffic would subsequently use the transfer station, but incoming/outgoing transfer trucks would add vehicle trips while other vehicles, such as demolition trucks and utilities' sludge/ash trucks, would go directly to a new landfill . b. Heavy-load transfer trucks could damage pavements on local _ arterial roads. _ 11. Aesthetics 1 Potential Impacts: ' a. The proposed project would install a complex of industrial buildings where none now exist and change the appearance of the site. b. The transfer station complex would be sited adjacent to a residential neighborhood (the applicant proposes wall-and-landscape screening) . Is c. Exterior lighting of the transfer station site could be disturbing to the adjoining residential neighborhood. CZ•vplzahn a:acmefill .rpt i.: F � hent 2 • . . A ar ec cmflon cme pcepatat10n - �ocatio Site = :. ;: -1 :: • •dam.�`= = ilii-� ��wi - i ::��,1�- '=l .�"... �.�.�;;,.:�:�•.,• A � `�atlon fir:' ' ... ka- �,j•�<C,'� ��"" � i� •�t!•�'�..�v�%` 1 � •� )t+•-� '��,r•„-,�� •� •rte ••� '�• rif..'%. , • _ ✓r i,' - ~„'j •y _,.t'••�•-a*'�a.' ':--�. ';�'''"�` "` '�-.".�._�•`-.""'�% �� , ,a,d�.aaz yrs, j_ . � • �� '.\`�1�.,,,t!.-. 'moi.. t ��., < .• '(�. �.�. Contra Planning Department Costa r. County Initial Study OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE MdnninS Dprin .1 File#YAACME wefw.e, aim" ttnas,y LUP 2122-86 P" 3, Esau St.wo Concongnt Application �^'^"j• �'tO'^'� X652 Prepared by Charles A. Zahn CA-7— Date September 4, 1986 Reviewed by Date RECOMMENDATIONS: ( )Categorical Exemption (Class )( )Negative Declaration (X)Environment Impact Report Require ( )Conditional Neq.Deciaration (Owner/Applicant must agree to mitigation in writing). The Project (May)(Will Not) Have A Significant Effect On The Environment t , The recommendation is based on the following (List all items identified as significant): See Attachment lg What Changes To The Project Would Mitigate The Identified Impacts (List mitigation measures for any significant impacts and Conditional Negative Declaration). Mitigation measures identified by the applicant and t ose origins e y the nviron- ' mental Imoact Report will be identitied and evaluatea In the UK. JSGS Quad Sheet Port Chicago Zoning Atlas Sheet#F Parcel# 'J 3ENERAL CONSIDERATICINS: 1. General Plan considerations (A) Land use designation, (B) Area plan name and (C) Date. (D) Specify any conflicts with proposal): A.1 Heavy Industry B.) Land Use and Circulation Plan C.) 1963 D.) The proposal may not adequately accommodate a Major KoadS Flan arterial Tnrout" Ole Rule ldildf i ll""-- 2. Zoning district (A) Specify current and (B) Proposed. (C) Specify any conflicts anc (D)variances requested): - a.)Heavy Industry 6.) No Change C.) None D. None 3. Nature of request or proposed land use: Approval of a Land Use Permit for a solid waste transfer station and resource recovery facility 4. Site description and existing and neighboring land use: Pro'ect site: 22-acre borrow pit on a 535-acre landfill site. ,loins: Petroleum terminal, refinery, salvage yard, vacant • 5. Note any previous applications on the site (if EIRs recommended, listing EIRs prepared for nearby projects). On site: Acme Landfill Expansion EIR/ EIS, 1982, LUP 11-73, LUP 2026-74, CP 79-70(Industrial Access Road 6. Does it appear that any feature of the project will ❑yes ❑no Q maybe generate significant public concern? (Nature of concern): See Attachment 1, Item #2 7. Will the project require approval or permits by other ®yes ❑no than a County agency? Agency namesisl RAAnmp rAI . Waeto Management Board J San Francisco Bay IQCB 8. Is the project within the Sphere of Influence of any city. (Name) Martinez F,NVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS: S=Significant N=Negligible C=Cumulative No=None U=Unknown -Could 1. Water. =r the project result in: a) Is any portion of the project within a Flood Hazard Area? ❑YES 13 NO S N NO b) Reduction of surface or ground water quality or quantity'. ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Increased runoff or alteration to drainage patterns and streams? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ d) Erosion of or sedimentation in.a body of water? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 00 See Attachment 1, Item 3 could 2. Earth. (Consider the Seismic Safety Element) Shill the proposal result in or be subject to: a) Is any portion of the project within an Alquist-Priolo Act Special Studies Zone? (if yes,-date County Geologist notified ❑YES k3 NO 9-7-86 ) b) Potentially hazardous geologic or soils conditions on or S N C NO U immediately adjoining the site? (slides, springs, erosions, liqui- faction, earthquake faults; consider prime soils, slope, septic tank limitations). Cite any geologic or engineering reports. (County Geologist consulted?) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Grading (consider height amount, steepness and visibility of ❑ ❑ 0-0 proposed slopes; consider effect of grading on trees, creek channels and ridge tops)(Are there any grading plans?) - i]YES ❑NO See Attachment 1, Item 4 3. Plant/Animal Life. S N C NO U a) Will there be-a reduction or disturbance to any habitat for plants and animals?(including removal or disturbance of trees) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Will the Project affect the habitat of any rare, endangered or unique species located on or near the site? ❑' ❑ ❑ Q ❑ c) What vegetation (habitat) types exist on the site (give relative % or proportions if significant)? List habitat types. 100 % "Disturbed" (Sited on existin c�, A orrow pi Will 4. Air. the Project result in deterioration of existing air quality, S N C NO U including creation of objectionable odors, or will future project residents be subjected to significant pollution levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ See Attachment 1. Item 5 5. Noise. ILAI the project result in: Could a) Is any portions of the project within the 1990, 60 dBA Noise ❑YES ®NO Contour? (check Noise Element at 1000 scale maps) b) Increases from existing noise levels? Q; ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Ener Saiurs�c Resnources%Hazards (Consider General Plan, Safety and Seismic Safety Elements). WtU the projects result in: Could a) Any additional consumption of energy? ®c ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Affect the potential use, extraction, conservation or depletion of a natural resource? MK ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Increase risk of es2losion, release of hazardous substances or other earth and safety? a ❑ , ❑ ❑ ❑ Vattachment 1, Items 8 b 9 7. tibiles and Public Service. Still the project: Could a) Require alteration or addition to or the need for new utility systems (including sphere of influence or district boundary change; water, sewer,solid waste)? AYES ❑NO b) Result in the need for new or expansion of the following S N C NO 11 services: fire and police protection, schools, parks and recreation,roads, flood control or other public works fac- ilities, public transit or governmental services (include changes to sphere of influ nee)? 13 C3 MX See Attachment 1, Item e/ C) Affect recreational opportunities (consider General Plan Recreation Element-Trails Plans)? ❑ ❑ ❑ U ❑ S. Trgnsportation/Circulation. (Consider the Major Roads Plan) Will the project result in: Could a) Additional traffic generation or increase in circulation pro- blems (consider road design, access, congestion, parking and accident potential)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Special transportation considerations (waterborne, rail, air or public transportation systems and parking facilities)? ' c) Increase in commuting to and from local community? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ 9. Housing and Community Development. (Consider Housing Ele- ment). Is the project: a) Located within a Neighborhood Preservation Area? ❑YES ❑(NO b) Is there an opportunity for construction of low and moderate income housing? OYES ONO 10. Cultural Resources. a) Review by the Regional Clearinghouse? (their recommend- OYES EK140 ation)!hnp ,,ill he cent Date Nn "fin&" disrnvnrPd hy tUP 2052-81 Condition 11 Follow-up study b) Any nearby County Historic Sites (Consider Historical 1 Resources inventory) None within ) mile _ Could il. Aesthetics. (Consider the Scenic Routes Element) iVtH the project obstruct any public scenic vista or view, create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view, or produce new light or glare? n YES ❑NO See Attachment 1 Item 11 12. is this project a growth-inducing action (encourage additional requests for similar uses)or set a precedent in the area? ❑YES XFX]NO 13. Mandatory Findings of Significance. (A "yes"answer on any of the Following questions requires preparation of an EIR) a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environ- ment? Q YES ❑ NO b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, .:.� to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? 5YES ❑NO Continue landfilling of combustible and recoverable resources c) Does the project have impacts which are individually lim- ited, but cumulatively considerable? ❑YES ©NO 1.. d) Does the project have environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑YES ©NO Discussion: ' See Attachment 1 2 lr Attachment 3 Acme Transfer Station f ' E!R Notice of Preparation N� o NEW a; ACCESS ROAD to • ' � l c c oz��zit staai 1! 7 too' sol' too' 0 O < Q : C d •� e aN rt 1100 s a = g Q pp 040dOq a p p C Hu ROAD AS -- r jig rA 7. z ,r�L ~Ory♦ o *�r %/ T'"r�-i ..wsi1 too I � �vv . 1r� '•. �` � as ZZ a 2 z w o n t C \ l s«p z y r � r y : 4 a a tITIiN! Y 1 i BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT BOARD (BAAQMB), AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT l t`� BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT BOARD, AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT (ABSTRACT) On August 18, 1986 Acme Fill Corporation filed an Application for Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate a Waste Recovery and Transfer Station (Form P-101136, Revised 1/81). On October 8, 1986 Acme Fill Corporation received an Authority to Construct the permanent transfer station facility from BAAQMD (Application Number 31789). BAAQMD would require three days notification before operation of the facility begins prior to issuing a Permit to Operate. The Transfer Station's Authority to Construct is subjekA to the following conditions: 1. Acme refuse transfer station shall not accept sewage sludge, liquid waste, dead animals, septic tank liquid, manifested waste and hazardous waste. 2. The incoming refuse shall be transferred out as soon as possible. At no time shall the refuse be kept for more than a day in the transfer building. 3. Water spray nozzles shall be installed over the refuse transfer area. { 4. If District receives more than 5 confirmed odor complaints in any month, Acme Fill Corp. shall take immediate action to install odor control devices at the transfer building. 5. Acme Fill Corp. shall practice good housekeeping; such as sweeping and cleaning of floors, walls and accessible equipment and periodic deodorizing of the transfer area. In the absence of specific permit conditions to the contrary, the throughputs, fuel and material consumptions, capacities, and hours of operation described in your permit application will be considered maximum allowable limits. A new permit will be required before any increase in these parameters, or change in raw material handled, may be made.1 Air quality regulatory requirements are discussed in the Air Quality chapter of this EIR. 1Milton Feldstein, Air Pollution Control Officer, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, personal communication to Boyd Olney, Jr., Acme Fill Corporation, October 8, 1986. .s CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD i t� amu•-•••�, .. TE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE OEUKMEJIAN, GO—' JLIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Ph«x:A.eoCode415464-1255 FRANCISCO BAY REGION t _ACKS014 STP«l, ROOM 6040 j ND 94607 tcEC��L SEP 191986 September 18, 1986 File No. 2119. 1067 (WKB) James Fezzaglia Gordon, DeFraga, Watrous, °< Fezzaglia P.O. Box 6-7.0 Martine_ , CA 9455' Dear Mr. Fe:zaglia: This is in response to your letter of August 18, 1966 which transmitted a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) for the proposed Acme Landfill Transfer Station. We reviewed the project description attached to 'your letter and have determined that no ROWD is needed for this project. This is based on the fact that no discharge of wastes to State waters is proposed. When Acme Landfill submits a revised ROWD to address compliance with Subchapter 15 of Title 23, they should include details of \ this transfer station in the post-closure plan for the site as part of the description of post-closure activities. If you have any questions please call Bruce Wolfe at 415-464-1?.08 or Wil Bruhns at 415-464-0701 . Sincerely, add Harold Singer, Chief Industrial Division CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY NOTICE 1 I ALAMEDA COLUSA MARIN Northwest Information Center California CONTRA COSTA MENDOCINO SAN MATED Department of Anthropology DEL NORTE MONTEREY SANTA CLARA $OrlOmB State University Archaeological HUMBOLDT NAPA SANTA CRUZ 9 Rohnert Park, California 94928 LAKE SAN eEN1T0 SOLANO Inventory SAN FRANCISCO SONOMA (7O7)664.2494 1 POLO 19 December 1986 File No: 86-467 Kristie Postel EIP 319 Eleventh Street San Francisco, California 94103 re: Proposed Transfer Station Construction near Martinez, Contra Costa County, California. Ms. Postel: ' As requested, this office reviewed its files for information regarding cultural resources within the above referenced project area. This location contains no cultural resources listed in the National Register of Historic j4 Places nor in the California Inventory of Historic Resources. There are no 1� recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological sites listed with the California Archaeological Inventory. Less than 5% of the project area has been archaeologically surveyed (Fredrickson, 1976). The project area is situated on a peninsula extending into marshland. Nearby prehistoric cultural resources have been identified within similar environmental settings and there is the possibility ' of prehistoric cultural resources. The literature reviewed (see attached) gave no indication of historic cultural resources. Although the area has been modified by installation of a borrow pit there remains the possibility of cultural resources in undisturbed areas and future project activities may adversely affect cultural resources. Since there is the possibility of prehistoric cultural resources, archival an field study of the project area is recommended to identify cultural resources which should not be adversely affected. If historic cultural resources are encountered, they should also be evaluated. Please sign and return the enclosed form. If you have any questions, feel free to call this office of the California Archaeological Inventory. Sincerely, Christian Gerike Assistant Co dinator Brian F. Terhorst Researcher I 1 " APPENDIX B PROJECT BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS o Level of Service (LOS) Definitions at Signalized intersections o Fundamental Concepts of Environmental Noise o Illustrations of Collection Trucks and Transfer Station Equipment E f■ r Z / LEVELS OF SERVICE LOS DEFINITIONS AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS i� �i 1 i i i i 1 1 M LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL INTERPRETATION STOPPED DELAY OF PER VEHICLE SERVICE (SEC) A Very low delay, i.e-. , less than 5.0 5. 0 sec per vehicle. B Good progression with little queuing in a single signal cycle. 5.1 to 15.0-- C Light congestion; occasional backups on critical approaches. 15. 1 to 25.0 D Significant congestion on critical approaches but intersectional is still functional. Vehicles recruired to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. No long e-tanding queues formed. 25.1 to 40.0 E Severe congestion with some long ' standing queues on critical approaches. Blocking� of intersection may occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning movements. 40. 1 to 60.0 F Total breakdown, stop-and-go operation . > 60.0 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1985 .:. HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL. FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE J FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL"NOISE This section provides background information to aid in understanding the technical aspects of this report. Three dimensions of environmental noise are important in determining subjective response. These are: a. the intensity or level of the sound b, the frequency spectrum of the sound c. the time-varying character of the sound Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (d3), with 0 (:F- corresponding roughly to the threshold of herring. The "fregvency" of a sound refers to the number of complete pressure fluctuations per second in the sound. The unit of me-asurement is the cycle per second (cps) or Hertz (Hz). ,Most of the sounds which we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but of a broad band of frequencies, differing in level. The quantitative expression of the frequency and level content of a sound is its sound spectrum. A sound spect:,.gin for engineering purposes is typically described in terms of octave bands which seoerate the audible frequency range (forhuman beings, from about 20 to 20,000 Hz) into ter segments. Many rating methods have been devised to permit comp=icons of sounds having quite different spectra. Fortunately, the simplest method correlates with human response Practically as well as the. more complex methods. This method consists of evaluating eil, of the frequencies of a sound in accordance with a weighting that proaressively anc severely deemphcsizes the importance of frequency components below 1000 Hz, with milt de-rnphosis above 5000 Hz._This type of frequency weighting reflects the fact that humor hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and extreme high frequencies than in the frequency midrange. The weightingcurve described above is called "A" weighting, and the level so m ur ii g 9, eas called the "A-weighted sound level," or simply "A-level." The A-level in decibels is expressed "dBA"; the appended tette:- "A" is a reminder of the particular kind of weighting used for the measurement. In practice, the A-level of c sound source is conveniently mecsured using a sound level meter that includes or electrical filter corresponding to the A-weighting curve. All US. and interrictiona Vmdord sound level meters include such a filter. Typical A-levels measured in the ' environment and in industry are shown in Figure I. Although the A-level may adequately describe environmental noise at any instant in tine the jcct is that the community noise level varies continuously. Most environmental noise .`� 'ncludes a congiorneration of distant noise souces which create c relatively stead, bac�ground noise in which no particular source is identifiable. These distent sources mc;. A•WEIGHTED SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL. 1N DEDC113LES r 140 r 130 THRESHOLD OF PAIN r� CIVIL. DEFENSE SIREN (1001 120 - JET TAKEOF (2001 110 RIVETING MACHINE ROCK MUSIC BAND OO PILEDRIVER (50') DIESEL BUS (35') AMBULANCE SIREN (1001 ')BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT 90 BOILER ROOM TRAIN PASSBY (10') PRINTING PRESS PLANT 80 GARBAGE DISPOSAL IN HOME (31 PNEUMATIC DRILL (50') INSIDE SPORTS CAR (S-0-MPH) SF MUNI LIGHT RAIL VEHICLE (351 70 FREIGHT CARS (1007 VACUUM CLEANER (107 60 DATA PROCESSING CENTER SPEECH (17 DEPARTMENT STORE AUTO TRAFFIC NEAR FREEWAY 50 PRIVATE BUSINESS OFFICE LARGE TRANSFORMER (2001 LIGHT TRAFFIC (1001 AVERAGE RESIDENCE 40 TYPICAL MINIMUM NIGHTTIME LEVELS-RESIDENTIAL AREAS 30 SOFT WHISPER (51) 20 RUSTLING LEAVES RECORDING STUDIO 10 THRESHOLD OF HEARING MCSOUITO (3') 0 (100')-DISTANCE IN FEET BETWEEN SOURCE AND LISTENER r TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS MEASURED IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDUSTR` r include traffic, wind in trees, .industrial activities, etc. These noise sources are relatively constarit from moment to moment, but vary slowly from hour to hour as natural forces change or as human activity follows its daily cycle. Superimposed on this slo-Ally varying background is a succession of identifiable noisy events of brief duration. These may include nearby activities or single vehicle passages, aircraft flyovers, etc., which cause the environmental noise level to vary from instant to instant. To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, the statistical noise descriptors-LIO, LSO, and L90 are commonly used. The L 10 is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 10 percent of a stated time period. The LIO is considered a good measure of the "average peak" noise. The LSO is the A-weighted sound level that is equaled or exceeded SO percent of a stated time period. The LSO represents the rn :fjian sound level. The L90 is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 90 percent of a stated time period. The L90 is used to describe the background noise. As it is often cumbersome to describe the noise environment with these statistical descriptors, a single number descriptor called the Leq is also widely used. The Leq is defined as the equivalent steady-state sound level which in a stated period of time would contain the same acoustic energy as the time-varying sound level during the same time period. The Leq is particularly useful in describing the subjective change in an environment where the source of noise remains the some but there is change in the level of activity. Widening roads and/or increasing traffic 'are examples of this kind of situation. In determining the daily measure of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During the nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than the daytime levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noises become very noticeable. Further, most people are sleeping at night and are very sensitve to noise intrusion. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels a descriptor, Ldn, (day-night equivalent sound level) was developed. The Ldn divides the 24-hour day into the daytime of 7 a.-n. to 10 p.m. and the nighttime of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. The nighttime noise level is weighted 10 dB higher than the daytime noise level. The Ldn, then, is the A-weighted average sound level in decibels during a 24+ hour period with 10 dBA added to the hourly Leqs during the nighttime. For highway noise environments the Lea during the peak traffic hour is approximately equal to the Ldn. The effects of noise on people can be fisted in three general categories: ' 1. subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction 2. interference with activities such as speech, sleep, learning 3. physiological effects such as startle, hearing loss The sound levels associated with envirorimentdi noise, in almost every case, produce effects only in the first two categories. Unfortunately, there is as yet no completely satisfactory measure of the subject effects of noise, or of the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance, and habituation to noise over differing individual past experiences with noise. ,i Thus, an important parameter in determining a person's subjective reaction to a new noise is the existing noise environment to which one has adapted: the so-called "ambient" noise. "Ambient" is defined as "the all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment, being a composite of sounds from many sources, near and far." In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by the hearers. , With regard to increases in noise level, knowledge of the following relationships will be helpful in understanding the quantitative sections of this report: 1. Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a chenge of only I dBA cannot be perceived. 2. Outside of the laboratory, a 3-aA chane is considered a just-noticeable 9 J difference. . 3. A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. 4. A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubiing_in loudness, and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response. Source Charles M. Salter Associates, inc., December 1982. r ILLUSTRATIONS OF COLLECTION TRUCKS AND TRANSFER STATION EQUIPMENT 1 ` J Qe��e O IT 1 `tr T T i tt. 4' .. .'��1:�.^.'y.'rt`-�}ir��i�Fi:l.L^rh'.'.^,:�!�,:1�".r•C'�=w. .4 ss$ Q W A UA 0£ 99 OL !GO i 1� w O t� odea /�/`' •� �""�'� .. T�:: '. 1 F `�(.. \-:';' �� , , _ ;� � �. �. ��, �� • , t � f At.� � �K ��.. � .r,. _ ,� ,�� r� i�,.I!�• A 4_, � � �' �. • � (\\ �' \}.. ,`, ` �' ~ �� ,� _ /r �.':: �. J �\� 1'.:: l� 11 ,r+ �''► ;� W '" .� d a 1 t 5. o- v AOr- fes_'�. i • t I st �{g a Aa' 7 { iF f} t 3: t �y +� x F • F t � 1 � R IA 199 i O r y g: s, r` -- J'�,tY�,� z c X41 1 1�1 � r n- x May , �'", f �{•1{ , t1 Fn 4 � .2 .....-...wen GEM OL • r&`�<>vY .� I� �du Pili a� �" 1_ ..5..: 3_ It 1 > g W 4v bggq y .. ' 2 xH Y _r o sA . a n _� < H.� � Contra Costa County 1 ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY � AND TRANSFER STATION Final Environmental Impact Report i 1 RESPONSE DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 1987 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RESPONSE DOCUMENT ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION PROJECT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY September 1987 State Clearinghouse No. 86090906 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Community Development Department Box 951, Martinez, CA 94553 415 / 322-2026 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Background and Report Organization 1-1 1.2 Environmental Review Process 1-2 1.3 List of Commentators and Responses 1-3 2. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2.1 Individuals and Groups 2-1 2.2 State and Public Agencies 2-32 3. EXHIBITS 3.1 Response to Comments at Public Hearing 3-1 APPENDICIES Transcript of Public Hearing Conditions of Approval: Staff Proposed 86130 i I INTRODUCTION The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station, has been prepared under the direction of the Contra Costa Community -- - Development Department. The Final Environmental Impact Report includes the Draft EIR, this Response Document, and the adopting resolutions. The FEIR conforms with state guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended. 1.1 BACKGROUND AND REPORT ORGANIZATION The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station (State Clearinghouse No. 86090906) was published June, 1987. It was circulated for review by local, regional and state agencies and the public for a 45 day period. During the public review period a public hearing on the Draft EIR was held by Contra Costa County on August 11, 1987. A transcript of the hearing is provided in Chapter 3 of this report. This document contains written comments on the Draft EIR submitted during the public review period, oral comments received at the public hearing ' on the proposed project, and response to these comments. Report Organization The first Chapter of this document deals with background information and the organization of the report. The environmental review process is conducted for the project discussed in this Chapter. A list of Commentators and Responses concludes the first chapter of this report. Comments and Responses are included in Chapter 2 of this document. The County has an obligation under state law to respond to comments on environmental issues raised during 86130 1-1 1. Introduction the public review process. Written comments on the Draft EIR were received from a . number of individuals, groups, and public agencies during the environmental process. The authorized transcript of the public hearing held on the Draft EIR is also included in this section. In Chapter 2, written comments, letters, or public testimony are identified by number (e.g., Letter 1, etc.). Specific comments are identified numbered in the left margin of each letter or portion of written/oral testimony. The corresponding response, identified by a reciprocal number,are found immediately after each letter or -portion of testimony. — - - — In certain cases, written or oral comments are made which do not address specific environmental issues but are rather statements of position for or against the project. In these cases the views stated are expressions of opinion by the writers or speakers, rather than questions related to environmental concerns. It is appropriate that these comments be taken into account by the County when decisions regarding the project are made. All comments received are included in this document and referred to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. However, only those comments addressing specific environmental issues receive a detailed response in this document. 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS Distribution of the Draft EIR began on July 1, 1987 along with the filing of a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse. During the environmental review process for the proposed project, a public hearing was held by the County Planning Commission on August 11, 1987 to provide information about the proposed project and to receive comments from interested persons. The meeting was publicized by legal notices placed in several newspapers, and by mailed hearing notices. The purpose of the public hearing was to provide an opportunity for the community to comment on the Draft EIR and to submit testimony about the potential environmental effects of the project. The hearing was attended by approximately (60) persons, and was recorded by a certified court reporter. A copy of the complete transcript of the hearing prepared by the reporter is contained in Chapter 3 of this report. 86130 1-2 1. Introduction The Final EIR must be approved and considered by the County Planning Commission when it makes its recommendations on the project's General Plan Amendment and Land Use Permit. It will then be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration in making their decisions on the proposed project. If the project is approved and the Final EIR is certified, the County will file a Notice of Determination—Final EIR, with the EIR findings, with the State Office of Planning and Research and the County Clerk, indicating that the Final EIR has been certified and the ---- CEQA process completed. 1.3 LIST OF COMMENTATORS AND RESPONSES The following letters were received from individuals, groups, and public agencies during the public review period for the project. They are arranged in chronological order. Individuals and Groups 1. Acme Fill Corporation (applicant), August 11, 1987 2. Kathleen Nimr, August 16,1987 3. William Graham, Martinez Gun Room, August 16, 1987 4. Jon R. Garcia, Martinez Gun Club (for the applicant), August 17, 1987 5. Joseph A. Baldelli, URS Corporation, August 17, 1987 6. Stephanie McNair, August 19, 1987 State and Public Agencies 7. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, July 14, 1987 8. Contra Costa County Health Services Department, July 30, 1987 9. Contra Costa County Solid Waste Commission, August 10, 1987 10. State Department of Transportation, August 13, 1987 11. State Office of Planning and Research, August 17, 1987 11A. State Department of Fish and Game, August 12, 1987 118. State Department of Water Resources, July 30, 1987 11C. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, July 14, 1987 (repeats Letter #7) 12. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, August 20, 1987 13. State Office of Planning and Research, August 25, 1987 13A. California Waste Management Board, August 21, 1987 1 86130 1-3 2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Written comments received during the public review period and responses to comments are contained in the chapter of the report. Responses to Comments made at the Public Hearing for the project are contained in Chapter 3, along with responses. 86130 LETTER 1 • PRESIDENT DIRECTORS Boyd M. Olney, Jr. Bart Bisio SECRETARY - TREASURER Silvio Garaventa,Sr. George Navone Marshall Grodin August 11 , 1987 Pds. Linda Best, Chair Contra Costa Planning Commission 651 Pine Street Martinez , CA 94553 Subject: Comments to Draft EIR Acme Fill Corp. Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Dear Ms. Best and Members of the Commission: Acme Fill Corporation is pleased to present its comments to the Draft EIR in Attachment I which accompanies this letter. Acme Fill Corporation is committed to work with its neighbors and interested parties in addressing potential �I impacts with appropriate mitigation measures. If you have any questions or desire any clarifications, please contact me or Tom Reilly of our corporation. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Very truly yours, ACME FILL CORPORATION IJ `;�.71 Boyd M. Olney, Jr. , President ENCLOSURE: Attachement I cc: Emil Accornero Louise Aiello Leslie K. Davis George C. Feliz Kathleen Nimr Juanita Whitney Chas. Zahn, Community Development Department A G l3ox t tos )ffa4Ltey,, a*,v , 94553 P"; G 22.8-7099 Cp& 228-6525 ATTACHMENT I 1. PAGE 2-6 , LINE 4 , FIRST PARAGRAPH: The 111989 1 scheduled opening" of the permanent facility should be the 111990 scheduled opening" . 2 . PAGE 2-7 , LINE 29 , LAST PARAGRAPH: "a Blue Ribbon 2 Siting Task Force created by the Board of Supervisors in early 1985" should be "in early 1987" . 3 . PAGES 2-8 - 2-9 , UPDATE CLOSURE PLAN: The EIR should review, update and reflect the Draft Closure Plan dated May 7 , 1987 , or later revision (August 20, 3 1987) , including treatment of the barrier and cover . and updated costs , and the more recent reference. For example, the costs should be updated to $6 million for the North Parcel and $11 million in total . 4 . PAGE 2-24 , OTHER MITIGATION (THIRD AND FOURTH PARA- GRAPH: It is the responsibility of the refuse collection companies to see that refuse collectors have been trained to identify hazardous materials . 4 Collection companies are training and instructing ' their employees in hazardous material identifica- tion. The waste transfer station operator and collection companies will be required to communicate to their commercial and household customers what can and cannot be placed in collection bins . With respect to load checking for hazardous materials , the first level of inspection would be provided at the scale house, with a spot check of loads ; The second inspection would be provided inside facility buildings . Equipment operators and employees recovering recyclables will be trained to spot hazardous materials as it is pushed and spread around . 5 . PAGE 3-14 , SECOND PARAGRAPH, LAST LINE: Construction 5 completed, Project Schedule , Feb. 1990. 6 . PAGE 3-15 , PARAGRAPH 5 : Update the EIR. On July 23 , 1987 , Acme Fill Corporation ceased the placement of any hazardous waste in the North Parcel , and there 6 will be some reduction of traffic per week. Because not all manifested loads were hazardous waste , but rather designated waste, the reduction will not be 80 but some smaller number . 7 . PAGE 3-17 , FOURTH PARAGRAPH: Acme endorses the 7 Revised Solid Waste management plan' s resource recovery goals (Plan, page 11) , the Resources 2 _ Committee recommendation, and the Board of Super- visors Resolution on recycling. A comprehensive resource recovery program is planned at Acme Fill ' s proposed Waste Recovery and Transfer Station. In Phase 1 (initial startup) , cardboard, newspaper , miscellaneous metals , glass and brush and wood debris would be recovered. The Phase 1 recycling goal is 20% of the incoming waste stream. In Phase 2 , addi- tional materials (such as construction debris) would be targeted for recovery. The Phase 2 recycling goal is an additional 5% of the incoming waste stream. Phase 3 , which would be subject to a separate en- vironmental hearing process , would entail a more comprehensive resource recovery system. A likely option for Phase 3 would be the production of refuse pellets for shipment to Louisiana Pacific ' s facility in Antioch where the pellets would be burned with wood waste . The Phase 3 recycling goal is an approximate additional 20% and would bring the total amount recycled to approximately 45% of- the incoming waste stream. 8 . PAGE 3-20, PARAGRAPH TWO: The possum belly type of trailer is capable of hauling an additional three to $ six tons of waste per trip. While this is correct, the possom belly trailer requires a tipper (equipment capable of unloading these types of trailers) at the landfill site . Only a few landfills have such tippers . The live floor trailer can self-unload and therefore gives the County flexibility to go to any landfill. 9 . PAGE 3-42 , SECOND PARAGRAPH: To facilitate recovery, Acme Fill proposed a recycling center along the west side of the building. (pp. 3-42) Acme ' s revised plans , however , based on comments on the EIR, are to L9 place .the public recycling center prior to the pay booth. This is consistent with the Revised Solid Waste Management Plan. The EIR should evaluate the impacts of the alternate location in the response document . The previously proposed recycling center will be used for e.recycled material storage. g 10. PAGE 3-44 , PARAGRAPH THREE: An alternative use of the area previously set aside for a future waste to energy facility is being considered. Staff suggests 10 that consideration be given to development of a full-scale resource recovery and waste recycling center on this portion of the site. As was discussed previously in Comment No . 7 , a likely option would be the production of refuse pellets for shipment to 4 - Louisiana Pacific ' s facility in Antioch where the pellets would be burned with wood waste . j11. PAGE 3-55 , FIFTH PARAGRAPH: This paragraph refers to the County solid waste plan draft. The report needs to be updated to the June 24 , 1987 draft which is out for review. The recycling center wo`1d respond to the draft provision of the plan supporting recycling, and establish a drop off center prior to the pay booth. 3-57 12 . 4-10, FIRST PARAGRAPH, FURTHER MITIGATION MEASURE CONSTRUCTION IMPACT: The draft EIR provides con- struction activity should be limited to 7 a .m. - 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 a .m. - 5 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. This could be a condition of 12 approval . This restriction would apply to outside cons ' construction and not apply to work n interior o finishes . Applicant can apply for permission to extend construction activities beyond the hours for limited period of time if exceptional circumstances warrant such action. Based on comments on the EIR and the Vine Hill neighbors , Acme would agree to no outside construction on Saturday and Sunday, and no construction after 5 p .m. on weekdays, with the - 5 - provision to apply for permission if exceptional circumstances warranted such action. 13 . PAGE 4-26 , SECOND PARAGRAPH (SECOND BULLET) : Add the ' provision __ that drivers of transfer vehicles_ most 13 likely would park their personal vehicles in the area where the transfer vehicles are parked, and that transfer vehicle parking may occur on other areas of the landfill . 14 . PAGE 4-32 , PARAGRAPH TWO: Acme Fill believes that signalizing the existing intersection as proposed in the alternative intersection layout shown in Figure 14 42 , page 6-9 , is a workable solution. Acme Fill will , however , continue to meet with IT Corporation and the Martinez Gun Club in an effort to find an even better solution. 15 . PAGE 4-41, PARAGRAPH ONE: Consider making Waterbird Way an all weather road by fixing the iow spots. 15, This will reduce the need for use of Arthur Road. This suggestion was made by the Vine Hill residents . 16 . PAGE 4-47, FIRST PARAGRAPH: The EIR notes that the noise element of the County General Plan may be 16 contravened operation after 7 : 00 P .M. even with the sound barrier retaining wall in place. From 10 : 00 P .M. on it would increase to 75 decibels . Facility buildings would be a minimum of 480 feet from the nearest residential dwelling. The applicant proposed to control noise impacts through the use of enclosed buildings , equipping transfer trucks with sound suppression systems- and use of a noise barrier wall . The wall would be a minimum of 10-feet high and would be similar to those seen along freeways and city streets . It would be constructed first and located adjacent to the backyards of homes along Irene Drive. The wall would also be placed along Arthur Road for a distance of 150 feet to mitigate impacts on homes along Donna Drive. The project would also provide an 80-foot wide buffer zone between the Vine Hill residential neighborhood and the western boundary of the project site. Doors on ' the west side of facility buildings would be closed after. 5 p.m. 1 17 . PAGE 4-50, FIRST PARAGRAPH: We are concerned with restricting transfer vehicle operation in the hours 171 before 10:00 P.M. at night because: (1) of the need to avoid commute hours on highways ; and (2 ) disposal hours at an available out-of-county landfill have yet ,, to be stipulated (e. g. , which might require Contra Costa County refuse to be delivered to the site on a swing-shift basis) . 18 . PAGES 4-52 and 4-56 GEOTECHNICAL: While the closure of the existing Acme landfill site is not a part of r the proposed transfer station project and closure - activities at Acme landfill would be carried out in accordance with a closure and post closure mainte- nance plan approved by the RWQCB, local county health services , EPA, DOHS and State Solid Waste Management 18 Board , (pp . 2-8 ) , the EIR should address the impacts of the placement of these improvements (access road improvements , recycling center , new scale house and pay booth) on the North Parcel , which is a hazardous waste parcel . Grading for roads on page 2-11, first paragraph, No . 2 . 3 , should not disturb the final cover over the waste and should consider differential i and total settlement . 19 . PAGE 4-63 , SECOND PARAGRAPH: The Impacts Summary Table (page 2-27 , 4 . 5 , #1, Other Mitigation) is not consistent with the text . The erosion control plan a 19 should consider and address items identified in the text . The Summary Table stipulates that drainage features would be designed to contain flows asso- 8 - ciated with the 100-year storm. We feel this is a landfill requirement and not appropriate for a trans- fer station. We would suggest designing such features for the 50-year storm. 20. PAGE 4-63 , THIRD PARAGRAPH: Surface drainage plans should be --submitted to the County Flood Control' anE 20 Water Conservation District . The District if it feels the need , should coordinate review with other agencies . 21 . PAGE 4-66 , LAST PARAGRAPH: The relocated noise barrier wall would be located as close as possible to the Vine Hill residential area to insure adequate footage for the possible future extension of Water- 21 bird Way. There would therefore not be any area to the west of the wall to landscape . Area to the east of the wall would be landscaped . Choice of trees ' have to be compatible with soils and climate. 22 . PAGE 4-81, SECOND PARAGRAPH: With respect to vehicle traffic , only the 70 transfer vehicles would repre- 22 sent a new source of energy consumption. Users of the facility currently use the landfill . Without a transfer station, energy consumption would increase ' 9 substantially, given the large percentage of general public traffic that would have to go to a landfill . 23 . PAGE 4-81, FOURTH PARAGRAPH: The applicant will also 23 be investigating generating electrical energy with landfill gas during final design. , 24 . PAGE 4-100, THIRD PARAGRAPH: The applicant currently removes litter along Waterbird Way (approach road) 24 and would continue its litter control program while i operating the proposed project . 25 . PAGE 4-102 , THIRD PARAGRAPH: The applicant plans to consider tilt-up concrete walls in the final design 25 based on comments of the Vine Hill neighbors to the Draft EIR. 26 . PAGE 4-103 , THIRD PARAGRAPH: Portable litter control fences are inappropriate at transfer stations with 26" enclosed dumping facilities . Litter that does accumulate on facility grounds would be picked up on a regular basis. 27 . PAGE 4-107 , SIXTH PARAGRAPH: Because refuse would 27 arrive on a 24-hour basis , we believe it is impracti- cal to empty the pit each day. It has also been 10 - shown at other operating facilities that daily pit washdown is not necessary and only contributes to ' waste water . generation. Conditions of operation should stipulate that waste not be allowed to remain at the transfer station site for more than 24 hours with complete cleanout of the pit on a periodic or as-needed basis . Storing refuse in transfer vans overnight should not be recommended, because it may create a fire hazard. 28 . PAGE 4-110, LAST PARAGRAPH: Acme is bisected by sphere of influence of CCCSD and MVSD. If annexation is necessary, there is no need to annex all of the 28 site, only the 22-acre site, the waste transfer station. There is no . need to have a lot line adjustment. This paragraph needs to be updated . 29 . PAGE 4-113 , FOURTH PARAGRAPH: The EIR suggests that the inadequate water delivery system should be brought up to the Fire District requirements. The 1 applicant would like the opportunity of exploring 29 other options in the final design which might meet the District ' s requirements. One such option would be to seek approval from the CCWD to use one of the two water storage tanks located to the south for project water storage . A certain portion of the water so stored would then be dedicated for fire- fighting purposes . 30 . - PAGE 5-16 , FIRST PARAGRAPH: With only a slight increase in runoff volume from the interim station, 5-11, Acme can prevent runoff from entering the 30 - --- landfill by collection. Acme does not believe it is necessary to construct impermeable barriers as part of the interim transfer station. 31. PAGE 5-16 , THIRD PARAGRAPH: The air quality para- graph is not adequate . With an outdoor interim station, there is different particulate control needed to comply with BAAQMD regulations in order to r31 reduce particulate dust . No permit has been issued by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for an interim station, and the generation of dust, and mitigation, and possible affects would have to be addressed in the response document . 32 . PAGE 6-13 , FOURTH PARAGRAPH: An alternate interim transfer location in the immediate vicinity of the existing gate house would conflict with the location 32 of the permanent facility' s scale operation. The only alternates Acme is evaluating are on: (1) the 97-acre parcel, which would require additional Corps r permits and RWQCB permits ; and (2 ) the northeast - 12 - , r corner of the North Parcel . These two areas should be evaluated on the response document . 33 . PAGE 6-4 . THIRD PARAGRAPH: URS will be commenting by separate cover on the EIR ' s proposed alternative ,33 facility layout . J 3145P M t 1 1 13 - LETTER 1 1 . REVERSE WAREHOUSING - receiving t - processing - loading - dispatching 1 1 i 1 1 1 i LETTERI TRANS 13mmilfs1 1 _ COSI RIDUG710N POTENTIAL 2. DISPOSAL POINT FOR SELF HAULERS 3. INDISCRIMINAtE DURING DISCOURAGED 4. AIR POLLUTION MIHIMI7.ED 5- TRAFFIC CONGESTION RIDUCID ■ 6. RESOURCE RECOVERY POTENTIAL ■ 7. LAYOUT/LOOK AT HW POTENTIAL 8. LANDFILL MANAGEMENT EASED 1 i 1 t i t 1 i LETTER 1 HUHVING CONCWTS 1 . TIPPING FLOOR 2. STORAGE PIT ' 3. CONVEYORS 4. DIRECT , t 1 1 1 ' LETTERI LOADING CONcvTS ' 1 . DIRECT DUMP (GRAVITY FED) 2. COMPACTION i t 1 i i 1 1 1 f LETTER 1 , IDMIGN MNSUDMATIONS 1 . SITE CHARACTERISTICS 1 2. 'fONNAGE/tRAFFIC CHARACi'EBISTICS 3. RECYCLING OBJECTIVES 4. LANDFILL CONS7BAINTS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LETTER 9 ACMZ IFRLL CORP WASTR R3C0V3RT AND TRANSHR PROJECT PARAMETERS ( 1985 Tonnage Traffic ' Avg. Peak Avg. Peak Weekday 1340 2380 720 1240 ' Weekend 900 950 980 1340 1 1 1 1 1 LETTER 1 Z CO U � CL 41 ui cr '� BPWIV ® 1 W F W WZ Cn LL � o Q Q 1 ?� Z - < C Z LL �qwmmW W Lp � cc C G w �. U <; ti _ U r� Llo r., LETTER 1 J m W � -i (n J J = a: UJ ? Q Q ¢ � ¢ 0 z ` W LLQ 0 < W � r LL � 1 wz W o a: 0 W z U Q c) O W F cr — 1 U) Q W O W 0- MW LLI Q W Q U Q - 1 1 LETTER 1 ACME FILL CORP VAST3 RAND TRANSIM STATIONVAST3 GRIGRN � CONTRIBUTING CUSTOMER COMMUNITY CASH` CHARGE" POPULATION , Alamo 2% 2% 3% Benicia 7% 9% 5% Clayton 4% 1 % 1 % Concord 289 23% 23% Danville/San Ramon 3% 3% 129 Lafayette. 8% 7% 5% Martinez 18% 229 6% Moraga/Orinda 5% 6% 7% Pittsburg/Antioch 6% 2% 19% Pleasant Hill 8% 7% 6% Walnut Creek 11 % 18% 137 `general public; "does not include franchise haulers , ' LEtTERf 1 � TRA"Ic MITIGATION r 1 . FACILITY CLOSED TO PUBLIC AFTER 5 PM ' 2. FACILITY TRAFFIC PROHIBITED ON ARTHUR RII. EXCEPT FOR EASIItGENCY VIIiICI.FS ' 3. V✓ATERBIRD WAY EXTENSION TO THE SOUTH SUBJECT TO SEPARATE EIR 1 1 1 1 i t 1 i LETTER i NORSE URTROATROM 1 . NOISE BARRIER WALL - adjacent to backyards - constructed'f irst - minimum. of 10 feet high - extended 150 feet along Arthur Rd. - extended 60 feet past pit to south 2. 80-FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPED BUFFER ZONE I VEHICLE UNLOADING INSIDE FACILITY 4. DOORS ON WEST SIDE CLOSED AFTER 5 PM 5. USE OF SOUND SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS ON TRANSFER TRUCKS 6. CONSIDER USE OF CONCRETE TILT-UP CONSTRUCTION ?. EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION HOURS 8AMTO 5PMM-F 1 r LETTER 1 i 1 r AIR QUALITY MITIGATION r 1 . DUST - vehicle unloading inside facility r - water misters used inside facility 2- ODOR i - waste transferred within 24 hours housekeeping ( sweeping and cleaning rfloors, walls and equip. and periodically deodorizing ) r - perfume added to water mister system ( if needed j i i i LETTER 1 APPEARANCE MRTROATION L VISUAL. - landscape screening, fencing and textured walls - vehicle unloading inside facility 2. LITTER - vehicle unloading inside facility ' - on site and access road pickup 1 LETTER 1 ]PUBLIC SAS MRTIGATR.OK 1 . WASTE STRE" ' - municipal waste and small amounts of construction debris ' - liquid and hazardous waste strictly prohibited - program for hazardous waste awareness, 1 identification and removal ( if mistakenly received ) - program of random load sampling for hazardous 1 waste 2_ VECTOR CONTROL - waste transferred within 24 hours - use of pest control service ' 3. COVERED LOADS - continuation of County ordinance and enforcement 1 LETTER 1 ACME FILL CORP WASTE R3MV3RT AND TRANS STAT RON CONCEPTUALIZED TO: 1 . Efficiently Transfer Waste 2. Keep Pace With Community Growth 3. Efficiently Recover Salvagable Materials - wood/brush debris - misc. metals - cardboard - news - glass 4. Permit The Future Addition Of More Comprehensive Resource Recovery 2. Comments and Responses 2.1 INDMDUALS AND GROUPS (LETTERS 1 AND 6) RESPONSE: LETTER 1 1. Comment noted. 2. Comment noted. 3. As noted in this comment, costs associated with the closure of the Acme landfill would be approximately $6 million for the North Parcel and approximatt..y $11 ' million for the total landfill. ' 4. Comment noted. Training programs to identify potentially hazardous materials would be specified in the Solid Waste Facilities Permit for this proposed project. 5. Comment noted. 6. Comment noted. No loads of hazardous waste would be delivered to the Acme fill in the future. The consequent reduction in traffic volumes at the site would not result in a significant change in the traffic analysis conducted for the EIR. 7. Comment noted. The applicant's Phase 3 program probably would require additional environmental review. 8. Comment noted. 9. Comment noted. The relocation of the public recycling center (a drop-off area) to the north of the proposed pay booth area on Acme Fill property would allow the ' public to recycle waste materials before entering the permanent transfer station site. This action would facilitate ease of access, reduce on-site traffic circulation, and ' reduce potential noise impacts on the Vine Hill neighborhood and the Martinez Gun Club. The relocation of the recycling center would give it greater visibility and.thus ' higher public awareness. Relocation would help to improve the potential for reaching County recycling goals. 86130 2-1 2. Comments and Responses The final location of the facility has not yet been specified. However, it might be located in an area previously used as a landfill. The project sponsor proposes to construct this recycling center on newly imported fill to raise existing grades in the pay booth/recycling area. This action would minimize disturbance to areas of existing fill. The recycling center would be engineered to accommodate any differential settlement that may result from construction new facilities over existing landfill areas. The project sponsor would include in the final design of the facility construction methods to minimize the potential odor and water quality impacts during the construction period. The final design of the recycling facility would include measures to minimize possible traffic conflicts between recycling activities, public accessibility, and vehicular traffic accessing the scale house and pay booth facilities. A turn-around lane, directing traffic onto the northbound (existing) traffic route would be provided. Traffic controls and safety measures would be incorporated into the design of the f acility. The recycling center would be clearly identified and access points marked. Signage and landscaping elements would be designed to be compatible with design standards established for the permanent transfer station. Additional security lighting and illumination of access points would be considered in the final design. All plans and construction details would be subject to County approval. Because the proposed drop-off center would be a small facility partially substituting for a facility originally proposed on the transfer station site and would be located on the Acme landfill property, it is not considered to have significant environmental impacts. 10. Comment noted. 11. Comment noted. Preparation of the Draft EIR preceded publication of the Revised CoSWMP, June 24, 1987. 86130 2-2 2. Comments and Responses 12. Comment noted. The following items would be made part of the conditions of approval for the project: outside construction activities would be limited to between 7:00 a.m - 5:00 p.m., Monday-Friday; outside construction would not take place on Saturday or Sunday. The project applicant can apply to the County to extend outside construction activities beyond the hours noted for limited periods of time if exceptional circumstances warrant. 13. Comment noted. Drivers of transfer trucks would park their personal vehicles adjacent to the transfer truck parking area. Depending on operation used, some transfer trucks may be parked overnight on other parts of Acme property. 14. Comment noted. Refinements to proposed vehicular access to the IT Corporation site and the Martinez Gun Club would be considered in the final design of the transfer station. 15. Comment noted. The draft Conditions of Approval would require the project applicant to contribute to roadway improvements at the Waterfront Road/Waterbird Way intersection that would enable Waterbird Way to become an all weather road. 16. Comment noted. The Draft EIR identified noise mitigation measures referenced in the Comment (page 4-49 and 4-50 DEIR). The project applicant would close access doors on the west side of the Main Transfer Building and Public Disposal Building at 5:00 p.m. daily. 17. The draft Conditions of Approval would allow the dispatch of transfer trucks up to 10:00 p.m. (seven days a week) related to the applicant's desire minimize project traffic during commute hours. The location of receiving landfill(s) may also effect operational priorities and options. As an additional mitigation measure the project applicant would consider reversing the exit route of transfer trucks leaving the transfer station site at all- times or between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Since the transfer station would be closed to the general public and charge customers at 5:00 p.m. daily, potential traffic conflicts with public and charge customer traffic would not be a factor in the reverse flow of transfer truck traffic after 5:00 p.m. 86130 2-3 2. Comments and Responses 18. The Revised Closure/Post-Closure Plan, North Parcel, Acme Landfill, Harding Lawson Associates was published August 21, 1987. Access road improvements, a proposed recycling center (relocated), and a new scale house and pay booth would be ' built on the North Parcel as part of this transfer station project. An interim transfer station would also be located on the North Parcel. Final closure activities for the North Parcel are noted on page 20 of the Closure Plan. Final Cover Design and Performance Criteria are also noted on page 20 of the document. The r•-oject applicant would consider this provision of the Closure Plan in the final design of the transfer station. Roads and buildings constructed as part of the transfer station would be designed to accommodate settlement, subsidence, and lateral and vertical sheer forces generated by seismic events. Grading and excavation activity would be designed not to destroy the final cover for the North Parcel. Construction activities would minimize erosion or abrasion of landfill cover materials. Potential ponding of rainfall, surface runoff, or run-on water over the closed area would be precluded by the provisions of the Closure Plan. 19. Comment noted. Erosion control features would be as those described in the text rather than those summarized in Table A.5, with the exception of the provision of an evaporation pond. This item was noted in the text as a suggested alternative to disposing of collected drain water (DEIR, page 4-63). The project applicant would not provide an evaporation pool on site due to the constraints of space and topography. The provision of a water storage tank to hold water for later use in dust control would be considered by the project applicant in the final design of the facility (DEIR page 4-63). Transfer Station facilities and improvements located on the North Parcel of the Acme landfill would be protected from a 100-year storm flood by the provisions of the Closure Plan for the North parcel (Harding Lawson Associates, August 21, 1987, page 9 and RWQCB, Order No. 76-37, DEIR page 4-62). The permanent transfer station facilities on the existing borrow pit area would be protected by provisions for a 50-year storm flood. Final development plans would be subject to County approval. 86130 2-4 2. Comments and Responses ' 20. Comment noted. Surface drainage must be reviewed by the County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (County Public Works Department). The District would coordinate the review of drainage plan with other affected agencies as required. ' 21. The location of the proposed sound barrier wall on the western boundary of the transfer station site would not provide space for landscaping on the west side of the ' wall. 22. Comment noted. ' 23. Comment noted. Energy savings would result if electrical energy generated from landfill gas is used on the site. 24. Comment noted. The project applicant would also institute a program to routinely collect litter along Waterfront Road. 25. Comment noted. 26. Comment noted. Perimeter fencing is indicated to be the main means of litter control with regular policing outside the buildings. In addition, portable litter fences could be used to control the accumulation of litter in public access areas adjacent to ' the relocated recycling center, along access roads, and public parking areas. 27. The County Health Services Department has indicated that it would require that the waste storage pit be washed and cleaned at the end of each day (William B. Treadwell, County Health Service Department, letter dated July 30, 1987); however, it is customary at transfer stations to allow a layer of refuse to become compacted as a bulldozer "pavement", which is removed periodically. ' The applicant does not propose the overnight storage of waste in transfer trucks ' although this is practice at some transfer stations. The BAAQMD Authority to Construct specifies that wastes would not be allowed to remain at the transfer station for more than 24 hours. 86130 2-5 2. Comments and Responses 28. Since the Sphere of Influence line between the two sanitary districts will have to be adjusted, the Local Agency Formation Commission will determine the extent of the adjustment. 29. Comment noted. At the present time, the CCWD tanks are not used. The dedicated long-term use of a tank adjacent to the site for fire prevention purposes may be considered in the final design of the facility. 30. Comment noted. The paragraph cited notes provisions required for the closure of the Acme landfill, North parcel. These provisions may not be compromised by the development of the interim transfer station facility. Existing leachate control barriers extend along the west, north, and east boundary line of the North Parcel. If necessary, an additional impermeable barrier would be constructed on the south side as part of the Closure Plan (Harding Lawson and Associates, August 21, 1987, page 34, and Plate 2). 31. Comment noted. Neither the California Waste Management Board nor the CoSWMP require the construction of walls or roofs for an interim transfer facility. Therefore, the generation of dust at the interim transfer station would relate to the unloading and loading of waste on an outdoor site. Dust generation can be mitigated by watering waste materials. Approximately 50% of dust generation can be controlled in this manner. The frequency of water misting on solid waste would be increased when wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. The project applicant would institute daily cleanup procedures at the interim site to minimize dust accumulation. The location of the interim transfer station and surrounding topography would prevent dust impacts on surrounding land uses. The interim site would be located approximately 2,200 feet from the nearest residential unit in the Vine Hill neighborhood. The site location would be shielded from view from the Vine HILI area by existing topography. The construction of the sound wall barrier at the edge of the permanent transfer station site, to be carried out as the first step in the project development, would further prevent line of site contact. 86130 2-6 2. Comments and Responses 32. Comment noted. An interim transfer station on Acme's 97-acre landfill parcel would be accessible off Acme's new main access road, but it would direct traffic across existing unimproved road surfaces on the Acme landfill. Site access would, therefore, alter existing traffic patterns at the landfill site. The location of the interim station on the 97-acre landfill would require additional review and approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A precise location for the interim station on the 97-acre landfill has not been defined by the project sponsor. Traffic, noise, and visual quality impacts on the Vine Hill neighborhood and other surrounding land uses would be expected to be negligible given the location of the 97- acre parcel. Impacts on geology, hydrology, and water quality would be related to the specific location of the site and any construction activity it would entail, but probably would be similar to installing the station on a portion of the adjoining 125- acre landfill. The provision of an interim transfer station on the northeast corner of the 125-acre North Parcel would provide further distance between activities at the site and residential uses adjacent to the Acme landfill. Impacts on hydrology and geology would related to the specific locations of the site. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates development involving the discharge of dredged or fill materials into coastal and bay waters. This unit of government and the Regional Water Quality Control Board would review proposals for interim station development at the alternative locations. The provision of an interim site at the Acme landfill is included in draft revisions to the CoSWMP, June 1987. The project applicant's request for a General Plan Amendment specifically includes consideration of an interim station at the Acme landfill (DEIR, page 5-2). 33. Comment noted. r 86130 2-7 'SETTER 2 2204 01vmp is Or i v e Martinez , 94«? August 1E , 19?7 W .LOChucv Zahn Contra Costa Count;• Community De,)_lor,ment DEYartnient e51 Fine Street Martinez , Ca . 94573 Re :LoComnrrent . sr, DEIR - Acme Landfill Trar.afer :tati;,r. Dear ChucK : The fol101rin.9 are rnv comrent_ on the Draft EIR for the suL-ject project . As I ^ 1' + d+ + the public hear ir,5 , t`. is _ project , altI.ou_gh o_•tnsibl�.• a pr• i%.%a.te-sec+or• project , should actually te- allo.iizc4 for its cor.s.onance tj jth our sol id Waste plas-,r ir..J• Q iCics it, this count,,, • Since Fc me Landfill Pzs s:cFressed itsminter,t to pass all c o s t S of its private decisions t the rata Fayltly publ ic , it is. the- :-t•1 igation of the count;- to dcter:i,ir:a is th"La private pIannir•3 d=_c1sions are actucl :;' in the Io;.g range FuL1aC interest . The-s-co•' r , t _r-I -evc, that more rii..at be J(iIIa b the td - iters �f t'--e F-7? on the reasons for tIMe r ; aCEii,el', of 34 this trnsfer st_t ior: on this parcel . of the. Acrr.a F•L'oFei• t�i on the rea._ ons for the hi_�h par-•jected c::sts . 3S There shoul.r+ a! c.C• f a ^;.snt ion or Whcther th i Frr,r-Q£al , ith its. imp] ied errhas;s large Waste stream and a c. .:.Frat ,va1 short 1 ife (t•=red c.•• be-nd i3 c b 1 igat ionz ) W :1 l actUa1 1; bE i:•, accord !j it", the ::Quntj (cr d state ,, pol is ies• of max imuri, aa1 vara 36 reuse , recvc I ing . !:!s , ± t i_ be hindrance to a cG�iiit� Fol icy that would another transfer station in the SOwth central county? For specific comrner.ts : Traffic a-nd Cir•culatiOn : 37 p . 22-]7 arnd 4-I3 Since redirecting traff is from residential ar'Eaa is already requ iced C.-F the- prser.t I and f 4.1 1 aornt d .cuss o f Fr eaent probl errs , if any , should be inc l:+ded . If add it io::a". remedea to er,for•ce tF. i.s. re9vIE,tjc" egE r,Ec SL 1, t.`i :s• a,`. ;u1d C.e a mitigation . 4.2 Tr'atr )C rG!J r';t dc,eS r.0 tom.!:.. ir,tC. .:..0 c,:. ': is" ai•,=F ort iI., G i.i 3v ChiDs teat " ll t,E :G3�. vt .i.clltioned , FI•obable v des+ inat iG'" is rent i0ch H-4 r. Incl ude r,'.c•r e Spec :f lc de c:' lr;ic:Jr. , f intar lri. tt l:..a f,• aii.e?i '39 i!Y'pIS Gr, Wate.'";r1r:a road/1C-^'�. tG acco:iwdatt rar.5tcr Na ise ., :40 p .4-45 Each r:. ..=.e _C'.4r =E .s ev ..1:.:3,tC3 separ atel; .:he:. &I will . be present s irr:-,1 t. o'.+= l,' . Cr c,-: tt: i_ :.tatter Section on Crss _rt s4tustion is unclear r.aqul +ticni- rcti.Aife GG decibels far re= '.de--.ti3.1 Y`-'+ tn ..,,zfar' truCI's woulJ. 3tr.ct':a'�c G5 tO 70 dec it'.e 1 E + =0ur.d:4a1 1 lace CF . A -aE) '11i-" i5.t ion aPPear� ins.uffi� :=t't_ _... �.. . p 4-47 says. 0 ° ? ? er ant w i 11 c .".tr a,var.e L 1.t: vay S and nicht- (night i -7!7 i`ai: . ) It is unclear if ±= , r_.+h" +,1-: . , a 10 feat L, Afier- wauid be requited to rr i+C• 77: P2-20 Mit ?, �; i r: ra- r.e . E ti r e_tr 4Ct inr g hou ` r.e,y C.r.f 1 iet 41 with traffic^miti=at4cr (r- , c-17) Gf requir in.; ru":_ to avoid peaK hour HYdrO1Og� �. IJ,t= '.'lu� l it.: 42 P . 2-`1 and G .?-27 1^r; > :t t t.^4CK wa.sb. ir.3 r'.Gt d :•_C uo_ c� Table should ir;C?`laic d ^+ 1 �:'.?,1 i';FECy G �0s ts1C C• :_ zrae. i; i3 from tr-uCKt�'td itt: - c.or - i n 3 mit at 10 n Gf ir..tat 1 14;3 Catchmer.'t bas i n E ar.d r ecyc 1 . . _ c . l 1 ._ t c t,:.:t . Puhl iC Saf_; P 43 IT IS I isted S a re_ Sr- tC . fCr hoUsc"-.01d ` azardo:... wastes , used oil , etc . this. is. mcc—r-z-- t .1 2-24 Lists COI: ;;. 2s „'Esp='r.= .Jic r- I.- fG:'' . (i:'t .jatio;,i, Thies 44 shOUId be deIeted sr.d or: p1 .cc_c .,r, aFF1ic�.r.f 45 p .2 25 also r- 24 There r,.it :3atiGr. 11_t2 � ;Gr FirE D i s t r i c t NP.R1L1 r• T^ f ESCH .',TC p 4-104 Shoul d 1 _ 1 u d e pass ible i:r;:a a: constructCr. qu ipment 46 becorn''.ng at+ractYE t-U!SR. .RCE EEC USE: CF PPCiiIMIT`; TO RESIDENTIAL. areas . This =hculd be nc•ted . . p 4-1C'7 Ho td 6141+14 .'c.seZCs nCC Cf ', tE, i .:1 c i Cycled water be 47 detected? Should th is'J►t'e a !"'S n Z d r a:t :,f c.par at iGns(2p l an^' p . 4-112 'T'hiar•g is Pr _i3.t•? ;' z:'. increase ... rLter.tidl fGr Fil'E 48 over th?t C'.r c, 1 ar.dt i 1 t aCa,L:Z G: t:-.E tr UC:I." n"a Ir, tal.oCe oPeratior. . r? CtL5CU5.SlOr! =ho'al• aI_G b :1%CI'. -,4e dJS tahatS.2r waTcI- &I "2l C.!';F_ I i 1 1 t _ It 1 = :t {JI' ir E t .i:p Clriar t 1CL.l:ar i,' :1E&UoE of tt? Gr _ irrit' C.F IT fondL . . 49 F ?- IT ct rl ,j list v W` at is the s. ize of ^_ . .• Ics a r6rr.d tG retire CIL' Ev r1E� 50 4-122 Discuss Fossible Econorr,.0 impact or, h..:uSEs very close to s ite th._.t had previously Leer, farther-t- away -�rorii operations area. . Also sornee dir.cussion of economic impact or, homes Cwhose .:wner's may have expected l andf .1 1 to close , Which would h�P.ve incr Eased their values . 51 Existing fee t•:,r count;' serk, ices are not sufficient for regular' inspect ic•r,_. . and is .nsur'e that deva1c,prr.a:lt is, Opel. ated actor : ing tc' standards. . . . p .3-4 EIP sh c•u? d d is-cuss the h igh tannase that is FrojEcted to ,52 be accor-,odated acid its relation to ir.cr'ea3ad Capital Cos".s . 53 Include discus lore Or costs Of b u i I J i n 3 roads Jn land iilled = - areas . ;54 Include discussion f costs associated with. buiId .r.g or, 1sr,-,fi11 areas ,fcr inter if., fc,c i1 .t 4.a p 4-116 It .= stated here that the CCC= Report as": i:..at2d that , 55 t�,e cc,st rf d 4.r,_c t h a u 1 i z tw .cE aS experii, i 'c tl*,El'iafcr station . Also . F •d - S 1? igures for ir:creased costa cf dir .Z.t t,a.a1 . Thi is 8•t +er^�ris Vfir ; _ 1C' 1 Tt .0 C,ne fGi 'L.. m,:. E a-talr comr,I ica.te.1 S i+;ration . As the CC^n Pe=ort ac+.uail;, reports all estimates de;:,and on Lo where the waste is comirrg fror. and where the land+ .. 1 :s . Actually , or, th,e ta.!,1a on pc.se : 1 of CCZ[) TM iC cost effectia)enss c,r trans.+e= station vs direct haul is d;_scr ibed a . not cost -,Et fsk 1••c to ma-9 inai for al l Iand f i: Is e: ceFt d i:tart east count-,, . 56 p 4-1 l6 !'cre C i= cuss ior. reeds to be g ivEr•i cn the costs of the transfer eta.+ ic.r. includirss ' I .comFAr• 1Fon with: other recently constructed waste raar,ayarrierrt facil ities , R. Explaining the high: costs of this station consideain3 that no �. land acquisition cos+.S are .r v-:,l ved . (Central San T-tud,; estir�a.tied tests cf transfer staticr, ,as $5-7 mill ion - Sin_' +h:e rut-! .- UZI 1e Pay .:i$ the Fr iC_ , WE need same indir:ation that +h,e ie iE f=,ir Su2Pe S tl_,r;e eF.'_Uld Fe 2.3_ J:.sctii :_ di'_—cuosion , or, how car itrl costs may be mr,di�rratc.d Land Use and Planning 57 ' • 4 7 S31 id Waste ?l a.n does not Lpec a;fy th,c cap ac lty Gf any tr-an_.fer s.ta,tinn ; hu+ .'. do E. _uFFc.:- t t`.a fol low :ns prlr.clplEL that must be included in the Planning for a transfer station as a part of. aur 771? i, :1.._ta .1i3po=a1 _`,'stcam 1 . providin5 :n.1: + : :r: for PIa:•,r, in3 Pur'F:=cS fv:' a:i.:t:l,tb Jt Waste. , t e_ { __ _ , and c r ir;s of l�azta G'. implemer.tw,ti:,n C. t�;c .'2=S'C1 ..:.3 _;GdiB Gi� by putt ing into ? : = systams that .. i1 I mir, imine th,c .:Ic 0 1and'fiI i irig . Therefore - t- =tati :Ors and 1andf .11 .provide incentive nOf•7 a ai Of' rtvni+ ies t'' saIvsiv.3 �a :d ''EC;' i;,, To To do this , spice sh _c;1 to previ3sd o_,tsidE the pa:•' ;a t E f :,; bu; baCt recycling , _ S.? "== .'".3 rrf mater ials , an Ic.CE= f L ins to b placed that :. ',t ;in __3ra3ataj .••ec, c1abIE nater ia1: . 58 Plan does no+ Jde tw, ith sol id ua_tE Fc1 is iE_ n:.Z' the, 6 ot' E its r'ec,,cI in,2 pre_ c.." C.hculdi to placed :t-, t!'1E f�.i: :�aG:t i{,�j-a,Ct section rathe` 41%s t'•ene+ is 1a.1 effezt L L a c 41 To rojti33t_ 1+° 1 -zC cf :, Effrt taai wd tta 30 Ec>'cI i:, a 59 the site plan should include salvagit'.3 Z,nd rc.cy Cl is",3 c,u dr f a" gate with, XinE�rci31 4n__enti'.'.5 to those that i acScic . To provide th.i- fa.ta t•3.5 _ ncedad ' for s':'II . t:aiii: FIo feh _` 6O transr •F . i- 1 - `"•1ac cc, 'd :J ar,Ci. it` : a( , ,O - '1 • ''+ • i:-1U 1, i:ir,E1.ta , WOUId b14 c-c.t-t f c... r. _ '.r.'."rU:. .tit? Wf, .C�, t.a!:E F1ar;., lt', F1aCi for 30!' rec -I in:' , Trans fe- t:,+ i o-5 Sh,,,v! A F rov i'de we 13 ir3 f ac i I it iES 413 daCUu.Er.t 61 amounts r,f waste 3o it 3 +.G tha l Z'ndf :1 1 ar,d s0L;: _e of Wa.3ti: by catPgorir:° i should coc-pera..t: w :thr ! andfitI is ot.tain4.ng F1afireiriy data o4 waste strear•,. b;' category . p . 3-4 Tonnage described is much higher thar, what is Fcojected 62 in solid waste PIan . if ycU subt.-aCt out :4;: t;,a.` is 9' ing d irectIy to 1 andf i11 , 3E7: :,ecy:.l it-.g and proh ib it ion or irnpot- •is . !see P 3-63� 63 p3-'Ss P-oposed Sol ;! !J-.st£ Flar. has bEc:i ar.er,ded to ir,cluJe recycl inp goa.1_ - PrE Ent ri:,!.; doe- haa a recycling goal . p3-60 Lega? and Institutional Consideration: : It is not Clea; if 64 this. inctvde_ interim tr•aol ••her Itztion w,,ich r,.ay LE locatEd in wetlands . _ _ _c. - - - - - p a-2 ViSUKl Thtrre 1: rFn •i EC `$ f F� �•, :� 1ic V i.U.. .ri,Fa� t 65 c, ofle+al 1 C 10-Is feet ) tUfr.r tial 1s C,I': "i S idcr,CE. . p 4-10 Vi=Uai ii Acrre i= to part i: i;- st=_ :r', a fUtU. E assE ;:C t'it 66 N i str ict , s h,ou I d th bE F:a.de Coral it iG:'.b i Gr. tt, c . 4-3s t}o :Feciti _ directi.?:. i_ F;" c, • :._ ' F :., Ch.a- e G1 Li C::, 67 to mitigate effect ar; roadl:_.;- doe_ not ma E c 1 e ar. d 1- .nct .on bctwcai. iiM .c. iCii t ailSf cY' Station , permar-ent tr•.:n_.fer station al'.0 r a;:s ati.,. other -facilities con-ectea with it . p 4-5� Scould Getter d fire "miner di_turtances to landfilled 68 areas Air- flu:I itv section TMaKes 'Many assumptions that could ear ily have hps r. ax sumed the cthEr wc.i . Since area has a higher level c.f p:,11.utiori-ci,aatin9 industr' ies . we vFr; well coulJ haVE iso _e ai. zjual ;:y titarM Concord . Morer.•.,er ae might b_ concerned t"'.at th 1 L a r a a, is : 0i;ar irMy the air Qu= 1 :t;+ for cur. neGrF, in Gt` c _2 act ion: Gf 'Uha coiit.l . Howe,_,ersince th= Ccn=ord =tat ion .L the or, :.:r.E .' az :r beI ieve v shc,lild a,ssUrae tha.t 1-4a+G __ 4-he or, datz. w i,ave and w to r c s1-.0'.I I d rot spe•=1i 1 3t=_ or, z.the; f :+= I:+I a sca(.&i i i, 69 n1�or s s,ht.:ll d he inn! Jed a3 an ir:pact :-n i' a *4dZ'r.t i&i i*r f- S - . V�7 I•:7,t ':I:t g C'.t s d T";Cr i t r r.sfer Stnt :o". ' 70 I+. 's net c i ear fr•o"i descr '.�t ior. Wt,ett.ar s ite ua.s JSaZi for i,.Y • adin9 r+r:l;' or. has a, Ir.dfili References to the Acrr,_ landfill EIS .ar,; difficult to refir' to 71 Since t'-:at ETP w3c for tL,L —Lo—E- acid not :F.c E:. int iriy landfill area . It would b ► = I , ful t sur::r.a.ri7C. fir,dir,a that t EIF wr iter= f i"r'i: I n y z E17 that a;--e par t :I.,ant to t is Fai^CEI . The Acme E!9' does emphasize mart;' pros 1 _n.:. inharrit ii. the G I U,i-;-. 72 Iardf .111 , because c:f its lacy str.te-c,f -•the-'Grt coi'Mst: UC: ivt� . 73 It is net clear where trar._'er vehicle= wculd be Fa► Ked baiure perManer.t crri-tructior: �:Egiris . /� Traffic I'rtp3ct:. Althoug!% i.":•.ra=t= on axistii.g roads frc. , 74 trays.ter uF►, 1.1 = 1.1,:, 4 bG S ..-.�1 :' t erc ,.. .r.El�t tro.i.siEi stat ion it i-- not cl ea.r hD1D t.h:,Sa iT;paCt1 U i I I be :G?'r'ec ted lit the SF:cr t tEr—. 75 Nz, jis : r incl , ' E'e�;t ! G _= 2 le': I - _.:Ccaj t:,-.cuc_ ..`,cl l i.�.it IJiI l th[ 6 he zr Ptfr:r tc. C'ccrz_c.=L 55-g ir.d jc2tef Grit !' t1:st ..O ..e .. .11 ..:t inzC to a ..;:. I iC Th i5 9ect icy? rr•?, c-s. iri I c. 3 tEr . r.0 .: E Cvr.= id r Z, i:•1 w it the F itr Fr,= 0: r2 -t I.- ° - ECj - t:`. ta. ..ha i••MtEr iC.. Std+ ; _- It 15 unC l epr wl-ether ° QV' t' er w 1 . c,uId i e1 tvt a tha ul. 76 decibel requirement . lr+ Eta; mud �-��+1 t:. �_ _+e a pr _+ G , EG: In , b. ..E aE .j CGIc� �r'U�\E� 77 roads^ t 78 p 5-10 �haL:'_ 1 z' ar iry a tat i— meant by irr.r.act 0 surface fault rupture ani+ tI% rr±irr..-- da,rra9s that r;isF.t rasuIt . 79 . It is not -1 F ar . �ether state -of --th_ -ar t ce l l construct icr. has been usFd it-, t�,F under l - ing land—rill ar sa. 80 Discuss the E.C.Ce_y of buildin.- ne.< '"Gad= rece:itly cGVcred landfill area Alterrat iaies No Pr•o.iect a1 ;er•nati'.:e corcertratea on this Frc+,ject as Leiiig the construct for, of ani' tt^ansTE` :ta.t iGn r r o.thEr t .a1r. a ti ariifer stat ion of th is descr ipt ion on th is -Tact &J.:n of the Acrr,a 1 andf 11 ; site . - The N. Pro j e c t Al ter nat ive might r•a a� i "e z_ni.tr uct i.. Jr a 81 trnr StEr. stz:t iOn (o ) C w h i c h iE r'ESL, :.' Ed b;' nEL l c.r.6: : .i . i tG Lc built n an aIternati'.'e Ic•ca.ti•.r+ . Add it ions to tirld i.( i ed P1tc ^r:3t i'.'e :hauld ir.c' ;dc 82 1 . finarci�l nr+? lysis .. r =GrrEr.t site Po:s .4bla :elccatior. of - act iv it ?ks to G+ti r. c.rea: ..-( tf.= 5 ite tf.a,t r.e.y to 1e5= i:.paj.s 1Ve 2. Pro.tErt t �� t LS '.: v'J C �' 1ac rGr a :GWE:' wail "a 83 ' incorporate r�`a? irn',rm r t:jn 44 4e for z :tj Sa1V&,j r'ecy'clin3 , cr:d =::cCIL'd2 inCit',=.' atiGr'. SYaCE . Gumul at ik:e I•m9Cts l.ocetir-9 SUCH' a.. large_ facility' herb r::Gu1d Cause 1ncr.eo.Sed 8/1 tr ritf is i'1 the ! c' ,� r un , c r t iC ::l ar f r r,m Sc,u X43 CoL:n t . s ince it �i r,.v i I l d i-cour ;,e the est at? ish im=nt of a .reg ional s i-a in 0 her parts or the count-, . Sincerely ; 1 Kathleen Nirrr _ i 1 - - v• vvaaa aaaraaru aaaav a�...+�....-.--- RESPONSE: LETTER 2 34 to 36. The rationale for the placement of the transfer station at the Acme landfill is noted in the DEIR (p. 2-5). The construction of the transfer station would allow flexibility in meeting future County needs for solid waste disposal. New landfills may restrict access to transfer trucks and commercial collection vehicles that require direct .access to a landfill. Public policy may also limit the types of vehicles accessing landfills to control traffic and litter impacts, and to promote resource recovery gc 's. Acme's main disposal area will close in earl to mid-1989 when its Regional Water P Y g Quality Control Board permit expires (April 1989) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit expires (June 1989). Future landfills are likely to be located farther,from collection areas. County policy specifies that new landfills are to be serviced, to a greater or lesser degree, by transfer stations. The provision of transfer stations is a recognized feature of CoSWMP. Transfer stations aid in the realization of County recycling goals. The applicant proposes to locate the transfer station at the Acme landfill site because: o The applicant owns the land o The project site is zoned Heavy Industrial (HI) o The site is on a landfill site adjacent to an existing landfill o Existing traffic patterns and access routes to the area are already established o The site is accessible to the local highway system. o Site development would rehabilitate an existing borrow pit In designing the proposed facility, the project applicant also took into account the following site specific factors: o The existing topography of the borrow pit would facilitate the design of a three- level facility and contributes to the mitigation of noise and visual impacts. 86130 2-8 2. Comments and Responses o Use of the borrow pit would minimize excavation activities for roads and facility buildings. 1 o Stable geologic formations underly the site of the transfer station (in contrast to Bay mud and sanitary landfill on much of the remainder of the Acme property). o The project would be built on a vacant site and would not cause the removal or relocation of other uses. ' o The site area would accommodate a future waste-to-energy plant or another type of waste recovery facility (not part of the project application). o The provision of a three-level facility would allow transfer truck operations to occur at the lower level and thus mitigate traffic, noise, and visual quality impacts. o The site area would accommodate overnight parking for transfer trucks. The size of the site area is sufficiently large to accommodate the on-site parking and circulation needs. ' o Placement on other locations on the landfill site would probably involve the grading of hills, excavating existing landfill areas, or expensive foundation work (e.g. construction on piles). Regarding cost differences between the CCCSD/CCC study and the applicant's proposal, Brown, Vence and Associates (BVA) was the lead consultant for the CCCSD/County Solid Waste Management Study and prepared the transfer analysis section which is part of the report. They also prepared the Project Description and estimated the costs of the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station project. There are a number of reasons the cost of the proposed project is higher than those estimated in the CCCSD/County Study. BVA wrote to Mr. James Kelly of CCCSD in October 28, 1986 explaining the cost differences. This letter is attached. r 86130 2-9 1 ATTACHMENT A BVA� BROwN.vENCE&ASSOCIATES ' k nem—ana En%erjnme-.a Ena,nep,� October 28, 1986 Mr. James M. Kelly Planning Division Manager Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, California 94553 BVA JOB NO: 84120 PROJECT: Solid Waste Management Plan SUBJECT: Transfer Station.Cost Estimates Dear Mr. Kelly: This letter is in response to your inquiry as to the basis of our cost estimate for the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station and how this estimate compares to transfer station cost estimates provided by us for the CCCSD/County Study. ' The Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station has been conceptualized to handle peak loadings through the Year 2010. The conceptualized facility has a peak hourly transfer capability of 340 tons or 2,720 tons in an eight hour period. The peak daily tonnage anticipated at Acme Fill (3600 TPD) would need to be transfered over an 11 hour day. As part of our work for the CCCSD and the County, we estimated costs for transfer stations in the range of 200 TPD to 1400 TPD. The Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station at approximately 2700 TPD is significantly greater than the stations for which estimates were provided. The site specific, preliminary cost estimate of the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station also,reflects: ' cost escalation to mid-1988, start of construction 15% contingencies ' handling an unusually large volume of traffic associated with the general public site cost associated with construction in a pit a storage pit transfer concept (the CCCSD/County Study assumed a tipping floor concept) I hope the information provided meets your needs. If I can be of any further assistance, please call. Very truly yours, BROWN, VENCE, Lac ASSOCIATES )7*zom as C 1 Nomas C. Reilly Project Manager TCR:clb cc. Mr. David Okita 1,20 f,1Qr1JTG01.+ER+' 50;1F *68C' SAN FRANCISCO.CALIFORNIA 94104 (4151434-09000 2. Comments and Responses The transfer station work performed for CCCSD/County Study was a general, preliminary analysis. It was area specific but not site specific and it was based on certain assumptions. The Study considered 10 collection areas, five potential landfill - areas, five general areas and three sizes for transfer stations. Approximately 100 separate scenarios were analyzed. The proposed project is site specific and was conceptualized using certain project parameters (site characteristics, traffic/tonnage characteristics, resource recovery activities and landfill constraints). The CCCSD/County Study assumptions for transfer stations were as follows: o Vehicle Loading Concept: Tipping floor. o Capacity: Based on today's tonnage being handled on a single shift and future tonnage increases being handled on a second shift (available_ landfills assumed capable of receiving waste on a second shift). , o Recycling Activity: None. o Additional Facilities: Minimal. o Land: Flat. o Peaking Requirement: 20%. o Self-Hauler Traffic: Small in comparison to franchise hauler traffic. Characteristics of the proposed project are as follows: 1 o Vehicle Unloading Concept: Both a tipping floor and a storage pit; found necessary to meet: 1) projected traffic and tonnage, 2) recycling goals, 3) storage requirements needed to meet incoming waste surges and provide transfer van dispatch flexibility. o Capacity: Future tonnage largely handled on a single shift due to operating ' schedule restrictions placed on new landfills and for noise mitigation. o Recycling Activities: Extensive. o Additional Facilities: Larger scale house/pay booth facilities, administration building/visitor center, large-scale vehicle maintenance facility. o Land: Existing borrow pit. o Peaking Requirement: 80%. o Self-Hauler Traffic: Very large, approximately 74% of total traffic. In summary, cost differences between the CCCSD/County Study and the proposed project result from different assumptions and site specific project parameters. 86130 2-10 2. Comments and Responses The estimated cost of the facility includes provisions designed to accommodate ' CoSWMP provisions relating to recycling (see below). The applicant is proposing that the project would have a three phase recycling plan. The recycling goals for the 1 County and for the Acme transfer station service area are as follows: COSWMP ACME Phase 11987-1992 20% 20% 1990-1993 Phase II 1992-1997 10% 5% 1994-1997 Phase 111 1997-2007 30%1 25%Z 1998-2010 Total 60% 45% ' 1Assumes new waste energy plant 2Using existing waste energy plant. Several proposed Conditions of Approval for the project would require consistency twith the County Solid Waste Management Plan. Regarding the facility's consistency with County goals, the 1987 County Solid Waste Management Plan states that the Acme Fill Transfer Station is consistent with the Plan and should be sized to serve Central and South County. The Plan also provides an option of multiple transfer stations should it be decided that more than one transfer station is desirable. The Plan states that a South County transfer station may be necessary in the future. This flexibility was included in the Plan because the location of future landfill site(s) is unknown. i The construction of the Acme transfer station would not preclude the placement of other transfer stations in the County, including South Central County. The final design of the facility would take into account factors that could lead to downsizing the transfer station. These factors would include redirection of the waste load from Antioch; the provision of other transfer-stations (either full-size or "mini"); restrictions placed on self-hauler access to landfills; the projected 15% difference in CoSWMP recycling goals (60% by 2007) and Acme's recycling goals (45% by 2007). 86130 2-11 2. Comments and Responses The size of the Acme facility would also be affected should less than 80% of the , waste-stream not be committed to the proposed transfer station. Final capital and operating costs for the facility would be provided to the County for review before the issuance of bond obligations. , The 1987 County Solid Waste Management Plan includes resource recovery goals of diverting an additional (to what is now being recycled) 20% before 1992, 10% more (30% total) before 1997, and 30% more (60% total) before 2007. It is important to note that these goals are not only recycling goals, but include composting and waste- to-energy. In fact, the Plan states that the 1997 and 2007 goals assume at least one , waste-to-energy project in operation. If waste-to-energy is not feasible for economic or environmental reasons, these goals are not expected to be met. 37. The closure of Arthur Road (December 1986) precludes the use of residential neighborhoods as a route to the Acme landfill. Occasional gun club meets arranged ' by the Martinez Gun Club currently allows some self-haulers to access the landfill by Arthur Road, although this practice is discouraged. The transfer station operator ' would police the main intersection to prevent self-hauler access along Arthur Road which would avoid the facilities gatehouse. ' 38. The transfer of wood chips, probably to the Louisiana-Pacific power plant in Antioch , (as mentioned on p. 3-42, DEIR), would be carried out in transfer trucks similar to those that would access the new landfill site. San Francisco's transfer station currently dispatches about 4 truckloads daily according to information provided to f the county Planning Commission on its field trip. Traffic counts contained in the DEIR include this element. The number of outbound transfer trucks at the start-up of the facility would be approximately 68 (DEIR, p. 4-26). 39. Proposed improvements to roadway sections of Waterfront Road would be specified in ' a study to be conducted for the County. The project applicant would carry out or fund the Study. The study would be conducted before operation of the permanent transfer station. The completion of improvements to the roadway could be part of the conditions of approval for the project. i 86130 2-12 2. Comments and Responses 40. Conditions described on p. 4-45 of p. 4-47 describe potential impacts of the project. Mitigation measures to reduce impacts are noted on p. 4-49. As noted in the mitigation section the provision of a sound barrier wall would reduce potential noise impacts to a level of insignificance (DEIR, p. 4-49). The noise barrier wall would be at least five feet higher than the top of a transfer truck as measured from the road level of Waterbird Way South. The typical barrier height would be approximately 15 feet high (DEIR, p. 4-49). The minimum height of the wall would be 10 feet. 41. Comment noted, refer to Response 17. The project applicant would provide sound suppression systems to transfer trucks to further mitigate potential noise. The rproposed Conditions of Approval include a "late hours" program. 42. Comment noted. A truck and equipment washing pad would form part of the facility (DEIR, p. 3-41), and p. 4-105). Mitigation measures relating to potential impacts are noted in the report. Water from truck washing would be connected directly to the sanitary sewer, and would be pre-treated if required (DEIR, p. 4-107). 43. The transfer station is a possible receptor for small amounts of hazardous 1vaste contained in household refuse. The proposed Conditions of Approval provide for an inspection and extraction program. The Conditions also address a possible household hazardous waste drop-off program subject to approvals. Otherwise, the facility is not intended to accept hazardous material. 44. The County is responsible for stipulating mitigation measures. The project applicant would be required to implement any project mitigations and conditions of approval. 45. The Fire Department can access the project site. They would not be able to reach the site within the service operating time standards established by the Fire Department (DEIR, pages 2-25 and 4-112). Mitigation measures relative to fire protection are noted on pages 4-113 and 4-114. 1 ' 86130 2-13 r 2. Comments and Responses 46. The proposed project could be a potential Attractive Nuisance. The site area would , be fenced and patrolled (DEIR page 4-105). Warning signs would be in evidence. 47. The project applicant would analyze recycled water for bacteria as part of the operations plan for the facility. 48. Fire prevention measures for the Vehicle Maintenance Building note the provision of a fire sprinkler system for the oil storage room. As a mitigation measure an automatic sprinkler system is recommenAed for all transfer station buildings along with contingency plans and fire fighting equipment specified by the Fire District. Fire prevention would include on-site foam generation equipment. The IT evaporation ponds are to be phased out of operation during the life of the transfer station. , 49. The socioeconomic impact on County residents is noted on pages 4-116 and 4-119 of , the DEIR. Potential impacts, based on representative costs, are not considered environmentally significant (DEIR, page 4-119). The size of the service area assumed to develop funding for the project is based on the current service area for the Acme landfill (DEIR, Table 1, page 3-49). A change in service area parameters, i.e., reduction of the current wastestream, would lead to a proportionate downsizing of the project (but downsizing could adversely affect the economy of scale of the project). 50. The proposed project would be built in an area previously used as a borrow pit. Soil was excavated from the area to a depth of approximately 30-35 feet. Operations on the site were noticeable from the nearest house in the adjacent residential neighborhood. The provision of a new sound barrier/screen wall would prevent views ' of the site and of other industrial uses in the area. Improvements along the property line, provided as part of the project, could result in a nominal net increase in property values. No evidence that homeowners would expect an increase in property values due to the i closure of the Acme landfill surfaced during the preparation of the EIR. The area is 86130 2-14 r 2. Comments and Responses zoned for Heavy Industrial (HI) and the use of the site would be consistent with the zoning designation. The proposed project would involve improvements to all open borrow pit and road surfaces. All improvements to the aesthetics and infrastructure of the project site and vicinity would, in all likelihood, maintain or enhance local property values. 51. The County has the ability to set fees at a level to support the inspection program it deems to be adequate. 52. The proposed F ,ject described in the DEIR is designed to accommodate the tonnage currently received at the Acme landfill (less ineligible wastes) and any increase in tonnage that would occur in succeeding years. The planning horizon for the project is the year 2010. Other factors-that influence the design, and therefore capital cost expenditures, relate to tonnage received at peak hours and the relatively high number of self-haulers accessing the site (60% of traffic). Factors that could reduce capital investment costs for the project are those which would reduce the wastestream arriving at the site. The development and implementation of a service area recycling programs could also affect the size and cost of the facility, but recycling efforts would not necessarily 1 lead to downsizing the project. A curbside program, for example, could require that recycled materials in the Acme collection area be brought to the transfer station site for further processing and storage. The processing of curbside recycled materials at the project site would be affected by the ability of collection companies to handle recycled material. A modification in the capacity of collection companies to process wastes, or in the methodology employed, could result in downsizing the proposed project. The final design for the facility would take into account existing and proposed waste recovery programs. The size of the facility related to the number of collection vehicles accessing the site would also be considered in the final design. 86130 2-15 2. Comments and Responses Capital cost expenditures anticipated for the facility are compatible with the size of ' wastestream and costs involved in similar projects (e.g., Davis Street facility, Oakland). , 53. Site preparation and concrete costs, including roadwork, for the project are esti- mated at $5,500,000 (DEIR, Table Il, page 4-117). These costs may be low given the , road grades and paved areas shown on development plans and the possible imposition of mitigation requirements by the County. The development of the facility involves , the upgrading and maintenance of existing roads on the Acme landfill. Road grades in the area of the gatehouse would be built up from the existing grade level to , minimize excavation into landfill area. Existing drainage patterns would be maintained and improved as required. ' Road work on the North Parcel on the Acme landfill, including work at the scale house and pay booth, would be subject to the provisions of the Revised Closure/Post- , Closure Plan for the North Parcel (Harding Lawson Associates, August 21, 1987). Provisions in this plan relate to surface drainage, run-on/run-off and erosion control, 1 and leachate barrier. These provisions could increase site preparation and road building costs. The final design and engineering of the facility would take those ' provisions into account. Final costs would be determined after detailed engineering for the project is ' complete. Plans for final engineering and road design would be made part of the ' conditions of approval for the project. 54. Costs associated with the development of the interim transfer station would relate to ' road work at the specific site location. The project applicant estimates it would cost approximately $500,000 to $1 million to develop a separate interim site. These costs would be lower for improvements to the proposed interim station—an existing winter disposal site—since some road work would form part of the permanent transfer station costs. The interim station, subject to the approval of regulatory agencies, would not contain any buildings or roofed structures. 86130 2-16 ' 2. Comments and Responses The project applicant would provide improvements which would involve the establishment,of an unloading area at a higher level and a loading area for transfer trucks at a lower level. The loading area would involve the development of a paved surface to accommodate 20- to 25-ton transfer trucks. The lower road and turning circle for these trucks would require additional excavation in an existing landfill area. The design of roads Mover existing landfill areas require that differential settlement is taken into account. The project applicant would submit engineering drawings and a maintenance plan to 1 the County for approval. As noted earlier, the Closure Plan for the North Parcel includes provisions for water quality and erosion control. M The interim station would have a limited operational life. The station would operate P P from a date as early as March 31, 1989 (near to the expiration of the. RWQCB permit). It would cease operation shortly after the start-up date of the permanent transfer station. The proposed Land Use Permits Conditions of Approval for the project would specify that the interim station would cease operations before June 1990. 55. A review of the CCSD report Tables TM 11-5, 6, 7 and 8, pages 16-21 indicate ' typographical errors. The result is that the conclusions drawn in the report would be revised. On Table TM-5, transfer station costs for Franklin Canyon, Scenario 1, should show a marginal result. Cost effectiveness for the Martinez Collection Area are otherwise marginal or positive with the exception of Franklin Canyon Scenario 2. For the Table TM-6, Moraga/Orinda, page 17, the costs for the Bailey Road/Kirker rPass Road, Scenario 1, change to marginal. All other scenarios in this table show marginal to positive results. In the Pleasant Hill Collection area (Table TM 11-7, page 18), the Franklin Canyon Scenario 2, and the Bailey Road/Kirker Pass Road, Scenario 1 and 2 should be changed to marginal . Other scenarios in this table show marginal or positive results. For the Walnut Creek/Danville Collection Area (Table 1 TM 11-8, page 19), the Franklin Canyon Scenario 2, and Bailey Road/Kirker ..Pass 1 Road Scenario 1 and 2, the results should read marginal. Other results in the table are either marginal or positive. 86130 2-17 2. Comments and Responses The summary on TM-10, page 11, therefore, does not correspond to the revised data contained on the tables referenced above. As a result of these revisions, only the Franklin Canyon Scenario 2 for the Martinez Collection Area (Table TM-5, page 16), would show a negative cost effectiveness. - 56. ffectiveness. -56. The proposed project would be comparable with the relative costs and wastestream ' loads at the Oakland Scavenger Company Davis Street transfer station, San Leandro, California (450,000 tons/year, 53-acre site). The City of Berkeley transfer station was built to handle 600,000 tons/year on a 6.3 acre site at a cost of approximately $10 million (1978 dollars). Construction costs for the Acme transfer station are approximately $16.8 million dollars on a 22-acre site to accommodate approximately 750,000 tons/year. ' It is difficult to compare transfer station costs because they are all designed to meet different project parameters, such as traffic and tonnage. The Davis Street facility, like the proposed Acme project are both designed to handle a large self-hauler traffic volume. They are also similar in design. While it is smaller the proposed project includes resource recovery programs and an enclosed public disposal area which are not included at the Davis Street facility. The costs are also similar once these differences and effects of inflation are considered. ' 57. Comment noted. The applicant has proposed, and the draft Conditions of Approval ' would require, the placement of a recycling drop-off facility between the Acme property entrance and the transfer station gatehouse. The public need not access the transfer station site to recycle material. Containers would be provided for the segregation of recycled materials. Refer to Response 36 for a schedule of Acme's phased recovery program. In Phase I (1987- ' 1992) the recycling center would be a drop-off facility. At the start of Phase II (1992-1997) the facility could become a buy-back center. 58. The proposed Acme transfer station .and waste recovery facility are included in the latest (1987) revisions to CoSWMP currently under review (DEIR, page 3-63). 86130 2-18 2. Comments and Responses ' 59. The draft Conditions of Approval for the project specify that a drop-off facility is to be located outside the transfer station. ' 60. Comment noted. The number of transfer trucks to the provided would not be precisely determined at present until a decision is made on the location of a landfill. As the distance of travel time to -the landfill increases, so would the required number of transfer trucks. As future tonnage increases, additional trucks would be acquired. ' Approximately 10% of the fleet would be purchased for spares. 1 61. The proposed project would be provided with an automated scale and digital display equipment. Refer to DEIR, page 3-41, 3-44. The project applicant would coordinate ' data collection with landfill operations. 62. Estimates for tonnage are noted below: ' 1985 Tonnage,,Acme Landfill 515,300 tons/yr minus unacceptable wastes 73,400 tons/yr 441,900 tons/yr ' Recycling would not necessarily reduce tonnage at the transfer station to a great extent if the station serves as a processing facility for recycled materials. The DEIR takes into account maximum estimates of tonnage for the analysis of environmental issues. The facility would be designed to accommodate peak daily and hourly tonnage (DEIR, p. 3-21). 63. Comment noted. The 1987 plan revision is being considered for adoption by the county's cities, and will have to be submitted to the California Waste Management 1 Board. ' 64. The project applicant_does not propose to construct the interim station on a wetlands area. ' 65. Visual aspects of the project are noted on p. 4-83, DEIR. Impacts associated with the sound barrier/screen wall are noted on p. 4-84 and 4-100 which states in part that the surface of the screen wall would be made compatible with neighborhood wishes. 86130 2-19 2. Comments and Responses , 66. Comment noted. The project's proposed Conditions of Approval address this item. , 67. Discussion of transfer trucks occurs on p. 3-19, DEIR. The project applicant would be ' required to conduct an operations study of the I-680/Waterfront Road interchange to ensure that the proposed trucks will traverse the interchange. Improvements may be indicated. 68. The proposed access route to the scale house and pay booth area would follow the line , of an existing road on the Acme landfill. Improvements to this road would involve minor cuts on the shoulder of the road to improve or maintain existing drainage. , The scale house and pay both area would be constructed on imported fill over an older , part of the Acme landfill. Foundation construction for buildings and road surfaces, including additional lanes for passing, could involve disturbance to the existing soil , conditions. All provisions included in the Closure Plan for the North Parcel would be adhered to by the project applicant. ' 69. Odor impacts on the Vine Hill neighborhood are discussed on P. 4-75, DEIR. Project impacts were determined to be minor and of limited duration. Mitigation measures , are noted on p. 4-29. 70. The articular interim station site referred to here was art of the 125-acre Acme P P landfill, and was used in the past as a sanitary landfill. It was also used as a winter , unloading area. 71. The Final EIR/EIS Acme Landfill Expansion Report, June 1983, contains pertinent information relating to soils, geology and potential seismic events affecting the Acme property. The hydrologic information and water quality data also provide ' useful background information for the proposed project. T existing borrow it are is note on Exhibit S-4 EIR EIS. The Summar of The e g p a d , / y Significant Impacts and Mitigations, p. 5-4 to 5-12,_provides an overview of impacts , on the North Parcel expansion area. The Comparison of Alternatives and Impacts, S- 13, provides a useful index of the findings of the EIR/EIS. 86130 2-20 2. Comments and Responses ' 72. The existing landfill area was developed in the 1950's, a time when less was known about the construction of large landfills. The cell-like construction.technique dsed in ' later landfill development was not employed at that time. As a consequence the older landfill is less stable than newer landfills and, therefore, requires more ' maintenance. ' Initially wastes were placed on the open areas and burned. The waste material was later compacted and covered with soil. A 6-inch layer of soil cover was placed over the working face of the landfill each day. The Closure Plan for the North Parcel describes existing conditions and proposed actions to be taken on the existing landfill. ' 73. Transfer trucks would be parked on the rear of the existing 125-acre Acme landfill during construction of the permanent transfer station. 74. The project applicant would be required to conduct several road and intersection studies to implement roadway improvements. The applicant would provide improvements to roadway sections and intersections as required by the County (DEIR, p. 4-41). The program is described in the proposed Conditions of Approval. 75. Construction of the sound barrier wall on the boundary line of the Vine Hill neighborhood would be complete at the start of the project (DEIR, p. 5-8). This noise mitigation measure would reduce potential noise impacts to a level of insignificance. 1 Additional sound-reduction measures, such as a "late hours" program are described in the proposed Conditions of Approval. 76. A 24-hour noise monitor installed at 4117 Irene Drive (November 25, 1986) recorded a CNEL of 61 decibels. The proposed sound barrier wall, designed to reduce future potential noise impacts, would reduce the current situation to less than significant levels. 77. The EIR/EIS, 1983, states that the potential of tsunami action appears to be insignificant (DEIR, p. 5-10). The interim station site would be protected by measures designed to control environmental impacts noted in the North Parcel ' Closure Plan. 1 86130 2-21 2. Comments and Responses 78. The surface of the landing pad could be affected by minor cracking due to shifts in t the subsurface base in the event of a major seismic event. The potential impact would not be significant and would be mitigated in the final engineering for the site. Engineering plans would be submitted for County approval. 79. Refer to Response 72. , 80. Roads would be designed to accommodate differential settlement. Engineered slopes and grades would be built to County.standards. The site would be protected from a 100-year flood event (Closure Plan, p. 9). Provisions relating to lateral and vertical shear forces engendered by earthquakes are noted in Appendix E, Closure Plan. The Closure Plan addresses issues related to the development of an interim station, recycling area and interconnecting roads. An , intact cover would be maintained under all structures and operational areas (Closure Plan, p. 10). Closure activities and the interim station site would be completed in accordance with 40 CFR 265.111 and the California Administrative Code, Title 22, Section 67211. 81. Comment noted. Site specific characteristics of the No-Project alternative are mentioned on p. 6-2, DEIR. 82. The relocation of the permanent transfer station buildings and facilities to another , area of Acme landfill is not considered a viable alternative by the project applicant. Costs associated with such an action would be prohibitively high. The project site is ' vacant and is not a landfill area. The relocation of a recycling center in front of the area of the proposed scale house would be included in the final design of the facility. Refer to Response 32. 83. Refer to Responses 35 and 36. 84. The transfer station is designed to serve the Acme collection area after the closure of the Acme landfill. The number of south County self-haulers using the current Acme landfill amounts to about 3% of self-hauler traffic. Construction of the , 86130 2-22 ' 2. Comments and Responses facility would provide flexibility to the County's response to solid waste management issues and form part of a comprehensive plan for the County. It would not discourage ' the establishment of other waste control efforts. These efforts may include a full service or "mini" transfer station in South County. 1 86130 2-23 .4eolaw scs.rc:� s4eotcsa LETTER 3 IVIA 1 ,r1-IN EZ CxUi\' ROOM SMELLS IELOADING SUPPLIES GUNS SHOOTING ACCESSO%If$ LOCATED AT MARTINEZ GUN CLUB 900 woww'a w•, M�nrn�t,CNrIOrm•9�SS� PHONE 279 3646 rMr. Chas. A Zahn August 16, 1987 Planning Coordinator ' Community Developt^ent Dept . County Administration BldB/ 651 Pine St . 4th Foor, North Wing Martinez, Ca. 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Zahn, r85 I am writing in behalf of the Martinez Gun Room regarding the proposed transfer station at the Acme Fill Disposal Site, I conduct a privately ' owned, independent, retail business that is located at the Martinez Gun Club address. I am a tenant of the Gun Club. My business. has beer, adversely effected by the closure of Arthur Rd. (except for times whe:: the Gun Club has agreed to open the gate for shooting events) because so=e of my customers thought the Club was closed down. I have experienced a 207 loss of business as a result of the road closure. My attempt to .rectify the problem was ignored (see a copy of the proposal to the principals that is attached) by Acme Fill and Supervisor Fanden and no meeting was ever scheduled. When I received a copy of the draft of the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer . "atior, Project frc- the officers of the Gun Club, I became alarmed for the future of my business. Not only will I be denied safe customer access but the environmental issues of noise, odor ,and traffic will seriously damage my trade. Without benefit of agreed upon solutions to these problems, I am opposed to the project in its entirety at this point. Thank you for allowing me to air my views regarding t-hi.s proposed project , I will look forward to the meeting on September 22 for t'�e Public Hearing Yours veryyyl��truly, Bill Graham, Owner cc: J. Garcia, Sec . M.G.C. WMG/ng Encs. r ARTHUR ROAD ACCESS - Proposed solution to current conflict regarding 5ccess to gun club and contr l c-if traffic to durnp. December -M,1'3'uG To: Acme Fill Corp.; T Corp.- r1artine-z Gun Club.- Supervisor lub;uperYisor Fehden; This letter is.written %-vith recognition of the efforts of the 1 individuals and corporations involved in the attempted resolution of the traffic over Arthur Rd. going to the dump site. This pr,,blern has been a difficult rine to resolve. I am certain the problem has been given everyone's best, however someone has overlooked the presence of the Martinez Gun Room. I have a business in operation at the Martinez Gun Club facility; and have been seriously affected by the current solution. My cu-,torner access has been impaired to the degree that some custorners have concluded I no longer am in business. I was not included in the discussions regarding the problem of the dU rep traffic control problern. I'm aware that the problem has affected a great number of individuals, many of whom have not been considered at all. My concern is three-fold. The first is, of course, as to the impact upon rn� business. Secondari 1 q, the people that wish to use the facilities of the klub; both members, and also the general public. And finally the long term affect upon the current, and future, legal rights of the Martinez Gun Clu; as regards to access easments. I would very reach like to arrange a meeting of the interested parties, in hopes of a solution that meets the needs of all affected parties. I W0UId propose a g5te/ barrier site, that I believe, would better serve everyone's, goals and concerns, for permanent resolution to the problem. ■ I a--_-:sure yc-iu all, that I have been the forgotten partyy in this effort. ■ My_ needs have not been met nor, in fact, even considered. I am convinced treat the oversight eras un-intentional, however; i can not allow the situation to long remain this way. I have taken the liberty of rnakinq a non-scale renderinq of the confluence of the affected accesses. You will find this rendering attached. I feel it is to some degree self-explanatory. I would like to explain my proposed solution in I'me afore mentioned meeting. I feel this course of ,action ,�,ould best serve to •.lear the air; and perhaps bring about a permanent -solution to this most disturbing problem. Cordi al 1 y.. W. Grnham 1 Proprietor Martinez Oun Room P.S. l would like to incluse anyone from the Nine Hill' area, or a selected representative, It i; not my intention to exclude anyone who has a ,r.gitmate concarn in the matter. A Atty. James Cox has copy of rendering. FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT Contra Costa County No.83.5075 The following person is doing business } as: MARTINEZ GUN ROOM at 440 Arthur ' Rd.,Martinez,CA 94553. WILLARD MERLE "BILL" GRAHAM, 7464 Muirwood Ct.,Pleasanton,CA 94566. This business is conducted by an Indivi- duaL /s/WILLARD MERLE GRAHAM Statement filed with the County Clerk """"—' — ------ of Contra Costa County on Dec.21, 1983. Pub:Dec.30;Jan 6, 13,20, 1984. I 2. Comments and Responses RESPONSE: LETTER 3 1 85. Comments noted. Representatives of the County, the Martinez Gun Club and Acme Fill Corporation took part in discussions regarding the closure of Arthur Road in December 1986. Environmental issues and mitigations relating to noise, odor and 1 traffic are, noted in the DEIR. Potential effects were identified as insignificant or can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Improvements to unpaved .roads and intersections in the project vicinity could improve access to the Martinez Gun Club site. 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 86130 2-24 1 LETTER 4 MARTINEZ GUN CLUB P.O. BOX 910-MARTINEZ, CA 94553-900 WATERBIRD WAY (415) 372-9599 i August 17, 1987 Mr. Charles A. Zahn Planning Coordinator COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION PROJECT IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. Dear Mr. Zahn, The Martinez g h Gun Club is submitting our written comments and concerns in response to your letter dated July 1, 1987 in reference to the proposed Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Proiect. Our comments and concerns are directed to a number of issues we do not feel were properly addressed in the Draft Environment Impact Report (EIR) . In summary, we sincerely hope that the Planning Commission will realize that the proposed siting of this project is totally inappropriate and will deny the requested Land Use Permit (#2122-86) and a General Plan Amendment to cover waste processing (CT 3200. 01) (Parcel #380-030-017 and 031) . Respectfully Submitted, R Jon R. Garcia Secretary Martinez Gun Club Attachments: Written Comments on the Draft EIR, an engineering sketch of Acme Fill's proposed road system and other data . ATTACHMENTS: 1. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE MARTINEZ GUN CLUB. 2 . WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION PROJECT IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. 3. AN ENGINEER SKETCH OF THE PROPOSED ACME FILL ROADWAY SYSTEM SHOWING SPECIFIC AREAS OF CONCERN TO THE MARTINEZ GUN CLUB. �F ' 1. HISTORY OF THE MARTINEZ GUN CLUB. The Martinez Gun is one of the oldest on going gun clubs in the United States. The organization known as the "MARTINEZ GUN CLUB" , was founded in the office of Justice F.M. Smith, on May 19 , 1883 , in Martinez, California. Those attending the meeting were made charter members. H. Weatherby was appointed President and Joesph Briars was appointed Secretary pro-tem and a constitution and Bylaws were adopted. These same Bylaws have been handed down from generation to generation and govern the organization as it is today. Our main objective states "This Organization, a non-profit California Corporation, shall have the Purpose and Objective to Promote, Foster and Perpetuate the Sport of Trap. Shooting and to encourage the Proper_ use of Fire Arms and Conservation of Natural Resources. 11 The very first trap shooting match was held in June of 1883 , at a location a mile up the shore from Martinez in the vicinity of what are now the Southern Pacific Bridge and the Senator George Miller Bridge, between the Martinez Gun Club and the Black Diamond Club. The Club has been in four different locations in the 104 year history. The first move in 1911 was made to the grounds on the waterfront in Martinez where the present Bocci Courts and the Joe DiMaggio Baseball Complex is presently located. We still have many of the old photographs in Clubhouse. In 1919, the Club moved its trap shooting facility to Blum Road just off of Highway 4 near the present California Highway Patrol Office. In 1937, the Gun Club held its first State Trap Shooting Tournament. The Club incorporated in 1938, shooting on weekends until 1960 when the State purchased 11 acres in the middle of our 28 acres for what 0is now Highway 680. 6 In 1961, we moved to our present site a beautiful 34 acre parcel at the end of Arthur Road in Martinez. The Martinez Gun Club has developed this trap shooting facility into one of the most prestigious trap clubs in Northern California. We now have a large clubhouse with a commercial) equipped kitchen a bar, a Pro-Shop, YP. 17 American trap fields, 3 lighted fields and one International Bunker with 15 mechanical traps used for Olympic try outs and European-type of shooting events. Additionally, on the grounds we have built a private residence for a full time manager/caretaker and several out buildings to house and protect our equipment and cases of clay targets from the elements. The Clubs 400+ active members are residents of Martinez and neighboring communities throughout the Bay Area. There are over 100, 000 associate members affiliated with Amateur Trapshooters Association (ATA) and the Pacific International Trapshooting Association (PITA) not including (NRA) which supports Olympic Bunker-type Shooting. The Board of Directors has recognized a special "Honorary Membership" for all active members of the United States Armed Services. We frequently have competitors from the Army in Fort Benning, Georgia and the Air Force from Texas participate with the top shooters in the country, here and all over the world in hopes of a berth in the Olympics. The Club is open five days a week (Tuesday through Sun day) for practice and teaching hunter safety courses on the proper use of fire arms. No rifle or pistol shooting is allowed at the Martinez Gun Club. Only shot guns with light trap loads are used. In the 200+ years of fun, competitive trap shooting in this country there has never been a fatality. Safety is always our primary concern. We host annually, 12 Club Shoots, 2 North Bay League Shoots, 25 Registered shoot days, the Golden State Grand Trap Shooting Championships, The Labor Day Grand and 23 scheduled bunker shoots. In addition we host the PITA state shoot every three years. We are the largest and most active trap shooting club in Northern California. We estimate that we host and entertain over 10, 000 shooters and their families every year. All of our trap shooting tournaments and events are held on the week ends. The Club is operated and managed by the Board of Directors and the Four elected officers. These are all voluntary positions from a lot of truly dedicated individuals which have made this organization what it is today. We are proud of our long history and to all of those that have participated in making it such a success. We certainly hope that the Martinez Gun Club will be going strong for another 104 years. 2 . WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION PROJECT IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. 87 ISSUE NO. 1 - (Reference page 3-34 in the Draft EIR) Proposed Site The proposed siting of the Transfer Station Project is not in the best interests of the Martinez Gun Club. The proposed site essentially wedges directly between the Vine Hill residents and the Martinez Gun Club. We ask the Planning Commission to investigate and evaluate alternate sites for this Waste Recovery and Transfer Station . Project. 8 ISSUE NO. 2 - (Reference page 2-16) Traffic & Circulation The proposed roadway system described in the EIR would adversely impact our ability to safely access our club grounds and facilities on weekends. Our peak tra:`fic loads coincide with those described by Acme Fill in the EIR which further aggravates the traffic congestion. The Martinez Gun Club must retain an exclusive deeded right of way on Arthur Road to be able to continue our normal business operations. We suggest that the Commission take a Saturday or Sunday drive along Waterbird Way at about 3 : 00 or 4 : 00 pm. The stack up right now is clear to the intersection of Waterfront Road. It is impossible to imagine what this will be like in another couple of years. The EIR eludes to closing of Arthur Road. If this is allowed to happen it will certainly mean the end of era of one of the finest trap shooting clubs in Northern California. We requested Mr. Thomas Reilly, Director of Operations for the Acme Fill Corporation, to consider a new private entrance and roadway to the Martinez Gun Club that would be totally independent of their business operations. To date we have not had a response from Mr. Reilly regarding this issue. The proposed roadway system to feed this Transfer Station is totally unsound from a safety standpoint, when you attempt to follow the logistics of how we are expected to move 500 shooters in various vehicles ranging from large RV's to standard sedans into the Club grounds in a period ' of a day. Acme Fill proposes to construct a major intersection right at the existing entrance of the Martinez Gun Club. They are asking us to cross four lanes of traffic all attempting to jockey for position to get their trash emptied first. It will look more like a swarm of bees trying to get into the transfer station. There has to be a better location than the one being proposed. 9 ISSUE NO. 3 - (Reference page 2-17) Noise The project would accommodate the processing and transfer of waste materials on a 24 hour/day basis. This would adversely impact our permanent tenants which reside on the Club grounds. F0 ISSUE NO.4 - (Reference page 2-18) Traffic & Circulation The proposed egress road for transfer station vehicles would bisect Arthur Road (a private road) at its junction with Waterbird Way. This routing would prevent access along Arthur Road to the Martinez Gun Club. The county should eliminate Acme Fill and IT Corporation from using Arthur Road because the residents of Vine Hill violently oppose trucks on Arthur Road. Acme has not maintained Arthur Road and the roadway is in serious need of repair. ISSUE NO. 5 (Reference page 2-19) 4 . 3 NOISE Construction impacts 91 could result in an increase in noise in the Vine Hill neighborhood. The EIR ignores noise impacts to the Martinez Gun Club when we are located even closer to the proposed project site. There is absolutely no mention of appropriate noise mitigation for the Martinez Gun Club. Noise attenuation effect of a noise barrier will be extremely limited unless it is constructed of sufficient mass density (thickness) and height to eliminate all noise from polluting the Martinez Gun Club. Noise attenuation can also be achieved by distance. We recommend the project be moved 500 yards to the North. ' The EIR does not discuss the projected sound levels in Decibels for the project and it has not taken any measurements of the existing environmental sound levels. Noise embraces those sounds which are audibly unpleasant either by virtue of their loudness, their pitch, or their quality. The EIR has not presented sufficient technical information on the noise levels 'during construction or during operation of the Station with 100 large trucks shifting gears and moving in and out of the immediate area. We would venture to guess that sound levels presently at the Martinez Gun Club are well below 50 db and could exceed 90 to 100 db if the Transfer Station is sited adjacent to the Club. 92 ISSUE NO. 6 - (Reference page 2-20) 4 .4 Soils, Geology & Seismicity Ground shaking for earthquakes could damage the transfer stations drainage features and/or cause slope failure. In reviewing the surrounding topography the Martinez Gun Club is directly South East of the project site and is the most likely direction of drainage from the transfer station. The EIR does not address where normal drainage is directed. It also does not indicate where excess run off will go during a major storm. 93 ISSUE NO.7 - (Reference page 2-22&23&31) 4. 10 Public Safety Obviously, a construction project of this magnitude will take upward to a year or more to complete. The EIR does not address in sufficient detail what the safety impacts are to the members of the Martinez Gun Club attempting to egress via Arthur Road during the construction period. The EIR briefly mentions impacts relating to public safety in fire, police or medical emergency and traffic accidents involving the public. These are issues that can not be , taken lightly. On Monday, afternoon August 3, 1987 a 25 year old man was fatally injured by one of the Disposal drivers. 94- ISSUE NO.8 - (Reference page 2-26) 4 . 3 Noise Noise of the transfer . station could be intrusive to surrounding residences. Mitigation measures again only address the Vine Hill concerns and not the concerns of the Martinez Gun Club. ISSUE N0.9 (Reference page 2-27) 4 . 5 Hydrology/Water Quality '95 Alteration of existing drainage patterns may cause peak storm discharges and on-site flooding. Under mitigation plans it states; A drainage system would: be installed to convey runoff from the transfer sites perimeters and prevent surface water from coming into contact with the refuse. How and where is this drainage system going to convey the runoff of the surface water? It suggests pumping it to the East! That is the Martinez Gun Club's property. 1ISSUE NO. 10 - (Reference page 2-28) 4 .7 Air Quality Vehicle 6iemissions from transfer station related traffic would increase carbon monoxide emissions. The EIR does not address the prevailing ,we wa dly_winds and the possibility of heavier concentrations of carbon monoxide being blown to the Martinez Gun Club. Other gases are generated through decomposition such as carbon dioxide and other noxious ,ndor,g that may have a negative impact to the Martinez Grin Club. These items need to be addressed in much greater detail to be appropriately evaluated. ISSUE NO. 11 - (Reference page 2-30) Visual Quality We are not 7- interested in seeing, smelling or hearing anything from this proposed transfer station. ISSUE NO. 12 - (Reference page 3-5) Traffic & Circulation The 8 proposed future alignment of Waterbird Way to the South. What happens to the Arthur Road entrance to the Martinez Gun Club? The Club has deeded rights to use this road. Is the County planning on condemning this road? In summary, the Martinez Gun Club is opposed to the proposed siting of the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission seek alternative sites that would eliminate the numerous negative impacts presented in 9 the EIR and this report. i 16tCO tFNKS ' / a 0000 \ � T 1p .. Lr � r n 2. Comments and Responses RESPONSE TO LETTER 4 86. The Acme Fill Corporation began landfill operations at its present site in the early 1950's. The Martinez Gun Club began operating on an adjacent property about 10 years later in 1961. The area is zoned Heavy Industrial (HI). 87. Comment noted. Alternatives to the project are discussed on p. 6-1, DEIR. 88. The proposed project would provide an engineered, lighted intersection area with a heavy-duty pavement that, among other functions, would convey Martinez Gun Club and IT Corporation traffic from Waterbird Way, across the transfer station access road system, to the Gun Club's and IT's own entrance drives. The intersection will be controlled by traffic signals. In contrast, the present intersection area isa cramped hub of driveways with confusing turning movements and pavements of uncertain construction. Gun Club traffic using Waterbird Way arrives at the intersection area on a modern industrial arterial road but Gun Club traffic using Arthur Road must traverse an unmaintained road past the northern side of the Vine Hill neighborhood. In the near term, the transfer station project would add only about 70 out-going trips (140 average daily traffic) to Waterbird Way at its present southern terminus, but eliminate most other waste disposal traffic from Waterbird Way there—transfer station traffic would exit Waterbird Way to the north at the entrance to the Acme site and proceed to the main intersection area via the new access road. The traffic analysis for the Environmental Impact Report .indicated that transfer station traffic would not back up at the transfer buildings in the short or intermediate term. In the long term, traffic would back up on the access road at peak periods, but it would not be expected to back up to the intersection—which, in any event, would keep crossing lanes open by traffic signals. The gatehouse, similarly, would control incoming traffic to preclude it from clogging the intersection. 86130 2-25 2. Comments and Responses The applicant recently met with representatives of the Martinez Gun Club regarding management of the intersection's traffic to allow the efficient movement of club traffic. 89. Two noise issues were raised by the Martinez Gun Club. One, noise impacts on Club operations, was raised at the August 11, 1987, public hearing on the Draft EIR. The second, noise impacts on the caretaker's residence, was raised in the Club's letter of August 17, 1987. With respect to the issue of impacts on the caretaker's residence, it is first noted that project operations between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. would be limited by the closing of the facility to self-hauler and non-collection service traffic. Even if there is a program to increase collector truck traffic after the peak period road traffic, most of the collection service trucks will have discharged their loads before 5:00 p.m. Currently only one-third of collection trucks arrived after 5:00 p.m. and collection trucks constitute about a quarter of overall traffic. Very few transfer trucks would leave after 5:00 p.m. and none after 10:00 p.m. Subsequent night operations would essentially consist of the arrival and departure of a few _collection, trucks, some loading operations, some employee traffic and some maintenance operations. Currently, the Acme landfill is open on a 24-hour basis, and until recently has accepted various kinds of traffic after 5:00 p.m. In the future this traffic would not go to a transfer station. , The locations of the waste discharge area have varied, but some, on both the 125-acre landfill and the 22-acre landfill, were near the Gun Club property. 1�. The EIR noise consultant has provided the following general analysis of noise affecting the caretaker's residence. A review of the noise impacts on the Martinez Gun Club takes into account surrounding zoning and land use. The community noise equivalent level (CNEL) would not apply to the Gun Club facilities. The CNEL measured at 4117 Irene Drive was 61 decibels (DEIR, p. 4-43). This location is approximately the same distance from current Acme operations as the Gun Club buildings and residence. The caretaker's residence on the Gun Club site would be approximately 300 feet from the nearest facility building and about 700 feet from the access road for transfer trucks. 86130 2-26 ' 2. Comments and Responses Approximately 70 transfer trucks per day would access the site. They would access the lower le-vel of the site. The change in grade elevation and the presence of facility buildings would block noise impacts at Gun Club buildings and the caretaker residence. The shooting area directly east of the project site boundary is approximately 8 feet to 10 feet lower than grades on the project site. Noise analysis " demonstrates that with solid barriers/buildings in place, transfer trucks would generate 65-70 decibels over a distance of 100 feet. At a distance of 700 feet noise levels would be greatly reduced. As noted on p. 4-45, DEIR engine-powered equipment in the Main Transfer Building _ would generate a maximum A-weighted noise level of 85 decibels at 50 feet. A steel frame building would reduce noise levels by 25 decibels. Tilt-up concrete construction would further attenuate noise. Outside the building noise levels are reduced by 6 decibels in the first 50 feet and then at a rate of 6 decibels for each doubling of distance. Thus a point 350 feet from the noise source (at 60 decibels) ` would record a noise level of about 42 decibels, provided a clear "line-of-sight" is maintained. The caretaker's residence is not expected to be subjected to noise levels exceeding residential standards. It should be noted, however, that the residence is on a Gun Club— which is a major generator of noise in the area—and is located in an industrial area zoned for industrial use. Residential noise criteria does not apply to it. The residence is located east of a steep berm approximately 10 feet to 14 feet high on the project site. Regardless, the applicant now proposes to construct a sound wall along the transfer i, station's boundary with the Gun Club. This would help reduce noise conflicts between the two operations, but would not be expected to greatly reduce noise at the caretaker's residence. The construction of the Administration Building would prevent some noise impacts reaching the existing residence. The proposed Conditions of Approval include this second sound wall and call for noise monitoring at the boundary. If the monitored noise levels exceed those expected, the 86130 2-27 2. Comments and Responses 'County could require additional sound-reducing measures. One might be to provide to h residence such adual-glazedindows. 1 soundproofing improvements the , s w The sound wall is expected to reduce noise conflicts between the Gun Club and the transfer station, although the conflicts are not expected to be significant without it. 90. Traffic bound for the Martinez Gun Club and the IT Corporation would be expected to use Waterbird Way and the new major intersection opposite Arthur Road. However, a new roadway connection at grade would be.provided at the junction of Waterbird Way and Arthur Road (DEIR, p. 4-40). It would be gated. If the Gun Club must be allowed legal access from Arthur Road, this would be provided at the gated connection. Acme has no obligation to maintain Arthur Road. 91. Comment noted. Refer to Response 89 for noise mitigations. The project applicant does not consider the relocation of the project to an existing landfill area a viable alternative because of settlement and excavation problems. The location of spot noise measurements are shown on Figure 31 (DEIR, p. 4-44). 92. A Surface Hydrology map of the project site is shown on Figure 33 (DEIR, p. 4-61). Surface hydrology is discussed on p. 4-61 and p. 5-11, DEIR. The location of Observation Points and Wells are shown on Figure 40 (DEIR, p. 5-12). Groundshaking from earthquakes could damage roads and facilities without appropriate mitigation measures.. These measures are noted on p. 4-52, DEIR. Potential seismic impacts are not considered environmentally significant. Building and roads would be built to County, State and federal seismic standards, as applicable (DEIR, p. 4-58). 93. Comment noted. During the construction of the facility the project applicant would ensure that appropriate traffic control measures are provided. These measures could include the provision of temporary lighting, signs and traffic control personnel. The project applicant would coordinate traffic schedules and construction activities to minimize potential conflicts. 86130 2-28 z. t;omments ana responses 94. Refer to Response 89 and 91. 95. Refer to p. 4-62, DEIR for a discussion of the drainage system for the project and 1 mitigation measures. Storm drainage would be transferred to Pacheco Creek via a conveyance facility along the IT Corporation site property boundary. The precise alignment of the conveyance and its relationship to Martinez Gun Club property would be finalized in the preparation of engineering drawings for the project. 96. Prevailing westerly winds are noted on p. 4-69, DEIR. Table 10, p. 4-77, DEIR shows worst-case curbside CO concentrations on project access roads, where concentrations would be heaviest. The distance to the Gun Club from the project site is much greater than the distance from a vehicle to the curbside. Concentrations would therefore be less. Odors and mitigation measures to control them are presented on p. 4-75, DEIR. Impacts are expected to be of limited duration and minor in nature. Mitigation measures would adequately control anticipated odor impacts. The County or J BAAQMD can require additional measures as required. 97. Comment noted. 98. The construction of Waterbird Way South is not a part of the proposed project. Environmental and planning issues related to this project would be part of a separate, �I future, environmental review process (DEIR, p. 4-31). The needs of the Martinez Gun * Club would be analyzed as part of that future study. The County has no plans to conduct the study or extend the road in the near future. 99. Negative impacts identified in the DEIR are not significant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level (Summary Tables DEIR, pp. 2-12 to 2-35). 86130 2-29 L ETT E R 5, URS AN INTERNATIONAL PROiEYY�ONAI iERV1CF&ORaANIfAF1Q URS CORPORATION U.S.OFFICEE IIMM"TIONAL SAN FQANCtSCO OOIOPAX%PFAN03 MANN A 150 FOURTH STREET SEAYT", ��H °u`Nc.AvoraE >�AN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 34103 TEL. (415) say-3300 NEEw ORKo TULSA EnoiiE to WAS-W43TON 0 C TV.SA EvTO W KONG ANCteOWE 9EANANdNO IEADOUAPMRS JUNEAJ NTA QAF9A{IA PORTLA 0 LM VEGAS SAN Maria) August 17, 1981 Mr. Charles A. Zahn Planning Coordinator Planning Department Contra Costa County Administration Building, North Wing Pine 6 Bscobar Streets Martinez, California 94553 Subject: Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Dear Kr. Zahn: We have been asked by Acme Fill Corporation to review and comment on Section 6.2 of the subject EIR, entitled "Project Alternatives, Modified Projects` which includes Figure 41, showing a proposed alternative layout -wherein the proposed project buildings are moved as far away from the Vine Rill residen- tial neighborhood as possible. Our purpose was to identify the items in the alternative layout that Would affect both the operation and the cost of the project as compared with the layout proposed by the project proponent. We find that the proposed modified building locations would not be satiefac- 0o tory. In Figure 41, the main transfer building is positioned in an axial alignment approximately 600 ft from the homes along Irene Drive. This layout has the following shortcomings: : • The transfer building would intrude into the Gun Club property. • The turning radii of several of the main roads would be tighter than allowable. • The proposed layout would require high retaining walls, greater than 40 ft. e The slope of the access road down to the lower level of the transfer building would be more than 15%. URS . AN 10061NATIoNAL MOOEfb1604AL AEAVICE6 ONAANIZATIOJ Nr. Charles A. Zahn August 17, 1987 Page 2 We realised in our review that the layout shown in Figure 41 is only pic- torial, not engineered, and that there is sous serit in an axial alignment of the transfer building. We therefore looked at a new location for the transfer building that would position it in an axial alignment, parallel to the homes on Irene Drive, and as far as possible from them without intruding into the Cun Club property. In this analysis, we retained the following governing parameters from the layout proposed by the project proponent. • The combined floor areas of the main, public disposal, and van loading buildings were approximately 80,000 ft2. (The building configuration remained the sane.) e The vertical distance between the main transfer station floor and the roadbed of the transfer van loading building remained at 38 ft. i • The square footage reserved for more comprehensive resource recovery (200 ft wide by 400 ft long) remained the same. Rowever, we rotated the area 90' on its azis to enable the transfer building to be as far as possi- ble from the homes along on Irene Drive. e The access and parking spaces around the public dis- posal building remained the same. The project propo- nent's layout required an area of approximately 2 acres with a minimum clearance of 80 ft between building and area boundary. e The maximum height of any retaining wall would be limited to 30 f t. �' a The maximum roadway slopes would not exceed 5-1/2x for empty vane, 3-1/2% for loaded vans, and 8% for all other vehicles. • The minimum turning radius would be 50 ft for transfer vans, 28 ft for the general public, and 40 ft for garbage trucks. In our analysis we found that reorienting the transfer buildings on an axial alignment with the access road would make the maximum distance between the homes along Irene Drive and the transfer buildings approximately 480 ft. With the diagonal alignment of the layout proposed by the project proponent, the closest distance would only be 420 ft. What limited the placement of the alternatt layout more than anything also was the requirement for the approxi- mate 350-ft length of roadway down to the van loading level of the station. URS AN tNTERNAtIONAL PROF9&S1ONAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION Kr. Charles A. Zahn _ August 17, 1987 - Page 3 We also found that moving the transfer building 60 ft further sway from the homes along Irene Drive would also increase the cost of the project because of an increase in fill and an increase in height of retaining Malls. This increase in construction cost could be as much as $500,010 or more. Sincerely yours, Joseph A. saldelli Project Engineer br cc: Tom Reilly (Acme Fill Corporation) 2. Comments and Responses RESPONSE: LETTER 5 100. Comments noted. Figure 41 indicates a conceptual alternative layout for the proposed project as noted in the DEIR, p. 6-4. Engineering aspects regarding turning radii, road grades, intrusion into adjacent property would need to be reconciled before approval of the project alternative. The project applicant would not proceed with the alternative layouts for the facility because of increased costs. 86130 2-30 LETTER 6 .. iU August 19 , 1987 Charles A. Zahn County of Contra Costa P.O. Box 951 Martinez , CA 94553 Re : Acme Fill Waste Recovery & Transfer Station SCH #86090906 tThis letter shall reference land , titled the "Henry ' s Tree Service Farm" as mentioned on Page 4-5, Paragraph 3 of the proposed Acme Transfer Station EIR. The total land area is + 7.09 acres, with adjacent neighbors being Acme Fill Corporation , IT Corporation and Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. Please see Pages 3-2 and 4-3 of Land Ownership Map and Land Use Map for location . John McHugh is currently in the process of putting ,together an application for a land use permit to establish an auto dismantling , storage and auto part facility . (The traffic generated by this type of use is not as intensive as such auto retail outlets such as "Grand Auto" , etc. ) The most direct impact that the Acme Transfer Station would 101 have on this site , would be the implementation of the proposed or alternative routing of the extension of Waterbird Way South. (See Page 4-16) . Even though the property stands to lose land to the proposed "alternative route" for the roadway , this extension seems to be most logical due to an increase buffering between the. traffic and -the Vine Hill residences. John McHugh has agreed to cooperate with the county Abandon Vehicle Abatement Program (Ordinance #86-58) in providing removal of such designated vehicles, from Martinez as far east as Discovery Bay. John feels this site could provide him with a location "isolated" from the general public and with enough land for current and projected needs. One last consideration , the Acme Transfer Station will not be allowed to accept "auto bodies" . (See Page 2-10, Paragraph #1 ) . I Mr. Chares A. Zahn August 18 , 1987 Page Two If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact John McHugh at (415) 676-1311 or Stephanie McNair at (415) 935-1666. Sincerely , Atephanie McNair 2. Comments and Responses RESPONSE: LETTER 6 101. Comment noted. The construction of Waterbird Way south is not a part of the proposed project. The development of this future County road would be the subject of a separate planning and environmental review process. The County currently has no plans (capital improvements schedule) to extend the road. i86130 2-31 2. Comments and Responses 2.2 STATE AND PUBLIC AGENCIES Letters 7 through 13. 86130 2-32 -31AIC yr A-ALJrvKfNIA -- —" GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION .,� THIRTY VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 2011 c...� y. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102.6080 PHONE: (415) 557-3686 July 14 1987 Mr. Charles A. Zahn Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street Fourth Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94533-0095 ' Dear MT—. -Sia-4o We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the - proposed Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Project (State 102 Clearinghouse No. 86090906 ) and have determined that the proposed project is outside the Commission's jurisdiction and does not appear to affect adversely any area of the Commission's jurisdiction. As you are aware, the adjacent 240-acre parcel, referred to as Keeneland and Associates parcel, is designated by the Commission in its San Francisco Bay Plan (Plan Map 17) as a water-related industry priority use area. We believe that the traffic and circulation improvements proposed as part of the transfer station project will improve the potential of the Keeneland property for future water-related industrial use. Yours ve rul , JEFFRY S. BLANCHFIELD Chief Planner cc: State Clearinghouse 2. Comments and Responses RESPONSE: LETTER 7 102. Comments noted. 86130 2-33 LETTER 8 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY "=��^'� `- HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION A TO: Charles Zahn DATE: July 30 , 1987 Planning Coordinator FROt1: William B. Treadwel]/.' SUBJECT: DEIR Acme Fill Waste Sr. 3nvironmental h Insp. Recovery and Transfer / Station Project Here are the comments of the County Health Services Department (Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) ) regarding the subject. j. pgs. 2-5 and 2-6 . 103 There is a discrepancy between completion dates for the permanent transfer station; February 1990 and February 1989 . See, also , page 3-60, third paragraph, last line. 1987 pg. 2-29 , Proposed 2 . 104 Watering twice a day may not be adequate at all times of a year. In summer or whenever wind is blowing toward the residences , it may be necessary to sprinkle much more frequently. This will be included as a condition in the Solid Waste Facilities Permit (SWFP) . pg. 2-32 , Impacts 3. 105 Uncontrolled amounts (<100 kg/mo/producer) of infectious wastes would be in collection vehicles, drop boxes, and self-haul vehicles and would enter the transfer station, generally mixed with municipal . solid waste. pgs. 3-16 and 3-17 ; 3-39 - Figure 13; 4-46 , third paragraph; 4-50. 106 Considering the amount of wastes deposited and accumulated between 5 p.m. and 7 a.m. every day, it is obvious that it will be necessary to continue loading transfer vehicles and moving them out well after 5 p.m. each day and start loading the transfer vehicles well before 7 a.m. each day. This will be necessary to prevent odors , bacteria and vectors (see Section 4 . 10 Public Safety) and to allow time for daily cleaning (see pg. 4-107 , last paragraph) . 107 Reversing the flow of transfer vehicles through the station would provide a reduction in any noise impact on the Vine Hill residents . Charles Zahn -2- July 30 , 1987 pg. 3-60 , third paragraph , last line. See pages 2-5 and 2-6 . pg. 3-60 , third paragraph, penultimate sentence. 108 The Authority to Construct was obtained from the BAAQMD on October 8, 1986 . That district' s Permit to Operate will not be issued until a few days before the scheduled opening. See Appendix A. Also, see pg. 3-62 near the top of the page. pg. 4-49 . Further Mitigation Measures 109 Obviously, the better location for the noise barrier would be at the western Acme property line (at the back yard fences of the Vine Hill residential area) to minimize the noise impact. Wrapping the barrier around the northeast corner would, also, be better for the people. Both of these will be required in t.le SWFP , which will include a requirement that the noise barrier be installed as early as possible in the construction phase. 110 pg . 4-78. Construction Impacts. A temporary wind vane should be installed prior to construction and maintained throughout the construction phase to indicate when intrusion into landfilled waste areas should not be done and to indicate when sprinkling should be done more frequently to mini- mize the- odor and dust impacts on the adjacent neighbors . This will be a condition of the SWFP. fpg. 4-91, First paragraph. 111 The two openings in the southwest wall of the main transfer building should have doors which could be closed at night as an additional barrier to sound and odor. _.pg. 4-101. Second line . ,112 Noise is Section 4 . 3 . 9pg. 4-101. Following measure. Second paragraph. 13 The last sentence needs to be rewritten. 1114 pg. 4-107 . Further Mitigation Measures. The BAAQMD' s Permit to Operate has not been issued. See comments Pg. 3-60 . 15 Daily washing and cleaning at the end of each day will be required. After cleaning is completed each day, overnight use of the storage Pit and the loading of transfer vehicles would commence . See comments pgs . 3-16 an 3-17 , etc. wn,. 11 cc: California waste V.anagementBoard 2. Comments and Responses RESPONSE: LETTER 8 103. The scheduled completion date for the facility is February 1990. r 104. As noted, a watering program to control dust during construction would_ be specified in the Solid Waste Facilities Permit (SWFP). 105.The deposition of small amounts of household hazardous wastes could occur at the facility by self-haule,.5. An inspection program, as noted in the DEIR, would be established by the project applicant under the proposed Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval. . 106. The facility would operate on a 24 hour day schedule. The loading and movement of transfer trucks could take place before 7:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. It would not be open to the public or charge customers, who together make up the majority of vehicular traffic at the site, at these times. 107. The project applicant would consider reversing the flow of transfer trucks through the station at all times, or after 7:00 p.m. to eliminate potential noise on Vine Hill residents. 108. Comment noted. An Authority to Construct Permit was obtained from BAAQMD in October 8, 1986 (Appendix A, DEIR). 109. Comment noted. The project applicant would place the sound barrier/screen wall at the western property line. The wall would be installed at the start of the project. 110. Comment noted. Wind vane provisions can be made part of the Solid Waste Facilities Permit. 111. The project applicant would provide doors to the larger vehicular openings in the transfer buildings. 86130 2-34 2. Comments and Responses 112. Comment noted. 113. The last sentence of the second full paragraph should read. Landscaping would include the provision of mature tree species and plants to ensure that the landscape plan for the facility is implemented shortly after completion of facility buildings. 114. Comment noted. Refer to Response 108. 115. Comment noted. Refer to Response 27. 86130 2-35 1 LETTER 9 Contra Board of supervisors SOLID WASTE COMMISSION l Tom P(Ex-Officio Governing Boa 0S—ta Tem Ptrici tat Disv�ct Nancy C. Fohden County Administration Building, North Wing County 2nd District P.O. Box 951 Robert I. Schroder Martinez,California 94553-0095 3rd t Sonnea WM�right McPeok 4th District Tom Torlo4son 5th District R-21A August 10 , 1987 Linda Best, Chair County Planning Commission 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Chair Best and Members of the Planning Commission: The Solid Waste Commission has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report for the ACME Fill Transfer Station at their August 5 , 1987 meeting. The Commission also heard a presentation from representatives of the ACME Fill Corporation at that meeting. The Commission has the following comments on the draft EIR. 1. In their presentation, the ACME Fill Corporation stated they are planning to locate the drop off recycling center in the vicinity 116 of the pay booths for the transfer station rather than adjacent to the transfer station itself. Although the Commission agrees with this modification to the project, the Environmental Impacts of moving the location of the recycling center may need to be addressed. 2 . Additional information should be provided concerning the need for 117 restrictions on construction activity during weekends. The Commission notes that the vine Hill residential area is very close to. the site and could be impacted during the construction. Particularly during the evening, weekends and holidays. 3 . In order to aid visual quality, the requirement of landscaping 11$ near the sound barrier with trees should be considered. Also, a landscape maintenance agreement should be required to insure that the vegetation will not die and will serve the intended purpose through the life of the project. 4. The EIR should mention (possibly on page 4-100) that the County has recently started and enhanced an enforcement program to 119 require that loads arriving at landfills and future transfer stations to be covered. The County Sheriff ' s department and other law enforcement agencies will be issuring citations to those loads arriving at landfills and transfer stations uncovered. This should help reduce litter problems on access roads and on the transfer station property. 5 . There are several references in the EIR to various drafts of the County Solid Waste Management Plan. The 1987 Revision of the 120 County Plan has been approved by the Board of Supervisors and is currently awaiting approval by the cities. The Community Development Department staff will be forwarding comments to. ensure that the EIR references excerpts from the approved version of the Plan. If you have any questions please contact Dave Okita of the Community Development Department staff at 372-2071 . Very truly yours, Avon Wilson, Chair Solid Waste Commission DBO:vpl L20: lbest. ltr t t 2. Comments and Responses , RESPONSE: LETTER 9 116. Refer to Response 9. 117. Refer to Response 12. 118. A final landscape planting and irrigation plan would be submitted to the County for approval when facility planning is completed. The project applicant would include a landscape maintenance program with the submittal. 119. Comment noted. 120. Comment noted. 86130 2-36 , ., LETTER 10 ' STATE OF CALIFORNIA,-BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION �/ !OX 7310 V (JI '_'�v 7%A SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94120 j (41 S) 923.4444 August 13 , 1987 CC 04-PMR10 .35 SCH #86090906 CC 04132 ' Mr. Charles A. Zahn Planning Coordinator Community Development Dept. County Administration Bldg . 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: ACME fill waste recovery and transfer station project Dear Mr . Zahn: Caltrans has the following comments: 1 . The section on "Impacts on Pavement Integrity" (pages 4-35/36) and "Pavement Integrity" (pages 4-41/42) need to be more specific with respect to the effects of the dynamic impacts on the ramps of the I-680/Marina Vista (Waterfront Rd .) inter- change , as well as on those of the CC-4/Pacheco Blvd . inter- change when the future extension of Waterbird Way South is used by the project truck traffic . While the structural sections of the I-680 and the CC-4 mainlines can be presumed to be adequate for the cumulative truck loadings ( - their design was based on projected regional truck traffic over the 20-year design period -) , that presumption may not be applicable to the ramps on which substantial increases of truck traffic may have been unforeseeable and/or unforeseen at the time of their design. 2. The method of calculating the Traffic Index (referred to on 122 page 4-42) is outlined under Topic 603 of the Highway Design Manual (1/87) . 3. The future southerly access to the project via the Waterbird Way South Extension is shown on Figure. 25 and discussed on page 123 4-15. It would appear that this access should also be shown on Figure 29, 'or on an additional figure showing it as part of an added scenario. 4 . We have not found any reference in the Traffic and Circulation section of the subject report that covers the trip distribution 124 and assignment (trip tables , 0 & D tables) of the project traffic . (Figure 26 shows distribution by time of day, rather than origin and/or path) . This is an essential traffic detail that needs to be addressed so that the impacts on each of the several affected ramps (both before and after the South extension) can be calculated . Mr . Charles. A. Zahn ' Page 2 August 13 , 1987 5. The truck volumes per Table 51 assigned to thein respective anticipated paths , may be used to calculate the ramp Traffic 125 Indexes . However , since the ESAL constants are based on a presumed directional split of loaded and empty trucks , the actual impact of loaded-only truck traffic on the off-ramps would be greater than that indicated by the constants. Also, since these trucks are bound to be decelerating on the off- ramps , a minimum TI of 12 .0 (in accordance with Topic 603 .3 (3) _(c) of the HDM) may be warranted . If you have any questions , regarding these comments , please contact Bill Commins of my staff at (415) 557-9431 . Sincerely yours , BURCH C. BACHTOLD District Director By: ED BOYLE District CEQA Coordinator - i 1 1 1 2. Comments and Responses RESPONSE: LETTER 10 121.The project applicant would agree to provide interim improvements to road sections of Waterfront Road to accommodate transfer truck traffic as directed by the County. ' The project applicant would also provide an operations study to provide interim improvements to the Waterfront Road/I-680 interchange ramps. Specific structural improvements defined in the operations study would be identified and the recommendations coordinated with Caltrans planning in the area. Preparation of the operations study would be made ;art of the Conditions of Approval for the project. The Pacheco Boulevard/Highway 4 interchange is not expected to be impacted by the Waterbird Way Extension. Transfer, trucks are expected to continue to use Waterfront Road after Waterbird Way is extended. 122. Comment noted. 123. Refer to Response 101., Possible future traffic on Waterbird Way south is noted on p. 4-29, DEIR. The Waterbird Way South Extension is not a part of the transfer station project. 124. The trip distribution and assignment for this proposed project is described in the report. All transfer truck trips will use Waterbird Way, Waterfront Road, and I-680, as shown on Figure 26. Once onto I-680, the particular travel routes to be used will depend on the future location(s) of a landfill(s). The trip distribution and assignment for other vehicle trips to the landfill are expected to be similar to current patterns. As indicated in the EIR, the additional heavy truck traffic generated by the transfer station would be about 70 trips per day outbound when the site first opens, and about 100 trips per day by the year 2010. When they are fully loaded, all of these trucks will use the southbound on-ramps from Waterfront Road to I-680 southbound. These trucks will all use the northbound off-ramp when they return to the station. However, for this trip they will not be loaded. The transfer station, therefore, would have a the greatest impact on this southbound ramp. 86130 2-37 2. Comments and Responses ' Both of these ramps are subject to flooding. They have been constructed with an unusual hump in order to cross the pipelines in the interchange area. The pavement on these ramps will need to be resurfaced and reconstructed in the future. A TI of 12.0 would very likely be required on both these ramps. Caltrans highway design procedures for pavement structure would have to be followed. 125. Comment noted. Refer to Response 124. 86130 2-38 r STATE OF CALIFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR LETTER 11 GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gerernar OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH RECEIVED ' 1400 TENTH STREET • sG' . -t SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 AUG 2 0 1987 ^ August 17, 1987 PIP Charles .A. Zahn Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 ' Subject: Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station SCH# 86090906 Dear Mr. Zahn: 126 The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and the comments of the individual agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. Also, on the enclosed Notice of Completion, the Clearinghouse has checked which agencies have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the package is not in order , please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Your eight-digit State Clearinghouse number should be used so that we may reply promptly. Please note that recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive comments on a project which are within the area of the agency's expertise or which relate to activities which that agency must carry out or approve. (AB 2583 , Ch. 1514, Stats. 1984.) These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. If you need more information or clarification , we suggest you contact the commenting agency at your earliest convenience. Please contact ;Norma Wood at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, David C. Nunenkamp Chief Office of Permit Assistance cc: Resources Agency Enclosures ' t mll A:stew ateiiApow.. low Twu et.In M.!or•to.d WA14--8111/e0-43677 ...a lona a omslAma m swunwomhL ommom 1311PE rel-ram sm. 86090906 1 I 1. pn).et 7itle, ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION e'. T1n t= Comm.Dev.Deet. :. c-.n fr... Charles A.Zahn 3L, 651 Pine St.,4th FI-N. Wine 7b.cin Martinez 3..m.,T: Contra Costa 7c. :iv 94553 s.. p.- 415/372-2026 I sort?11I1r10➢ A. C-Ty Contra Costa Y.ciA.�cmwm1t7: Unincorporated 380-030-05- N/A 4.st N/A S..Cm-sate.: Waterfront Rd/Waterbird Wav Martinez 1680/Hwy.4 e.=_Buchanan Field wn S.P/A.T&S.F. spy, a tut (eek s. ncv.7 A01r: .. " Asr- c.-4i1 a.s' ac eco C reek { orqu)nez trait f .. Ot�7T TTR S. 1mN.smal T4f s: Os1t0141r T79i amA 01. awarl flu Ope.0 at.-ftmum l.l: Oeiu AOS al. ^I4T as._Iq[ m._Ilw Dam" 07._or11m: !p. rt. M.`4th a7s OT. X14oc 07. LAwmW ft"Am den Aetw rper.w 07. I4f 0- a. ISD W.-Into?Ft" CS._81-wOmweew: sq•h. at.-x-xa,.n r1s as.-A tam Aerw mlere- suppl-V Os. as.--l.ftrtrial: 2%. h. as, Tabor'st Qa (Pn--23 N..: OT._Om.ait7 plat Aa'w 114 V 72 82061001 ) a._hodmio•wt aa._s.*+r►teal+": m !RA al. fort as.�?fmFart&um Trp.*771rrw . Onrt m.�ml 11•_sls 10. tote A.mll.1m 07.�7Cuo{: Ui..nl --VaTSEetnaia.. st 10. 1I 17• G 4p.Ttoet 1r0."ete.) m. tart:rfP tette wd��}� mm 11. Xx 0w P Pmt am._svt•lwtm.t: Trp. 17.-�Jotat O� 37. XX free sett plot 10.Baa l.Lt.a • � .•. 14.-ft.1 0anw,t 17._at.ml A$fnwra 11.Lxomtr Solid Waste Transfer Station LT. Omer U. 00mr 10.TOTAL lam: 22 11.IV=Jm MCA= 32 U. OEM=rsm=01.2103=D P 18.-3"ue wrens 77. X her 21.11" OL. X A.nbn=/rlaal Co. X nmtta{/OeaiwR is. x f.wr-P.-." It. L7pp17 @.-Asr cwusfl 1.w Of. x amumutsmem. 1.. X Soasal IS.�_�rtlatl/Itlp•r-.a - 0]. X<u OmlitT 10.�er./fanief 4Lea. 1st�sp11 Osw 711.�ft1e111. Ott X Aerb.elapol/fintenaal 11.�sLL1eA1. L. X s.lte flute 7:. x OT*M lAauetes • m.�oa.n1 for 17•x frA,. 4, x taoeArmrmo If-�l.am7surL 1..�.. m. X re®c 13. x Pillc Sorrier al. x Tn"c/CSrmLt1m a. X Oetl.tlw Lf-wu oT.^Mtn Oen U. lelmlo ZZ.�ftstytlm 70. Omer :7. "mm(worm)F. 'f O sot.s 0 Tera;s 22.9 million lt. VIOWT gyre 0Ss AM 300M. Lend Use:Landfill Borrow Pit. General Plan:Heavy Industrial and Sanitary Landfill. Zoning:H-1(Heavy Industry). 3s. 14161wr 13010tryr1at. The Acme Fill Corporation proposes to install a waste recovery and transfer station on o 22-acre site on its 535-acre Acme Landfill. It would include an Interim Transfer Station and a gatehouse entrance facility located outside the 22-acre site but on the landfill property. The proposed project is scaled to process o peak weekday tonnage of 3,600 tons and to serve Central and Eastern Contra 1 Costa County. The facility would be accessed from 1-680 and Waterfront Road. 111 CLEARINGHOUSE CONTACT: W C N/C W/C N/C I k/D 0-,1�2 RESOURCES REGL WQCB� (e ) rte' •CALTRANS # STATE REV IE'd BEGAN: 7/2 7Room iho/<Z7 SON DEPT. REVIEW TO AGENCY� ` FISH 3 GAME follow ` AGENCY REVIEW TO SCHr7hy/Q7 DEPT WATER RESOURCES DEV SCH COt1PLIANCE: �) I,7 J�� SBD ' HEALTH SERVICES I 'PARKS 6 REL / OHP INIMM FM ' SAY CONS/DEV COMM mwpuwS 1M �S MM Es MM ) ' AIR RESOURCES BO CONS SOLID WASTE BO BD GCY '1) NCY (Revise: 1/87': M 2. Comments and Responses RESPONSE: LETTER 11 226. Comment noted. 86130 2-39 State of Galitornia The Resources Agency LETTER 11A A ernor and u rn 1 . Projects Coordinator Date August 12 , 1987 Resources Agency 2 . Charles A. Zahn Contra Costa Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez , CA 94553 Prorh Department of Fish and po Game Lect: Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station, Contra Costa County, SCH 66090906 Ourro 'ectJ ersonnel have reviewed the Draft EIR for the subject P J project , which involves placement of a waste recovery and transfer station on a 22-acre site near I-680 and Waterfront Road. 127 The Surface Hydrology map on page 4-61 indicates that a seasonal pond exists on the site . The document states that a few amphibian and reptilian species may exist in the small pools in the bottom of the borrow pit ( the "seasonal pond" ) and to a limited extent, waterfowl may use the pools as a resting site during migration. Although the document states that "none of these small wetland habitats are considered large enough nor pristine enough to warrant preservation" , it is the position of this Department that ' no project should result in a net loss of either wetland acreage or value . An evaporation pond located away from the refuse area has been proposed as one alternative to contain and dispose of collected rainwater drainage. Allowing wetland vegetation (e.g. , cattails ) to grow around the edge of such a pond would serve to replace habitat value lost to project construction. Therefore, if the Final EIR includes a commitment by the project sponsor to encourage the establishment of wetland vegetation in and adjacent to the evaporation pond and the County development permit is so conditioned, our concerns would be satisfied. Department personnel are available to discuss our concerns in more detail and to assist the project sponsor with the design of the suggested mitigation action. To arrange a meeting, please contact Terry Palmisano, Wildlife Biologist, at ( 415) 484-2586; or Theodore Wooster , Environmental Services Supervisor, at (707 ) 944-2011 . =,G��' -� • Pete Bontadelli Acting Director 1 �vG 4`'tyO�c,E � ctE� 2. Comments and Responses ' RESPONSE: LETTER 11A ' 127:The Acme Landfill Expansion EIR/EIS, June 1983, indicates that the area of the project site, borrow pit, is a disturbed area that does not contain a seasonally ponded wetland (Exhibit 111-9, Vegetation and Habitats, fronting page 87). In the same ' report a seasonal pond, as distinct from a seasonally ponded wetland, is shown on Exhibit 111-7, Surface Hydrology, fronting page 71. The seasonal small pool at the bottom of the borrow pit has been created as a result of excavation on the site. The , proposed project would not disturb a pristine wetland area and not result in the loss of wetland acreage. t The project applicant might develop an sedimentation pond suggested as an ' alternative mitigation measure or develop of a collecting pond to serve a water storage tank (for dust control application) in the final design of the project. Wetland vegetation as a habitat resource would be considered if either pond was created. 86130 2-40 State of California The Resources Agency LETTER 11 B e m o r a n d u m tjU! 3 G 1987 e A-38 : 'Gordon F. Snow, Ph.D. Assistant Secretary for Resources The Resources Agency 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 Sacramento, CA 95814 From : Department of Water Resources Subject: SCH 86090906, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Acme Fill Waste Recovery and ransfer Station We have reviewed the subject Draft Environmental Impact Report which was transmitted by the State Clearinghouse on July 2, 1987, and have the following comments and recommendations. 128 The proposed facility will have a wash pad for steam cleaning equipment. A trap would capture grease from the wash water, and the effluent water would then be discharged into the municipal sewer. This portion of the plan makes -no provision for testing the effluent to determine its suitability to ' discharge into the municipal sewer system. In addition to testing the effluent for oxygen demand, the waste water should be tested for toxic organic substances that might dictate a need for pretreatment prior to discharge to the sewer. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Contra Costa County Sanitary District would review the data and make a determination whether pretreatment would be required. ' For further information you may wish to contact Rick Woodard of my staff at (916) 323-8896. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. James U. McDaniel \ ' Chief, Central District �\ cc: San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 1111 Jackson Street Oakland, CA 94607 p,U '51 GyO\;St �2 . CLEptt yc1 \ 2. Comments and Responses RESPONSE: LETTER 11B ' 128. The project applicant would test the effluent discharged into the municipal sewer to determine suitability of the discharged water. The testing would also analyze toxic organic substances that may indicate pretreatment requirements. Discharged water would be pretreated as required by the receiving wastewater treatment district and the state. Plans for the testing program also would be submitted to the appropriate district for approval. 1 86130 2-41 TE OF cAUFORNIA LETTER 11 C GEORGE oeUKMFJIAN, fN N FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONTY VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 2011 FRANCISCO, CA 94102.6080 PHONE: (41 S) 557.3686 July 14, 1987 Mr. Charles A. Zahn Community nevelopment Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street Fourth Floor, North Wing Martinez,. California 94533-0095 Dear Mr. Zahn We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 29 proposed Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Project (State Clearinghouse No. 86090906 ) and have determined that the proposed project is outside the Commission's jurisdiction and does not appear to affect adversely any area. of the Commission' s jurisdiction. As you are aware, the adjacent 240-acre parcel, referred to as Keeneland and Associates parcel, is designated by the Commission in its San Francisco Bay Plan (Plan Map 17) as a water-related industry priority use area. We believe that the traffic and circulation improvements proposed as part of the transfer station project will improve the potential of the Keeneland property for future water-related industrial use. ' Yours very truly, JEFFRY S. BLANCHFIELD ' Chief Planner cc: State Clearinghouse S 'i 6198 w r G�'bt'�cF �• CV N 2. Comments and Responses RESPONSE: LETTER 11C 129.This letter repeats Letter 7. Refer to. Response 102. 86130 2-42 LETTER 12 Central Contra.-Costa Sanitary District 50 if 9 Imhoff Place, Aawdncz, CaUforida 94553 (415)"9-3890 ..` . .ti , '•.-1 1 1 .. .' ROGER J.DOL4N General Manager Chef Engineer / August 20, 1987 Counsellor or t Hq"D '4151 938-1430 JOYCE E,.Mc MlLLtN Secretory of the District Mr. Charles Zahn Community Development Department -_ Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street -2 ` ' 4th Floor# North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Zahn: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Acme Fill Waste Recover and Y PP Y Y Transfer Station Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) . Our comments are organized in the same order as the DEIR. SUMMARY The beginning dates of operation of both the interim and permanent '130 transfer stations need to be clarified. Benicia should be required to build a mini-transfer station in order to continue to use the Acme '131 Transfer Station in consideration of reducing traffic impacts to the Martinez-Benicia bridge. The summary refers to a preliminary draft closure plan which only addresses the north parcel . Price-Waterhouse reviewed a preliminary 132 draft closure plan this year which encompassed all of the landfill sites on the Acme property. The final EIR should address the most up-to-date closure plan. Section 3.2 Project Characteristics The mitigation measures discussed in this section include several assumptions which may affect the environmental impact analysis. The first assumption is that the north parcel will remain open for another ten years, which has has yet to be determined. The North Parcel has 133 recently been closed to hazardous waste. Another assumption is that the wood chipping operation would coincide with a co-composting facility for wood chips and sewage sludge, although there is no indication that Acme Fill would be responsible for this type of operation or would even allow It on the transfer station premises. The transfer station design is not conducive to on-site separation and checking of wastes, even though these activities are indicated in the County Solid Waste Management Plan; especially in regard to hazardous wastes. The statements made in this 1 Mr. Charles Zahn Page 2 August 20, 1987 section which refer to what "could" be done, do not clearly address mitigation required relative to transfer station itself. In addition, , the project schedule listed on page 3-14 does not account for the time needed for franchisors to renegotiate agreements with franchise haulers. 134 Instead of training operations personnel to separate and handle hazardous wastes, the applicant should contract with the County Health Department to have their trained starf inspect loads. This would assure the community that impartial professionals would be charged with this responsibility. The facility design appears to be conservative by almost 50 percent. The 1 35 average daily tonnage projected for the year 2010 is 2,000 tons, but the facility is designed to accommodate 2,720 tons in an eight hour period, even though it will be operational 24 hours per day. There is no , reduction in projected waste quantities for the "unacceptable wastes" which will total approximately 310 tons by per day 2010 (see attached table) . The table shows how the diverted wastes, made up of the "unacceptable wastes" and recycled waste stream, will actually cause the ' amount of garbage handled at the transfer station to decrease until 2008, when recycling is assumed to reach its maximum rate. The area designated for self haulers appears to be oversized also, if the proposed requirements for mandatory garbage collection and increasing load covering restrictions are imposed. Finally, if the County meets its goals of 60 percent waste reduction through recycling and ' waste-to-energy, the transfer station will only need to accommodate approximately 550 tons per day, average, of waste by 2010. The ultimate design size has been seriously overstated# using the numbers provided in this report. 136 The section on Solid Waste Collection implies that the Recycling Center/Waste Recovery Area would be a dropoff/buyback center. The description in the Project Characteristics section made no mention of buyback, and it needs to be clearly understood whether the general public will be able to use the transfer station as a recycling center without charge. The impact of including full dropoff/buyback facilities should be examined as const tuting a different type of use. Also, if the recycling facilities are considered to mitigate the impacts of the transfer station, the recycling element of this project needs to be more ' clearly stated. Section 3.5 Obtaining LAFCO approval for a sanitary district boundary change should appear in Section 3.5, Legal and Institutional Considerations. 137 Franchiser approval of commitment of the waste stream should also be ' discussed in this section, as should subsequent impact on franchise haulers. 2 Mr. Charles Zahn Page 3 August 20, 1987 Section 4.2 138 The borrow pit is not the most economical location for the transfer station. The portion of the site needed to be below gradeis far smaller than the rest of the site which needs to be filled with import material which will increase the cost of the facility. Section 4.5 ' i in This section does not clearly delineate which facilities will drain into 139 storm drains and which will drain to sanitary sewers. Oil and fuel spills should not be allowed to drain into the sanitary sewers. The District responded to a request for information on, discharge requirements earlier this year (copy of letter attached) . The Sanitary 1 District must review and approve any construction plans involving work on the public sewer system. Please give your construction plans to the Permit Department for processing. Section 4.7 140 Odors generated by transfer stations can be noticeable. Since transfer station wastes are not covered with soil , as in landfills, the odors are allowed to migrate freely to areas outside the confines of the transfer station unless adequate odor control measures are built into the facility. The cumulative impact of an additional odor producing source in the area needs to be addressed. These concerns also apply to dust, especially since the transfer station might receive asbestos in the form of construction wastes. ' Section 4.12.1 This section should provide additional information on the financial 141 impact on franchisors, franchise haulers, and rate payers for eventually funding a transfer station and long-term commitment of the community's waste stream. Although impacts ranging from $1.50 to $3.00 per month increases per household may not appear significant to the preparers of the DEIR, the franchisors have been requested to increa_,: rates a like amount this year. The cumulative financial impact will be to increase ' rates 50 percent to 60 percent. This does not include cost to transport and dispose garbage at a new remote landfill . ' The DEIR stated that franchisors need to dedicate the waste stream to the transfer station for Acme Fill to secure financing. This will require franchisors to modify their agreements with the collectors. In return, the franchisors may expect to exert some control over the transfer station's costs and/or operations. It should also be noted that, although the cities in Central Contra Costa County will be contributing to the transfer station operation through garbage collection rates, no tax dollars will be returned to them. 3 Mr. Charles Zahn Page 4 August 20, 1987 While the DEIR included alternatives that satisfy CEQA, the alternatives included were considered in a cursory manner. I suggest the following project alternatives that may actually mitigate many of the projects impacts be considered: 1 42 1. Construct the facility such that expansion is possible in the future should it be necessary. This 'would mean sizing the . facility to accommodate approximately 450,000 tons per year (allowing for 15 percent recycling and alternative disposal of "unacceptable was"ss") . This facility size would be adequate beyond 1995. If it appears that the transfer station needs to , be expanded at that time, the original design should accommodate it. The reason for taking a staged approach, is to minimize outlay of capital when the location and operating parameters of the future landfill are still unknown and the impacts of recycling programs are uncertain. 2. Instead of (or in addition to) planning for future 143 waste-to-energy facilities at the site; construct the transfer station to facilitate area-wide curbside recycling. The facilities at the Marin Recycling Center which are in conjunction with the Marin Transfer Station, could be used as a model of total waste management. The collection companies, being part owners of Acme Fill , could also find this a way to maximize their investments. The full-scale benefits of a 1 comprehensive recycling facility would go far to mitigate the impacts of the transfer station. 3. Evaluate the impact of Waste Management, Inca s potential 144 purchase of Valley Disposal . This could result in waste stream from Valley' s area being directed to the Altamont Landfill . In this case, a transfer station in the southern half of Central County would be necessary, and the proposed Acme Transfer Station would be further reduced in size. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to share these comments and concerns. If you have any questions, please call Lynne Bunker at 689-3890. Sincerely, 10 James M. Kelly Planning Division Manager LIB:ae cc: P. Morsen ' R. Baker 4 ' ACME TRANSFER STATION Fi;TuRE LOAGiNES TOTAL JNACCEPTr.c.. .,JE?TEG TOTAL TC WASTESTREAM REC.Y:_iNS 6CALS WASTEi WASTES TRANS.STA. YEAR tons X tons tr s tors tons ' 1965 515,300 73,4;',' 19B6 524,100 74,6`(' 1981 533,000 75,9x` 1968 542,000 ? 16,260 7712'x' 1989 551,200 6 33,072 78,5:x' 111.592, 439,608 ,990 560,600 9 50,454 79,650 13+?,304 430,290 199? 570,10068,412 61,�1t 149,6:2 420,476 1992 579,800 i5 66,970 82,590 169,560 410,240 1993 59?,700' 19 106,146 84,00;' 190,146 399,55E 1994 599,7110 21 125,937 85,420. 211,357 388,343 1995 60?,900 24 146,376 B6,BB ' 233,256 376,644 3996 :20,300 27167,491 68,35; 255,631 364,469 1997 630,800 30 389,240 69,86( _1;,100 351,700 1996 641,500 33 211,695 91,3Eu :':3,075 338,425 ' 199? 65 ,400 36 .34,664 ?-1; .7,=04 324,596 2000 500 39 2.`8,755 94,`•2( :5 ,265 310,215 200I 674,000 42 283,416 96,- 7_19,533 195,254 ' 2002 68{,3111 45 306,635 07,7-. ' 535 279 7r-5 2003 69E,000 48 335,040 99,42) -'4,460 263,540 2004 709,v S1 :.61,9;e 101,ii( ��3,105 246,692 2005 721,900 54 369,826 102,E_0 432,656 229,244 2006 734,200 57 416,494 104,520 52:,074 211,126 2007 746,500 60 447,960 ]06,3`0 554,310 192,290 21006 759,700 66 455,180 108,16(, 563,741) 19,560 ' 2v0; 77c,c('' 60 467,;2! i10,.P2 :/7,:1:1 19.^,,68:1 2010 705,4 '� 611 c)1, 40 1,1,6`0 5=',110 2112,290 NOTES. . TCTAL WASTEST;=A!'I FROK 4C".E TRANSFER STA.IOti =': P,3-16 FECYCLIN6 KALS FROM CO=W"? REV IS"0; JUNE 1987 F.10 111HEP741LE 14STEFpC +! 4 xET N'ZFER STATIM D,7;: .',,7-',4 GiVER1ED WASTE; AR': Ti-A RE,^Y LE[i AN:1P..: E ±ir;TES t 2. Comments.and Responses ' RESPONSE: LETTER 12 ' 130.The interim transfer station could begin operation as early as March 31, 1989, near to the expiration date of the RWQCB permit on June 15, 1989 at the termination of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit for the Acme landfill. The interim station would be in operation to about mid-1990, near the scheduled start-up date for the ' permanent transfer station. However, to allow for variations and possible delays in the construction schedule of the permanent transfer station, the project applicant would rec•lest that the operational life of the interim station be specified and would commit to the termination of the interim station on the date noted. The longevity of the facility is addressed in the County Land & Use Permit draft Conditions of ' Approval. 131.The construction of a Benicia mini-transfer station would not be part of the proposed project. If a station was built in Benicia, traffic accessing the Acme site would be ' only slightly reduced. The DEIR examines a worst case analysis in assuming maximum anticipated traffic volumes. 132. The most recent closure plan for the Acme landfill effecting the proposed project in the revised final Closures/Post-Closure Plan, North Parcel, Acme Landfill, Harding Lawson Associates, August 21, 1987. 133.The North Parcel closure plan notes that Acme will close the North Parcel in 10 years from the time the closure plan is approved (Harding Lawson Associates, page 33). A co-composting operation is not proposed at the facility. Sewage sludge would not be accepted at the transfer station. The tipping floor areas of the Main Transfer Building and Public Disposal Building have been designed to accommodate the separation and categorization of wastes. Section 3, Project Description, provides an overview of the proposed project. Specific mitigation measures for identified environmental impacts are noted in Section 4, Environmental issues. The develop- ment of the project would require a commitment between franchisers and franchise ' haulers stipulating that about 80% of the Acme wastestream would continue to go to the Acme transfer station. The project applicant expects to initiate negotiations ' soon. ' 86130 2-43 2. Comments and Responses 134. The project applicant would provide an on-site training program for facility staff. The County would review and approve training procedures and practices. The facility would be subject to on-site inspection by the County Health Services Department. The identification and handling of hazardous wastes would be under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which issues permits for hazardous waste ' disposal and removal. The County Health Services Department is charged with carrying out federal law with regard to hazardous waste. The provision of County inspection personnel would not remove legal obligations imposed on Acme Fill ' Corporation to comply with all local, state and federal policies and procedures relating to hazardous waste. 135. The facility would be designed to accommodate peak tonnage volumes. As noted on , page 3-21, DEIR the peak daily tonnage at the Acme landfill was 2,300 tons in 1985. This is expected to increase to 3,600 tons in 2010. Peak hourly tonnage in 1985 was 360 tons. In 2010 this figures is estimated to increase to 540 tons. Figures in the attached table assume the attainment of a 60% goal for recycled materials. The conceptual design of the facility took into account large tonnages based on existing data and on the assumption that worst case conditions would obtain. The environmental analysis conducted on this basis identified environmental impacts and related mitigations. The final design of the facility may dictate a smaller capacity for the transfer of wastes. A smaller facility would not generate greater impacts than a larger facility. Refer to Responses 35 and 36 for a discussion of factors that could influence downsizing. 136.The phased development of Acme's applicant has proposed that the recycling goals and a comparison with the County's goals are shown in Response 36. The applicant has proposed that the recycling center at the transfer station would convert to a buyback operation in the second phase of this program (1993-1997). This may require additional environmental review. ' 86130 2-44 ' 2. Comments and Responses 137. Comment noted. Franchiser approval of commitment of the wastestream would be required in order for the project to proceed. Negotiations between the franchiser and franchise haulers would be initiated in the next few months. The subsequent impacts would relate to fiscal arrangements between the contracting entities and the County. These impacts would be influenced by the size and configuration of collection areas and County solid waste management policies. The function of the EIR is to discuss potential environmental impacts associated with the project and to disclose to the rpublic pertinent information on fiscal aspects of the project as available. 138. The layout of the site lends itself to the development of a three-level facility. The proposed project would not occupy this entire lower portion of the site. Space in the tlower level would be occupied by a Vehicle Maintenance Building, and transfer truck and employee parking. Space would also be available for future waste recovery facilities. The existing borrow pit is owned by the project applicant and does not contain landfill materials. The expense of building on part of the existing landfill would be greater than building in a borrow pit area in terms of excavation costs. Environmental impacts would also be potentially greater. Provisions in the Closure Plan for the Acme landfill could preclude the construction of a major facility building on parts of the landfill. 139. Comment noted. Final plans for the facility would be submitted to the County for approval. Compliance with sanitary district regulations would be a part of the Conditions of Approval. 140. Other impacts are discussed on page 4-75, DEIR. Mitigation measures are discussed on pages 4-78 and 4-79. Large construction loads, including loads or bags of asbestos debris, would not be accepted at the transfer station. 141. Financial information contained in the DEIR were drawn from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Solid Waste Management Project Report, Vol. II, February 1985. This document presented a comprehensive review of solid waste management 86130 2-45 1 2. Comments and Responses practices and expenditures in the County. The study is important in delineating the r comparable costs of direct haul and transfer station expenditures. The comparison is a useful guide in determining orders of magnitude between two scenarios of solid waste management programs. Cost estimates used in the analysis were estimated by comparing direct haul-transfer ' station trade-offs with the development costs for transfer station facilities as one of the factors examined. Transportation costs, tipping fees and collection charges made by franchise haulers. Future agreements between franchisers and haulers may influence economic assumptions. After reviewing a number of development scenarios with different rates of waste generation and landfill locations the cost of transfer station development was cheaper than direct haul. While the proportionate range of difference may change depending on specific conditions, the cost effectiveness of transfer stations is greater in almost all conditions examined (Tables TM-5 through TM-9, pages 16-19, Central Sanitary District, 1985). 142.The project applicant would consider downsizing the facility in the final design of the project. The project would still occupy the same site areas, and ancillary facilities would still be required to facilitate the full-service needs of the transfer station and recycling goals. The project applicant would be prepared to develop this major capital investment facilities associated with the project at an early stage to capitalize on the economics of comprehensive development. 143.The project applicant would consider alternatives to the development of a future waste-to-energy facility, with extensive recycling potential, should economic and programmatic conditions warrant in tbi future. This future alternative use for the waste-to-energy plant site is discussed on page 3-44, DEIR. 144. CEQA requires the evaluation of reasonable feasible alternatives to the proposed project. The potential purchase of Valley Disposal by Waste Management, Inc. is not considered a viable alternative to providing a transfer station for a much larger service area. The environmental analysis conducted for a project that may be downsized, takes into account environmental impacts greater than those associated with a smaller facility. 86130 2-46 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Mhoff Place, MdMhez, CaHfondd 94553 (415)689-3890;i ROGER/.DOLAN General Manager Chief Engineer July 24, 1987 Cou�sc fo:hee OfuriRct WS)938-1430 JOYCE E.MCMILLAN Secretety of the District Mr. George Drake URS Corporation 500 NE Multnomah Portland, OR 97732 Dear Mr. Drake: ' ACME LANDFILL WASHDOWN FACILITY 1 45 As discussed in our telephone conversation, the construction of a truck/container washdown facility at the Acme landfill site in Martinez, �. California, may be subject to special discharge requirements in order to protect the integrity of the District's . sewer system and biological processes at the District's treatment plant. Attached for your information is a copy of CCCSD Source Control (Pretreatment) Ordinance No. 147 which outlines general and specific requirements for discharge to the public sewer system. The attached addendum to this ordinance presents additional constituents and limitations being considered. Also you should be aware that some or all of the heavy metal limits are being considered for revision. Also attached is a copy of CCCSD Ordinance No. 163. This ordinance presents a breakdown of the 1987-88 Sewer Service Charge rates adopted by the District Board of Directors in June of this year. Sewer service charges for the proposed washdown facility will either be based on the standard rate of $1.02 per hundred cubic foot of water discharged, or the industrial formula if District staff determines this calculation to be applicable based on the quality of the wastewater discharge. In addition, a copy of a District letter to GSF Energy, Inc. is attached which presents calculations for connection fees. These calculations are similar to those which would be used. to determine the connection fees for the proposed Acne washdown facility. The rates shown on the attachment are for example only, the District plans to revise the current schedule of rates and charges in the near future. District regulations will also require the installation of a grease and sand trap to serve the proposed washdown facility. Grease and sand trap sizing and type will be specified during the District's permit process and upon review of the proposed plans. Mr. George Drake Page 2 ' July 24, 1987 if you have any questions, regarding the attached, please contact Kurt Darner or me 689-3890. Sincerely, Barton G. Brandenburg Associate Engineer KD;ae - i �� 1 ' 2. Comments and Responses RESPONSE TO LETTER 12A 145. Comments noted. The proposed facility would be built to comply with all applicable regulations of the County's waste management policies and codes. Final plans of project development and infrastructure engineering would be submitted to the County for approval. All collection fees and costs will be subject to County review and agreement. 86130 2-47 •STATE OF CALIFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gomrax OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET RECEIVED ' SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 ' LETTER 13 AUG 2 b 1987 August 25, 1987 RIP Charles A. Zahn Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station SCH# 86090906 Deme Mr. Zahn: The enclosed comments on your draft environmental documents were received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period. We are forwarding these cauments to you because they provide information or raise issues which may assist you in project review. 146 To ensure the adequacy of the final document you may wish to incorporate these additional comments into the preparation of your final environmental document. Please contact Norma Wood at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the review process. When you .contact the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, David C. Nunenlamp Chief QPfice of Permit Assistance Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 2. Comments and Responses RESPONSE TO LETTER 13 146. Comment noted. The information will be incorporated into the response document. $6130 2-48 LETTER 13 A State of California ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AGENCY Memorandum To: Norma Wood Date: AUG 2 11987 State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95833 Charles Zahn Community Development .Department Contra Costa County _ Martinez , CA 9 - 09 From: ` Alan Deputy �141F�Officer CALIFO S E MANAGEMENT BOARD Subject: ACME Trans er Station Project, Draft EIR We have received and reviewed the above document. 'Our Board will be a responsible agency for this project and will need to approve the Determination of Conformance and concur with the Solid Waste Facilities Permit for the project transfer station. We have the following comments by topic on the proposed project. Development Timing and Need for Interim Transfer Station Pm 9 147 The EIR should specify the rationale for the interim transfer station given the two additional years (through June, 1989) of capacity provided at the ACME Landfill. The project description should indicate the phasing timetable for these two portions ( interim and permanent facility) of the project. While the concept of a time requirement for permanent facility construction and non-overlapping operation is discussed, we suggest that specific dates be proposed either in the project description or as a mitigation measure to clarify the term of the interim proposal. The EIR should also specify what would result if the permanent transfer station is not funded or completed. While specific transfer station design has not yet been submitted 148 .to . our Board, it is important to note that the California Waste _ Management Board has no provision for lesser standards for interim facilities. Any interim facility would need to be designed to fully comply with the State Minimum Standards for Handling and Disposal of Waste (Chapter 3, Title 14 , CAC) . Means 1 i to comply with these standards should be addressed more thoroughly since we are not aware of any other transfer station without a roof or walls that handles the volumes of waste proposed. We recommend that the interim transfer station be required, as a mitigation measure for EIR certification, to be designed to meet State Minimum Standards. Development on Landfilled Areas 149 In the case of the permanent transfer station, both the boundaries of the fill areas and the portions of the development which are on this fill should be defined. Please refer to our previous comment on the Notice of Preparation which requests that landfill boundaries and distances of structures from fill boundaries be specified. While pages 4-52 and 4-56 indicate that most of the permanent transfer station is on an unfilled borrow pit, the amount of development on former fill and the impacts of this fill on development should be defined. 150 Regarding the interim transfer station, the EIR discusses potential settlement impacts of construction of this facility on fill and the need for a foundation which will not differentially settle while allowing for overall settlement is specified. Means to engineer such mitigation are not described. Designs for foundations and roads over the fill should be submitted for review prior to project permitting. Consideration of the waste volumes and transfer vehicle loads should be included in the design and settlement analysis. Effect of Facilities on Landfill Closure; Excavation of Wastes 151 ,The EIR should indicate how the project activities and structures swill affect the activities and timing of the closure of ACME landfill. Also, there is reference on page 4-78 to mitigation measures to control odors from intrusion and potential excavation of waste. The EIR should specify how much contact with waste or excavation of waste is anticipated. The effect of this excavation and facilities construction on the landfill closure should also be discussed. The age and type of waste to be excavated should be described. Discussion of sampling procedures to avoid uncovering hazardous materials and handling practices, if hazardous materials are uncovered, should be included in the section on excavation and construction on waste areas. 152' Section 17734 of our Board's regulations (Chapter 3, Title 14 CAC) requires that improvements on completed landfill sites be. submitted to the enforcement agency for review and comment concerning possible construction problems, hazards to health and safety, and factors which might affect the improvements. The EIR should specify methods to insure that the project will comply . . with this requirement. Methane Gas Control 153 Specific design for .control , ventilation and monitoring of methane gas in the proposed structures should be submitted for the review of Board staff and the review and approval by the Local Enforcement Agency (County Environmental Health Department) . Project Alternatives 154 The alternatives to the interim transfer station, other than on- site locations not currently committed to the permanent facility, should be assessed. These should include offsite facility locations and the potential for direct haul of waste to a facility during this interim period. Alternative permanent transfer station site layout appears to 155 provide additional surrounding land use compatibility for the proposed transfer station. A finding of surrounding land use compatibility will need to be made by the Local Enforcement Agency prior to permitting the transfer station. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If there are any questions regarding these comments, please contact Eric Maher of the Board's Local Planning Division at (916) 322-2674 . 2. Comments and Responses ' RESPONSE TO LETTER 13A 147.The interim station would begin operation in early or mid-1989. The permanent transfer station is scheduled to being operation in February 1990. The interim station would cease operation when the permanent station is complete. To allow for the ' possibility of construction delays the project applicant would prefer to retain the option to have the interim station available for operation until June 1990. The project applicant would agree to cease operations on the interim site on this date, unless exceptional circumstances warrant an exte^Sion of time. The project applicant would be required to apply to the County for any extension of time for interim station operations beyond mid-1990. Application to the County would specify the reasons for the request and state precise time limits. It is thea applicant's intention to complete work on the permanent transfer station b PP P P a Y February 1990 or earlier. Provision of the interim station is a part of the contingency plan for the site to accommodate the wastestream generated in the Acme collection area. Consideration of the No Project Alternative is noted on page 6-1, DEIR. The discussion includes a review of Out-of-County landfill options for the County. The beneficial impacts of the transfer station in helping solve the pressing need of the County to resolve solid waste management conditions would not occur if the project were not built. Other, more proximate solutions, would need to be identified to assist in managing the wastestream when Acme landfill closes in June 1989. 148. Comment noted. The State Minimum Standards for Handling and Disposal of Waste do not include provisions for roofed structures for an interim facility. 149.The attached drawing illustrates the boundaries of fill areas relative to project development. 86130 2-49 2. Comments and Responses 150. Comment noted. Final engineering drawings of all roads, foundations, and buildings would be submitted to the County for approval. Engineering designs would take waste volumes and transfer truck loads into account. Structural engineering calculations, as required, would also be submitted to the County. 151.The Closure Plan for the Acme landfill, to comply with EPA requirements, states that Acme will close the North Parcel 10 years from the time the Closure Plan is approved. During the 10-year partial closure period, interim cover design and performance standards would be implemented. Over the 10-year interim period, Acme would receive designated waste but not regulated hazardous wastes. Structures and activities on the landfill would be regulated by the County. 'n The degree of contact with waste or excavated waste would depend on the final design of facility structures. The major part of the project as proposed would occupy vacant ground. The facility structures for the scale house and pay booth would be built on imported fill. The Administration Building may be built over a set of permanent jacks to offset differential settlement. The.weighing scale chamber would be ventilated to prevent gas build up. Parts of the permanent station, i.e.; the Administration Building area, may be built over old landfill dating from the early-1950's. The fill in this area is only 5-10 feet thick. Similar conditions would exist at the location of the scale house and pay booth area. The majority of the 125-acre North Parcel was landfilled from the 1950's to the present. A characteristic of older landfill areas is that the ground is stabilized, although cell-type construction for landfills was not used when Acme first opened. The area of proposed development received domestic wastes from 1950 to 1972. Hazardous materials were deposited on other areas of the site. The Closure Plan for the North Parcel contains specifications for performance standards, surface drainage, leachate treatment, gas collection, and trenching design and operation. If odor problems are encountered through excavation that cannot be minimized by mitigations stated in the DEIR, the project applicant would use a foaming agent to cover waste materials and eliminate impacts. 86130 2-50 2. Comments and Responses 152. Comment noted. The project applicant would conform with all county, sate and federal (EPA) regulations for development on landfill areas. The conditions of approval for the project would require that development comply with the Solid Waste Management Boards requirements. 153. Commend noted. The project applicant would be permitted to develop the project without County approvals. 15 Refer to Response 32. 4. p 155. Comment noted. 1 1 1 I86130 2-51 jw m an Mae am so IF 71 _ _ ,� _ WATERFRONT ROA \ - Iw"Italf OF WAY I♦ �,,.. too 01 .•��, ` \��` ��>d '�{/(/ ACME LA Of ILL Nnntil rsicL t \ \C.HANKM(fit FILL• { \��,•\ NONfi{WiST COiiNEH G-•---.mow..'+... �'� \\ \�.\��".. N! \ .t -.�...� ACME Fi4l COgFONAiION^c._„��'..\\„ \\� � 0 ANW'(NiY%J)X)H)ANY...». _ .:'\\. L •'� \ '\ s�ldJ NYS+ ..�'^.`. ;!\ =:+:.i..=•, , J•~`:R _._........ .n t I 1 t ov try .^.l z m�/ "� �•� t 4' fr\` ` ` `\1\ ,.'_., mwom N // fit }+ .<7 IId aqr f +; ► ... + f. zzz 1 1- m y y , �� t . .qI x., , i r, I ,�. �:1 .�,• � . NO ,\.� \ (' t 1 } do i 0 CA ZCD a 0.4 t 1•f '""� a �� N } u ys \ Z 0 m 0 )>z rm- Ca rn =' 'i f O r-• CDcn m Z rn Z' `° py v. �� ' °o - 0 CD Cat1'0� oo...-. {,_t ` )r. `.:-'-' +� r Sze @ #x g �\ Zip CL CD EL r Q j o NUR R K.,+ N ro CD + (0 !. CD • tl r dx to '� > Z p �O 41 x. o mom " ls. 0 )> Z m P / 00 :0 _1 11 ' s! • I I {1 "" 0 �� VV G Z N m,N � rn v CDN Tr �► -f.. *CA Aoa N-4"O C r m gizc v = O nZ c N M N rn WZa m �g 86130 1 1 1 1 1 r i i � 86130 3. Exhibits 3.1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AT PUBLIC HEARING The substance of remarks regarding environmental issues made by the following people are contained in written comments sent to the County: James Pezzaglia, Tom Reilly, Acme Fill Corporation, Letter 1. Kathleen Nimr, County Planning Commission, Letter 2. William Graham, Martinez Gun Club, Letter 3 Jon R. Garcia, Martinez Gun Club, Letter 4. _ Refer to the relevant letter for a response to the concerns raised. Additional comments made by members of the public are noted and assigned a comment number (left margin) of the transcript. The transcript has been placed in the Appendix because of its length. Original comments made by: Tom Reilly, Acme Fill Corporation Tom Stewart, Land Waste Management James Cox, Attorney, Martinez Gun Club ' Jon Garcia, Martinez Gun Club Dorothy Sakazaki, Vine Hill Neighborhood County Planning Commission: Commissioner Davis Commissioner Nimr Commissioner Feliz Commissioner Best are included in text of this transcript. Response. to comments are provided below. ' 86130 3-1 3. Exhibits Response to Public Hearing Comments TOM REILLY, Acme Fill Corporation 156.(Page 14) Comments noted. Acme's recycling goals for Phase III (1997-2010) would depend on the development of a future waste recovery facility building on the project site. Development of this facility, not part of the proposed project, would be subject to separate environmental review. 157. (Page 18) Comment noted. The extension of the sound barrier wall 60 feet south of the borrow pit area would help reduce noise impacts on the Vine Hill area. The EIR states that the height of the sound wall should be at least 5 feet above the height of a transfer truck. The wall would be approximately 15 feet high in some places. This is not a maximum height for the wall (page 4-49, DEIR). 158.(Page 19) The creation of a representative committee of Vine Hill residents would help ensure that the wishes of the neighborhood are acknowledged in the final design . of the project. 159. (Page 20) The project sponsor would construct a sound barrier wall on the eastern property line of the project site. The wall would be approximately 10 feet high. The length, position and final height of the wall would be specified in final design drawings for the facility. Final design of the wall would be based on the results of an acoustical study that would determine existing site conditions on major work days and recommend appropriate mitigations. 160. (Page 22) Refer to Response 36 for Acme's phased recycling plan. TOM STEWART 161. (Page 23) Comments noted. The proposed transfer station would provide operational flexibility and the development of a comprehensive waste management system for the County. 86130 3-2 , 3. Exhibits JAMES COX 162. (Page 26) The County acknowledges the historic and prestigious role the Martinez Gun Club has played in the development of Contra Costa County. JOHN GARCIA 163. (Page 29) The project sponsor would coordinate traffic safety and operation issues with the Martinez Gun Club when preparing the final design of the entrance intersection. 164. (Page 29) The DEIR does not mention the loss of a right-of-way easement on Arthur Road for the Martinez Gun Club. The recommendation in the report to provide a connection at grade level between Arthur Road and Waterbird Way could accommodate easement rights if necessary. The extension of Waterbird Way South, a future County project subject to a separate environmental review, may potentially affect access along Arthur Road. Easement rights would be considered in the preparation of environmental review documents for the future project prior to its implementation. 165. (Page 30) Refer to Response 163. 166. (Page 30) Refer to Response 159. 1 167. (Page 31) Refer to Response 96. DOROTHY SAKAZAKI 168. (Page 33) The project sponsor would consider the use of tilt-up concrete in the final design of the building. 169. (Page 33) Refer to page 4-49, DEIR which recommends that the "line of sight" between homes on the western boundary line of the project site and transfer trucks be intersepted by at least five feet. 86130 3-3 3. Exhibits COMMISSIONER DAVIS 170. (Page 34) Commissioner Davis is correct. Property value is also reappraised under Proposition 13 at the time of improvement to the property in addition to the time of ownership transfer. This clause was inadvertently omitted from the EIR. It should be considered to be added to the discussion on page 4-119. 171. (page 35) Downsizing the facility could reduce capital costs associated with development. The DEIR adopts a conservative approach to cost estimates to ensure worst case impacts are examined. Table 14 presents the estimate of total capital costs to construct the Acme Transfer Station that was prepared by Brown, Vence & Associates and URS as cited in Table 14. Total project costs are estimated at $22,890,000. Another table in Section 4.12, Socioeconomics states a total or a subtotal of the capital costs to be $17,600,000. Table 14 does list a subtotal of $17,860,000 which excludes the financing costs. ' The figure of $13 million is not an estimate of total capital or project costs. As stated in the second sentence of the first paragraph of page 4-121, $13 million is a conservative estimate of the value of improvement represented by the proposed project. Typically, estimates of direct construction costs are used as proxies for improvement value, e.g., future assessed market value, of the proposed project. The subtotal of the construction costs for the proposed project (not to be confused with total capital costs of the project) is listed in Table 14 as $14,700,000. Since the analysis estimates the net increase in property taxes which would be forthcoming from a proposed project, the present assessed value of the site is subtracted from the $14.7 million in construction costs. The present assessed value of the site is about $1,455,100 which is arrived at by the work on the site in 1986- 1987 as shown in Table 13. The estimate of the net improvement value then would be $13,244,900. This figure was rounded to $13 million in the analysis. The actual costs of the proposed protect would not be known until the final bills are received on the proposed project. A more concrete estimate of actual costs would be 86130 3-4 3. Exhibits available once bids were taken and the contractors were selected. At this early point in the proposed project, the best estimates of future actual costs are those contained in Table 14 as prepared by Brown, Vence & Associates and the URS Corporations cited in that table. 172. (Page 35) Tax rates for County agencies are noted on Table 13, page 4-120, DEIR. Dollar values along with percentage distribution are also noted in the table. Propositi-n 13 limits the property tax rate to 1 percent of assessed property value.- --- This is stated in the first sentence of Section 4.12.2, Property Tax Revenue, page 4- 119. A number of tax rate areas exist within a County, but the basic tax rate in each is limited to 1 percent of assessed property value by Proposition 13. The total rate may be slightly higher than 1 percent in some tax rate areas due to extra school bond issues that have been approved by local citizens. However, the distribution of the basic 1 percent property tax revenue can vary from tax rate area to tax rate area. These distributions are presented in the analysis to identify current property tax revenues received by specific agencies -- the County, tschools, etc. -- as well as for the purpose of assessing the magnitude of increased revenues to those agencies due to a proposed project. The percentages listed for each agency are percentages of the 1 percent property tax rate. To transfer them into specific agency property tax rates, simply multiply them by 1 percent. If this is done for the 34.49 percent share of the 1 percent property tax revenue collected within TRA 76041 as listed in Table 13, the agency specific property tax rate within that TRA for the General County Fund would be .3449 percent of assessed property value, e.g., assessed property value multiplied by .003449. COMMISSIONER NIMR (Page 36) Refer to Letter 2. i 86130 3-5 3. Exhibits COMMISSIONER FELIZ 173. Pae 38 Discussion of the Modified Project Alternative involves realignment of (Page ) J � building on the project site (Figure 41, DEIR). The realignment of the site building would allow for a larger buffer zone between the project and existing homes in the Vine Hill neighborhood. The buffer zone would be landscaped and blend with other areas of open space, either existing or planned for, in the vicinity of the site. By relocating buildings away from the Vine Hill neighborhood, potential noise and visual impacts would be reduced. A larger landscaped area would act as a backdrop to on-site activities and facility buildings. Structures could be designed to blend with landscaped elements through the selection of compatible colors and textures. Moving the project facilities to the east would potentially create greater impacts on the Martinez Gun Club than the proposed project. A critique of the alternative is provided by URS Corporation, Letter 5 in this report. 86130 3-6 i APPENDICES TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: STAFF PROPOSED r r r � 1 TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING J r 1 CONTRA COSTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECEMD 1 RECEIVED 2 AUG311987 SSP 0 81987 3 PIP 4 ) co Py 5 IN RE: ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY ) AND TRANSFER STATION. ) Item No. 3 6 ' 7 ) 8 9 REPORTER' S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 10 AUGUST 11 , 1987 11 8 : 00 P.M. - 9 : 15 P .M. ' 12 13 CONTRA COSTA PLANNING COMMISSION 14 County Administration Building 15 651 Pine Street , Room 107 16 Martinez , California , 94553 17 18 19 20 Board Members Present : 21 Juanita Whitneyinda y Best , Chairman Kathleen C. Nimr Louise Aiello ' 22 Emil Accornero Leslie Davis George Feliz 23 24 25 REPORTED BY : MANDIE J . BEAUCHAMP 26 Certified Shorthand Reporter CSR #6946 ' 27 28 --000-- a J _ Certified Shorthand Reporters ZBnaUIa6II8 - 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord.CA 945204W8 2 1 AUGUST 11 , 1987 PROCEEDINGS 8 : 00 P.M. 2 --000-- 3 CHAIRMAN BEST: We ' ll go to Item No. 3 , which is 4 the Draft Environmental Impact Report on Acme Fill Waste 5 Recovery and Transfer Station . 6 Staff will be giving us an additional report and , 7 then we ' ll be taking testimony from the public with , 8 respect to the Environmental Impact Report . 9 MR. DRAKE: This item will be presented by Chuck ' 10 A. Zahn. 11 MR. ZAHN: Madam Chair , members of the ' 12 Commission , in the sense you ' ve had the transfer station 13 before you for about a year now in connection with the ' 14 landfills , for those projects , there has been discussed 15 the effects of a transfer station on drastically reducing 16 traffic in the vicinity of a landfill , the ability to ' 17 better manage the working phase of the landfill , because 18 of fewer loads arriving; the ability to manage traffic 19 better on the road system by timing the departure and 20 arrival of the transfer vehicles . 21 As we had indicated through these hearings , the 22 Acme Fill Corporation was proposing the transfer station 23 and this project is now before you . More precisely, the , 24 Environmental Impact Report is now before you . 25 I 'moin to take just a few minutes to explain the 9 g J P 26 project to you , because of the background to the ' 27 discussion of the impacts and litigation measures , and it 28 may also serve to clear up some questions . .�r,,, RdoneHa Certified Shorthand Reporters , t<��OO 1 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 3 1 There ' s one other reason for a transfer station 2 that I didn ' t mention which is important , which is that 3 if , in the next several years , we must export refuse for a 4 period of time to Alameda County, it will be expected that ' 5 a requirement to use their landfill would be that the 6 refuse from this county be sent in transfer vehicles ; so 7 for a number of reasons , this project is a timely project . 8 -Strips of location on this aerialhotogra P P 9 P? , this . 9 is Highway 4 on the southern end, Highway 680 , Waterfront ' 10 Road, Walnut Creek , Pacheco` Slough. This is the Tosco 11 refinery, this is land C, Shell Refinery ' s in this ' 12 location ; the Vine Hill neighborhood, the old portion of 13 the Acme landfill , the current 97 acres being filled, the 14 IT Corporation, Vine Hill Plant ; Martinez Gun Club, the 15 storage tanks of the Contra Costa Water District ; the 16 so-called 20-acre parcel , or the old south or the south ' 17 parcel that was permitted in 1971 ; second burrow area down 18 here , the Santa Fe Railroad . 19 The proposed site is located here, and it . is a 20 former burrow pit . By looking at these other areas of 21 landfill and development, there ' s a relatively narrow ' 22 corridor on high land in this location, and besides the 23 aspect of using burrow pit , the utilization of that higher 24 land is a factor in the location of the proposed transfer 25 station.. 26 On the second drawing, this is Waterfront Road, and 27 this is the existing Waterbird Way , which is the present 28 access to Acme landfill , at this location across from the Certified Shorthand Reporters — Z8ILdUIa6�I8 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC_ P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (415)685-6222 4 , 1 IT Vine Hill Plant . If the proposed transfer station were 2 to be built , Waterbird Way would be used by transfer ' 3 vehicles, by vehicles accessing the Gun Club, and by 4 vehicles going to IT Corporation; would not be used for ' 5 general landfill traffic . 6 A part of the mitigation measure that we have 7 recommended in the Environmental Impact Report is that ' 8 this project provide for the later extension of Waterbird 9 Way , past the project , on its west side . The project 10 proposes that the entrance , which is actually in being now 11 but not presently being used, would provide the main means ' 12 of access into the transfer station, along this road, and 13 approximately this location . 14 The project also calls for an interim transfer 15 station . This is an open-air -- open-path facility that 16 is proposed to be used temporarily if there is a need to 17 export refuse by transfer vehicle before a permanent 18 station would be in operation . 19 A reason that that is a part of the present project ' 20 is that when Acme attempted to create such a facility 21 during the period in 1984 when the landfill was closed, , 22 there was objection to that facility, objection to the 23 legality of that facility because it was not covered by a ' 24 land use permit and other permits affecting refuse 25 disposal facilities ; so the Applicant has included that 26 temporary open-air station in this proposal . ' 27 In the future , then, traffic would come off of , 28 Waterbird Way , and this is just a segment of road , along _ IadU�6II8Certified Shorthand Reporters , -1 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 5 1 this rebuilt section, past the gatehouse and scales . 1� 2 Those of you who have been to the transfer station in San 3 Francisco saw the computerized arrangement that is in use 4 there , where flexure vehicles are frequent users of the ' 5 transfer station, have the tare or dead weight of the 6 trucks already in the computer and they simply drive past 7 and the current load is registered. 8 ' At any rate, the gatehouse would be located- -- - - 9 ocated- - -- -----9 approximately this location, with its scales , then the 10 facility would be developed, as I said', on this former 11 burrow pit . 12 This photo rendering shows the Vine Hill 13 neighborhood on the west ; a proposed maintenance building, 14 which would be part of, the project ; an administration, 15 which would be part of the project ; and the main -- the 16 transfer station facility proper at this location. ' 17 It would include a public. disposal area, covered 18 area , at the southern end of the building , approximately ' 19 200-feet long and about 120-feet wide , which would ' 20 accommodate 24 vehicles at a time . This would be used by 1 ' 21 self-haulers and charge customers at the facility that did 22 not have mechanical unloaded trucks , trucks that would 23 have to be unloaded manually, rather . 24 The main building would be approximately 200 feet ' 25 by 200 feet . It would , at any given time, accommodate 16 26 vehicles on both sides . And the loading and unloading 1 27 area on the east would be used by drop-box trucks and by 28 mechanically unloaded charge customers , demolition trucks , -- Zala�oia6IIaCertified Shorthand Reporters _ 2321 StanweU Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (415)685-6222 6 1 for example . 2 On the other side, the collection vehicles , the 3 packer trucks , would deposit their loads . The transfer 4 trucks would come off of Waterbird Way and enter the small 5 shed area on the north at a lower level ; two vehicles , 6 could be accommodated at any given time . 7 The circulation pattern would be, as I said, the 8 transfer trucks would enter and depart the loop from , 9 Waterbird Way . The other vehicles would come along the 10 new road, after passing through the scale area, and enter 11 one set of doors and depart the other set of doors within 12 the shed, and this would be repeated on the opposite side 13 of the building and within the public disposal area . ' 14 The public disposal area would also contain a t 15 number of recycling facilities , including a baling 16 operation . In the operation of the station, in the public 17 disposal area , smaller part of the shed, would be a gently ' 18 sloping floor , waste would be deposited on that floor and 19 pushed to the north by rubber-tired dozer-type vehicles , , 20 small vehicles . ' 21 In the main disposal building , the trucks would 22 back onto what would then become a pit and discharge their 23 loads into the pit , where , again , the bulldozers would 24 push the waste to the door and into one or both of these 25 bays at the lower level of the transfer trucks . 26 In the short run , there would be expected to be 27 about 68 to 70 transfer trucks per day coming through the ' 28 station that would represent new traffic . But because Certified Shorthand Reporters ' Zando elIS_� 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 ' --- (415)685-6222 ' 7 1 many construction materials and certain other wastes , such 2 as sludges and utility ashes, would not go to a transfer 3 station but to the landfill , approximately 14 percent of 4 the average 1300 tons per day now coming to Acme landfill 5 would have to go directly to a new landfill . So there 6 would be a similar amount of vehicles coming in and out of 7 this area , but there would be the factor of the larger -8 transfer EYudks . It ' s essentially -how the facility would ' 9 operate . ' 10 Now, what is not a part of it would be that the 11 drawings you have received show an area here, which is 12 designated as a possible waste energy plant , that is not 13 part of the present project , would require entirely new 14 permitting process if it were to be built . 15 There are other options there, including a facility 16 to produce refuse, dry fuel , for a waste energy plant 17 located elsewhere ; it could be used for additional 18 recycling material as the need and demand for that kind of 19 effort would increase - in the future . The point is , there 20 is room for expansion . 21 The project does -- or pardon me -- the mitigation ' 22 measures that we have in the Environmental Impact Report 23 would require the retention of a right-of-way at this ' 24 location. The' road extension itself is not part of the 25 current project , I wanted to make those two items clear . 26 As far as major impacts , we have rather formally 7 P � Y 27 laid out impacts , mitigation measures , in the EIR, and 28 I ' ll simply mention three that are of concern . Certified Shorthand Reporters -" .Zando sella 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520.4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 ' — - -- — - —_ (415)685-6222 8 1 The first is noise, and that is probably more of a , 2 concern than the other factors . The noise level in the 3 Vine Hill neighborhood now is approximately the upper 4 level of that which is considered tolerable for the 5 residential area . The main source of noise is Highway 6 680 , it ' s approximately at the 60 decibels level . 7 The Applicant had proposed a retention wall and a- 8 noise wall at this location . The Environmental Impact , 9 Report , however , proposes that that wall be moved nearer ' 10 to the rear lot lines of the homes and wrapped around 11 Arthur Road. That alone should keep the noise level from 12 the transfer station within the limits set by the county 13 noise element for the general plan . ' 14 Beyond that , one could do a number of things , such 15 as , because the problem occurs -- we have mainly an , 16 evening problem -- that for loadings and unloadings after ' 17 a time, such as 5 : 00 o ' clock , the east side of the 18 building could be sealed from deliveries . Part of the ' 19 west side deliveries would take place on the east side, 20 the building would serve as an additional buffer . 21 Another thing that might be done is the circulation 22 of the transfer vehicles might be changed so that the 23 unloaded vehicles would be maneuvering on the west side of 24 the lot and the field vehicles would then be parked to the 25 east . 26 Another mitigation measure, not necessarily a 27 required one, but mentioned in the Environnjental Impact 28 Report that has gotten a certain amount of acceptance , is ' Certified Shorthand Reporters ZanaOxwjIB 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord.CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 ----- (415)685-6222 9 1 that rather than build a metal facility , a metal shell 1 2 facility , such as the one some of you saw in San 3 Francisco, that if the facility were built of tilt-up 5 4 construction , with a heavier wall mass, noise would be 5 further attenuated . 6 1Traffic, we believe, is readily controlled over the 1 7 four-way intersection at this location, there would be 8 traffic improvements here. The Applicant- would-, of- 1 f 1 9 course, have to construct this road to transfer truck 10 standards , and the Environmental Impact Report recommends 11 that the Applicant do some road studies on Highway -- on 12 Waterfront Road, this location, and the interchange, to 13 ensure that those would properly take transfer trucks . 14 Odor , which is a concern, appears to be readily (� 15 controllable from standard measures such as you saw in 16 operation in San Francisco, that is, the refuse is lightly ' 17 wetted with a deodorant or that is necessary . 18 I might note that by the Regional Bay Area Air r19 Quality Management District requirements , refuse could not 20 stay in a station longer than 24 hours or there would have 21 to be a rapid turnover or that itself would be an odor 22 reduction factor . So that concern ought to be taken care 23 of in the design of the project . 24 That ' s an overview of the project . Can I answer 25 any of your questions? ' 26 CHAIRMAN BEST: Are there questions by the 1 27 Commission? Thank you , Mr . Zahn , I think we ' ll proceed 28 with public testimony . 1 Za��o _II Certified Shorthand Reporters _ rm 8 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 945204808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 945244107 - -- — (415)685-6222 10 ' 1 The testimony this evening is on the adequacy of 2 the Draft Environmental Impact Report , and not on the 3 project itself . There will be a subsequent public hearing 4 on the project . 5 I do know the Applicant intends to make a , 6 presentation, I 'm assured that it ' s on the EIR rather than 7 on the merits of the project . We can actually take 8 testimony in any order . 9 , MR. PEZZAGLIA: Good evening , m name is Jame y s 10 Pezzaglia . 11 Chair Best and members of the Planning Commission, 12 I 'm one of the attorneys representing Acme Fill . Tonight 13 I have with me Tom Reilly, who ' s the director of 14 operations , who will make a very shortP resentation on the ' { 15 impacts and the mitigation measures that are proposed. 16 Acme Fill ' s pleased to present its comments to the 17 Draft EIR. We have written comments which we will submit 18 into the record for your review and for the EIR 19 consultant ' s review. , 20 In connection with this project , Acme Fill 21 representatives have met with the Vine Hill neighborhood, 22 we met with them last Saturday and explained the project , 23 and the mitigation measures . They gave us a number of 24 comments and a number of suggestions , and we are pleased 25 to present those to your EIR consultant . 26 We went to the meeting with the Solid Waste 27 Commission last week and received their questions and ' 28 comments , they are writing a letter to you ; we are Certified Shorthand Reporters , Z_artd_ o_rae_IIa — �° _ � 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 945204808 REPORTING SERVICE.IPIC. P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524.4107 -- - (415)685-6222 11 1 summarizing their concerns , as well , and we will be 2 addressing those concerns . 3 We took those neighbors of the Vine Hill 4 neighborhood who wished to tour a waste transfer station 5 to the Davis Street Waste Transfer Station in Oakland and 6 we also likewise would tour with any of you who would wish 7 to go. We have met with the Board of Directors of the 8 Martinez Gun Club and presented the project to them, they 9 are evaluating it along with their attorney , Mr . Cox , and ' 10 we expect to work with them in an effort of cooperation to 11 solve any circulation and noise problems that they may see 12 and address and resolve their concerns . .13 Likewise , we have met with IT Corporation 14 representatives and we. are investigating the circulation i� 15 and traffic problems . 16 At this time, I ' d like to present Tom Reilly, Tom 17 is the director of operations . He was a prior employee of 18 Brown, Vence & Associates , he designed this waste transfer 19 station as their consultant . He has worked in the solid 20 waste field for 12 years and has designed numerous waste 21 transfer stations . 22 Thank you very much . 23 CHAIRMAN BEST: Thank you , Mr . Pezzaglia . 24 MR. REILLY : Madam Chair and members of the ' 25 Commission, I have a number of slides in here that I 'm 26 going to -- since Chuck has reviewed a number of them, 27 I ' ll go through them very quickly for you . 28 One of the first things I just wanted to touch on Cere ort an eporters Zandorlw 2321 Stanwell Drive•0 Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE_INC. P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 — — (415)685-6222 1 very briefly is that transferring is just reversed 12 2 warehousing . Everyone knows what a warehousing operation 3 is , you bring in material in large highway vans , you take 4 it off , unload it , and process it , and put it into smaller 5 vehicles and ship it to various destinations . 6 Transferring is just the opposite , we bring in 7 materials from small vehicles , put it down on the ground, 8rocess it and reload it into larger highway units and ' P 9 9 Y 9 then it ' s dispatched to the landfill . ' 10 Chuck went over a number of the benefits to 11 transferring , one is cost reduction, the other one is ' 12 minimization of traffic to the landfill; another major 13 benefit is the potential to resource recovery . Transfer 14 stations come in all shapes, sizes and colors, and there ' s , 15 just a couple of basic receiving concepts that you need to 16 be aware of . , 17 The tipping floor , or concrete flat floor , a 18 storage pit that '-s like a concrete bathtub, conveyors and 19 direct disposal . In our project , we utilize both a 20 tipping floor and a storage pit . In loading the transfer 21 vans , you can either do it by direct gravity or using 22 other pieces of equipment like compaction; we use a 23 gravity feed. 24 In designing the proposed projects , we looked at ' 25 the site characteristics , we looked at our tonnage and 26 traffic characteristics , we looked at what we wanted to do ' 27 with respect to recycling and also any landfill 28 constraints . .[ and��gTlB ' Certified Shorthand Reporters ' U 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 945204808 -irnnWnwr_ ccrwrrc rxr P.O. Rox 4107 0 Concord,CA 945244107 13 1 As Chuck indicated , we have about 22 acres of a 2 former burrow pit that ' s on Acme ' s 535-acre tract of ' 3 property , it ' s zoned heavy industrial ; and we have four 4 neighbors , Acme Fill to the north, IT to the northeast , 5 the Gun Club on the east , and the Vine Hill residential 6 area on the west . 7 Our tonnage, we have somewhat of an unusual 8 situation , at least for Acme Fill , we have relatively mild 9 averages , but we -have very high peaks in both tonnage and 10 traffic . In the weekday for tonnage, the average is 1340 , 11 but the peaking requirement is about 80 percent higher, 12 2380 . And, likewise, the traffic, traffic -- our greatest 13 peak is on the weekends when the residential people get 14 out and clean out the .garages and their yards . 15 Both the traffic and the tonnage needs to be 16 handled in the transportation design . We break our 17 traffic and tonnage into three basic catagories : 18 Franchise haulers in the red; charge accounts, which is 19 our monthly repeated customers, are in yellow; and the 20 general public. 21 What I want to note in these two slides is just the 22 differences between who' s generating the traffic and who ' s ' 23 generating the tonnage . 60 percent of the traffic in 24 green is generated by the general public, they, however , 25 only generate 10 percent of the tonnage at the facility; 26 and in just the reverse , the large haulers only produce 26 ` 27 percent of the traffic , but they generate 84 percent of ' 28 the tonnage . .�.^��O�gi*a Certified Shorthand Reporters _ Za — 1■— -� 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 945204808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 -- (415)685-6222 14 1 One of the things that we tried to do and we 2 haven ' t done it to a sufficient extent in the ' 3 documentation that you received yet , but I want to explain 4 more fully now just what we ' re going to do with respect to ' 5 recycling . What we plan is a three-phase approach. ' 6 In the first phase , we ' re going to target to 7 recycle from general monthly accounts , charge accounts, , 8 and from the general public , and a certain portion of the 9 franchise haulers representing boxed kinds of loads , and 10 here we ' re going to be looking for recycled wood waste and 11 brush debris , various miscellaneous metals and paper 12 products . And we hope to, in phase one, which is our 13 initial start up, to do 20 percent of the 41 percent of 14 the pie that is separated as target recycles . ' ( 15 In phase two, we ' re going to try to increase that ' 156 16 percentage to 25 percent of the same target recoverables . 17 In phase three, which would be subject to a separate EIR, 18 this is what Chuck Zahn was referring to, a more 19 comprehensive resource recovery, and right now our current 20 plan is not to implement waste energy because of the ' 21 concerns to the neighborhood, the concern ' s basically in 22 California of air emissions and other aspects of waste 23 energy; but to go to a more mechanical system to separate 24 out the burnable fraction and to produce a pelt , these , 25 pelts may be two to three inches long and about a half an 26 inch in diameter; and ship these pelts , basically refuse , 27 pelts , to the Louisiana Pacific wood burner in Antioch , ' 28 and there they would be burned . Certified Shorthand Reporters ' 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 — - - — - (415)685-6222 , 15 1 And we hope to, in phase three, to recycle and 2 recover half of the 59 percent , so we hope in our ' 3 three-phases approach to do 55 percent of the incoming 4 waste stream in our recycling program. ' 5 Chuck Zahn already described to you the project , 6 and I just wanted to mention the three items that I ' m ' 79 oing to cover . One is the fact that dumping will be 8 enclosed, all dumping will be in the enclosed building . 9 One , I 'm going to address the noise barrier wall to 10 the west and also the intersection between the traffic 11 going to the station, the IT traffic and the Gun Club 12 traffic . Some of you have visited -- I 'm not sure, but a 13 similar facility exists at the Davis Street facility in 14 San Leandro, we ' re not. coming up with a new imaginative 15 state-of-the-art facility, it ' s working there and it will 16 work here . 17 Once the waste is in, this is the storage pit , ' 18 trucks dump from an elevated area and the material ' s 19 precompacted by the equipment operated in the pit . It ' s 20 pushed by gravity , as I said, into trailers that are at 21 the lower level . And in our case, two trailers can be 22 dumped or filled at one time . 23 Once the trailers are pulled out , screens are put 24 on top of the open barriers to contain or prevent any ' 25 litter from spewing onto the access roads and highways of 26 the landfill . ' 27 The other portion of our site where we ' re going to 28 do our recycling is the tipping floor . As you can see , �110tTj$ Certified Shorthand Reporters ' d 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (415)685-6222 '1 it ' s a concrete floor where the waste can be spread out 16 2 and we can recycle from it . We ' re going to use equipment , 3 not the same, but similar to equipment that ' s at the Marin 4 Resource Beverage Facility. This is showing the wood and ' 5 brush material that will be targeted for in phase one. 6 There will be a process lined with -- this material in , 7 itself is chip, these chips , wood chips, go to the ' 8 Louisiana Pacific facility in Antioch . 9 We ' ll also be baling cardboard to start with and 10 other miscellaneous paper products . We ' ll also be 11 continuing our metal salvaging, which we currently do at 12 the landfill , and those metals will be stored at an 1*3 outside area . 14 We are also -- .something that is not in the 15 Environmental Impact Report , but we want to be consistent 16 with the revised public expansion plan, is to move the 17 public recycling center in front of the pay booth . Our 18 current plans and the plan that we have before you show it 19 as actually part of the facility in the pit area, but , 20 we ' re going to bring it out in front of the pay booth so 21* people have an incentive to dispose of their material i 22 prior to the pay booth. 23 The next couple of slides I ' m going to review very 24 quickly with you is the mitigation, and I 'm going to ' 25 highlight those areas where the mitigation that we had 26 proposed and also our agreement with the mitigation that ' g 27 is proposed in the Environmental Impact Report . 28 With respect to traffic, the first thing is the �d��gTT$ ' 2321 StCertified Shorthand Reporters ' __ anwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 of r orloTiN(: CFRVT('F 1N(' P.O. Box 4107•Concord.CA 94524-4107 17 1 facility ' s closed to the general public at 5 : 00 o ' clock . 2 We are also not proposing to put any facility traffic on 3 Arthur Road , Arthur Road will continue to be a buried road 4 with what we are proposing is used by emergency vehicles 5 only and the continued use by the Martinez Gun Club. 6 Also, as Chuck indicated, that the extension of 7 Waterbird Way would be subject to a separate Environmental 8 Impact Report . No. , two other items that I want to' 9 mention to you is that , in our meetings with the Vine Hill 10 residential community, they indicated a concern that the 11 intersection of Waterfront Road and Waterbird Way was not 12 an all-weather road . And, in fact , at one point in 1982 , 13 the back road was not accessible, due to flooding, and for 14 seven straight days , guards ' trucks , IT trucks and Gun (' 15 Club traffic went through the Arthur Road or the Vine Hill 16 residential area and they would prefer that that not be 17 repeated . 18 So we suggest that the environmental consultants 19 consider making that intersection of Waterfront Road and 20 Waterbird Way an all-weather access . t 21 The other area of traffic mitigation that I need to 22 address is the intersection where the Gun Club traffic, 23 the IT traffic and the guards ' traffic come together . The 24 alternative intersection layout that has been proposed on 25 page 6-9 is what we consider a workable solution, it ' s the 26 existing intersection upgraded and singlized for the 27 safety of those using that intersection . 28 We also are willing to continue our discussions ' Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandUIa6IIa 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 — __._ (415)685-6222 18 ' 1 with IT and the Gun Club to see if there ' s even a better 2 solution to that intersection arrangement . 3 Noise mitigation is one of the most significant , as 4 Chuck Zahn had indicated . The noise barrier , while we are 5 in agreement to move the noise barrier wall an additional 6 80 feet to the west , to the property -- to the backyards 7 of those living in the Vine Hill residential area, we 8 agreed that that wall should ue constructed first, prior 9 to any other construction in the pit area . 10 We also agree that it should be a minimum of 10 ' 11 feet , and the EIR indicates that it could be a maximum of 157 12 15 feet . We agreed to extend it 150 feet along Arthur ' 13 Road to protect those along Arthur Road and, also, an 14 additional 60 feet pas-t the pit to the south, and that was 15 not addressed in the EIR but we think it needs to be done , ' 16 the 80-foot line landscaping buffer zone between where our 17 property would start and the Vine Hill residential area . 18 Again, all unloading in the inside facilities . 19 We ' re proposing to close all doors , all facility doors, on 20 the west side of the building after 5 : 00 o ' clock . Any ' 21 traffic to the facility would only be on the east side so 22 there would be an additional buffering . 23 We agreed to utilize some suppression systems on 24 our transfer vehicles and we ' re also willing to consider 25 tilt-up walls for our final design . 26 And , finally, the EIR would have allowed us to 27 basically do exterior construction during the hours of 28 7 : 00 a . m. to 7 : 00 p. m . , Monday through Friday , and also on Certified Shorthand Reporters -- Z_a_ndo_sella 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524.4107 - — - (415)685.6222 ' 19 1 Saturday, Sunday from 8 : 00 to 5 : 00 . We suggest , after ' 2 listening to the comments in the Vine Hill residential 3 area, that these hours be restricted from 8 : 00 to 5 : 00 on 4 Monday through Friday, and no construction on Saturday and ' S Sunday. This will not only benefit those living in the 6 Vine Hill residential area, but those that are using the 7 Martinez Gun Club on the weekends . 8- This_ i-s -just an examp] , of- a sound barrier wall 9 that I took along Treat Boulevard. It has a texture -- ' 10 and what we propose is to see if we can put together maybe 11 a three-member committee from the Vine Hill residential 158 12 area that might review, maybe , 5 to 10 different textures 13 that they might find acceptable to their community. 14 With to respect air quality,p q y, and here I 'm talking 15 about dusts and odor , again, with respect to dust , the 16 vehicles are unloading inside . And in fact the 17 facilities that utilize the design we ' re proposing also 18 utilize dust .or water misters inside the facility to 19 suppress any dust that is generated in the unloading 20 process . 21 With respect to odor , the Air District is requiring P � q 9 22 us to remove waste on a 24-hour basis , from the time it is 23 received, 24-hours later , that pound of waste has to be 24 removed from the facility. Good housekeeping , sweeping, 25 cleaning floors , walls and equipment will also minimize 26 the amount of odors that are generated . 27 And, finally , as part of the water mister program, 28 if needed, there is an ability to add a perfume or — �[)C1��016�Si18Certified Shorthand Reporters LiCI 16�Si —� 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 945204808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. : P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (415)685-6222 20 1 deodorizer to the mist or the water to suppress the odors 2 that are generated, and this might be particularly on warm 3 days . 4 COMMISSIONER FELIZ : Which brand would you use? , 5 MR . REILLY: Well , in one facility where it was 6 110 degrees , they were using bubble gum, but there ' s a 7 number of different smells that you could use . 8 This is an example of the misters . As you can see, 9 off to the left , mist coming down from the ceiling . I ' 10 have another shot here, you can see the misters on the 11 right , this is at the Davis Street , San Leandro facility. 12 And as the dozers operating in the pit make their pass , 13 then the misters come on. And you can see in this picture 14 that the picture is very clear , which means there ' s hardly 15 any dust , and that the misters are actually working quite 16 well . 17 Appearance : We ' re talking visual and litter . 18 Again, we are proposing to landscape this facility very 19 extensively, fencing and the texture of walls . And the 20 vehicle unloading area, all vehicles would be unloaded 21 inside . Litter , vehicles unloaded inside the building 22 will prevent litter from being spewed such as an open-area 23 landfill , and we ' ll have a program on site and access 24 roads of pickup and deliver . 25 One of the items I did not mention during the noise 26 is that in talking with the Gun Club people , that they 159 : 27 indicated the potential for noise on their side and why 28 wasn ' t there a noise barrier on their side of the 75andO�gi*8 Certified Shorthand Reporters 1 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. : P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 21 1 facility; and we ' re willing to consider that in the final 2 design for them. 3 With respect to public safety, one thing that we need to mention is we ' re not proposing to receive an 4 P P 9 Y 5 hazardous waste, but this is a municipal waste facility 6 which will receive small amounts of construction debris . 7 Liquid hazardous wastes , sewage sludge, will all be 8 strictly prohibited from the facility. We wi ' 1 , - 9 however -- are willing to develop a program with the 10 county for household hazardous waste awareness , to make 11 sure people are aware of what wastes not to bring in with 12 them, not to bring to the transfer station . 13 We will also have a management program which our 14 employees will be trai.ned to identify and remove, if we 15 receive at the facility, hazardous wastes . We are also 16 willing to institute a program of random load sampling for 17 hazardous wastes to determine the amounts of hazardous 18 wastes that actually are received at the facility. 19 With respect to the vector control , the ability or 20 the requirement to transfer wastes within 24 hours will 21 minimize the amount of rodents in the facility, and we ' re 22 also willing to utilize the services of a pest control 23 firm. Even though in our conversations with the people at 24 the Davis Street facility indicated that in their seven 25 years of operation, they have yet to have a similar _ 26 problem and, in fact , they continue to also use the pest 27 control service . 28 And , finally, for public safety and also for Certified Shorthand Reporters - ZandoraeIIa 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 _- --- — — (415)685-6222 22 1 litter , a continuation of the County Ordinance on the ( 2 requirement for the cover loads and adequate enforcement . 3 Finally , just to summarize, we want to -- this station has 4 been designed to efficiently transfer solid wastes , keep 5 pace with the community growth and to efficiently recover 6 a number of salvageable materials , and also to permit the 7 future addition of more comprehensive resource recovery. �! 8 That concludes the slide presentation, and I ' d like 9 to have the lights . I ' d like to introduce, for the 10 record , Acme ' s written comments to the draft EIR and a 11 copy of the slides that I made the presentation on . 12 If there are any questions tonight, we ' ll be happy 13 to answer them, and if we cannot answer them tonight , we 14 would be more than willing to get back to you with a 1 . 15 written response . 16 Thank you for this opportunity to give our comments 17 to you on the EIR. 18 CHAIRMAN BEST: Are there questions? 19 Commissioner Feliz? 20 COMMISSIONER FELIZ : You mentioned three phases 160 21 of resource recovery , could you give us an estimated time 22 that you now consider as being required for those three 23 phases? 24 MR . REILLY: Right . And we reviewed this with 25 the Solid Waste Commission , because they had the same 26 concern . The first phase is initial start-up, and I would 27 think that program would go on for maybe one to two years , ' 28 until it was down -- down to where we were getting our h Reporters ZSItdUIaPiII81 Certified Shorthand _ _ 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 945204808 REPORTING SERVICE.IT(C_ P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 945244107 -- -- (415)685-6222 1 goal . If , in fact , we were more successful than we were,23 1� 2 we would . immediately go into trying to look for additional 3 materials such as construction debris or other items . 4 So I would think that the first phase might be the 5 first two years of the operation, two to five years might t6 be phase two; and then after five , anywhere from five to 7 ten years , we would start the implementation of phase 8 three . But that ' s the general feeling . _._.. 9 Right now, we relieve, depending on- if we could -- 10 if we could actually get in a marketing agreement with ' 11 L.P. , there might be ability to implement phase three 12 sooner , but it depends on the economics of the market . 13 CHAIRMAN BEST: Thank you . Are there other 14 questions? 15 Thank you , Mr . Reilly. 16 Next speaker I have is Thomas Stewart . 17 MR. STEWART: Good evening , Chair Best , members 18 of the Commission, my name is Tom Stewart , and I 'm here 19 representing Land Waste Management . 20 I have couple just a le of comments in terms of the P �r21 EIR, and they relate specifically to the integration of 22 the transfer station with any proposed landfill in the �r 23 county . 24 Obviously, the goal of not only the Planning i 25 Commission but the Solid Waste Commission and the Board of 161 26 Supervisors is the creation of an integrated waste 27 management system; and part of that , of course, relys upon 28 the development of a , transfer station , as many of the -- ZawftormI Certified Shorthand Reporters 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 --- - - __. - (415)685-6222 24 1 characteristics that were discussed tonight . 2 We would also recommend that in any deliberation by 3 the Commission, that they keep in mind both the 4 Environmental Impact Report that was done on the Kirker 5 Pass landfill and the conditions of approvals that were , 6 ultimately recommended for that landfill and make sure 7 that eventually there is a meeting of the two, so that 8 when we put together this waste management system, that it. 9 will truly be effective in terms of matching requirements 10 with needs and making sure this system works well 11 together . 12 And that is my only comment . Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN BEST: Thank you , Mr . Stewart . 14 Next speaker is Peter .Hendricks -- you didn ' t wish 15 to speak? 16 David Harris? 17 MR. COX: My name ' s James Cox , may it please the 18 Chair , members of the Commission, I thought I ' d step up 19 regard o y without r rd our selection of the names , is that o t 20 appropriate? ; 21 CHAIRMAN BEST: I called- on Mr . Harris , is he 22 here? 23 MR. COX: He ' s here, but I 'm representing him. 24 CHAIRMAN BEST: That ' s fine . 25 MR. COX: May I say I 'm a lawyer here in Martinez , 26 California , I do believe I have some inclination as to why 27 you ' re here . ' I ' ll say this , I 'm asked to be here by my 28 client for two purposes : To demonstrate to you Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandoneIIa 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 945204808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. ; P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 —� -- (415)685-6222 25 1 responsibility on our part and respect for you and this l 2 proceeding and our concerns . 3 Properly so, it ' s not my thought to scold anyone, 4 it ' s apparent in reading the EIR that Acme Fill , perhaps 5 Mr . Zahn and his staff and others have digressed a great 6 deal of attention to Vine Hill , which is quite 7 appropriate, we commend them for it . We ' re not scolding, 8 it ' s appare•.t that- that attention hasn ' t been directed . - 9 toward the Martinez Gun Club. 10 And if I may ask someone to just point out the 11 proximity of the Gun Club on the aerial? As you can see, 12 we really stood under the shadow of the facility. I will 13 say this , that in spite of it , generally speaking , all of 14 us understand and apprehend the impact that the facility PP P 15 such as the one proposed, a public facility for this 16 region and this county, will have on residential 17 neighborhoods , it doesn ' t need any exposition to make that 18 clear . 19 However , most respectfully , the sound of the Gun 20 Club in its operation is oddly enough just as important as 21 the residents that hear the telephone or hear the TV in 22 his or her home , they can ' t operate without voice 23 communication among the people shootings and the people �1 24 running the operation. 25 When this matter came in to me, I ' ve gone to the 26 Gun Club for many years , I thought it appropriate to point 27 out to you that really it ' s not a rinky-dink operation , if 28 you ' ll permit that term. We don ' t have a bunch of guys _ ZBIadUIa6lI8 — Certified Shorthand Reporters _ i 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 945204808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC- P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94574-4107 -" — (415)685-6222 26 1 out there throwing beer cans and beer bottles around and 162 2 shooting guns , it ' s the oldest and most historic gun club ` 3 in the United States , it ' s 104 years old. 4 It holds the largest skeet shoot in the absolute 33 5 acres of land adjacent to this public facility and it has 6 some 400 members . All of the members of the armed forces 7 of the United States are honorary members and have all the 8 facilities available to them at all times , just like the - 9 members do, the only distinction being they can ' t vote . 10 Oddly enough, but I think it ' s important for you , 11 who have so much to do in connection with this matter , to 12 have a handle on how they sit , vis-a-vis , this facility 13 compared to the residents . It ' s a particularly benign 14 employment in the community, but it employs from time to 15 time 150 , 200 kids, dropouts, people who are often really 16 disadvantaged, aren ' t really employable elsewhere; and 17 these Gun Club members do a pretty good job out there in 18 providing work and providing some other support for them. 19 Now, as far as the adequacy of the EIR' s concern as 20 to the Gun Club, suffice it to say , it really hasn ' t been 21 addressed, I 'm happy to hear some consideration will be 22 given to the sound barrier . I might say, without it , that 23 you might as well go ahead and condemn the property, which 24 we don ' t want to have happen . 25 We want to work with the community, with Mr . Zahn 26 and his forces , with the Commission and the Board to see 27 that- this does serve properly. We just don ' t want to be 28 wiped out by it , it ' s as simple as that . _- Zandomfla Certified Shorthand Reporters _ ` _ 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 _-.. -- _..__ (415)685.6222 27 1 The Club is a non-for-profit operation, it operates ( 2 on a very, very tight margin, the access and noise are 3 critical to it and it could readily be knocked out of the ' 4 power of business by this facility . 5 I should comment in this respect , now, not that 6 their rights are any greater, but they' re certainly no 7 lesser , they have an Olympic bunker , Olympic competitors 8 shoot here -and intern,tional visitors come and shoot here, . .. 9 it ' s one in four facilities here in California , actually 10 it ' s rather incredible and prestigious and an established 11 operation in the community. 12 I might comment to you, some of you may not 13 remember this , most of you are new faces to me, I don ' t 14 come here very often, but the Club, as a good citizen, 15 cooperated with the restriction of the Arthur Road 16 facility to put up its own gate at its own cost on Arthur 17 Road, and , of course , had full legal access to Arthur Road 18 at all times . 19 But I do represent a cooperative entity , we ' re only 20 interested in a good-faith adequate litigation for us and 21 those that deal with traffic and noise . And there are big 22 shoots used at times at the facility, and it ' s imperative 23 that traffic be mitigated . l 24 In fact -- and I say again, we hope it won ' t come 25 to this , but we would point out to you that we sit under 26 the shadow and subject to the access and the noise impact 27 of this public facility, and unless it ' s fully and 28 adequately designed to mitigate these impacts , we ' ll be '^ - �- ZBIadUIa6Tl8Certified Shorthand Reporters 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520.4808 REPORTING SERVICE.[NC. P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 - (415)685-6222 28 �1 out of business and heaven forbid we may have to look for 2 other remedies . 3 But that ' s not my point to make, and .I just want to 4 let you know this is a genuine concern . And with your 5 permission, I ' ll subside and thank you, and I ' ll ask Mr . 6 Jon Garcia , an engineer with the Club, to make a few 7 additional comments . 8 CHAIRMAN BEST: Thank you . 9 Mr . Garcia? 10 MR . GARCIA: My name is Jon Garcia . First of 11 all , I am a trapshooter , I ' m a life member of the Martinez 12 Gun Club, and I ' m one of the past presidents of this fine 13 organization, I 'm presently the Club ' s elective secretary, 14 and by profession I ' m .a mechanical engineer employed by 15 the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, as manager of 16 chemical services . 17 In reading the Draft Environmental Impact Report , 18 we felt that it really did not address some of the 19 serious , specific issues that need to be done. 20 Our claim, of course, is to submit to Charles Zahn 21 on that written response, which we will do, I think we 22 have about another week to do that , that primarily dealt 23 with the safety issues of appropriate ingress and egress 24 to the Martinez Gun Club. 25 We have a rather aggressive shoot program every 26 year , we have approximately 25 registered shoot days where ` 27 we invite people as far away as Alaska , and all of the 28 western zone , specifically in our spring shoot , which we -- Zela�ola6IIaCertified Shorthand Reporters 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520.4808 ncrvlrVMWf' ccrrnnrr Tai- P.O. Rny A107•Concord.CA 945244107 29 1 call our Golden State Grand, we see, like, 1 , 000 people 2 visit the Martinez Gun Club through about a five-day 3 shoot , and that ' s a lot of traffic. 4 Fortunately, the way the road is set up now, we can 5 bring them in through Arthur Road without having any 6 interference with Acme Fill ' s operation, so that ' s an 7 advantage to us now. So we have an easement to Arthur 8 Road, so that allows us to conduct our business very -.---.------- 9 ery -.---.---_-_9 successfully. 10 The Club is open, we have a full-time manager , he 11 and his wife reside at the Club in one of the resident 12 houses that are there, so they ' re operating and managing 13 the facility for us on a 24-hour basis . 14 So safety was really our primary concern. When Tom 15 Reilly came out and proposed and demonstrated the same 16 information he gave here tonight , that was our primary ' 17 concern, was the safety of our ingress and egress to the 18 facility. I suggested that we look at other alternatives 163 19 so that we could have just an exclusive private road 20 leading into the Martinez Gun Club, so people .don ' t 21 inappropriatelycome in and dump trash along our road, to P 9 22 keep it separate, so I 'm asking you to look at these, I 23 don ' t know whether it ' s feasible at this time. 24 Certainly, the other circumstances that we ' re to be 25 concerned about is this particular EIR really doesn ' t 26 address anything to maintain our easement and right-of-way. 164 y g g y 27 through Arthur Road . As a matter of fact , it talks about 28 taking that away , and I don ' t know if that ' s in the best '^ Certified Shorthand Reporters '- ZandormI 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTINGSERVICE.INC P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 - -� _ _ (415)685-6222 30 1 interest , obviously , ' of the Martinez Gun Club. ( 2 We feel that the siting and I certainly 3 understand that the county has a refuse management problem 4 and it has to be resolved, and I 'm not against transfer 5 stations , in fact , it ' s probably the right technology for 6 today, the thing that ' s important here for the Martinez 7 Gun Club to be able to continue, hopefully, for the next 8 104 years so my son and grandsons can enjoy the Club -- is 9 that more specifically if this is the chosen site by the 10 Commission and that is approved, the things that will have 11 to occur for us to be able to continue in business really 12 point out to be several things . 13 One is an exclusive road right-of-way through 14 Ar r Arthur Road into the Club, which would be separate from o 15 all of the other operations and not have the two stop 16 signs and trying to get our populous of members to come in 17 across four lanes of people trying to run in to get in to 165 18 be dumped, and they could simply block off that road, and 19 that would just completely eliminate our ability to get in 20 the Club and that would put us out of business , clear and 21 simple . 22 The other issue that we needed to address , or I , 23 should say, that needs to be addressed probably more 166 24 appropriately in the Draft Environmental Impact Report , is 25 certainly the noise levels to the east . I think it ' s been 26 addressed very appropriately that the concern was focused 27 to the west for the Vine Hill residents , but it has not 28 been addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for •fir�ndo�gIIB Certified Shorthand 52048 8 .[Nl _ 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. .O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524.4167 -— -- ——— (415)685-6222 r- 31 1 ourselves . 2 And it ' s very important for the Club to be able to 3 have that nice quiet environment . You say, well , gun 4 clubs really aren ' t quiet, but we actually use a voice 5 call to a person from about me to this young lady at a 6 normal voice level , in order to -- we call for a target , 7 we say "pull , " and then she releases the target for me. 8 That would -be very important- to have the success_of.__ 9 the ongoing operation of the Club, so noise is a very, 10 very big concern here . And the biggest noise, as Mr . Zahn 11 talked about , is substantially because of the size of the 12 trucks will be changing in the future when we go through 13 the transfer station . And specifically he talked about 14 maybe he wants to change the direction so that they don ' t 15 go to the west , towards the Vine Hill folks , but they go 16 to the east , towards the Martinez Gun Club. 17 So I think we have to look for a series of involved 18 aspects here , because the right -- we would really prefer 19 a site that. would be about 400 yards more to the north, 20 that ' s probably not feasible, and then we wouldn ' t have 21 any problems at all ; but now that it is right in-between 22 Vine Hill and the Martinez Gun Club, it poses some very 23 , serious problems for the Martinez Gun Club . 24 I read the Environmental Impact Report about twice, 25 I think I got it memorized, but there was some concerns 26 specifically about .the air pollution, specifically, carbon 167 27 monoxide . And it did not address in the Environmental 28 Impact Report about the normal prevailing winds , which ^ Certified Shorthand Reporters — ZandUIuIIB 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520.4808 (415)685-6222 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 945244107 32 1 unfortunately happen to be west , westerly winds , and that 2 would blow all of these particular odors and fumes and gas 3 from the vehicular trucks to our facility. 4 I certainly can ' t project what that ' s going to be 5 like, but I would like that to be addressed further in the 6 Environmental Impact Reports . �. 7 Obviously, the thing that we ' re concerned about is 8 the traffic mitigation, so we have safe ingress and egress 9 from the club . The noise mitigation, certainly the 10 appearance , we ' d like to see that improve, and maybe that 11 can be done simultaneously if this is , again, the chosen 12 site . 1;3 Mr . Reilly did come out to the Club and present 14 that information, we did give him some verbal comments 15 about that at that time . I noticed in the paper the other 16 day that there was an accident already on Waterbird Road, 17 and fortunately it wasn ' t a fatality, and it consists of 18 one of the Acme drivers going about 25 . We would like to 19 see our 400 members have safe access to and from the Club 20 without havingto cross all of the articular traffic P 21- that ' s coming in. And they talked about their being 22 closed early on the weekends , and I 'm implying Monday 23 through Friday, and we use the . club on weekends . 24 Our prime peak hours happen to coincide with their 25 business on weekends . So our EIR really didn ' t point out , 26 I think , with enough emphasis on the importance of this 2�7 particular project and what its long-term impact is on our 28 business success for the future . r Certified Shorthand Reporters f na�nat�N(: CFRVT('F iN(' 2321 Stanwell Drive�Concord,CA 94520-4808 P.O. Roic 4107 Concord,CA 94524-4107 33 1 Thank you for letting me address that . 2 CHAIRMAN BEST: Thank you, Mr . Garcia . No 3 questions , thank you . 4 Is there another speaker . 5 MS . SAKAZAKI : My name ' s Dorothy Sakazaki , I 'm 6 one of the residents in the Vine Hill area . I also went 7 on the tour of the Davis transfer station, and I was quite 8 impressed .__ 9 The one thing , though, that I would like this 10 Commission to take note of is the metal building . We , the 11 residents, of Vine Hill, prefer that it would be the 12 concrete tilt , which would absorb a great deal of the 13 noise . 14 And as far as the barrier , the wall , the sound 15 wall , we would like it to be at least three feet higher 16 than the actual signs of the trailers they ' d be hauling , 169 A. 17 because eventually, if they open up the road, that will go 18 parallel with the back of the homes and come out on Imhoff 19 Drive . That means that those trucks will probably use 20 that access and go out the other direction, and the. 21 traffic would beoin both s . So if the wall is high 9 9 ways . 22 enough , it would protect the residents in that area . And, 23 of course , if the road goes in 10 years down the line, 24 that would probably be another mitigation measure with the 25 county, as far as the additional wall . 26 Then, as far as the odors and the m o.nitorin g of the 27 odors , I was really impressed with the way that was 28 handled there at Davis Street , and , of course , they only Certified Shorthand Reporters �dO�PiIIB `� 2321 Stanwell Drive°Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. Box 4107°Concord,CA 945244107 (415)685-6222 34 1 haul every 48 hours , and this would be 24 -- every . 24 2 hours that all of this would have to be eliminated from 3 the floor there . 4 But there is one other thing that we are concerned 5 with, and that is the traffic. And although Acme has been 6 very good about it lately, they even furnished a new gate 7 out there on Arthur Road, 'but we have been having a great 8 deal of trouble with the Gun Club. When they open up, 9 they leave the gate open, and then even after their meets , 10 they leave it open . 11 And then we have the problem of picking up the 12 garbage for the individuals that still use Arthur Road, 13 and I hope you ' ll take that into consideration . 14 Thank you . 15 CHAIRMAN BEST: Thank you . Is there another 16 speaker . 17 If not , then the matter ' s before the Commission . 18 Commissioner Davis? 19 COMMISSIONER DAVIS : Madam Chair , I just have a 20 comment on the adequacy of the document , and I ' m going to 21 get on my soapbox for a moment . 22 In the socioeconomics section, where they ' re 23 specifically discussing property taxes , there are a few 24 problems that I 'm having trouble with. 25 The first is the consultant does not seem to 26 understand when property is reappraised, because the 17027 consultant says that property is only reappraised on an 28 ownership change , and that is not quite true . And I would .�►^�aOr,�i�8 ' Certified Shorthand Reporters .[HCl ■6w 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 -- - — — (415)685-6222 35 1 suggest that staff and the consultant go back and reread 2 Proposition 13 and correct that document . 3 There were also three different places where the 4 capital costs were costs to construct this transfer 5 station are discussed, in the one table, as I read it, 6 we ' re talking a cost of 22 , 890 , 000 , .and in another table, 7 we ' re talking 17 , 600, 000 -- I 'm sorry, that was the 8 footnote, and yet in another place, the cost is presumed---- 9 to be 13 million . 10 Their calculations or projections of property taxes 11 seem to be based on the 13 million, without any 12 consideration of the prior ratio values , in fact , they err 171 13 on the side of being conservative, but I think at some 14 point in that document we have to discuss what actual 15 costs are , if they are at all important to this 16 Commission. 17 And, finally, when we start to discuss tax rate 18 areas , they give the tax rate area and they give a 172 19 percentage to particular special districts , if you will , I 20 would prefer to see in addition to that the actual tax 21 rate . Percentages are meaningless to me , but the tax rate 22 is not , so in respect to that particular item on property 23 taxes, and I think it starts on page 4-119, there seem to 24 be some problems that need to be cleared up. 25 CHAIRMAN BEST: Any further comments? 26 Commissioner Nimr? 27 COMMISSIONER NIMR : I probably will submit my 28 specific comments in writing , but I did have some general MR �.^ ,,,Arr Certified Shorthand Reporters IadUIa6I e — 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 - - -- - _- -- (415)685-6222 1 comments . 36 2 One of them is connected with the socioeconomic 3 section but it also has to do with the way the site was 4 selected . It isn' t clear to me why this particular site 5 was selected as opposed to another site on the Acme 6 property, and I would like the consultants to make that a , 7 little bit clearer as to why this particular site was 8 selected, in terms of acreage or in terms of topography 9 and so forth . 10 What I was concerned about , and there was also very 11 little explanation as to why this transfer station is 12 costing 22 million dollars, which I think is the cost of 13 all the finances and so forth, I think 17 million is the 14 actual capital cost . 15 The 1984 projection in the Central San. study, 1400 16 tons per day, was 5 . 5 million dollars , so I would like to l� 17 have some kind of an explanation as to why the costs are 173 18 so exorbitantly high. It probably has a connection to 19 this particular site, but I wasn ' t clear as to why that 20 was . 21 Then the other issue that I 'm concerned about is I 22 don ' t believe that the way that this transfer station is 23 set up is really in accordance with the Solid Waste 24 Planning Policy of our county. The Solid Waste Planning 25 Policy of our county are emphasizing -- and also the land 174 26 use permit we looked at with conditions on the landfill -- 1 27 is emphasizing , first , reuse and recycling , and I am glad 28 to hear from the deponent that they plan to put the ZBIadUIa6II8Certified Shorthand Reporters 161Sa 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 964520-4808 ncnrirYrTwr crrrnrrr twr ' P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 37 1 recycling center in a more logical place than they. 2 originally planned. But I would like to see some scenario 3 as to how recycling outside the gate with some incentives 4 for people to not dump .at all , if possible , but to 5 recycle, maybe that could be built into the plan. 6 And I think the way that might be done is to 7 provide some more alternative site planning than is 8 presented ...in- this plan. For example, I would, whil-e 9 placing recycling as first priority and doing about 30 P 9 Y 9 P Y 9 10 percent recycling there, somehow, I ' d like to see a plan 11 that might accommodate that sort of thing , to do the 12 processing on the site of 30 percent recycling . 13 Also, I ' d also like to see an alternative transfer 14 station that would look at the possibility of having a 15 lower amount of tons per day, on the basis that our Solid 16 Waste Plan might be looking at two transfer stations, one 17 for the central and one for the south counties . 18 The third alternative that I ' d like to see is one 19 that moves the transfer station away from -- I have 20 down -- the residential area, but I would presume even the 21 Martinez Gun Club. Again, this goes back to the way this 22 particular site was selected and whether there are some 23 alternative site plans that could be done in that area. 24 The other thing I was a little bit concerned about 25 was the tonnage that was projected for this plant . Based 26 on the figures from the Solid Waste Plan , it ' s much higher 27 than it would be , taking the 20/10 figures , subtracting 28 out 14 percent of the amount that wouldn ' t be going —" Certified Zandorm l8 ` N 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 945204808 REPORTING SERVICE.INCJ P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (415)685.6222 38 1 through the transfer station, that ' s going to the i 2 landfill , and then subtracting out 30 percent of 3 recycling . 4 So based on that , I would sort of like to have an 5 alternative scenario of the tons per day that might be 6 going through this transfer station in 20 years , providing 7 we put everything else in place . And from what Mr . 8 Stewart said, I think we really need to ask our - 9 consultants to do an integrated waste management plan with 10 the transfer station as a very integral part of that plan. 11 I have specific comments, but I will put them in 12 writing . 13 CHAIRMAN BEST: Other comments? 14 COMMISSIONER FELIZ : Madam Chair , I have only one (l 15 comment with regard to the EIR. I was interested in the 16 6 . 2 modified project as an alternative , not looking at it 17 with any favor over what is already proposed, but it does 18 seem to me to merit some special consideration . ins 19 However , the elaboration of it in the EIR is not 20 entirely clear . I would like to see more justification, 21 more explanation of exactly what this modified project , 22 including the shifting of the principal building , as to 23 how it could be handled on the project site . 24 COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Madam Chair? 25 CHAIRMAN BEST: Commissioner Davis? 26 COMMISSIONER DAVIS : I move that we close -- 27 CHAIRMAN BEST : I have a couple of comments . 28 Mr . Zahn, this may be a question you can answer certified Shorthand Reporters - Z_ando_RaIIa 2321 Stanwell Drive 0 Concord,CA 945204808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 - – - (415)685-6222 39 1 right now, but looking , I notice there were two different 2 completion dates for the permanent transfer station, I 3 think one was in ' 89 and one was in ' 90 , do you know what 4 I 'm referring to, or , if not , you can clarify that in the 5 response document? 6 MR. ZAHN: The anticipated completion date was 7 1990 , so I don ' t know the context for which another figure 8 might have been given, maybe it was for the interim 9 station. 10 CHAIRMAN BEST: I ' ll get the page number and let 11 you know. 12 The second question or comment that I had was that 13 the staff apparently recommended as an alternative to the 14 waste energy facility,. which is not , as I understand, part 15 of this proposed project , a full-scale resource recovery 16 center as opposed to, I guess , the recycling station that 17 is now being proposed, but it doesn ' t explain exactly what 18 that involves and I would be interested in a somewhat more 19 accurate explanation . 20 Okay, any other questions or comments? 21 The staff has recommended that we be allowed to i� 22 August 17th for any further written comments and that we 23 set the 22nd of September for a decision on the EIR and a 24 hearing on the project . 25 Mr . Zahn has also suggested that if the Commission r 26 wish a study session, we could set that now. Does the 27 Commission have a feeling one way or the other about that? 28 COMMISSIONER DAVIS : The study session not being ZBIadUIa6II8 Certified Shorthand Reporters __ 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. Box 4107•Concord,CA 945244107 -- (415)685-6222 1 on the EIR, but being on the project? 40 2 CHAIRMAN BEST: Correct . 3 COMMISSIONER DAVIS : I don ' t have any problem 4 with that . 5 CHAIRMAN BEST: Is that something the Commission 6 would like to have? 7 COMMISSIONER NIMR: Is this after -- 8 CHAIRMAN BEST: One possibility was we could 9 consider a study session, say, 6 : 00 o ' clock prior to our 10 formal meeting and action on the 22nd . 11 COMMISSIONER DAVIS : Is the 22nd going to be the 12 project hearing date? -- 13 CHAIRMAN BEST: It can be, yes, is that your 14 COMMISSIONER DAVIS: No, let me make a first 15 motion to close the public hearing , allow to August 17th 16 for written comments and set September 22nd for 17 certification . 18 CHAIRMAN BEST: Okay, is there a second to that 19 motion? 20 COMMISSIONER NIMR: Second. 21 CHAIRMAN BEST: All those in favor indicate by 22 saying yes? 23 (All members say "Yes . " ) 24 COMMISSIONER DAVIS: As a second motion, 25 personally, I would like to have a study session after I 26 hear public input on the project . 27 It seems premature to me to have the study session 28 when all the issues that the public may wish to raise �►^ Certified Shorthand Reporters 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 ...-.. ..........:��......'.., ....- n n n,,., AIAAP rA UAIZ9A-AIM 41 1 haven ' t been raised, so while I ' m glad to see a study 2 session, I ' m thinking that I might prefer it to be in late 3 September or early October , after the public ' s had an 4 opportunity to comment ; and without knowing if we ' re going 5 to hear the project on the 22nd, I would hesitate to set a 6 date at this time . 7 Mr . Zahn, are we tentatively proposing hearing the 8 project on the 22nd of September? 9 MR. ZAHN: Yes , we are . 10 CHAIRMAN BEST: I think your point ' s a good one, 11 Commissioner Davis, I would certainly agree with that , so 12 at least for the moment , postpone any position on whether 13 we would want a study session. 14 We need a motion, then, to set the 22nd for 15 decision on the EIR and hearings on the project . 16 MR. DRAKE: You have the certification decision 17 on the 22nd , you haven ' t set the hearing . 9 18 CHAIRMAN BEST: Okay, good. All right , so that 19 we don ' t need any further motion then relative to -- okay. 20 All right , then, this item ' s continued, the public 21 hearing is closed and we ' re setting the 22nd for a 22 decision on the EIR. 23 24 (Whereupon the hearing was concluded at 9 : 15 P.M. ) 25 26 I� 27 --000-- 28 Certified Shorthand Reporters 1 __ 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 — — – — (415)685-6222 42 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS . 2 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA) 3 I , MANDIE J. BEAUCHAMP, CSR, License No. C-6946 , 4 and a Notary Public in and for the County of Contra Costa , 5 State of California, do certify: 6 That said hearing was reported at the time and 7 place therein stated by me, a Certified Shorthand 8 Reporter , and thereafter transcribed into typewriting ;P YP 9 : -. ------ 9 _.-_9 I further certify that I am not interested in the 10 outcome of said action, nor connected with, nor related 11 to, any of the parties of said action or to their 12 respective counsel . 13 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 15 hand and affixed my official seal this 16 7 - day of 1987 . 17 &A 4 dktzAllb� 18 MANDIE J. BEAUCHAMP, CSR, License No. C-6946 , and Notary Public in and for the County of 19 Contra Costa , State of California . 20 21 OFFICIAL SEAL MANDIE J. BEAUCHAMP 2 2 `�� Notary Public-California pONTRA OOSTA OOUNTY 23 My Omm.Esp.Seo.29. 1989 24 25 26 27 28 ��iI Certified Shorthand Reporters l�do� 8 `� 2321 StanweU Drive•Concord,CA 945204808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 --_ (415)685-6222 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: STAFF PROPOSED LAND USE PERMIT 2122-86 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION Contra Costa County Community Development Department September 17, 1987 Page 1 1. SHORT TITLE .1 The Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station project is hence- forth referred to in this document as the Transfer Station. �. 2. RESPONSIBILITY .1 The conditions of approval identify the Transfer Station developer .as the party responsible for implementing conditions involving construc- tion and improvements, and the Transfer Station operator for imple- menting conditions involving maintenance and management. Regardless of these identifications, the Transfer Station owner shall be responsible for complying with all conditions. 3. VALIDITY PERIOD .1 The Transfer Station developer shall install pre-requisite improve- ments and open the Transfer Station for receiving refuse within three years of the final approval of the project's Solid Waste Facilities Permit, which two years shall be extended by any appeal on any permit. The Transfer Station developer may request a one-year extension of the Land Use Permit. If the Land Use Permit is not implemented within the specified time, it shall become null and void. 4. PERMIT REVIEW .1 The County Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing to review the Conditions of Approval for this Land Use Permit as near to its !� third year anniversary date from commencement of operations of the Transfer Station as practicable. Thereafter, . the County Planning Commission shall hold public hearings on the Land Use Permit at five- Page 2 year intervals while the Transfer Station is in operation. As a result of a review and public hearing, the County Planning Commission may recommend to the Board of Supervisors new or modified conditions. Nothing in this condition shall preclude the Transfer Station owner from applying for amendments to the Land Use Permit at any time or preclude the County from addressing emergency situations or new requirements imposed by state legislation or the courts. 5. SERVICE AREA .1 Area of Origin. The area of origin of all refuse-bearing vehicles admitted to the transfer station shall be consistent with the Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan. .2 Out-of-County Wastes. The Transfer Station operator shall not receive wastes from outside Contra Costa County unless such wastes are consis- tent with the County Solid Waste Management Plan. The Board of Super- visors, after obtaining advice from the County Solid Waste Commission, shall determine if an import is consistent with the plan. 6. ELIGIBLE REFUSE TRANSPORT VEHICLES .1 Eligible Vehicles. The Transfer Station operator shall admit only t.:e following refuse transport vehicles to the transfer facilities: (a) Self-hauler light vehicles, including. personal vehicles and small trucks, conveying eligible loads. (b) Self-hauler and commercial heavy trucks, with or without transfer station accounts, conveying eligible loads. Page 3 (c) Packer, drop-box, and other collection service solid waste col- lection vehicles. (d) Transfer vehicles. .2 Emergency Use. The County Health Services Department may allow vehicles transporting eligible wastes originating in other areas of Contra Costa County to have access to the Transfer Station for periods up to 180 days on an emergency basis. The department may grant one extension for no longer than 180 days. The Board of Supervisors may allow the emergency use of the transfer station to continue for a period up to two years. 7. ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE WASTES .1 Eligible Wastes. The Transfer Station operator shall allow only wastes eligible for disposal in a Class III facility, as defined by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, .to be admitted to the Transfer Station. The wastes admitted to the Transfer Station shall also be consistent with the Solid Waste Facilities Permit, administered by the County Health Services Department. .2 Ineligible Wastes. The Transfer Station operator shall not allow the �- following wastes to be received at the Transfer Station: (a) Designated Wastes, as defined by Section 2522 of Article 2 of Subchapter 15, of Title 23, of the California Administrative Code. (b) Infectious Wastes. (c) Hazardous and toxic wastes. Page 4 (d) Radioactive wastes. (e) Liquid wastes. (f) Utility sludges. (g) Other' ineligible wastes specified in the Solid Waste Facilities Permit. .3 Exceptions. The Transfer Station operator may admit the following wastes to the Transfer Station in accordance with waste management j programs approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and consistent with the Solid Waste Facilities Permit: (a) Utility sludges, if utilized in a composting program. (b) Household hazardous wastes, if received to implement a household or small generator program. See Section 13. 8. ADMINISTRATION .1 Incoming Waste Reports. The Transfer Station operator shall submit quarterly reports to the County Department of Health Services on the amount of incoming waste by approved categories, such as residen- tial/commercial , industrial , and construction/demolition. .2 Local Advisory Committee. The Transfer Station developer shall make a good faith effort to organize a local advisory committee, consisting of representatives of the Vine Hill neighborhood, to comment and advise on the development of the Transfer Station and its operations. The advice of the committee shall be sought on the color and texture of the sound wall to be built adjoining properties on Irene Drive. If a committee cannot be organized, the landfill developer shall hold a r Page 5 series of meetings -in the locale. Meetings with the committee, or invited local residents, shall be initiated following the approval of a Land Use Permit and shall be held at least quarterly, through the first two years of operations. The County Community Development Department and Health Services Department shall be notified at least ten days in advance of all meetings. .3 Insurance and/or Bonding. The Transfer Station developer shall rprovide the insurance and bonds specified by the units of government having approval authority over the project. r .4 Notification Program. The Transfer Station operator shall prepare and implement a program to notify potential users of the Transfer Station of its opening and conditions of use. The program should be prepared in cooperation with refuse collectors and with the operator(s) of the landfill served by the Transfer Station. It shall be approved by the County Community Development Department. r9. LOAD INSPECTION .1 Eligible Vehicles and Loads. The Transfer Station operator shall prepare and implement a program for screening loads at the Transfer Station gate house, and for checking loads at the transfer buildings. The load inspection program shall include inspection for hazardous wastes, and other ineligible wastes, and procedures for their handling and disposal . The program shall be approved by the County Community Development and Health Services Departments. .2 Refuse Characterization. The Transfer Station operator shall prepare and implement a program to characterize incoming refuse by type and amount, by performing periodic detailed load inspections according to a program approved by the County Community Development and Health Services Departments. r Page 6 10. WASTE MEASUREMENT .1 Scales. The Transfer Station developer shall install scales at the facility to weigh incoming and outgoing vehicles. A weighing program, subject to approval by the County' s Department of Health Services and Director of Weights and Measures, shall be implemented to m,)nitor wastes. Unless required by other agencies, self-hauler personal vehicles and small trucks may be exempted from weighing requirements. .2 Incoming Waste Reports. See Condition 8.1. 11. HOURS OF OPERATION .1 24-Hour Service. The Transfer Station operator may accept eligible refuse on a 24-hour basis; consistent with these Conditions of Approv- al and the Solid Waste Facilities Permit. .2 Self-Hauler Service. The Transfer Station operator shall receive eligible refuse from self-haulers between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. , seven days a week. The Transfer Station shall not admit self-haulers at other times. .3 Late Hours Program. See Condition 22.6. 12. RESOURCE RECOVERY .1 Resource Recovery Program. The Transfer Station operator shall pre- pare and implement a resource recovery program consistent with the County Solid Waste Management Plan. The program shall be prepared in cooperation with waste collection services and commercial users of the facility, and it shall be approved by the County Community Development Department Plan. It shall be updated periodically to conform with the County Solid Waste Management Plan. Page 7 .2 Recyclables Drop-Off Bins. The Transfer Station developer shall install a recyclables drop-off facility between Waterfront Road and the Transfer Station gate house. The facility shall accept paper, aluminum, and glass. The developer shall also provide bins in the self-haulers transfer building. .3 Recyclable Extraction. The Transfer Station operator shall screen incoming self-hauler loads for major recyclable materials and extract materials, consistent with the County Solid Waste Management Plan. .4 Recyclable Storage. The Transfer Station operator shall not store recycled materials in the open on the Transfer Station site, unless the material is baled or placed in bins or storage containers. .5 Wood Chipping. The Transfer Station operator shall install wood chip- ping ping equipment on the site, and establish a program to encourage landscape-services and construction/demolition material haulers to segregate wood material for chipping. .6 Composting. The Transfer Station operator shall not install a composting facility on the Transfer Station site, but is encouraged to establish one on the adjoining landfill site. .7 Landfill Gas. The Transfer Station operator shall explore the use of landfill gas to heat the Transfer Station facility. .8 Re-Used Water. See Condition 19.6. 13. HAZARDOUS WASTE . 1 Load Inspection. See Section 19. Page 8 .2 Household Hazardous Waste Program. If consistent with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, the Transfer Station operator shall develop a household hazardous waste disposal program. The operator is encouraged to develop the program in cooperation with other waste management services. The proposed program, along with a schedule of proposed costs and funding sources, shall be submitted to the County Community Development Department within 1 year of the opening of the Transfer Station. If the househc. d hazardous waste program (or a version of it) is approved by the County Board of Supervisors, and the program is funded, the Transfer Station operator shall implement it. .3 Regulatory Agency Approvals. The collection and storage of toxic and hazardous wastes pursuant to this section, shall be subject to regula- tory agency approvals and shall be consistent with County waste management plans. 14. SCHEMATIC PLAN FOR LAND USE PERMIT , . 1 Initial Development Plan. The development plan approved by this Land Use Permit, and modified by these Conditions of Approval , shall con- sist of the following schematic plans included in the applicant's July, 1986, report entitled Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Project Description/Report of Station Information: (a) Drawing S1, Location Plan , (b) Drawing S2, Site Plan (c) Drawing S3, Floor Plan (d) Drawing S4, Building Elevation and Sections Page 9 15. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS PLAN .1 Subsequent to the approval of the Land Use Permit but prior to the commencement of any construction, the Transfer Station developer shall submit a Development and Improvements Plan to the Community Develop- ment Department and obtain its approval . The Development and Improve- ments Plan shall be consistent- with the project approved by the Land Use Permit, but prepared to a level of detail appropriate for the review of engineering and construction proposals. It shall be inter- nally consistent with the project's Environmental Impact Report findings, these Conditions of Approval , and the Solid Waste Facilities Permit issued by the County Health Services Department. The Community rDevelopment Department will coordinate the review of the plan by the Health Services Department, the Public Works Department, and other appropriate units of government. The Development and Improvements Plan shall include: (a) A final Site Design Plan described in Section 16. (b) A Final Architectural Design Plan, as described in Section 17. (c) A Transportation and Circulation Plan, as described in Section 18. (d) A Site Services and Utilities Plan, as described in Section 19. (e) A Sediment and Erosion Control Plan, described in Section 20.. .2 In approving the Development and Improvements Plan, the Community Development Department may provide for phased construction and for the subsequent submission of detailed Development and Improvements Plan components related to the phased construction. cage 10 �+ 16. SITE DESIGN PLAN .1 Final Site Design Plan. The Transfer Station developer shall prepare and submit a final Site Design Plan, including a landscaping pian, to the County Community Development Department, and obtain approval , prior to beginning construction. The final Site Development Plan shall show boundary lines to survey accuracy and shall show facility locations and installation specifications based on final engineering i and construction plans. The final Site Design Plan shall show: (a) Final site contours. (b) Sound wall and berm locations and their specifications. (c) On-site road locations and construction specifications. (d) On-site paved areas and construction specifications. (e) Building locations. (f) Entrance facility location and specifications. (g) On-site rights-of-way and easements. (h) Water, sewer, and other utility installations, unless shown on a separate utilities service plan. .2 Final Landscaping Plan. The Site Design Plan shall include, or be accompanied by, a final Landscaping Plan. The final Landscaping Plan shall show: (a) Ground preparation for planting. (b) Plant species and locations. (c) A landscape maintenance program. (d) A plan for improving the appearance of the Waterbird Way/Waterfront Road entrance way and the Waterbird Way/Transfer Station access road intersection area. Page 11 (e) The final Landscaping Plan shall be consistent with the County Policy on Water Conservation requirements for new developments and shall utilize California native species to the extent pract- icable. (f) Waterbird Way Extension. The final Landscaping Plan shall provide for the interim landscaping of the Waterbird Way exten- sion adjoining the Transfer Station. 17. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PLAN .1 Final Architectural Design Plan. The Transfer Station developer shall prepare and submit a final Architectural Design Plan to the County Community Development Department, and obtain approval prior to begin- ning construction. The Final Architectural Design Plan shall show: (a) Building and installation dimensions and elevations. (b) Proposed construction materials and colors. .2 Construction Material . The waste processing and transfer buildings shall be tilt-up concrete or other sound-reducing construction. .3 Texture and Color. The transfer facility buildings and sound walls shall be finished with textures and earth-tone colors. .4 Building Heights. Building heights or elevations shall not exceed those shown in Condition 14.1(d) by more than 10 percent. .5 Seismic Criteria. Building and installations, including tanks, shall be designed to withstand the Maximum Probable Earthquake anticipated for the location. 1 Page 12 18. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION PLAN .1 Final Transportation and Circulation Plan. The Transfer Station developers shall prepare and submit a final Transportation and Circu- lation Plan, and obtain the approval of the County Community Develop- ment Department prior to beginning construction. The final Transpor- tation and Circulation Plan shall . (a) Include the studies and plans called for in this section. (b) Detail the on-site circulation described in the project's Envi- ronmental Impact Report, adjusted for modifications imposed by these conditions of approval . .2 Design Studies, Construction Plans, and Project-Related Improvements. The Transfer Station developer shall carry out studies, and prepare construction plans accordingly, for the intersections and road segments listed below. The studies and plans shall be initially submitted in draft form. The studies and construction plans shall be included in the Final Transportation and Circulation Plan and shall be approved by the County Public Works and Community Development Depart- , ments. The Transfer Station developer shall be responsible for constructing the improvements called for by the studies. County , public roads standards shall be used to determine improvements. a I-680/Waterfront Road Interchange. The study and plan shall , ( ) 9 identify interim improvements necessary to accommodate Transfer Station traffic operations, including transfer trucks, under all weather conditions. The study and plans shall be approved by the California Department of Transportation. (b) Waterfront Road, I-680 to Waterbird Way. The study shall identi- fy improvements necessary to accommodate Transfer Station traffic, including transfer trucks, under all weather conditions. ' Page 13 (c) Waterfront Road/Waterbird Way Intersection. The study shall identify improvements necessary to accommodate Transfer Station traffic, including transfer trucks, under all weather conditions. It shall determine the adequacy of turning and vehicle storage lanes at the intersection. (d) Waterbird Way. The study shall identify improvements necessary to accommodate Transfer Station traffic, including transfer trucks, under all weather conditions. It shall determine the adequacy of turning and vehicle storage lanes at the intersec- tion. (e) Waterbird Way/Transfer Station Intersection. The study shall identify vehicle storage and turning lane requirements, as well as signing requirements at the intersection. It shall address both short-term and long-term (Waterbird Way extended to Imhoff Drive) requirements. (f) Acme Access Road. The study shall identify roadway requirements, including lane widths, pavement specifications, and fill-over- sanitary landfill requirements, for the Acme access road between Waterbird Way and the 22-acre Transfer Station site. (g) Transfer Station Intersection. The study shall detail intersec- tion construction and movement requirements of Acme Fill Corpora- tion, I .T. Corporation, and Martinez Gun Club traffic through the main Transfer Station intersection (the intersection between the Transfer Station and gate house) . The study shall address signing and signalization. It shall include improvements to Waterbird Way which may be necessary to join that road to the re-built intersection. See Condition 18.10. Page ;4 .3 Waterbird Way Extension. The Transfer station developer shall survey, reserve, and offer to dedicate to the County a right-of-r1ay for the extension of Waterbird Way from the vicinity of the main Transfer Station intersection, through the Acme Fill land holdings, to the vicinity of the A.T.S.F. Railroad on the south. The right-of-way width and configuration of the extension shall be approved by the County Public Works and Community Development Departments. .4 I .T. Corporation Coordination. The Transfer Station developer shall make a good faith effort to coordinate the Waterfront Road intersec- tion, Transfer Station intersection, and Waterbird Way extension improvements with the I .T. Corporation's Vine Hill modernization project. (Similar conditions may be included in the future in Land Use Permit for the I .T. project. ) .5 Arthur Road Gate. The Transfer Station developer shall provide for connection between the Arthur Road corridor and the main Transfer Station intersection controlled by a lockable gate. The connection shall admit emergency vehicles, including fire trucks, and the gate shall be controllable by the emergency vehicles. If the Martinez Gun Club legally must be granted access to their site by way of Arthur Road, the Club shall also be provided the opportunity to transport their traffic through the gate; however, the main Transfer Station intersection shall be signed to require non-emergency vehicle gate traffic to yield the right-of-way to Transfer Station access road traffic. .6 Assessment or Benefit Districts. The Transfer station developer shall join future assessment, benefit, or similar districts that may be established in the future to: (a) Modernize or re-build the I-680/Waterfront Road interchange. (b) Modernize or re-build Waterfront Road between I-680 and Waterbird , Way. Page 15 (c) Improve or extend Waterbird Way between the Transfer Station and Imhoff Road. .7 Temporary Turn-Around. The Transfer Station developer shall provide a temporary (until the road is extended) turn-around, adequate for large trucks, at the southern end of Waterbird Way. .8 Transfr Station Circulation. The Transfer Station developer shall prepare a detailed site circulation plan for operations under varying conditions. The plan shall provide for the closing of west-facing Srefuse bays after 5:00 p.m. It shall consider circulating transfer trucks in a west (unloaded) to east (loaded) pattern to reduce noise impacts on the Vine Hill neighborhood. .9 Peak Period Traffic Management. The Transfer Station operator shall prepare a study for managing outgoing transfer vehicle traffic to reduce peak period conflicts with traffic on Waterfront Road, Highway 4, and I-680. The study shall also consider the management of trans- fer vehicle traffic to reduce conflicts with peak period traffic in the vicinity(ies) of receiving landfills. It shall identify changes to the Conditions of Approval needed to implement a peak-period traf- fic reduction program. The study shall be provided to the County Community Development Department no later than the opening of the Transfer Station. .10 Transfer Station Main Intersection. The Transfer Station developer shall meet with the IT Corporation and Martinez Gun Club to ascertain if the main intersection can be better configured to serve the three parties. The results shall be provided to the Community Development Department within 6 months of the Board of Supervisors' approval of a Land Use Permit for the Transfer Station. The Community Development Department may allow a re-configured design to be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. Page 16 19. SITE SERVICES AND UTILITIES PLAN .1 Final Site .Services and Utilities Plan. The Transfer Station develop- er shall prepare and submit a final Site Services and Utilities Plan, , and obtain the approval of the County Community Development Department prior to beginning construction. The final Site Services and Utili- ties Plan shall include: (a) A fire protection component. ' (b) A water service component. (c) A severing service component. , (d) A drainage service component. .2 The Transfer Station developer shall comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District, expressed' in the District's letter of September 1, 1987 (which is attached as Appendix A) or other measures approved by the district. .3 The Transfer Station developer shall provide automatic sprinklers in all buildings. The fire sprinkler system shall be designed to control fires during the fire district's response period. Additionally, a manually controlled water delivery system shall be installed in the waste handling buildings. .4 The Transfer Station developer shall provide fire extinguishers and apparatus as specified in the Solid Waste Facilities Permit. .5 The Transfer Station developer shall extend a public water supply to the Transfer Station site and the gate house facility. The water supply system shall be acceptable to the Contra Costa Water District and the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District. Page 17 .6 The Transfer Station developer shall consider using treated waste water from a district sewage treatment plant for landscape mainte- nance. .7 The Transfer_ Station developer shall arrange for the portion of the site outside of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) to be detached from the Mountain View Sanitary District and annexed to the CCCSD. This will require the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to approve a boundary reorganization. Alternatively, the Transfer Station developer may arrange for the entire site to be iincluded in the Mountain View Sanitary District. .8 If the site is annexed to the CCCSD, the Transfer Station developer shall comply with the following conditions set forth in the district's letter of September 1, 1987, or other measures approved by the district: ' (a) An eight-inch public sewer shall be extended to serve the site. It shall provide gravity service. i (b) A ten-foot exclusive public sewer easement shall be established over the alignment of any public sewer not located within a public road to provide access for maintenance. Alternatively, if the eight-inch g public sewer is in a private street, a ten-foot exclusive public sewer easement shall be established over the alignment of the public sewer to provide .access for future maintenance. (c) Building plans shall be stamped by the District's Permit Section prior to building plan approval . Page 18 .9 The Transfer Station developer shall ascertain from the sewage treat- ment district having jurisdiction if drainage and wash waters require pre-treatment before discharge into the public sewer system. The developer shall provide the pre-treatment of drainage waters indicated , by the district. .10 Surface Drainage. The Transfer Station developer shall prepare and implement a plan for conveying surface drainage water from the facili- ty site (except for drainage waters to be conveyed to a waste water treatment plant) to discharge locations. The plan shall be approved by the County Public Works Department. 20. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN .1 Final Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The Transfer Station devel- oper shall prepare and implement a sediment and erosion control plan, , which shall be subject to the approval of the County Community Devel- opment Department. The plan shall prevent substantial erosion on slopes on the . project site and reduce the amounts of water-borne materials from reaching surface waters. It shall include the condi- tions listed below. .2 Primary Grading. The Transfer Station developer shall perform primary grading for the project' s roads, paved areas, and building sites and the construction of site slopes during the April through October low rainfall season. To the extent practicable, unpaved grades on erodable material shall be limited to 2 percent. .3 Temporary Flow Restriction. If "grading must be done during rainy periods, or if erosion is occurring on previously graded areas, the Transfer Station developer shall take corrective actions, which may include the installation of ground cloth or the placement of hay bales. Page 19 .4 Curbs. The Transfer Station developer shall install curbs on facility roads and paved areas, wherever practicable, to limit erosion and facilitate dust and litter control . ' r . Th Transfer 5 Ground Cover e, a Station developer shall plant ground cover on graded areas which are not to be paved as soon as practicable. The ground cover shall be consistent with the Landscaping Plan. .6 Ditch/Swale Liners. The Transfer Station developer shall line any ditches and swales for conveying surface runoff across sanitary, land- fill areas to prevent water infiltration. Drainage-ways across other areas shall be lined or planted to limit erosion. .7 Sedimentation Ponds. If an off-site sedimentation pond is required to control the discharge of eroded material into Pacheco Creek-Walnut Creek, the Transfer Station's operators shall not place the pond over a sanitary landfilled area, or in a location where seepage into a sanitary landfill could occur. Consideration shall be given to pro- viding wetland habitat in connection with any sedimentation pond required by the project. 21. CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS .1 Hours of Construction. The Transfer Station developer shall restrict outdoor construction activities to the period from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. 2 Exemption. The Transfer Station developer may request, in writing, and the Director of Community Development may grant, exemptions to Condition 21. 1 for specific times for cause. An example is the plac- ing of concrete. Page 20 , .3 Sound Wall . Prior to any other construction, the Transfer Station developer shall install a sound wall (Condition 22.3) adjoining the ' rear lot lines of homes on Irene Drive, and extending westward on Arthur Drive, and along the Martinez Gun Club property. .4 Access Roads. The Transfer Station developer shall install and pave the access road connecting Waterbird Way to the Transfer Station site as early as practicable to limit dust generation. ' .5 Dust Suppression. The Transfer Station developer shall sprinkler or chemically treat graded areas and temporary pavements to control dust. .6 Landfill Cover Disturbance. The Transfer Station developer shall not excavate the final or intermediate cover of sanitary landfill areas for road improvements or utilities without permission from the County Health Services Department. 22. NOISE CONTROL .1 Noise Monitori"ng Program. The Transfer Station operator shall prepare and implement a noise monitoring and abatement program, which shall be approved by the County Community Development and Health Services Departments. The program shall monitor noise levels at two sensitive receptor locations, one adjoining the Vine Hill Neighborhood and another adjoining the Martinez Gun Club. If the monitoring noise levels as the Transfer Station boundary line exceed 60 dBA during daylight hours, or 50 DBA during the evening or at night, the operator shall institute additional noise reduction measures to bring noise emanating from the Transfer Station to the forementioned levels or less. , .2 Transfer Station Construction. See Section 21. Page 21 .3 Irene Drive Sound Wall . The Transfer Station developer shall install a sound wall adjoining the rear lot lines of properties on the east side of Irene Drive. The sound wall shall be at least 5 feet or higher than the, estimated heights of vertical exhaust stacks of trans- fer vehicles. The sound wall shall extend at least 150 feet westerly along Arthur Road, extended, to further protect the Vine Hill Neigh- borhood. It shall be installed prior to other construction to shield the neighborhood from construction noise. .4 Martinez Gun Club Sound Wall . The Transfer Station developer shall install a sound wall along the common boundary of the Transfer Station ' and the Martinez Gun Club. The wall shall be similar in construction and appearance to the Irene Drive sound wall . Its height shall be determined following additional noise studies to be provided by the applicant. .5 Construction Hours. See Condition 21.1 .6 Late Hours Program. The Transfer Station operator shall prepare a late hours program, which shall be approved by the County Community Development Department, to reduce operations noise between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The program shall include: (a) Discontinuing the use of west-facing unloading bays and closing bay doors. (b) Closing the west-facing transfer truck bay doors except when trucks are entering or leaving the transfer building. .7 Transfer Truck Circulation. See Condition 18.8 Page 22 , .8 Transfer Truck Noise Suppression. The Transfer Station operator shall require transfer trucks using the facility to be equipped with factory approved noise suppression equipment, including engine compartment insulation. 23. ODOR CONTROL .1 Odor Control Program. The Transfer Station operator shall prepare and implement an odor control program, which shall be approved by the County Community Development and Health Services Departments. The program shall ensure that odors emanating from the Transfer Station shall not be detectable and offensive at the facility' s boundary line. The program shall comply with Rule 7-302 of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. It shall include the conditions listed below. ' .2 Odor Suppressants. When necessary, the Transfer Station operator shall treat wastes in the transfer buildings with odor suppressants. .3 Waste Storage. Pursuant to the Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist- rict' s Authority to Construct, the Transfer Station operator shall not hold wastes, except for recycled materials, for longer than 24 hours. If the Bay Area Air Quality Management District subsequently allows longer storage times, as for traffic management, the operator shall i not hold such wastes for longer than 48 hours. This condition shall not be interpreted to prohibit the operator from loading a transfer truck after 6:00 p.m. on one day and dispatching it by 7:00 a.m. the next day. ' .4 Night Loading. The Transfer Station operator may load and dispatch ' transfer trucks after 5:00 p.m. Dispatching shall cease by 10:00 p.m. Pre-loaded trucks shall be dispatched prior to 9:00 a.m. the day after loading. Pre-loaded trucks shall be covered, or stored indoors, and ' shall not cause odor or vector problems. ' Page 23 .5 Landfill Cell Re-Opening. See Condition 21.6. .6 Dust Suppressants. See Condition 21.5 24. CULTURAL RESOURCES ' .1 Archaeology. The Transfer Station shall cease work in the immediate area if buried human remains or archaeological material is uncovered during construction or operation. Work in the immediate area shal-1 cease until a qualified archaeologist is consulted and approves re- sumption of work. Should human remains which may be of Native American origin be encountered during the project, the County Coroner' s Office shall be contacted pursuant to the procedures set ' forth in the Health and Safety Code. The County Community Development Department shall also be notified. 25. LITTER CONTROL .1 Litter Screening. The Transfer Station developer shall install a system of landscaping and fencing on the facility to prevent hitter from blowing off-site. The litter screening system shall be described in the Development and Improvements Plan. .2 Transfer Trucks. The Transfer Station operator shall equip all trans- fer trucks using the facility with anti-litter screening. .3 Collection Vehicles. The Transfer Station operator shall develop an anti-littering program for collection vehicles and large trucks using the facility in cooperation with the collection services and commer- cial (account) firms utilizing the facility. Page 24 , .4 On-Site Litter Policing. The Transfer Station operator shall remove ' litter from perimeter and litter fences and planting screens at least once each day, and police the facility site at least daily. The County Health Services Department may require more frequent policing ' to control the accumulation of litter. .5 Off-Site Litter Policing. The Transfer Station operator shall provide weekly litter clean-up of Waterbird Way and the on-site Transfer , Station access road. The landfill operator shall provide bi-weekly litter clean-up of Waterfront Road from the I-680 interchange to the Walnut Creek bridge. .6 Littering Signs. The Transfer Station operator shall post signs, as determined necessary by the County Community Development Department, along access roads to the Transfer Station noting littering and ' illegal dumping laws. The Transfer Station operator shall post signs at the landfill entrance noting the hours when the facility is open to the public. .7 Load Covering. The Transfer Station operator shall implement a pro- . gram to limit uncovered loads from arriving at the landfill. The program shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services Department. 26. SAFETY/PUBLIC HEALTH .1 Equipment Operator Protection. The Transfer Station operator shall ' provide air conditioned, sound-reducing enclosures on solid waste moving equipment and operations booths in the facility' s waste processing buildings. Page 25 .2 Emergency Plan. The Transfer Station operator shall prepare an emer- gency plan specified by the Solid Waste Facilities Permit and approved by the County Health Services Department. The emergency plan shall include the following: (a) A fire and explosion component. (b) A seismic component. (c) A hazardous waste spills and contamination containment componer'-. (d) An evacuation component. .3 Employee Training. The Transfer Station operator shall develop and implement training and subsequent refresher training programs covering accident prevention, safety, identification and handling of hazardous materials, first aid, and instruction of use of equipment. The programs shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Ser- vices Department. ' .4 Employee Safety Equipment. The Transfer Station operator shall provide or require employees to provide safety equipment, such as safety glasses, hard hats, safety shoes, gloves, coveralls, and noise reducers as required by state and federal safety agencies and the ' County Health Services Department. .5 First Aid. Equipment. The Transfer Station operator shall provide and maintain supplies located in easily accessible areas. The first aid supplies shall be consistent with Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements and subject to the approval of the County Health Services Department. ' .6 Emergency Communications. The Transfer Station operator shall provide ' radio phones or telephones for employee use to call for medical and other emergency assistance. Phone numbers to use for outside emergen- Page 26 cy assistance shall be clearly posted on the landfill and in other work areas. The communications system shall be subject to the approv- al of. the County Health Services Department. .7 Emergency Eye Baths and Showers. The Transfer Station operator shall ' provide facilities for emergency eye baths and emergency showers. The facilities shall be subject -to the approval of the County Health Service Department. .8 Equipment Maintenance. The Transfer Station operator shall prepare and implement an equipment maintenance program which shall be approved by the County Health Services Department prior to the commencement of operations. The program shall address transfer vehicles and other refuse-conveying vehicles stored on the site as well as the station's refuse-moving vehicles and mechanical equipment. Vehicles and equip- ment shall be regularly cleaned to reduce the risk of fires. .9 Gas Monitoring. The Transfer Station operator shall prepare and , implement a gas monitoring program which shall be approved by the County Health Services Department. 27. SITE SECURITY ' .1 Security Fencing. The Transfer Station developer shall install a ' security fence around the perimeter of the site with lockable gated entrances and exits. The fence shall be located to minimize its visual impacts. It shall be included in the Development and Improve- ments Plana ' .2 Security Staffing. The Transfer Station operator shall staff the ' facility 24 hours a day. Page 27 .3 Safety and Security Lighting. The Transfer Station developer shall ' install and operate adequate lighting. The lighting shall be provided in a manner which minimizes glare to nearby residents and road users. The lighting program shall be covered in the Development and Improve- ments Plan. 28. VECTt')RS i .1 Rodent Control . If refuse compaction does not completely eliminate 1 live rodents from the Transfer Station, the operator shall work with the County Health Services Department to identify the reasons for the presence of rodents, and make appropriate changes in operational pro- cedures. If an eradication program is necessary, the use of alterna- tive rodent control programs such as sustained live trapping using non-poisonous baits, and natural biological control. shall be consid- ered. Anti-coagulants shall be administered by a pest management ' professional in a manner which minimizes exposure to avain predators. Class I pesticides shall not be used. .2 Mosquito Control . The landfill operator shall grade areas within the ' Transfer Station property to prevent ponding of water which could harbor mosquitos (except for sedimentation ponds and riparian habitat areas. ) If a mosquito problem persists, the County Health Services rDepartment may require the preparation and implementation of addi- tional mosquito control measures. 29. INTERIM TRANSFER STATION . 1 General Condition. The Acme Fill Corporation may construct and opera- te an interim Transfer Station on the Acme landfill property at a location designated in Condition 29.2 below. The size of the interim station shall not exceed 10 acres. The interim Transfer Station may Page 28 commence operations on or after April 1, 1989, and shall cease opera- tions not later than 90 days following the opening of the permanent Transfer Station, but in no event longer than April 30, 1990. Grading shall be done in accordance with Section 16. The interim Transfer ' Station may consist of one or more unenclosed pads, which shall be paved to prevent the infiltration of liquids into the underlying , ground. If it is necessary to excavate into the cover of the landfill , permission shall be obtained from the County Health Services Department and other regulatory agencies having jurisdiction. Drain- age waters from the pads shall be handled as leachate. Screens or fences shall be installed to restrict litter from blowing off the operations area. The interim Transfer Station shall be served by a paved road. It shall be enclosed by a security fence. Wooden slats shall be installed in the fence to screen any part of the station which may be visible from a residential area. ' .2 Location. The interim Transfer Station may be placed in the immediate , vicinity of one of the following locations: (a) in the immediate vicinity of the permanent Transfer Station' s access .road on the 125-acre north parcel ; (b) on the 97-acre parcel ; or c in the northeast corner of the 125-acre parcel . ( ) .3 Permits. The interim Transfer Station shall be subject to a Solid Waste Facilities Permit and building permits from Contra Costa County, other regulatory agencies may also have permit jurisdiction. ' CAZ:jn 6c:acmecoa. caz � APPENDIX F 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY1 ®ti /^ CONSOLIDATED FIRE DISTRICT - \ f/LIVE 7J 2010 GEARY ROAD Fake DISI C5 PLEASANT HILL, CA 94523-4694 (415) 930-5500 BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION September 1, 1987 Contra Costa County ' Community Development Department P. 0. Box 951 Martinez, CA 94553 :. Attn: Charles A. Zahn SUBJECT: LUP 2122-86 Waterbird Way & Arthur Road Dear Mr. Zahn: We have reviewed the land use permit application to establish a landfill waste transfer station at the subject location. This project is regulated by codes and ordinances administered by this Fire District relative to Contra Costa County Ordinance 86/71 ' and the State Fire Marshal's Regulations. If approved by your office, the following shall be required: ' 1. The developer shall submit two (2) complete sets of plans and specifications of the subject project, including built-in fire protection systems (when required) , to this office for review and approval prior to construction to insure compliance with minimum requirements related to fire and life safety. Plan review fees will be assessed at that time. (2.206)C.C.C. Ord. 86/71 2. The developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum fire flow of 5,000 GPM. Required flow shall be delivered from not more than 5 hydrants flowing simultaneously while maintaining 20 pounds residual pressure in the main. (10.301c) UFC 3. Provide access roadways with all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20 feet unobstructed width, and not less than 13'6" of vertical clearance, to ' within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior walls of every building. Access roads shall not exceed 20% grade, shall have a minimum inside turning radius of 35 feet, and must be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus (31 tons) . Note: Access roads of 20 feet unobstructed width shall have curbs painted red and "NO PARKING" signs posted. ' Roads 28 feet in width shall have the curb painted red and "NO PARKING" signs posted, allowing for parking on one side only. Roads 36 feet in •,.idth allow for .Narking on both sides. C.C.C. Comm. Dev. Dept./Charles A. Zahn ' RE: LUP 2122-86 September 1, 1987 Page 2 Roads divided into one-way lanes by a curbed divider or similar obstacle shall be not less than 12 feet in clear width on each side of the divider. Parking shall be prohibited. When conditions prevent conformance with,- the above, the Chief may Permit the ' installation of fire protection systems; provided such systems are not other- wise required by this or any other code. (10.207)UFC 4. Dead-end fire department access roads in excess of 150 feet long shall be , provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire department apparatus. (10.207a)UFC 5. Access roads and hydrants shall be installed and in service Prior to combustible construction. (10.301d)UFC 6. Approved premises identification shall be provided. Such numbers shall contrast with their background and be readily visible from the street. (10.208)UFC 7. A pro rata fee of 20C per square foot will be assessed to partially offset initial expenditures for additional necessary fire service resources. It is requested that a copy of the conditions of approval for the subject project be forwarded to this office when compiled by the planning agency. ' If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, , ester H. Nelson Fire Inspector CHN:vw , cc: Acme Fill Corporation ' Contra Costa Water District/LeeAnne Cisterman File H.7 � Contra Costa � County i 1 ACME FILL WASTE RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION M � Final environmental Impact Report 1 ADDENDUM OCTOBER 1987 1 ' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: George C. Feliz, Chairman DATE: October 27, 1987 FROM: Charles A. Zahn, Principal Planner SUBJECT: Addendum, Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Environmental Impact Report r This memorandum replies to County Planning Commission comments on the "Acme Transfer Station" Draft Environmental Impact and the Final EIR Response Document made by the Commission at its October 13, 1987, hearing. The memorandum is an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report because it provides additional in- formation on matters raised in the EIR and because it is intended to be used in the Commission's decision-making process. The first part of the memorandum addresses comments on particular (numbered) responses in the Response Document brought up by Commissioner Nimr. The second part addresses general comments. The memorandum also includes an appendix which i •, contains reference material. PART I COMMENTS ON NUMBERED RESPONSES RESPONSES TO COMMENTS #34, #35, AND #36 CONTEXT Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Letter August 16, 1987) "As I pointed out at the public hearing, this project, although �j ostensibly a private-sector project, should actually be. analyzed 2. for its consonance with our solid waste planning policies in this county. Since Acme Landfill has expressed its intent to pass all. costs of its private decisions to the rate paying public, it is the obligation of the county to determine if those private plan- ning decisions are actually in the long range public interest. Therefore, I believe that more analysis must be done by the 34 writers of the EIR on the reasons for the placement of this transfer station on this parcel of the Acme property, and on the reasons for the high projected costs. 35 There should also be a mention of whether this proposal, with its implied emphasis on a large waste stream and a comparatively short life (based on bonding obligations) will actually be in accord with the county (and state) policies of maximum salvage, 36 reuse, recycling. Will this be a hindrance to a county policy that would place another transfer station in the south central county?" Responses (Response Document September, 1987 ` - I - Comments 34, 35, and 36 were answered on pages 2-8 through 2-12 of the Response Document, which are reproduced in this Addendum's appendices. E� Commentator's Critique (Public Hearing, October 13, 1987) On the responses to #34 to #36, in which I really asked why are they building a transfer station on this particular parcel of Acme, the actual answer to my question was in Response #82, which says that "all of the other places that Acme Landfill would be exorbitantly expensive to build on." But, in Responses #34 to #36, as I said, it was very confusing to me because the presentation was very nearly identical to the one that Acme had given us on the rationale for why they're doing, what they're doing. So, I was very confused by the response. 3. ISSUES 1. Location of a Transfer Station on the Acme Landfill Site. Although this issue is not directly raised in the comments, quoted above, it is germane to the broad issue of the consistency of the proposed trans- fer station with County solid waste planning policies. The Draft Environ- mental Impact Report on Page 4-7 noted that the 1987 revisions to the County Solid Waste Management Plan, which were being processed at the time, included a policy statement to the effect that the proposed transfer sta- tion would be consistent with the plan. Subsequently, on October 13, 1987, enough city approvals were obtained to complete the local approval process and send the plan to the California Waste Management Board for final ap- proval. As approved by the County Board of Supervisors and the requisite number of cities, the 1987 County Solid Waste Management Plan includes the following policy statement: "For Central/South County, a transfer station, or multiple trans- fer stations for the area, shall be developed prior to, or P j coincident with, the closure of Acme Fill. The proposed Acme Fill Transfer Station would meet this requirement and is consis- tent with this Plan. If an interim transfer station is necessary ' while the Acme Transfer Station is being constructed, the interim transfer station is consistent with this Plan. (5-6)" Significantly, the policy statement says that the proposed Acme Fill Transfer Station . . . is consistent with this Plan," not merely that a transfer station on the Acme property would be consistent with the County Solid. Waste Management Plan. The section of the 1987 County Solid Waste Management Plan dealing with transfer stations is reproduced in this Addendum's appendices. The prior (1982) version of the County Solid Waste Management Plan also contained provisions referencing the need for the development of a future w transfer station at the Acme site. 4. 2. Location of the Proposed Transfer Station on the Borrow Pit Parcel Reasons for the use of the borrow pit parcel for the transfer station are provided in various places in the Draft Environmental Impact Report:. - An upland location (p.3-8, 4-54) - A location underlain by bedrock or consolidated sediment to support the extremely heavy concrete foundation (p. 3-8; 4-54) - A location conducive to a multiple-level -facility (p. 3-3) - A generally level site (p. 3-8) - A location of adequate size (p. 3-8) - A location where a complex circulation system of road connections can be made (p. 3-3, 3-4) It may be useful to evaluate the proposed location in terms of the reasons that other parts of the Acme landfill site are not suitable for the pro- posed project. The attached constraints map illustrates major categories of limitations. Some also apply to adjoining properties. The categories are: ' • Undeveloped lowland. This is "wetland" generally under federal pro- tections and subject to federal (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) permits. The 5-foot contour has been mapped as (an approximation of the line of federal jurisdiction. It is highly improbable that per- mission to fill any large part of the undeveloped lowland can be f obtained. - The old 125-acre landfill area. This is a still-consolidating land- fill which was not designed to today's landfill engineering stan- dards. It is situated over Bay mud. Subsequent to the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report, it technically became a hazardous waste site (its contents are estimated to be less than 5 percent haz- ardous wastes) subject to the control of the State Department of Health Services. It is doubtful that permission can be obtained 'to substantially modify its surface (cap) or drive piles through or into the buried wastes. \ i d ��, W '► a t M� 1 6. . i . - The new 97-acre landfill. This area will be in use as a landfill to mid 1989. The fill obviously has not yet consolidated. The final fill topography is that of a mound. The area is located over Bay mud. The Concord fault, a potentially active fault, is thought to underlie the 97-acre area or pass nearby under the Walnut Creek Chan- nel. Although a maximum probable design earthquake may not produce surface rupture, the potential for severe ground shaking and founds- tion-damaging settlement is substantial in a landfill situated over Bay mud. - The 22-acre landfill area has physical characteristics similar to the 97-acre landfill area. - The hills, encompassing about 80 acres, are geologically stable areas, but have steep topography. Excavating them to provide roughly 20-acre building sites would not only be expensive but would result in potentially significant visual, noise, and air pollution impacts. - The narrow neck of upland on the Acme property to the north of the i proposed transfer station site. The configuration limits the ability of the applicant to move the facility northward from its proposed location. There are other constraints on the property, such as pipelines and ease- . ;. ments, but it is apparent from the major constraint areas depicted on the map that the borrow pit site is probably the only location on the Acme property where the transfer station could have been located without exten- sively excavating hills or filling lowlands. 3. The Reasonableness of the Cost of the Transfer Station The concern that the cost of the proposed transfer station is unreasonable is distinct from the issue that a smaller facility might be more economi- cal, or the issue that the construction of the project as proposed might inhibit the construction of a transfer station in South County. �� 7. Subsequent to the preparation of the cost figures published in its July, 1986, Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Project Descrip- tion/Report of Station Information, and used in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, Acme Fill Corporation has continued to refine its cost estimates for construction and obtaining financing. Additionally, the applicant has had to design for and estimate the cost ramifications of the , Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval now before the County Planning Com- mission. The applicant's consultants, Brown, Vence and Associates, and the URS Corporation (engineers) recently completed a new set of detailed construction dost estimates. Generally, these estimates fell within $1.5 million of the original rough estimate ($16.0 million, which included non- capital costs) . The original capital cost figure was about $11.0 million. The difference between the "hard" $11.0 million capital cost figure and the total $23.0 million project cost anticipated by the applicant is "soft" costs such as engineering, financing, and contingencies. For exam- ple, in the transcript of the September 22, 1987, hearing, which was distributed to the Commission, the applicant's representative testified that California Pollution Control Financing Authority fees and issuance costs would total about $5.0 million. In accord with Commissioner Nimr's wish to have the EIR consultant provide r an independent review of the costs of the facility, arrangements were made for the URS Corporation's new cost figures to be provided to the County's EIR consultant (EIP Associates) . EIP, in turn, retained the services of a construction estimation specialist, Adamson Associates, who reviewed the plans and provided the cost estimate contained in the appendix. Another charge given the consultant was to provide a rough estimate of the re- placement costs of Oakland Scavenger Services' Davis Street Transfer Station for comparative purposes. The specialist's report was then re- viewed by EIP Associates' economists. i 8. Conclusion The cost estimate developed by Adamson Associates and the estimate includ- ed in the EIR are similar. The total for hard construction costs included in the EIR is $11-,050,000. This estimate was developed approximately one V year ago. Taking into account an inflation factor of 4 percent per year, this estimate would increase to $11,492,000. r�The Adamson Associates' estimate for hard construction costs is I $12,277,000. The difference in the two cost estimates is approximately $785,000. However, the Adamson cost estimate included the construction of an additional sound barrier wall at the western property line, not includ- ed in the EIR estimate. The cost of sound wall construction and concrete foundations would be approximately $800,000, an amount that would make the two cost estimates compatible. Additionally, the provision of concrete tilt up construction for project buildings would cost approximately $175,000. No significant environmental ramifications attributable to the project's cost were identified during the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report. Generally, anything which causes increases in the costs of refuse disposal may also result in increases to the incidence of illegal roadside dumping. However, the effects are indirect and the magnitude of increased illegal dumping are not predictable. The most important thing that can be said about project costs relative to the items before the County Planning Commission is that the Commission is not approving or sanctioning the cost figures. 4. Project Capacity and Resource Recovery Goals. The e capacity of the Transfer Th stated issue is whether the proposed design p y Station would inhibit the attainment of State and County resource recovery goals. 9. l Although one can envision situations where the _ ) g proposed design capacity of the facility could stand in the way of attaining resource recovery goals, the design capacity is not categorically an impediment to achieving the J goals. The applicant has proposed a program that, if implemented, would implement the adopted numerical objectives of the County Solid Waste Man- agement Plan in the 1987-1992 period for the service area and substantial- ly contribute to meeting those goals in the 1992-1997 and 1997-2007 periods that follow. Thep proposals and objectives were provided in the EIR Response Document: "The applicant is proposing that the project would have a three phase recycling plan. The recycling goals for the County and for the Acme transfer station service area are as follows: COSWMP ACME ` Phase I 1987-1992 20% 20% 1998-}993 Phase II 1992-1997 10%1 5% 1994-+994 I} Phase III 1997-2007 301 252 1998-288 Total 60% 45% [no longer applicable] lAssumes new waste energy plant. 2Using existing waste energy plant." Evidently, there is a misconception that the bond retirement period for the facility, as described in the applicant's project description report, cor- responds to its serviceable life. There is no reason why the facility should not be usable long after its cost has been amortized. S. Consistency With a South County Transfer Station Policy The issue here is whether the scale of the proposed transfer station project would impede a County policy to place a transfer station in South County. 10. If "County policy" refers to an adopted policy, the excerpt from the 1987 County Solid Waste Management Plan quoted in #1, above, clearly states that either a single transfer station serving both Central and South County areas, or multiple stations serving them, would be consistent with the plan. The adopted policy then states that the Acme Transfer Station would be consistent with the requirement. Put another way, there is no adopted County policy specifically calling for a transfer station in South County. If "County policy" refers to a future policy that unspecified parties desire to have the County adopt, then the answer is that the Acme Transfer Station as proposed, would not necessarily inhibit the development of a South County station. Two scenarios for multiple stations are: - Acme could be the full service transfer station, while one or more "mini" stations for self-haulers could be developed in South County. - Acme could be developed first, and a South County facility developed later, after Acme is partially amortized and the service area's popu- lation has grown. RESPONSE TO COMMENT #43 ' CONTEXT tt . tr. Comment of the Draft Environmental Impact Report Letter August 16 1987 f 43 "IT is listed as a receptor for household hazardous wastes, used oil, etc. : this is incorrect." Response (Response Document, September, 1987) "43. The transfer station is a possible receptor for small amounts of hazardous waste contained in household refuse. The proposed Con- ditions of Approval provide for an inspection and extraction program. The Conditions also address a possible household haz- ardous waste drop-off program subject to approvals. Otherwise, the facility is not intended to accept hazardous materials." i 1. Commentator's Critique (Public Hearing, October 13, 1987) "On Page #213, #43 response, that also is not responsive. My question r was not what was answered there. My question was--my comment was that IT does not take used oil or household hazardous, wastes as was stated in the EIR and where would it go because it cannot go there." F7, ISSUES 1. Non-responsiveness. The non-responsiveness "issue" is a matter of mistaken identity. The Com- missioner's comment was answered assuming "IT" meant "it" --the transfer station station--when she meant "IT" to mean IT Corporation--the Interna- tional Technologies Company. �I 2. Relationship to the IT Corporation's Vine Hill Plant. 1 Hazardous waste extracted from the waste stream at the transfer station, or collected there if a _household hazardous waste program is implemented, would have to be disposed of at a Class I facility or taken to a hazardous waste transfer station. Currently, the adjoining IT Vine Hill plant is the only Class I treatment facility operating in Contra Costa County. If the IT Vine Hill plan could not, or would not, accept the hazardous waste, it would have to be transported out-of-County, perhaps out of the Bay Area. Neither the Draft Environmental Impact Report nor its Response Document identified the IT Corporation Vine Hill Plant as a direct receptor of household hazardous waste from the public. The discussions involving the t IT Corporation Vine Hill Plant regarded it as a possible receptor of such materials in large quantities. This possible relationship is illustrated �I in the following quotation from Page 3-18 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report: l 12. "If identified after deposit, unacceptable waste would be removed *to an area designated for unacceptable waste storage for transfer to an authorized site by a company licensed to handle hazardous waste. A possible disposal site would be the adjacent IT Corpo- ration's Vine Hill Plant." RESPONSE TO COMMENT #50 CONTEXT Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Letter, August 16, 1987) 50 "p. 2-33 p. 4-122 Discuss possible economic impact on houses very close to site that had previously been farther away from operations area. Also some discussion of economic impact on homes whose owners may have expected landfill to close, which would have increased their values." Response (Response Document, September, 1987) "50 The proposed project would be built in an area previously used as a borrow pit. Soil was excavated from the area to a depth of approximately 30-35 feet. Operations on the site were noticeable from the nearest house in the adjacent residential neighborhood. The provision of a new sound barrier/screen wall would prevent views of the site and of other industrial uses in the area. Im- provements along the property line, provided as part of the project, could result in a nominal net increase in property values. No evidence that homeowners would expect an increase in property values due to the closure of the Acme landfill surfaced during the preparation of the EIR. The area is zoned for Heavy Indus- trial (HI) and the use of the site would be consistent with the 13. I zoning designation. The proposed project would involve improve- ments to all open borrow pit and road surfaces. All improvements to the aesthetics and infrastructure of the project site and vicinity would, in all likelihood, maintain or enhance local property values." 1 Commentator's Critique (Public Hearing, October 13, 1987) "On Page #214 on Response #50, my question had to do with enhanc- ing the property values of the people in the surrounding area. The response basically was that they hadn't heard that that might happen but then again, if. the Acme Fill -landfill was used for more obnoxious use, it certainly wouldn't help their values that way. But, it seemed to me patently obvious that if you propose [to eliminate] a landfill that the property values in the sur- rounding area would probably go up." f ISSUES i' 1. Economic Effects of Separation Distance. Comment 50 asks, in effect, what will be effects on the property values of nearby homes in the Vine Hill neighborhood when solid waste processing activities at the transfer station site adjoining the neighborhood super- sede refuse disposal activities now occurring approximately 1%4 mile away at the 97-acre landfill area? The reply began by noting that the proposed transfer station site is a borrow pit which immediately adjoins the resi- dential area. Although the pit is not now in use, it was operated for some time in the past without the sound wall and other buffering features. The reply might have gone on to say that refuse disposal has occurred in the past, including the recent past, much closer to the residential area .than ' at the present location (which was not even permitted as a landfill until mid-1984) . The point is that landfill activity at the Acme landfill has moved from and to the Vine Hill neighborhood at various times in the past. 14. 1 Prevailing property values were not established on the basis of landfilling activity at the present area. The reply could have gone on to note that landfill traffic activity has centered on the present Acme landfill entrance for many years. This en- trance area which also serves the IT Corporation Vine Hill Plant and the Martinez Gun Club, nearly adjoins the Vine Hill Neighborhood. Before 1982, this traffic traveled through the Vine Hill neighborhood with severe impacts on residential amenities. Even after Waterbird Way (which was largely paid for by the Acme Fill Corporation and the IT Corporation) was opened in 1982, traffic has continued to concentrate on the adjoining_ entrance area. And, while the 22-acre landfill area operated after 1981, landfill traffic traveled southward to it past the Martinez Gun Club and the Vine Hill neighborhood. To the extent that traffic affects property . values, then, the situation has improved considerably since 1981, but there is still substantial activity near the neighborhood. �. With respect to excavation activity, Acme has continued to obtain cover " material from the hill containing the water tanks under the terms of the County's 1981 Land Use Permit. The current excavation area is farther away from the neighborhood than the transfer station site borrow pit, but it is still in proximity to some homes. 2. Closure Expectations. f ; There may be property owners in the Vine Hill neighborhood who expected the Acme landfill to close in the near future and who expected their properties to appreciate as a result, but it's doubtful that an appraiser's research would have concluded with that expectation. The Acme property, as noted in the Draft EIR and the reply, is located in an area generally developed, zoned, and planned for heavy industry. The Bay Plan of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission until this year designated the property for Water-Related Industry. The pre-1987 versions of the County Solid Waste Management Plan expected the Acme landfill to continue to serve into the 1990's or even the next century. Even after the U.S. Army Corps 15. of Engineers denied Acme's full 200-acre expansion in 1984, Acme, until this year, expected to carry on the disposal of some wastes on the 125-acre landfill area. There have even been proposals, originated by various par- ties, but discussed again this year by the County Solid Waste Commission, to extend Acme's useful life as a landfill by means such as relocating �- Waterbird Way on another property and covering over its upland right-of-way with a landfill, or relocating the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's outfall and trying to obtain U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permission to use that easement for a landfill. 3. Significance of Transfer Station Impacts and Their Mitigation. The main reasons the proposed transfer station project is not expected to be detrimental to residential property values is, first, that the Environ- mental Impact Report did not find any potentiafly adverse environmental impacts which could not be adequately mitigated, and, second, the project, the EIR's mitigation measures, the proposed Conditions of Approval, and } recent proposals by the applicant go beyond minimum requirements necessary to reduce potential impacts to levels of insignificance. Two examples are I choosing sound wall design and building materials that are aesthetic as well as functional. RESPONSE TO COMMENT #52 CONTEXT Comment of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Letter, August 16, 1987) 52 "p. 3-4 should discuss the high tonnage that is projected to be accommodated and its relation to increased capital costs. Response (Response Document, September, 1987) 52. "The proposed project described in the DEIR is designed to accom- modate the t the Acme landfill e / h tonnage currently received a (less 16. ineligible wastes) and any increase in tonnage that would occur in succeeding years. The planning horizon for the project is the year 2010. Other factors that influence the design, and there- fore capital cost expenditures, relate to tonnage received at peak hours and the relatively high number of self-haulers access- ing the site (60% of traffic) . Factors that could reduce capital investment costs for the project are those which would reduce the wastestream arriving at the site. The development and implementation of a service area recycling programs could also affect the size and cost of the facility, but recycling efforts would not necessarily lead to downsizing- the project. A curbside program, for example; could require that recycled materials in the Acme collection area be brought to the transfer station site for further processing and storage. The processing of curbside recycled materials at the project site would be affected by the ability of collection companies to handle recycled material. A modification in the capacity of col- lection companies to process wastes, or in the methodology employed, could result in 'downsizing the proposed project. The final design for the facility would take into account existing 1. and proposed waste recovery programs. The size of the facility related to the number of collection vehicles accessing the site would also be considered in the final design. Capital cost expenditures .anticipated for the facility are com- patible with the size of wastestream and costs involved in �. similar projects (e.g. , Davis Street facility, Oakland) . ;: 17. Commentator's Critique (Public Hearing, October 13, 1987) "Response #52, where I mentioned the fact that if we had a reduced waste stream, then ,the amount of waste they're projecting would then go down. They then assume that the recyclables would have to come there and would keep the waste stream up. That's not necessarily an assumption. It could go someplace else especially in view of the high cost of using this." ISSUES 1. The magnitudes of Acme Fill Corporation's Waste Projections. The long term waste projections used in the development of the transfer station were prepared by Brown, Vence, and Associates for the Acme Fill Corporation using a rough average rate of increase of 1.7% per year for the 25-year period (1985-2010) . The 1.7% per year increase is an estimate which was derived from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District/Contra Costa County study that was concluded in 1985. In 1985-86, when the Acme Transfer Station was developed, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary Dis- trict/Contra Costa • County Study was the latest available information, although waste projections have been updated for the 1987 version of the County Solid Waste Management Plan. The update resulted in only slight modifications to the projections. The comparative gross figures are: PROJECTED GROSS WASTE GENERATION TONNAGES ACME LANDFILL SERVICE AREA Year Acme Report 1987 CoSWMP 1985 515,300 483,625 1990 561,000 554,800 2000 664,000 661,015 2010 785,000 Not estimated 18. The 1985 Acme base year tonnages are derived from actual amounts of waste received at the site. The 1987 County SWMP tonnages are based on theoreti- cal waste generation factors applied to Association of Bay Area population projections. Considering the similarity of both sets of figures, it must be concluded that Acme's waste generation projections are consistent with those in the County Solid Waste Management Plan. 2. Applicant's Selection of Design Capacity Parameters. Long-term projections of average demand do not take peak demands into account. Waste disposal demand (in tons or cubic yards) is variable by hour, day, week, month (season) . The applicant, therefore, has utilized peak projections for design criteria. These peak figures are substantially larger than their average counterparts for designing the projects; but they are based on empirical data (actual counts) obtained at the landfill. We / understand that Acme's design criteria figures have been adjusted for the wastes which would not be accepted at the landfill. Thus, although the long-term average daily demand projected for the 1985-2010 period is an increase of about 50%, the difference between average daily and peak daily recorded demand for the base year of 1985 is a considerably larger 72%. Put another way, the difference between the average daily recorded demand in the base year of 1985 and the peak daily demand projected for 2010 is about 170%. The projections used by Acme Fill for design criteria are reasonable esti- mates of station-eligible wastes that are likely to be generated in the proposed Acme Transfer Station in the future. 3. Potentials for Adjusted Demand. There are several possibilities for reduced usage of the transfer station below the projected levels. One is the possibility of recycled materials being diverted from the wastestream, as mentioned by Commissioner Nimr. Assuming that the service area communities of the transfer station were to implement residential curb side recycling programs and 50% of the household 19. 1 1 participation, the extent of reduction could be in the range of 3 - 5%. Commercial and industrial reductions potentially could be greater, and would be necessary for the achievement of the 1987 CoSWMP goals, but no specific estimates are available at this time. It is reasonable to assume that a substantial portion of the recycled mate- rials would be processed at the transfer station since the recycled materials would be largely collected by refuse collection firms which use the transfer station. Furthermore, certain recycling operations, such as wood chipping, would be performed at the station. Another factor affecting demand would be adjustments to the service area of the transfer station. It is possible that not all of the collection compa- nies, or franchisers in the service area, would agree to commit their wastestreams to the station. In which case, as the applicant's representa- tive noted at the County Planning Commission's public hearings, the project might have to be downsized. By way of contrast, however, if there is no new landfill put into operation in the County in the next few years, there may be a need to expand the .service area (at least for a period) to enable some other parts of the County to have access to a transfer station. The station, for example, might have to serve all of East County for several years. The station would then have to process wastestream loads originally projected for the future. ` 4. Size and Cost. Reducing the size of the transfer station would, obviously, reduce its cost, but cost would not be expected to decline relative to the extent of reduction because of the economies-of-scale inherent in large projects. This relationship, in general terms, is illustrated in the attached figure (which originated in the CCCSD%CCC Study and is used in the 1987 County Solid Waste Management Plan) . Also in general terms, it would be expected i.. ii. 1 1 ,o � A 1 w 1 l r 21. that the capital costs, and probably the combination of capital and operating costs, of the two transfer stations of a given large combined capacity would exceed the cost of a single facility of the same capacity. RESPONSE TO COMMENT #62 CONTEXT Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Letter, August 16, 1987) P. 3-4 Tonnage described is much higher than what is projected in solid waste plan, if you subtract out 14% that is going directly to landfill, 30% recycling and prohibition of imports. (see p 3-53)" Commentator's Critique (Public Hearing, October 13, 1987 t In #62 they also use the same assumption [refers to Response #52] which neces- sarily in evidence." ISSUES [See Response #52) RESPONSE TO COMMENT #69 CONTEXT Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Letter, August 16, 1987) "Odors: should be included as an impact on residential areas not mitigated. ." 22. Response (Response Document, September 16, 1987) "69. Odor impacts on the Vine Hill neighborhood are discussed on P. 4-75, DEIR. Project impacts were determined to be minor and of limited duration. Miti- gation measures are noted on p. 4-29." [Should be p. 4-791 Commentator's Critique (Public Hearing, October 13, 1987) "On Page 220, comment #69, what my question was there, again it wasn't responded to is that there are odor impacts which cannot be mitigated and they just say they're very small and of short duration; but don't exactly know what that means. There still is no mitigation for it." ISSUES 1. Significance of Odor Detectability Off-Site. Potential odor from the transfer station is one aspect of air pollution which isl covered in the Air Quality Chapter, pages 4-69 to 4-79 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The analysis concluded that odor de- tectability off-site should not be a problem in the course of normal opera- tions because waste would be transferred in a building, received and dispatched rapidly (within 24 hours as an extreme case), and would be treated, if necessary, with deodorizing chemicals. Because of this conclu- sion, the detection of odor off-site was not determined to be a significant impact which could not be adequately mitigated. The expectation that the transmission of odors off-site should not be a problem corresponds to the experience of the San Francisco transfer station (S.W.E.T.S. Station) which was visited by the County Planning Commission on a field trip and by staff and the consultant on several other occasions. The strong odor inside the transfer station became moderately detectable in the vicinity of the building, but dissipated with distance to not being sensed at the facility's northern boundary with a residential neighborhood there. The San Francisco station is an older facility which currently handles daily week-day solid waste volumes about 90% higher than the station-eligible volume now going to the Acme landfill. 2 3. The odor analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Report went on to iden- tify instances where there would be an increased potential for odor genera- ti tion, hence, for odor detection off-site. The report, on page 4-75, noted that bad odors could rest from wastes (i.e. , unusually odoriferous loads) being discharged in the buildings or, in the event of a system break-down (e.g. , an accident blocking a haul road) , from wastes which might have to temporarily stockpiled. It concluded that in the event of such instances, their potential impacts would be of limited duration and minor in nature -- in other words, it was unlikely that the odor which might be detected off- site would be intense or persistent. The Draft Environmental Impact Report, on page 4-79 did state that air pro- cessing equipment (e.g. , air filtering equipment) could be added (retro- fitted) to the transfer buildings if odor proved to be more of a problem then expected. RESPONSE TO COMMENT #81 CONTEXT ' Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (August 161 1987) "No Project alternative concentrates on this project as being the con- struction of any transfer station, rather than a transfer station of this description on this section of the Acme landfill site. The No Project Alternative might require construction of a transfer station(s) (which is required by new landfills) to be built in an al- ternative location." RESPONSE (Response Document, September, 1987) Comment noted. Site specific characteristics of the No-Project al- ternative are mentioned on p. 6-2, DEIR." _l 24. Commentator's Critique (Public Hearing, October 13, 1987) "On Page 222, #81, there again is no response because I was asking for a project alternative. They referred me to the section of the EIR where it says "A project alternative would be to do a transfer station in another county." That's not a project alternative. There are many alternatives within this County that could be done, either larger sta- tions, smaller stations, different areas, etc. There is no alterna- tive presented throughout any Part of the environmental impact report which I think is one of the requirements of CEQA that there be an alternative and not just one in another place or another time." ISSUES 1.,. Responsiveness. The reply to the item in Commissioner Nimr's letter of August 16, 1987, was given as "Comment Noted" because it was interpreted to be a statement rather than a question. And, with one exception (see 2. below) , the points are essentially correct. The "No Project" alternative, which is described on pages 6-1 to 6-3 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report is basically a discussion of the ramifications of not having a transfer station. This project is, after all, the only transfer station proposal which has reached the application stage. No others are even known to be in the planning stage. The second point, having to do with alternative site locations, for a permanent station was addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report on pages 6-11 to 6-13. 2. Out-of-County. The No Project Alternative includes a discussion of direct haul to a land- fill in another county (pages 6-2 to 6-4) as a concomitant of not con- structing a transfer station to accommodate Central County's solid wastes. 25. RESPONSE TO COMMENT #84 CONTEXT Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Letter, August 16, 1987) "Locating such a large facility here would cause increased traffic in the long run, particularly from south County since it .will discourage the establishment of a regional site in other parts of the County." RESPONSE (Response Document, September, 1987) "The transfer station is designed to serve the Acme collection area 1 after the closure of the Acme landfill. The number of south County self-haulers using the current Acme landfill ambunts to about 3% of self-hauler traffic. Construction of the facility would provide flex- ibility to the County's response to solid waste management issues and form part of a comprehensive plan for the County. It would not dis- courage the establishment of other waste control efforts. These efforts may include a full service or "mini" transfer station in South County." ' Commentator's Critique (Public Hearing, October 13, 1987) Also, #84, my comment had to do with the amount of trucks that were coming from the south county which is a long distance to come to a transfer station. They responded by telling of the percentage of self-haulers that come into ACME which is not the thrust of the response at all; it had to do with the number of trucks which presum- ably are packer trucks coming up from south County." l 26. ISSUES 1. Responsiveness. With all respect to Commissioner Nimr, the comment in her letter of August 16, 1987,, which became Comment 84 in the Response Document, does not refer to truck traffic. It does refer to increased traffic, with emphasis on increased traffic from South County. Overall, the main component of landfill (or transfer station) traffic is self-hauler traffic. The response to Comment 84 observed that self-hauler traffic from South County to the Acme landfill now amounts to only about 3% of self hauler traffic. The ramification, which could have been made ex- plicit, is that a transfer station at the Acme location is unlikely to have much effect on self-hauler traffic on the I-680 Corridor (South County residents evidently subscribe to additional commercial .collection and/or use other facilities available to self-haulers) . 2. Increased Truck Traffic. If South County would continue to send its solid waste to the Acme site (to the future transfer station rather than the current landfill) there proba- bly would be increased waste truck traffic on the haul roads to Acme resulting from increases in population and economic growth. This answer does not attempt to adjust for the South County wastes which would have to go directly to a replacement landfill. r If a transfer station serving waste collection vehicles were to be located in South County, obviously these vehicles would not be going to the Acme transfer station. The extent of the reduction would, however, depend on such variables as the destination of transfer trucks and whether a South County station would provide waste recovery services such as wood chipping. It is noted that approximately 48 21 South County collection vehicles and 8 drop boxes are currently stored at the Acme landfill. In addition, several collection vehicles are stored elsewhere. One reason for using Acme for overnight storage is the scarcity of sites suitable and available for corporation yards in South County. 27. PART II GENERAL COMMENTS TRANSFER STATION COST COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE "CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT/CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STUDY" AND THE ACME FILL WASTE TRANSFER STATION; PROJECT DESCRIPTION/REPORT OF STATION INFORMATION CONTEXT This matter was raised by Commissioner Nimr at the County Planning Commission's October 13, 1987, hearing relative to the Environmental Impact Report Response Document's responses number #34, #35, and #36. Replies on those items are pro- vided at the start of this memorandum but the matter 'of transfer station cost comparisons between the .1985 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District/Contra Costa County Study and the 1986 applicant's report are covered separately here because the reply is essentially a background information discussion, and a lengthy dis- cussion at that. At the heart of the matter is the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District/Contra ! Costa Study's estimate of a transfer station's capital cost as being in the range of $2.1 million (for a 200 tons-per-day facility) to $5.5 million (for a 1,400 ton-per-day station) , while the applicant is proposing a facility which . was estimated in the project application report to cost about $11.0 million in capital and engineering costs (or about $23.0 million in gross costs, including financing) . Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Letter, August 16, 1987) "As I pointed out to the public hearing, this project, although osten- sibly a private-sector project, should actually be analyzed for its consonance with our solid waste planning policies in this county. Since Acme Landfill has expressed its intent to pass all costs of its \ private decisions to the rate paying public, it is the obligation of 28. i the county to determine if those private planning decisions are actu- ally in the long range public interest. Therefore, I believe that more analysis must be done by the writers of the EIR on the reasons for the placement of this transfer station on this parcel of the Acme property, and on the reasons for the high projected costs. There should also be a mention of whether this proposal, with its implied emphasis on a large waste stream and a comparatively short life (based on bonding obligations) will actually be in accord with the county (and state) policies of maximum salvage, reuse, recycling. Will this be hindrance to a county policy that would place another transfer station in the south central county?" RESPONSE (Response Document, September, 1987) Regarding cost differences between the CCCSD%CCC study and the appli- cant's proposal, Brown, Vence and Associates (BVA) was the lead con- sultant for the CCCSD/County Solid Waste Management Study and prepared the transfer analysis section which is part of the report. They also prepared the Project Description and estimated the costs of the Acme Fill waste Recovery and Transfer Station project. There are a number of reasons the cost of the proposed project is higher than those estimated in the CCCSD/County Study. BVA wrote to Mr. James Kelly of CCCSD in October 28, 1986 explaining the cost dif- ferences. This letter is attached. [See Appendix A] . The transfer station work performed for CCCSD/County Study was a gen- eral, preliminary analysis. It was area specific but not site specific and it was based on certain assumptions. The Study consid- ered 10 collection areas, five potential landfill areas, five general areas and three sizes for transfer stations. Approximately 100 separate scenarios were analyzed. 1 29. The proposed project is site specific and was conceptualized using certain project parameters (site characteristics, traffic/tonnage characteristics, resource recovery activities and landfill con- straints) . The CCCSD%County Study assumptions for transfer stations were as follows: o Vehicle Loading Concept: Tipping floor. o Capacity: Based on today's tonnage being handled on a single shift and future tonnage increases being handled on a second shift (available landfills assumed capable of receiving waste on a second shift) . o Recycling Activity: None. l o Additional Facilities: Minimal. o Land: Flat. o Peaking Requirements: 20% o Self-Hauler Traffic: Small in comparison to franchise hauler traffic. Characteristics of the proposed project are as follows: o Vehicle Unloading Concept: Both a tipping floor and a storage pit; found necessary to meet: 1) projected traffic and tonnage, 2) recycling goals, 3) storage requirements needed to meet incom- ing waste surges and provide transfer van dispatch flexibility. J 30. o Capacity: Future tonnage largely handled on a single shift due to operating schedule restrictions placed on new landfills and for noise mitigation. o Recycling Activities: Extensive. o Additional Facilities: Larger scale house/pay booth facilities, administration building/visitor center, large-scale vehicle main- tenance facility. o Land: Existing borrow pit. o Peaking Requirement: 80%. o Self-Hauler Traffic: Very large, approximately 74% of total traffic. In summary, cost differences between the CCCSD%County Study and the proposed project result from different assumptions and site specific project parameters. Commentator's Critique (Public Hearing, October 13, 1987) "On the response #34 to #36 in which I really asked why are they building a transfer station on this particular parcel of Acme, the actual answer to my question was in response #82 which says that "all of the other places that Acme Landfill would be exorbitantly expensive to build on." But, in responses #34 to .#36, as I said, it was very confusing to me because the presentation was very nearly identical to the one that Acme had given us on the rationale for why they're doing what they're doing. So, I was very confused by that response. The cost differences between---one of the major things I had a problem with was why it's so expensive and also the cost differences between the Brown & Vence estimate for Acme and the Brown & Vence estimate in the C.C.S.D. study which is still being referred to throughout this 31. EIR. It seems to me that the bottom line answer that we're getting form this response document---and I'm not necessarily saying this is the right conclusion to come it; but, it seems to me that if you as- sume what they're saying in there, then the report that was done for the Contra Costa Sanitary District by Brown & Vence for a transfer station in Contra Costa County was less than professionally done be- cause evidently some of the assumptions that are different in this proposal are things that are perfectly well in evidence in Contra Costa County. For example, the size of the waste stream; for example, the amount of cars, individual haulers that come in to the landfill is greatly outnumbering the packer trucks and that's some of the ration- ale for the differences between the study and those kinds of things are certainly in evidence to anybody. You don't- have to be an engi- neer to .observe them. So, I had a little bit of concern to the efficacy of the study that Brown & Vence did for` C.C.C.S.D. , if now they're coming back and completely contradicting a lot of the things that were done in that study which people really relied on to go for- ward. So, again, a lot of the information not only in the EIR but in the responses are based on the C.C.S. D. , Study and one of my comments was that they misquoted TM-10 and TM-10- in the C.C-.S.D. , Study says that except for the far southeast County, transfer stations are not econom- ically feasible, they're marginal. The response that I received in the response document was that there were typographical errors in the C.C.S.D. , study which then would lead to a different conclusion. Unfortunately, the don't say what the typographical errors are and Y Y Y why they just discovered them when they started working for Acme Land- fill. But, in any case, if that is the case, if the typographical errors are true, the assumptions are not true, then it seems to be very strange that they are going to use the same study to justify a landfill that costs between 8 and 10 million dollars more than the one that C.C.S.D. , is projecting and basing that on the fact that it's economically feasible. It just doesn't -make any sense. The whole 32. economic section of this makes no sense at all to me. They base it on a study they say is flawed and they they go back and draw conclusions from that study. The whole responses in that area were nothing that I could follow. I went back to TM-1.0 and-those tables but there was no way of evaluating what figures they were talking about and how that affected all the other projections that are in that study. ISSUES 1. The Appropriateness of Different Assumptions. The reply in the Response Document, quoted above, identified both the general and specific reasons for differences in costs estimated by the two source documents. _The CCCSD/CCC -Study was described as using a conceptual approach to arrive -at estimated transfer station costs. _It essentially applied assumed cost-per-ton factors to various design capacities to derive facility costs. In contrast, the applicant's figures were derived by cost- ing the elements of an actual transfer station design, to be located on an identified site, and considering actually proposed operational characteris- tics. The differences between a study and a project result in different assump- tions which have cost ramifications. The reasons quoted above summarize the differences between the two sets of assumptions. -The most important appear to be: o Extent of self-hauler service to be accommodated (74% of traffic for the Acme transfer station) . o Extent of peak volumes to be _accommodated (Acme transfer station; 80% above average; CCCSD/CCC conceptual station; 20% above average) . o Provision for resource recovery (not included in CCCSD/CCC estimates) . o Inclusion of administration and vehicle maintenance facilities -(not included in CCCSD/CCC estimates) . r 33. 2. Consequences of Corrected Technical Memorandum 10 (CCCSDJCCC Study) Figures and Table. This item addressed both Commissioner Nimr's comments at the October 13, 1987, public hearing and her comment in her letter of August 16, 1987, which says: 1155 p. 4-116 It is stated here that the CCSD report estimated that the cost of direct haul is twice as expensive as trans- fer station. Also, p. 4-113 gives figures for increased costs of direct haul. This statement is a very simplistic one, for a moder- ately complicated situation. j As the CCSD_report actually reports, all estimates depend on where the waste is coming from and where the landfill is. Actually, on the table on page 11 of the CCSD TM 10_cost effectiveness of transfer station vs. direct haul is de- scribed as not cost-effective to marginal for all landfills except distant east county." The material referred to on page 4-116 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report summarizes cost information derived from the CCCSD%CCC study to pro- vide a "setting" for the economical discussion which follows. Staff agrees with Commissioner Nimr that the brief statements, although accurate , quotes, are simplistic' in view of the complexities of estimating the com- bined effects of _waste generation, facility characteristics and location, and transportation costs. And, the actual costs of designed facilities and the development of particular sites can and do differ substantially from "modeled" estimates. 34. i The particular response given on Comment #55 had to do with revisions to certain numerical information and conclusions reached in the CCCSDJCCC" study regarding the economics of using transfer stations compared with di rect haul. The response noted that errors were recently discovered in the study's data tables which, .-if known earlier, would have somewhat changed the report results. Essentially, the findings that a number of transfer station locations in Central Contra Costa County should have been reported as marginally economical rather than not economical. The corrected tables are reproduced in this memorandum's appendix. The correction of the errors has little if-any consequence for solid waste planning or the review of solid waste projects now before the County. -The factors used in the CCCSD%CCC study were conservative to begin with for a number of reasons. Actual projects can be expected to have higher costs than the representational numbers used in the study. -More important, how- ever, is the consideration that transfer stations are justified for reasons of traffic reduction and waste processing capabilities, which transcend conventional cost analyses.. INTERIM TRANSFER STATION IMPACT MITIGATION COMMENT Hearing, October 13, 1987) Commissioner Nimr made the following comment at the hearing: "The other comments I had that 1l-was very concerned about was the lack of any kind of mitigation for the interim transfer station. -_I--think the Calif.-Waste Board also mentioned the fact that they would like to see where it was going to go; what the engineering was going to be to put it on the landfill and what the mitigations are for odor and dust. The response that we _have received always relates to -the permanent transfer station which has walls. _The interim transfer station doesn't have walls so it would be a whole different view point." l J 35 RESPONSE The Draft EIR addressed the interim transfer station in Section 5. The follow- ing are mitigations that were contained in the Draft EIR. Impact(s) Mitigation(s) Pa e Traffic 5.2.3 5-6 Noise 5.3.3 5-8 Soils, Geology, Seismicity 5.4.3 5-10 Hydrology and Water Quality 5.5.3 5-13 and 5-16 Visual Quality 5.9.3 5-17 The Draft EIR noted the interim transfer station would be in an "exposed open area" and that it would not "contain any buildings" (DE-IR. , p. 5-6). The DEIR stated that odor, dust, litter, and noise impacts would be limited and would not i � significantly affect the Vine Hill neighborhood due to its distance from the operations site (DEIR, p. 5-2, 503) . Spinkling, litter fences and portable con- tainers were suggested as means of mitigating dust and litter impacts (DEIR, p. The general location of this interim transfer station site is shown on Figure 2 (Site Location Map, P. 2-3 DEIR) and Figure 4 (Land Ownership Map p. 3-2 DEIR). The location of this interim facility is also shown on Figure 6 (p. 3-9, DEIR). A schematic layout of the interim facility, and site section, is shown on Figure 21 (Interim Transfer Station Site, p. 3-46, DEIR) . The California Waste Management Board noted that an interim facility would need to comply with the State minimum standards for handling and disposal of wastes. Final engineering drawings for the interim facility would be required to comply with all applicable minimum State standards. The California Waste Management Board may impose its own requirements on the projection. 36. The interim facility is to have a limited life. It is expected to become opera- tional from early to mid 1989 and cease operation with the start up of the permanent transfer station in February 1990. Any impacts associated with the operation of the interim facility would, . therefore, be of limited duration. Operational activities and potential impacts are noted on p. 5-2 of the DEIR. They identify potential impacts associated with dust, litter, noise, and odor. Given the location and topography of the interim facilities site, impacts would be short term and localized. They are not expected to be significant (p. 5-3, DEIR). Dust impacts would be controlled by sprinkling the site area as required. Lit- ter generation would be controlled with the use of litter containers and portable collection fences. Odor impacts would be less concentrated than in an enclosed facility. Deodorization chemicals would be applied on an as needed basis. Potential noise impacts are determined by "line-of-sight" characteris- tics and would be minimized by the surrounding topography that would shield views of the interim site from surrounding areas. The Vine Hill residential community is to the southwest of the interim site. The IT Corporation facility is to the south of the site as is the Martinez Gun Club. Prevailing winds are from the west. Dust, noise, and odor impacts would, therefore, be carried away fro these locations. The interim facility site is used a disposal and off-loading area at the Acme landfill during the winter. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CONSULTANT QUALIFICATIONS CONTEXT At the County Planning Commission's October 13, 1987, hearing, Commissioner Nimr asked about the qualifications of the County's Environmental Impact Report con- sultant (EIP Associates) with respect .to waste disposal and transfer stations. Staff responded to the effort that the firm was selected primarily for its ex- pertise in preparing environmental analysis (and it should be added, in evaluat- ing public-serving facilities) but that it was also qualified in "that" (waste 37. disposal) field. Subsequently, EIP Associates was requested to prepare the summary of experience statement which is included in this memorandum's appendi- ces. It is noted that EIP's subcontractors, Abrams Associates for traffic, and Charles M. Salter Associates for noise, are frequently used specialists in their fields. Both have had experience dealing with solid waste projects. Their experience in applying their specialties to ,nvironmental and public-serving facilities analyses is extensive. Both have done considerable work in Contra Costa County (Abrams Associates is a Walnut Creek firm) . CAZ:jn 126:cperes.mem corrected for typographical erros and page numbering, f =_� 11/3/87 I 1 APPENDICES A. Responses to Draft Environmental Impact Report Comments #34, #5, and #36 by Commissioner Nimr (Copies from the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and . Transfer Station Response Document, September 1987. ) B. 1987 County Solid Waste Management Plan: Solid Waste Transfer Station Policies (Reprinted from the 1987 Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Plan.) C. Analysis of Capital Costs of Proposed Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station, Martinez, California (Prepared by Micheal Kent, Resource Economist, EIP Associates, San Francisco, California.) D. Corrected Technical Memorandum 10 Data (From the �. CCSD/CCC Study. ) E. EIP Associates: Experience in Waste Management Issues rf t� APPENDIX A 2. Comments and Responses RESPONSE: LETTER 2 h 34 to 36. The rationale for the placement of the transfer station at the Acme landfill is noted in the DEIR (p. 2-5). The construction of the transfer station would allow flexibility in meeting future County needs for solid waste disposal. New landfills may restrict access to transfer trucks and commercial collection vehicles that require direct access to a landfill. Public policy may also limit the types of vehicles accessing landfills to control traffic and litter impacts, and to promote resource recovery goals. Acme's main disposal area will close in earl to mid-1989 when its Regional Water P Y � Quality Control Board permit expires (April 1989) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit expires (June 1989). Future landfills are likely to be located farther from collection areas. County policy specifies that new landfills are to be serviced, to a greater or lesser degree, by transfer stations. Thep rovision of transfer stations is a x recognized feature of CoSWMP. Transfer stations aid in the realization of County recycling goals. The applicant proposes to locate the transfer station at the Acme landfill site because: o The applicant owns the land ; o The project site is zoned Heavy Industrial (HI) o The site is on a landfill site adjacent to an existing landfill o Existing traffic patterns and access routes to the area are already established o The site is accessible to the local highway system. o Site development would rehabilitate an existing borrow pit a; In designing the proposed facility, the project applicant also took into account the t. following site specific factors: o The existing topography of the borrow pit would facilitate the design of a three- level facility and contributes to the mitigation of noise and visual impacts. 86130 2-8 2. Comments and Responses o Use of the borrow pit would minimize excavation activities for roads and facility buildings. o Stable geologic formations underly the site of the transfer station (in contrast to Bay mud and sanitary landfill on much of the remainder of the Acme property). o The project would a built on a vacant-site an would not cause the removal or p ) b a d , relocation of other uses. o The site area would accommodate a future waste-to-energy plant or another type of waste recovery facility (not part of the project application). o The provision of a three-level facility would allow transfer truck operations to occur at the lower level and thus mitigate traffic, noise, and visual quality impacts. o The site area would accommodate overnight parking for transfer trucks. The size of the site area is sufficiently large to accommodate the on-site parking and circulation needs. o Placement on other locations on the.-landfill site would probably involve the grading of hills, excavating existing landfill areas, or expensive foundation work (e.g. construction on piles). Regarding cost differences between the CCCSD/CCC study and the applicant's proposal, Brown, Vence and Associates (BVA) was the lead consultant for the CCCSD/County Solid Waste Management Study and prepared the transfer analysis section which is part of the report. They also prepared the Project Description and estimated the costs of the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station project. There are a number of reasons the cost of the proposed project is higher than those estimated in the CCCSD/County Study. BVA wrote to Mr. James Kelly of CCCSD in October 28', 1986 explaining the cost differences. This letter is attached. 86130 '7_9 2. Comments and Rcsponscs The transfer station work performed for CCCSD/County Study was a general„ preliminary analysis. It was area specific but not site specific and it was based orn certain assumptions. The Study considered 10 collection areas, five potential landfill areas, five general areas and three sizes for transfer stations. Approximately 100 separate scenarios were analyzed. specific w Project The proposed protect �s site sped c and as conceptualized using certain ;p ,ect parameters (site characteristics, traffic/tonnage .characteristics, resource recovery activities and landfill constraints). The CCCSD/County Study assumptions for transfer stations were as follows: o Vehicle Loading Concept: Tipping floor. o Capacity: Based on today's tonnage being handled on a single shift and future tonnage increases being handled on a second shift (available landfills assumed capable of receiving waste on a second shift). o Recycling Activity: None. o Additional Facilities: Minimal. f o Land: Flat. o Peaking Requirement: 20%. o Self-Hauler Traffic: Small in comparison to franchise hauler traffic. Characteristics of the proposed project are as follows: o Vehicle Unloading Concept: Both a tipping floor and a storage pit; found necessary to meet: 1) projected traffic and tonnage, 2) recycling goals, 3) storage requirements needed to meet incoming waste surges and provide transfer van dispatch flexibility. o Capacity: Future tonnage largely handled on a single shift due to operating g schedule restrictions placed on new landfills and for noise mitigation. o Recycling Activities: Extensive. o Additional Facilities: Larger scale house/pay booth facilities, administration building/visitor center, large-scale vehicle maintenance facility. o Land: Existing borrow pit. o Peaking Requirement: 806. o Self-Hauler Traffic: Very large, approximately 74% of total traffic. In summary, cost differences between the CCCSD/County Study and the proposed project result from different assumptions and site specific project parameters. 86130 2-10 r ATTACHMENT A i BV BROWic VENCE 6:.SS0C1 .TES October 28, 1986 Mr. James M. Kelly ' Planning Division Manager Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, California 94553 BVA JOB NO: 84120 PROJECT: Solid Waste Management Plan SUBJECT: Transfer Station Cost Estimates Dear Mr. Kelly: This letter is in response to your inquiry as to the basis of our cost estimate for the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station and how this estimate compares to transfer station-cost estimates provided by us for the CCCSD/County Study. The Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station has been conceptualized to handle peak loadings through the Year 2010. The conceptualized facility has a peak hourly transfer capability of 340 tons or 2,77.0 tons in an eight hour period. The peak daily tonnage anticipated at Acme Fill (3600 TPD) would need to be transfered over an 11 hour day. As part of our work for the CCCSD and the County, we estimated costs for transfer stations in the range of 200 TPD to 1400 TPD. The Acme Fill waste Recovery and Transfer Station at approximately 2700 TPD is significantly greater than the stations for which estimates were provided. The site specific, preliminary cost estimate of the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station also.reflects: • cost escalation to mid-1988, start of construction • 15% contingencies• � handling an unusually large volume of traffic associated with the general ;:. public • site cost associated with construction in a pit • a storage pit transfer concept (the-CCCSD/County Study assumed a tipping floor concept) I hope the information provided meets your needs. If I can be of any further assistance, please call. Very truly yours, BROWN, VENCE, ASSOCIATES Thomas C. Reilly Project Manager TCR:clb cc. Mr. David Okita � 2. Comments and Responses. The size of the Acme facility would also be affected should less than 80% of the waste-stream not be committed to the proposed transfer station. Final capital and operating costs for the facility would be provided to the County for review before the issuance of bond obligations. The 1987 County Solid Waste Management Plan includes resource recovery goals of diverting an additional (to what is now being recycled) 20% before 1992, 10% more (30% total) before 1997, and "`3% more (60% total) before 2007. It is important to note that these goals are not only recycling goals, but include composting and waste- to-energy. In fact, the Plan states that the 1997 and 2007 goals assume at least one waste-to-energy project in operation. If waste-to-energy is not feasible for economic or environmental reasons, these goals are not expected to be met. 2. Comments and Responses , The estimated cost of the facility includes provisions designed to accommodate CoSWMP provisions relating to recycling (see below). The applicant is proposing that the project would have a three phase recycling plan. The recycling goals for the County and for the Acme transfer station service area are as follows: COSWMP ACME Phase 11987-1992 20% 20% 1990-1993 Phase II 1992-1997 10% 5% 1994-1997 Phase III 1997-2007 30%1 25%2 1998-2010 Total 60% 45% lAssumes new waste energy plant 2Using existing waste energy plant. Several proposed Conditions of Approval for the project would require consistency with the County Solid Waste Management Plan. . •n Regards g the facility's consistency with County goals, the 1987 County Solid Waste Management Plan states that the Acme Fill Transfer Station is consistent with the Plan and should be sized to serve Central and South County. The Plan also provides an option of multiple transfer stations should it be decided that more than one transfer station is desirable. The Plan states that a South County transfer station may be necessary in the future. This flexibility was included in the Plan because the location of future landfill site(s) is unknown. The construction of the Acme transfer station would not preclude the placement of other transfer stations in the County, including South Central County. The final design of. the facility would take into account factors that could lead to downsizing the transfer station. These factors would include redirection of the waste load from Antioch; the provision of other transfer-stations (either full-size or "mini"); restrictions placed on self-hauler access to landfills; the projected 15% difference in CoSWMP recycling goals (60% by 2007) and Acme's recycling goals (45% by 2007). �I i 86130 2-11 APPENDIX C , Analysis of Capital Costs of Proposed Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station, Martinez, California Prepared by Michael Kent, Resource Economist, EIP October 27, 1987 Introduction Questions raised during the environmental review process for the proposed Acme Fill Transfer Station have included the estimated construction cost of the facility. These costs were presented in the July 1986 Project Description/Report of Station Information and the EIR for the project. In response to the questioning, an independent estimate of the capital costs has been prepared by Adamson Associates. The present analysis examines the consistency of the Adamson Associates estimate with the original EIR cost estimate. Comparable Cost Estimates In attempting to verify cost estimates through use of alternative estimates, the most useful information can be derived from estimates performed for projects most similar in scope, at a time as close as possible to the estimate being examined. f- For example, the Davis Street Transfer Station in San Leandro was constructed in 1978. Although it is, in general terms, a facility similar to the proposed Acme Fill Transfer Station, it differs in a number of specific characteristics (size of tipping area, number of loading areas, size of buildings, amount of necessary site preparation, etc. ) . In addition, substantial escalation in construction costs has occurred since 1978. The construction cost of the Davis Street Transfer Station, when adjusted for these differences in facilities and prices, appears to be in the same range as the EIR's estimate of the Acme Fill Transfer Station. Because of the magnitude of these differences, however, it is difficult to make precise comparisons of construction costs. The Adamson Associate estimate is much more useful for cost comparison purposes, because it was based on the Acme Fill project itself, and was done approximately one year after the EIR 's cost estimate. For this reason, the Adamson Associates estimate is used in the present analysis. Comparison of Adamson Associates and EIR Cost Estimates Construction cost estimates are9 enerally divided into "hard costs"--materials and construction labor--and "soft costs"--the various services and intangible costs (engineering, legal, insurance, financing costs, etc. ) required for project implementation. These soft costs are generally expressed as a percentage of total hard costs, and are not directly Areas to be served by the transfer station Types of waste to be accepted Number and type of vehicles now using the landfill and which of these will use the transfer station Location of landfill Disposal fee at landfill As an example, expanding on the example in Chapter 4 on Transport Costs, for a typical compactor truck using 1985 costs, the =ollowl example is given. Assume that the transfer station is located 11 miles from the waste generation point at the same location as the landfill. The collection cost of $54. 00 per ton would be t .e sam whether a transfer station is in operation or not. The haul cost the waste generation point to the transfer station would be $7. 94 ton based on a round-trip haul distance of 22 miles and an average speed of 35 miles per hour (including 10 minutes at the transfer station) . Assuming that the transfer station ,accepts 800 tons per day, the transfer station cost would be approximately $7 . 00 per toi Assuming that the landfill is located 25 miles away from the trans station, gives a transfer haul cost of $4.47 per tan based on a round-trip haul distance of 50 miles at an average speed of 45 mil( per hour ( including 20 minutes at the <landfill) . Assuming a dispJ - cost at the landfill of $15.00 per ton, gives a combined collecti haul, transfer, and disposal cost of approximately $88 per ton. example does not reflect any specific scenario, only an example to demonstrate how cost per ton can be calculated. Figure 5-2 shop`` these costs components graphically. Cost for wastes brought to transfer station by drepbox vehicles and construction/demolition WE hauled directly to landfill would be substantially different. Figure 5-3 shows Figures 4-1 and 5-2 together, which shows the di£o ence between hypothetical situations where a close-in landfill cloy compared to the situation where a transfer station is built and waI are taken to a new distant landfill. Note that the total cost differential is 515/ton ($88-$73 ) in this hypothetical example. Fc residential wastes , this cost increase is about 51 . 60 per householr- per month (assuming a typical household generates 1. 3 :.ons of wast', per year) . ACME FILL TRANSFER STATION The Acme Fill Corporation has proposed a transfer station to be located adjacent to the Acme Fill Sanitary Landfill. The transfer: station is intended to be used when Acme Fill reaches capacity. zl full-scale transfer station includes facilities for recycling, and wood chipping/grinding. The site of the -rans�er st.zt_, cn _s a for.: '-orrcw nit which was used as a source of cover material fcr fill i counted by operations . The site is approximately 22 acres anc is ' Arthur Road to the north, Martinez Gun Club to the east , two Contra COST PLAN for Acme Fill Corporation Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Martinez, California 1 l .l ADAMSON Associates T70 Czksrous A.wr» San Frplasm.CA 94133 ToNphone:�1598t•t00+ related to individual hard cost components. Because the magnitude of soft costs can vary without affecting hard costs if different percentages are chosen, the most useful figure for comparing construction costs for purposes of this analysis is the total of hard costs. The individual hard cost items in the two estimates generally cannot be directly compared, because the two estimates use different categories of cost components that are not directly comparable. Both estimates, however, are for the same facility (with one exception discussed below) , so that it is valid to compare the two estimates of total hard construction costs. The EIR's total hard construction costs are $11,050,000, and the Adamson Associates estimate totals $12, 277,000. The EIR estimate was prepared approximately one year before the Adamson Associates estimate. Increasing the EIR estimate by four percent to account for construction cost inflation during that period results in a - cost of $11, 492,000, which is approximately $785, 000 less than the Adamson Associates estimate. The Adamson Associates estimate was based on, a project description which includes an additional sound-proofing wall on the western boundary of the site that was not included in the project at the time the EIR cost estimate was prepared. Approximately $800, 000 is included in the Adamson Associates estimate for walls and foundations, an amount that would account for the difference between the two estimates. The total soft costs of the two estimates differ, due to the use of differing percentage factors to calculate soft costs and the inclusion of different items . This, however, does not affect the comparison of the hard construction cost estimates above. Conclusions The two estimates, after adjustments are made, are very similar. The Adamson Associates estimate thus can be taken as ` corroboration of the accuracy of the EIR capital cost estimate. Although subsequent cost estimates based on more detailed or revised project descriptions may differ from the present estimates, the Adamson Associates estimate indicates that the EIR estimate accurately reflected the project as then described. f: c; t.. Acme Fill Corporation AA 071181, Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Martinez, California r r rCONTENTS Page Nos. 1 References 1 Inclusions and Exclusions 1 - 2 rAreas 2 --- rControl Quantities (Transfer Station) 2 1 General Summary 3 r Component Summary (Transfer Station) 4 r Component Budgets 5 - 10 r r . r ' r r r Acme Fill Corporation AA 87/1812 Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Martinez, California 1 Cost Plan prepared from: Engineers Plans S1-S8 06-20-86 09-23-87 l Topographic Maps 2 March 80 " Interior Transfer Station- Sketch 09-23-87 ' Borrowed plans for Admin Building Vehicle Maintenance 1 Scale houses ,. Project Description brochure 06-86 Visit to Oakland Scavenger _ Facility in San Leandro Discussions with the Engineers, consultants and owners representative. Cost Plan includes: Site Preparation and construction of a waste recovery and Transfer Station Facility. Main Entry road with two scale houses, dispatchers office and lunchroom and collection booths. • A signalized intersection with road access to IT and Gun Club and extension to Water- bird Way. An Administration building with parking lot. Extensive fill to an existing pit to bring the transfer station up to grade. Entry, access and loop roads to the public Disposal , Main transfer pit and transfer loading tunnel . 5 acres of paved and drained transfer pad with fueling station, Vehicle Maintenance Building, Pump house and lift station. "Sound" retaining walls, separate drainage system for contaminated water. Landscaping. Equipment budget provided by owners representative. , 50p of imported fill will by provided free of charge. 5010 will be hauled at a cost of 53.50/cy to the owner. 100' of the fill will require placing, Acme Fill Corporation AA 87/1812 Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Martinez, California i Cost Plan excludes: Truck wash facility. Design testing, inspection and management fees. Movable furnishings. Land equisition and development charges. Legal and financing costs. AREAS SF Transfer station Transfer van loading 9,600 Main Transfer pit 45,580 Public Disposal 27,300 Transfer Station Total 82,480 Administration Building 2,112 Scale Houses (2) 616 Vehicle Maintenance Building 20,000 Control Quantities Gross Area 82,480 SF 1.000 Volume 3,018,000 CF 36.591 Exterior Wall Area 53,538 SF 0.649 Finished Wall Area 30,710 SF 0.372 Retaining Wall Area 22,828 SF 0.277 Roof Area 81,048 SF 0.983 -2- Acme Fill Corporation AA 87/181 Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Martinez, California General Summar $M $M Transfer Station including fill from page 4 5,721 Site Work - by Area Entry Road 357 Interior Transfer Facility 234 Admin. Area 223 Waterfront Road 16 Gun Club and It Access 25 Transfer Pad Area 3,500 Miscellaneous 196 Subtotal 4,551 455 Equipment Budget 21000 General Contractor's site establishment 12,27 supervision, equipment, temporary services, job expense and performance bonds 7 % 85 4 General Contraction fee 5 % 65 Planned Construction Cost, October 1987 13,79 Design contingency 10 % 1,379 Allowance for rising costs to mid point of constructon June 89 9 1,365 Possible Construction Budget commencing construction, December 1988 $M16,537 Engineering Cost Finance Fee Other Fee , Debt Service Reserve Fund Capital interest Total Project Cost ADAMSON Associates 170 C,yumOvS A.enua ✓ -3- San Franosco.CA,A 133 TaiepAone.415 981 1004 Acme Fill Corporation AA 87/1812 Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Martinez, California } . 6 Transfer Station Building and Pad 82480 SF Component Summary $/SF $! 1. Foundations 2.42 200 2. Vertical Structural Members 11.42 94 3. Floors and Roofs 15.62 1128 4. Exterior Cladding 2.72 22 5. Roofing and Waterproofing 5.60 462 6. Interior Partitions 0.06 7. Floor, Wall and Ceiling Finished 0.97 8 8. Function Equipment and Specialties 0.47 39 9. Vertical Transportation 0.06 10. Plumbing _ 2.27 18 11. Heating, Ventilating & Air Conditioning 0.00 -0 . 12. Electrical 5.20 429 13. Fire.Protection 1.70 14 TOTAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 48.51 4,001 14. Site Preparation 20.91 1, 15. Site Development (see sitework) -2 '�1 16. Utilities (see sitework) -0- TOTAL SITE CONSTRUCTION 20.91 1,721 TOTAL BUILDING AND SITE 82,480 69.42 5,72 ::: i f: ADAMSON Associates ' 170 cOlumoui Avenue US .i _4- San FfanC.o CA ca 133 ✓111111 Tslepnone.415 981.1W4 Acme Fill Corporation AA 87/1812 Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Martinez, California Transfer Building QUANTITY UNIT RATE AQ I 1. Foundation Reinforced concrete foundations complete i Retaining wall footing 871 LF 100.00 87 Concrete wall footing 388 LF 70.00 27 Perimeter footing 1,094 LF 50.00 55� Column bases 68 EA 450.00 31 $M200� 2. Vertical Structural Members Reinforced concrete walls 6,600 SF 20.00 132 retaining walls 22,828 SF 22.00 5021 Concrete masonry walls 528 SF 8.50 5 Steel plate 3/8 thick 8' 3,600 SF 30.00 1081 Steel columns . 150 TN 1.3M 195 3 l t ) $M942 3. Floor and roof structures Reinforced concrete slab on grade 80,000 SF 6.00 480 �1 Suspended slab and beams 4,384 SF 20.00 88 Roof steel and purlins 600 TN 1 .2M 720 t $M1,288 r : 4. Exterior Cladding ' Metal ribbed siding 30,710 SF 5.00 154 Roll up doors 20' x 15' 12 EA 3.5M 42 20' x 18' 4 EA 5.00 20 Windows 160 SF 25.00 4 Hollow metal door 2 EA 1 .0M 2 Gate 32' 1 EA 2.OM 2 -5- ' Acme Fill Corporation AA 87/1812 Waste Recovery and Transfer Station • 'Martinez, California ' Transfer Building QUANTITY UNIT RATE SM ' 5. Roofing and Waterproofing Metal ribbed roofing 81,048 SF 5.00 4D5: Waterproof retaining walls 22,828 SF 2.50 57 SM46Z { 6. Interior Partitions Restroom walls 50 LF 50.00 3� Doors 2 EA 1.OM 2 7. Finishes Paint steelwork LS SM 8. Equipment Safety rails - pit 300 LF 45.00 14 - exterior 400 LF 50.00 20 . Safety curbs V 200 LF 25.00 5 $M39 9. Vertical Transportation Spiral staircase 1 EA g $M5 -6- Acme Fill Corporation AA 1 Waste Recovery and Transfer Station 87/181 Martinez, California Transfer Building QUANTITY UNIT RATE S� 10. Plumbing Manual dust control sprinklers over pit area 27,000 SF 2.00 5 Toilet fixtures 10 EA 2.5M 21 Hose bibs and water loop 27,000 SF 2.00 54 Floor drains 27 2.00 5� $M182 11. Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning -0- 12. Electrical 1 Lighting 82,480 SF 1.20 99t Equipment power 82,480 SF 4.00 330 $M4291 13. Fire Protection 82,480 SF 1.70 140 $M140 14. Site Preparation , Demolition LS 25 Clearing and grubbing LS 25 ' Excavation 75,000 CY 5.00 375 Imported backfill , placed but no hauling 200,000 CY 1.50 300 Imported backfill , hauling and placing 200,000 CY 5.00 1 ,000 (M1 ,725 J -7- Acme Fill Corporation AA 87/1812 Waste Recovery and Transfer Station ` Martinez , California QUANTITY UNIT RATE SP Site Development and General Site Structures Entry road Paving Aggregate base 12" 13,067 SY 3.70 QE Asphalt concrete 3" 10,067 SY 7.00 7E. 1}" 3,000 SY 3.50 11 Curbs 1,800 LF 10.00 I€ Drainage by natural run off Scale pits 3 EA 20.OM 6E Scale houses 2 EA 35.OM 7( Collection booths 2 EA 10.0M 2C Lunchroom and dispatch office 1 EA 35.OM 35 Signabridge 1 EA 25 Subtotal $M357 Iterim transfer facility Excavation 4,148 CY 6.00 25 Temporary ramps 800 LF 15.00 20 Retaining wall 200 LF 660.00 132 pads 8,000 SF 5.00 4C Paving ' Aggregate base 12" 1,600 SY 3.70 6 Asphalt concrete 3" 1 ,600 SY 7.00 11 Subtotal SM234 Administration Area Admin building 2,112 SF 71.00 ISO perimeter paving 2,040 SF 5.00 IC Paving aggregate base 2,900 SY 3.70 11 asphalt concrete 2,900 SY 7.00 2C- curbs Ccurbs 800 LF 10.00 I_ Drainage 2,900 SY 4.00 Light standards 3 EA 4.OM )12 Subtotal ,. -8- i Acme Fill Corporation AA 87/1812 Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Martinez, California 'l QUANTITY UNIT RATE $hi Waterfront Road Paving Aggregate base 1,613 SY 3.70 asphalt concrete 3" 1,129 SY 7.00 8 1i" 484 SY 3.50 Subtotal $M26 Gun Club and IT Access aggregate base 12" 1,400 SY 3.70 5 asphalt concrete 3" 1,132 SY 7.00 1i" 268 SY 3.50 1 curbs 400 LF 10.00 4 drainage 1,400 SY 4.00 6 signage 1� Subtotal $M25 I I Transfer Station Paving i aggregate base 12" roads 16,800 SY 3.70 621 public pad 7,250 SY 3.70 27 transfer pad 23,100 SY 3.70 85 asphalt concrete 3" roads 14,351 SY 7.00 100 transfer pad 23,100 SY 7.00 162 11" shoulder 2,449 SY 3.50 9 concrete pad - public 7,250 SY 31.00 225 concrete curbs 2,000 LF 10.00 25 imported fill to roads 32,370 CY 5.00 162 , Drainage - roads natural run off . public pad 7,250 SY 3.00 22 transfer pad 23,100 SY 3.00 69 Retaining wall - foundations 2,060 LF 100.00 206 walls 28,885 SF 21.00 607 , Fueling station and 6 pumps LS 75 Pump house 75 Acme Fill Corporation A;, E771 l,; • Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Martinez, California ' QUANTITY UNIT RATE S1 Transfer Station (continued) Contaminated water drainage around station 5. Intersection signalization 2E Directional signs 1 . V, hicle maintenance building 20,000 SF 70.00 1,4 Spray paint booth LS 10C Subtotal SH3,5I Miscellaneous shared items Landscaping LS 1 Chain link fencing and gates 8,000 LF 12.CC, nF Subtotalt1 i 1 E 1 .. 1 1 _IO_ APPENDIX D 40 r Q'a Og Aw .•.� nn .pnr C a O ^c e o O a O N e O O o }C ' Y O O O O O«uh O 4 O O I N• O A .. !w •A C Z > C 4 e r 4. ; 00 00 •+ • O O O M N O O O� �• � r U • c ♦ � R i P1• »� A�► A� 2 — C Z V b: C h r ti a ry O o o = r•N _ y�y M - 7 - O " yU U4 UL` UU Q �- CK U IC - ac C E c y ! ss 3 22 3s cc s° vvvN1S N r �✓1 p 1/�Vl � N 4/1 y �V1 `. F• ^� Q �'4 d C 2 • j w 9'a RR a- �R sR Rs R$ F 0 m 3St $$ 3= 3k: $� ftft W go C: RS RR .R :8 Rs � u _Y < CC a p « 9 � � $Si 3Si 3St 3St 35t ZZ< � • � Z. Ana $g gg gg 8g $$ 5 Y t 2 at v w a U > U >" U � U.3 u J = > m u � L s 5 aQE r = s y w � C .+ s 3 OC G V 4 cc .� v a yV i �1 LL' > Z . J IL 40 H Y h w • w . w ? Y Z M- tzk rr rr rr 10 02 420 ag C K M G pp C'.1 r N ....i ..i.� •.w+ r. Y L- i C! rw 11%s yd. �di►w yY a c Y� ' xZ 22 2 »» x» A e �y Y F � C � v d� M d • M..1 lu (� W � a CL O G ss A .MM _ 'n-N •1 111 IAN •!N N ` Y yp tu.�V uU wU u u cr = EFx r g V1 v Z a g u C ° G Cp n � • o o o Q Y y 4 ege 3 3 4 .{ e C c F c G V y w YY V {Y� ♦Y ` �Y � N Y N N • it!!i M NLL iA Y �YY .'C M .� 2 Y.L S. . � . � , . � � �} ■a , ƒ_ - � 30 -�§ «ƒ � . a . . a < - } s� ■_ �k §2 � ST . . . , ) �x 2x 012 2 § � . � # s § tt - J ' 23 :340 -- S s a a . � § ®■ � s_■ . ■_■ 2� �� -- 2 � � Is as 22 § 22 ■ _ � - 7� � � �2 §� ■a §a t §§Su i = : Y ■ © - ` I %r.- B s � ' a | u , ■ - - - © J u 2 } � j ■ . ■ � - - - - - . � . j � . . � ` . . � u - - - - - - - bt _ o� . a . . cr cc . . . . . 7 j 77 29 §2 — . - j \} 3 $ } - fR 2s st 2s . 2R 2 - . \ /� ! k § §\ uu uu uu )j uu uu u u u / C. : I '_§ - 7 ° aka { ii . § $ $ $ , \ { \ 2 = 3)! ) \ \ .2 12 \ \ -2,9 \ 7 k �] ) } ) v ; 7l $ . � . � ' fkPPENDIX E EIP ASSOCIATES EIP Associates is one of California's foremost full-service environmental and natural resources planning firms. We have an 19-year track record in delivering more than 1,500 practical, solution-oriented planning studies, environmental impact reports and environmental impact statements for a wide cross-section of public agencies and private clients located throughout the California and the western United States. EIP maintains offices in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Sacramento and employes 50 professional and technical specialists. The firm's professional staff averages more than 10 years of consulting experience. Our style is characterized by a strong commitment to l clients and the creation of innovative solutions to complex, interrelated development issues. Our multidisciplinary staff of planning and environmental professionals represents the spectrum of the required specialities for conducting hazardous and solid wasste management planning, water resources and wastewater management planning, geology and. seismicity, hydrology and water quality, air quality, transportation planning and economics, biology, systems engineering, applied computer analysis and all aspects of architectural design and regional land use planning and economics. Representative Projects Project Client Siznificant Issues Transfer Station, Vallejo Garbage Service 600-ton-per-day transfer Recycling Center and station. Eloise, visual Corporation Yard EA impacts, environmental health hazards. Solid Waste Management Alameda County Solid Goals and objectives for Plan Plan Update Waste .Management and environment Authority (subcontractor to Black 86130 u Veatch) I Representative Projects, (cont'd) Proiect Client Significant Issues San Francisco Bay Region San Francisco Planning EIP identified six major Solid Waste Management and Urban Renewal objectives to guide a regional System for San Francisco Association solid waste managemnet Planning and Urban system and concluded that, Research while a regional haul system would perhaps be able to transport garbage efficiently, none of the six objectives would be satisified. Bee & Round Canyon Rutan & Tucker, Alternatives analysis, air Landfill EIR Review Attorneys at Law quality Berkeley Transfer Station Brown, Vence & Air and water quality, health EIR Review Associates effects Sacramento Solid Waste City of Sacramento EIP will conduct a full Transfer Station environmental analysis of Environmental and Design several alternatives being Services for the City of considered for management Sacramento and disposal of Sacramento's municipal wastes. Research Report and - ABAG Report dealt with solid waste Environmental Assessment implementation projects in for the Bay Area Solid the Bay Area. Waste Management Implementation Project for ABAG San Francisco Bay Region EBMUD Study was technical report on Wastewater Solid Studv the management of Technical Assistance for wastewater solids in the San the East Bay Municipal Francisco Bay region. Utilities District (EBbiUD) Solid Waste Management B&J Drop Box Company Incorporate a major charge Plan Amendment EIR, in service area for the B&J Vacaville, CA Landfill. ' 86130 l Representative Projects (cont'd) ' Project Client Significant Issues Lynch Canyon Sanitary Landfill Planning and Permitting Tri-County New landfill replacement far Development Company existing site. Transfer Station Vacaville Sanitary Proposed transfer station; Feasibility Analysis, Service economic traffic and traffic Vacaville, CA , safety impacts. County Hazardous Waste Sutter/Yuba Counties Analyze current and future Management Plans hazardous waste generatian;, existing facilities ' assessment; existing siting criteria 1 California Superconducting California Department Transport, storage and Super Collider EIR of General Services and disposal of low-level the University of radioactive wastes California Santa Barbara Circulation City of Santa Barbara Hazardous waste spills Element EIR response plan Shearwater Development City of South San Soil and groundwater Project EIR Francisco contamination Hamilton Field Master City of Vallejo Leaking of underground Plan EIR tanks; cleanup of asbestos contamination; transport of hazardous and toxic materials ' 86130 3 Representative Projects (cont'd) Proiect_ Client - Significant Issues Alta Bates Hospital City of Berkeley :Management and disposal of Expansion EIR infectious wastes Northgate Draft Specific City of Vallejo Potential risks associated Area Plan EIR with transport, storage and , management of hazardous materials in planned industrial park University of.California University of Transport storage and Chemistry Building III California, Berkeley disposal of hazardous Environmental Assessment chemicals Delta Landing EIR/EIS City of Antioch Soil and groundwater contamination ' Infectious Waste Sanitary Fill Air quality, water quality and Incineration Facility Corporation residue disposal impacts of Evaluation proposed infectious waste incineration facility More detailed summaries of the above-listed projects are presented below. EIP has also ' worked extensively in Contra Costa County and summaries of selected projects follow our solid waste and hazardous waste experience. 1 86130 4