Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03221988 - 2.13 2.13 The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, California Adopted this Order on March 22, 1988 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson, Schroder NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Tiered Landfill Application Review Process IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the report dated March 18, 1988, of the Director of the Community Development on the tiered landfill application review process is CONTINUED to March 29, 1988, at 10:30 a.m. 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 22, 1988 PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By, 0, 2Z Deputy Clerk CC: Director,CDD County Counsel CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: March 18, 1988 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon Director of Commun' SUBJECT: Tiered Landfill Ap lication Review Process BACKGROUND For the Board of Supervisors' meeting of March 8th, the Board received a package of staff-prepared memoranda addressing several referrals on waste disposal issues. One memorandum, dated March 2nd, was entitled "Expediting the Permit Process" . As its title indicates, it was concerned with the possible means of reducing the timelines of the existing environmental,._,_and. --application review process. During the discussion of the "March 2nd memorandum, the Board further directed staff to report on the steps and timelines that would pertain to processing a landfill through a tiered process. This memorandum responds to the Board' s direction. Although the matter of expediting the landfill approval process was raised in connection with the proposed Marsh Creek landfill, to the extent possible both this and the March 2nd memoranda address issues and procedures that could apply to other proposed waste disposal facilities as well. This memorandum differs from the March 2nd memorandum chiefly in that this one is primarily concerned with a 2-tier (policy/development plan) review process focused on early application acceptance and early review of policy-plan (General Plan and Solid Waste Management Plan) amendments, while the March 2nd report was primarily concerned with describing the existing landfill application review process and indicating how that process might be expedited. The March 2nd report is attached to this report because the earlier document contains descriptions of (our) nine phases of activity leading to the creation of a new landfill, which are applicable to both reports (but two-tiered in this report) , and because the timelines of the two-tier process are based on the timelines of the "expedited" process described in the original memorandum. Simple timeline comparisons of the two-tier process with the "expedited" and conventional processes may be made by comparing Table A in this report with Table 1 in the March 2nd report. "Tiering" here takes its name from a tiered process for the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports allowed by the state' s CEQA Guidelines. However, both the environmental review and the processing of applications for a proposed landfill would be tiered in the process described in 'this memorandum. The first tier would be the review and consideration of a landfill' s policy-level applications (GPA and CoSWMP amendments) along with a policy-oriented generalized Environmental Impact Report. The second tier, in this case, would be the review and consideration of the landfill as a development project (Land Use Permit; and Rezoning and Agricultural Preserve Cancellation, if required) . It is noted that tiering under the state' s CEQA Guidelines, is a concept rather than a kind of EIR. Generally, the kinds of tiered EIR' s that might be used for a waste disposal project could be either a Program EIR, if the project consists of a number of parts and if information exists .;to.::-.address the overall project, or a Staged EIR, if the project requires multiple approvals and if the initial EIR is to proceed from generalized information. Since the aspect of developing an initial EIR for the proposed Marsh Creek landfill partially on the basis of the available "reconnaissance-level" information was raised at both the Board of Supervisors ' meeting of March 8th and the Internal Operations Committee meeting the day before, it is assumed that if the Board is interested in having the prospective applicant proceed with a tiered process, a Staged EIR process would be the . more appropriate of the two. The purposes of a tiered application process, then, would be: 1. To give a proposed landfill early official status as a project by accepting applications for a General Plan Amendment and a County Solid Waste Management Plan prior to the applicant' s completion of lengthy geo-technical studies and engineering work on the landfill development project. Page 2 TABLE A Summary Table TIERED APPLICATION PROCESS FOR A SANITARY LANDFILL PROJECT (Minimum Timeline) First Tier Second Tier *** (Policy Plans) (Development Project) EIR, GPA, CoSWMP EIR, Land Use Permit, Solid Waste Facilities Phase Permit Pre-Application A. Site Selection ( 12 months) 0 months B. Pre-Application 3 months 0 months Activities Subtotals 3 months 0 months Project Processing Phases I . Project Review 2 months 0 months Start-Up II . Draft EIR 3 months 2 months Development III . Draft EIR 2 months 2 months Review IV. Planning Commission 2 months 2 months Permit Review V. Board of Supervisors 1 month 1 month Project Hearings ** VI . Responsible Agency 0 months 9 months Referrals & Final Design Subtotals 10 months 16 months Post-Approval Activities (Construction Phase) 0 months 11 months Totals 13 months 27 months Combined Totals 40 months *It is assumed that the site has been selected and development rights obtained prior to the start of the first tier. Processing the County Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment through the cities and the California Waste Management Board to final adoption before starting the second tier would introduce a delay of at least 3 months between the tiers. If the landfill will require a new or additional transfer station, a "third tier" transfer station, development project could be processed simultaneously with the landfill development project ( if it would be consistent with the policy plans) . caz/a:tablea.cht Page 3 2. To ascertain, as early as possible, whether a proposed landfill location would be locally acceptable. This would be determined by processing the two policy-level applications, for the General Plan Amendment and County Solid Waste Management Plan, and an appropriate ( first tier) Environmental Impact Report, to adoption by the Board of Supervisors. The County Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment (with the first tier EIR) also would be referred to the cities and to the California Waste Management Board following adoption by the Board of Supervisors. 3 . And, possibly, to provide reasonable assurance to a landfill applicant that a development project for a landfill facility, could be approved if it is based on the policy approvals for the site location and can be shown to probably be able to comply with state and regional agency regulatory requirements for the applicable class of landfill before the applicant makes expensive investments in geo-technical studies and facility engineering. TIERING TIMELINES Table A describes how a tiered environmental and "permit" review process could apply to a landfill project. First Tier--Pre-application Phases The Table assumes that the applicant already has acquired -the title or rights to develop the proposed- site (nominally, an effort that could take one or more years) . The applicant would proceed to prepare generalized application submittals for a General Plan Amendment and a Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment. Since these submittals do not require extensive geo-technical and engineering studies or lengthy water, air, or habitat characterization studies, it is estimated that their preparation could be accomplished in about 3 months. First Tier--Project Processing Phases The preparation and processing of a first tier Environmental Impact Report through the County Planning Commission to the Commission' s receiving the Final EIR Response Document is estimated to require a minimum of 7 months from the ac eptance of the GPA and COSWMP applications. Table A allows 2 months for the County Planning Commission to approve the Final EIR, hear and approve the GPA, prepare and adopt findings, and transmit the Final EIR and GPA to the Board of Supervisors, and 1 month for the Board to schedule a hearing, hold it, and approve the Final EIR and GPA. Page 4 Table A assumes that the County Solid Waste Management Commission will have considered the COSWMP Amendment and transmitted it to the Board of Supervisors in time for the Board to consider it along with the GPA. Subsequently (before beginning the second tier, or by the beginning of the second tier but no later than the last phase--Phase VI--of the second tier) the COSWMP Amendment, and certified EIR, would be referred to the cities and the California Waste Management Board for their approvals. If their concurrence is wanted before beginning the second tier, at least another 3 months would have to be added to the process. Approval of the CoSWMP by the cities and CWMB would add the site to the CoSWMP, and no further city approvals would be necessary (unless a city would be a Responsible Agency under CEQA for other purposes) . First Tier--Post-Approval Activities There would be no construction associated with the completion of the first tier. Second Tier--Pre-applicati.on Activities Table A shows no elapsed time for second tier pre-application activities. It is assumed that the applicant-, would. be preparing the geo-technical, engineering, and development design work necessary for a Land Use Permit application and regulatory agency EIR review during the first tier period. Unless that work resulted in substantial changes to the concept of the landfill that was the basis for the first tier EIR, or substantial changes were imposed on the project through the Planning Commission' s or Board of Supervisors' approvals of the GPA or COSWMP amendments, the second tier processing activities should be able to immedi- ately follow the first tier. As noted on Table A, if the landfill required a new or additional transfer station, a "third tier" transfer station development project could proceed through the process consecutively with the landfill development project. This assumes that the transfer station is provided for in the General Plan and CoSWMP. Second Tier--Project Processing Phases The second tier project processing phases would be concerned with the review and consideration of a development project for the landfill, through the instrument of a Land Use Permit application, (and other land use applications that the project may require) . The applicant would initiate the tier by Page 5 submitting the detailed Comprehensive Project Description ( less policy items) outlined in the March 2nd memorandum and the development applications. A second tier Environmental Impact Report focused on the development project and on the needs of the regulatory and service agencies (CEQA Responsible Agencies) that would have to use the EIR in making their own discretionary decisions on the project would have to be prepared and processed in the required manner. About 4 months (minimum) would be required to take the CEQA process to the point where the County Planning Commission could begin to hear the Land Use Permit and any other land use applications. From that point, Table A allows 2 months for the Commission to approve a Final EIR (with Response Document) , hear and consider the LUP and related entitlements, prepare conditions and findings, and act to transmit the project to the Board of Supervisors. Table A shows the minimum time of 1 month for the Board to schedule, hear, and act on the project. Nine months is allocated for the applicant to complete final geo-technical and design work required for regulatory agency permits and off-site improvements; obtain the regulatory agency permits; obtain off-site improvement approvals from other jurisdictions; prepare final plans for County approval; and obtain County and California Waste Management Board approvals of a Solid Waste Facilities Permit (operations permit) . Second Tier--Post-Approval Activities Table A allows only a minimum 11 months for constructing the landfill to a stage when it many receive wastes and for making the necessary off-site improvements. RECOMMENDATIONS If the Board of Supervisors wants to have the proposed Marsh Creek landfill project (or any subsequently proposed landfill project) reviewed and considered through the tiered process outlined in this memorandum, the Board should: 1. Make a finding that there are special circumstances pertaining to the proposed Marsh Creek landfill project that justify a tiered approach to the review and consideration of the project; namely, that the imminent need for landfill capacity in Contra Costa County warrants early County and city decisions on the acceptability of the site location, Page 6 that the time necessary for the applicant to prepare the site-specific information required for a development project application and regulatory agency applications would result in an undesirable delay in the County' s acceptance of an initial application, and that it is expected that any review and consideration process would result in an interval of more than 2 years between the initial approval of the project and the start of construction. (The finding should be made to justify the tiered process under the California Environmental Quality Act which otherwise would call for an initial EIR to address the whole project in detail. The 2 year interval is a criterion for justifying a Staged EIR. ) 2. Direct staff to notify the prospective applicant of the Board' s preference and to request that the applicant agree to the tiered application process. 3 . Waive the July 10, 1984, waste disposal facility application processing procedures for the proposed project on an individual basis ( staff does not recommend rescinding the 1984 procedures because they are used for a variety of waste disposal facility applications, including applications for hazardous waste facilities) . 4. Direct staff to develop criteria for first:,' tier (policy plan amendment) applications. (Certain criteria, such as those addressing policies, plans, and regulations, can be taken directly from the existing Comprehensive Project Description criteria attached to the March 2nd memorandum, while other submittal criteria for such subjects as traffic, services, and design will have to be bifurcated and generalized for a first tier project description submittal. COMMENT The minimum timelines outlined in this memorandum, as was previously noted for those presented in the March 2nd memorandum, are predicated on ideal circumstances and complete cooperation. .During the Board of Supervisor' s discussion on the March 2nd memorandum Board members correctly observed that the environmental-application review process is subject to public and governmental interactions which are not under the control of the County, and that these have great influence over the ultimate timelines. As examples, Responsible Agencies do add their CEQA needs (which may be based on new regulatory requirements) to the process, the volumes of public comments on the environmental Page 7 documents and applications are not predictable, opponents can exercise delaying tactics, and a project may require information or even service from another project (possibly from the proposed Delta Expressway in the case of the Marsh Creek Landfill) . As a result both the County and the applicant should expect to be flexible enough to deal with unexpected events in processing a new landfill application. Attachment: March 2, 1988, Memorandum to Board of Supervisors Cz/vl caz/draft.rpt Page 8 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Board of Supervisors D TE: March 2, 1988 FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director of Community Developme SUBJECT: Expediting the Landfill Permit Process BACKGROUND The Board of Supervisors, at its February 23, 1988, meeting, directed staff to report on the feasibility of expediting the process that the County now uses to process applications for sanitary landfills. This memorandum has been prepared in response to the Board order. The current process described herein is essentially generic--it was developed in connection with the Acme landfill expansion project, it was applied to the Kirker Pass and East Contra Costa landfill projects recently taken to the Board (it now reflects some lessons learned from those projects) , and it would apply to any new landfill project. Every project is unique in some respects, however. Recognizing this, the memorandum does make some specific references to a Marsh Creek landfill which is the only "new" landfill which,-has--,beem announced. by a sponsor and to staff's knowledge preparations are being made to develop an application. The application process described in this memorandum is largely derived from State laws, such as the State Planing Law, including. the Permit Streamlining Act, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , and State regulations, and local ordinances and policies. Among -the latter, the Board .of Supervisors' - 1984 policy on landfill applications, adopted Ju-1y 10, 1984,- establishes some of the specific policies referred to herein, such .as the applicant's provision of a - Comprehensive Project Description and the start of the County's review process through an application for a Board-authorized General Plan-review. ORGANIZATION - Table 1 summarizes the timelines of both the existing permit review process and an expedited process. - The Conclusions section summarizes the findings of the memorandum. - The Potentials for Expediting Processing section describes nine phases of project development, briefly identifies the existing process, identifies possible time-saving measures,and identifies the ramifications of applying the measures. - Table 2 enumerates the activities and work products which comprise the nine phases of project development in terms of the existing process. - The attachment, the most recent version of specifications for the preparation of a Comprehensive Project Description, referenced to the proposed Marsh Creek landfill, is provided for the Board' s information. Page 2 g CONCLUSIONS There is possibility, on paper, of reducing the minimum. time required to prepare and process a landfill application from about 40 months (following site acquisi- tion) , which at the low end of a preparation time range, to about 33 months, or a reduction of about 18 percent. See Table 1. About four months of the 7-month reduction would occur in activities carried out by the. project sponsor both prior to submitting an application and after its approval by the Board of Super- visors. About three months of the timeline estimated to be reducible by expedi- ting the process would be in activities directly under the control of the County. The 33-month expedited timeline shown on Table 1 could be achieved if circumstances are ideal and if cooperation is complete. This. statement is qualified for a number of reasons: 1) large segments of the process are not under the direct control of the County (legal time requirements, the sponsor, regulatory agency requirements,. and city actions are all involved and sometimes control segments of the .processing critical path) ; 2) both the process and the project may depend on information or actual improvements produced by other projects; 3) public concerns are expected to result in more hearings, more questions to be answered, and more demands for additional information from the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors than the low end of the regular schedule provides. The existing process is already "fast-tracked" to a considerable degree in that documents required in later phases of project review are deve-loped, as secondary activities, where practicable, of earlier phases. POTENTIALS FOR EXPEDITING PROCESSING Phase A, Site Selection Phase A is a pre-application stage-which does not directly -involve the partici- pation of County staff for A private-sector landfill project. - Any prospective applicant, however, will benefit from the previous work done by the County and other public agencies which is reflected in the County Salid Waste Management. Plan and several site identification studies. The latter include the 1984-5 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District/Contra Costa County Study, the 1986 Southeast County Landfill Siting Study, and the records of the 1987 Blue Ribbon Task Force effort. Phase B, Pre-Application Activities Phase B is an application preparation stage which almost entirely involves work by the project sponsor, although several County and other public agencies will have to be contacted to obtain plans and other information. The three most time consuming activities are performing geo-technical studies (geology and hydrolo- gy) , designing the landfill facility itself to a preliminary engineering level, and determining the nature and extent of needed off-site improvements. Page 3 TABLE 1 SUMMARY TABLE EXISTING AND EXPECTED LANDFILL APPLICATION PROCESSING PROCEDURES Existing Process* Expedited Process** (Range in Months) (months) Phase Low to High Low Pre-Application A. Site Selection 12 mo. - 24 mo. 12 mo. B. Pre-Application Activities 6 mo. - 12 mo. 3 mo. Subtotal 18 mo. - 36 mo. 15 mo. Project Processing Phases I. Project Review 2 mo. - 3 mo. 2 mo. Start-Up II. Draft EIR 4 mo. - 6 mo. 3 mo. Development III. Draft EIR 3 mo. - 6 mo. 2 mo. Review IV. Planning Commission 2 mo. - 3 mo. 2 mo. Permit Review V. Board of Supervisors 1 mo. - 2 mo. 1 mo. Project Hearings VI. Responsible Agency 10 mo. - 24 mo.. 9 mo. Referrals & Final Design Subtotal 22 mo. - 44 mo. - - 19 mo. Post-Approval Activities (Construction Phase) 12 mo. - 24 mo. 11 mo. Totals 52 mo. - 104 mo. 45 mo. Totals Less Site Selection 40 mo. - 68 mo. 33 mo. *See Table 2 for description of existing process. ** See Potentials for Expedited Processing in text. Page 4 The primary product of Phase B is a Comprehensive Project Description to accom- pany a project application. Staff has updated the specifications for a landfill Comprehensive Project Description, as they would apply to a Marsh Creek land- fill, and provided it to the project sponsor. A copy is attached to this memo- randum. By following the specifications, the sponsor should be able to more expeditiously develop a proposal for application to the County. Tables 1 and 2 indicate a nominal range of 6 months to 12 months to accomplish Phase B. The shorter figure assumes. that the sponsor will make a concerted effort to perform the work and encounter no major impediments, such as bad weather which would prevent heavy equipment for borings and trenching from being taken into the field. The longer figure, which may be too short, envisions contingencies such as the need for year-long water characterization or air move- ment studies to meet regulatory agency needs for coverage in the project's Environmental Impact Report. A considerable portion of the Comprehensive Project Description is devoted to project design and operating requirements of a Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Bay Area Air Quality Management Dis- trict, and the California Waste Management Board. The opportunities for expediting the preparation of a Comprehensive Project Description obviously vary from site to site. The preparation mode does, howev- er, have on attribute which is amenable to fast tracking, which is that the process is under the direct control of the sponsor. The sponsor may elect to hire more specialists or pay premiums for round-the-clock work. If everything went well, the optimal 6-month preparation time might be reduced to 3 months. Phase I, Project Review Start-Up Time Phase I covers the period from the submission of an initial project application, for a General Plan Amendment, through the California Quality Act Environmental Impact Report notification and scoping stage, to the contracting of an EIR con- sultant. (Experience indicates that an EIR will be required for a new landfill. ) It is during the scoping stage that the County will ..be informed of the regulato- ry agencies' and other Responsible Agencies' needs for subject matter content in the project's Environmental Impact Report. There is little opportunity to expedite this phase of work from the range of 2 months to 3 months listed in Tables 1 and 2 because 1 month is taken up by a mandatory minimum public review period of the CEQA Notice of Preparation. Actu- ally, the 2-month timeline is only remotely possible, but unrealistic, unless staff can devote full time to the effort and no delays are encountered. An assist for minimizing the timeline--keeping it closer to the 2-month end of the range than exceeding the 3-month end--would be to recruit a consultant by single-source selection rather than by the usual competitive method. The project sponsor would have to agree to single source selection. Given the very high cost of landfill EIR's, staff would be reluctant to use single-source selection. Page S Phase II, Draft EIR Development Phase II covers the development of the Draft Environmental Impact Report from the beginning of the consultant's efforts, through the internal review of draft materials, to the publication of the document. It is essentially staff and consultant work, although the sponsor (the sponsor's technical staff and consul- tants) typically is called on the provide additional information. The time frame for Phase II is shown as a range of four months to six months in Tables 1 and 2. The shorter period is based on a normal core period of three months for the consultant to produce an administrative (internal review) draft and another month to review, revise, and publish the report. The longer period allows a 4-month time for the consultant to produce the administrative draft, which is a more realistic assignment for evaluating a complex project, and two months for reviews, revisions, and publication. It is noted that none of the a waste disposal project DEIR's have been prepared in four months, and some have required considerably more than six months. Long preparation periods frequently result .when the completion of the project EIR is dependent on the availability of external documents. The most recent example of an "outside" document extending EIR's (for hazardous waste ' facilities) is the new Health Risk Assessment, which is being required by the air quality agencies such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District even. as the standards and procedures for its preparation are being determined. New landfills may require Health Risk Assessments because of the minute amounts of toxics present in landfill gases. The availability of the forthcoming Delta Expressway EIR also could affect the length of time required to prepare an EIR for the Marsh Creek landfill if this proposed thoroughfare is intended to be used for access to the landfill. Another cause of delay, particularly for sites in remote areas, could be performing studies on threatened and endangered plant and animal special pursuant to federal and state laws. Setting aside the unknowns and the unpredictable, there is a possibility of expediting Phase Il if the sponsor's Comprehensive Project Description is very thorough, if the EIR consultant team is experienced in landfill evaluating and with Contra Costa County, and if both the consultant and the County staff can give the project their undivided attention. This obviously would increase prep aration costs. The amount of time that-might be bought would be no more than one month at the short end of the range (i.e. , possibly down to three months) to a two month reduction at the high end (i.e. , down to four months) . . Phase III, Draft Environmental Impact Report Review Phase III is essentially a "public" phase of the project review process in that it provides for a public review and comment period for the DEIR, for a public hearing(s) , and the preparation of a Response Document providing written re- sponses to comments received which address environmental issues pertaining to. the project. The phase also has a built-in "fast-track" aspect in that applica- tions for Land Use Permits (as well as for Agricultural Preserve Cancellations and Rezonings, if required) are filed then and staff typically prepares the paperwork preparatory to taking these items to hearings in Phase IV. Page 6 Tables 1 and. 2 shows a 3-month to 6-month time range for Phase III. There is little opportunity to reduce the former figure because half the time is taken up by a mandatory minimum 45-day public review period for the DEIR. To expedite the process, however, the public hearing on the DEIR is usually held near . the end of the 45-day period. Ostensibly, the 3-month timeline might be reduced to 2 months by a combination of dispensing with the public hearing (which is optional under CEQA, and typi- cally for a controversial project introduces large amounts of comments late in the review period) , the provision of overtime monies for the EIR consultant to prepare the response document, short turn-around submission of technical infor- mation requested of the sponsor, and exclusive devotion to the. project by assigned County staff. In our experience, it is difficult to meet a 3-4 month schedule for the phase when a project is complex, highly technical, and controversial like a landfill. The volume of comments is hard to foresee, as is the level of difficulty. in responding to them. Some additional technical work is frequently done to fur- ther test or substantiate the DEIR's conclusions. Often, the Planning Commis- sion itself initiates inquiries after public testimony has been completed, necessitating an EIR Addendum. Also, it must be recognized that the phase is subject to delaying tactics by project opponents, such as proliferating basic questions into scores of inqui- ries. If the comment-and-response effort exceeds that contemplated by the consultant's contract, the contract would have to be amended through a Board of Supervisors' action, which itself takes time to process As noted, the existing landfill review process contemplates that the sponsor will file for the project's Land Use Permit and related planning approvals late in Phase III. One reason for having the application(s) submitted then rather than earlier is to enable the sponsor to have the benefit of most of the EIR work to fine-tune the development pian and operating program proposed in the Land Use Permit application to include EIR mitigation measures and suggestions. PP g - Another reason for not accepting- the Land Use Permit application earlier is that - the Land Use Permit is-a "development project" which .is legally-subject to 12 to 15- -month processing constraints, and this is too optimistic a timeline from the beginning of an EIR (with the. acceptance of a General Plan Amendment). to the Board of Supervisors' adoption of a Land Use Permi-t. Waiting until this phase- to receive the Land Use Permit application does not lose time for the project. Phase IV, Planning Commission Permit Review Phase IV, the County Planning Commission's consideration of the project's Land Use Permit (and Agricultural Preserve Cancellation and Rezoning, if applicable) normally would begin when the Commission is ,able to approve the Final Environ- mental Impact Report--that is, when the Commission and the public have all the EIR information available to them. Often, the Land Use Permit and related items are placed on the Commission agenda along with the approval of the Final EIR. This means that the preparation of notices (in Phase III) preceded the hearing by almost a month. Page 7 In the cases of the Central, Kirker Pass, and East Contra . Costa landfill projects, the applicants introduced their projects before the final EIR's were completed (but after the EIR hearings were closed) and hearings were held on "model" sets of conditions before the staff-recommended Land Use Permit condi- tions of approval were introduced and heard. That process was used to draft approval conditions not available at that time and was atypical. The 2-month to 3-month timeline for Phase IV in Tables 1 and 2 is quite short when it is understood that hearing notices must be prepared and provided to newspapers at least 2 weeks in advance of the initial public hearings, that a staff report (often extensive for a landfill) must be prepared and provided to the Commission, that the Commission may need to hold more than one hearing, that the Commission may request more information from the sponsor or staff (often . considerable) and that extensive findings must be prepared for a project, after - the conclusion of public testimony, before a project can be acted on (if it is to be approved) by the Commission.. In short, there is no practicable way of reducing the 2-month low-range timeline shown on Tables 1 and 2 because it already depends on noticing and paperwork previously performed in Phase III. Phase V, Board of Supervisors Project Hearings In Phase V, the Board of Supervisors is asked to confirm .the County Planning Commission's approval of the project's Environmental Impact Report (complete its certification) , adopt the amendments to the County General. Plan and Solid Waste Management Plan, approve a Rezoning and related actions if required, approve the Land Use Permit, and adopt appropriate findings. The phase begins immediately after the Planning Commission's adoption of findings and ends with the filing of a CEQA Notice of Determination. The low-end timeline of one month shown in Tables .1 and 2 for the phases (1 month to 2 months) is not reducible. It- assumes that staff will -make--pre- arrangements with the Cl-erk of the Board to reserve a hearing date, that the Planning-Commission's findings will be largely adequate, and that the Board will need to hold only one hearing. (By way of--contrast, the Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill and East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill g y projects went to' the Board in late July, 1987, and were originally scheduled for final decision in mid-December, 1987. ) Phase VI, Responsible Agency Referrals and Final Design ' Phase VI covers the period between the Board of Supervisors' approval of the planning entitlements for a landfill and the administrative approval of its final design plan and the issuance of its Solid Waste Facilities Permit (opera- tions permit) through the County Health Services Department. An important aspect of the phase is that the cities and regulatory agencies require the Coun- ty's certified Environmental Impact Report in order to act on the project. Page 8 e Tables 1 and 2 show a 10-month to 2-year timeline for Phase VI. The length of the range reflects the uncertainty over how long it will take the project spon- sor to prepare highly technical submittals to various regulatory agencies and how long it will take these agencies to approve the submittals. Concurrent actions include the approval of the Solid Waste Management Plan by the cities and by the California Waste Management Board. It is only near the end of Phase VI, when the County is reviewing the final development plan (Development and Improvements Plan) and preparing the Solid Waste Facilities Permit that the "critical path" is under the control of the County. Expediting Phase IV, then, is largely up to the project sponsor. The project sponsor possibly can accelerate the time required for Phase VI by establishing working relationships with regulatory agency staffs prior to Phase VI and by carrying out final studies and. by preparing detailed plans while the project's Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment is being considered by the cit- ies and the California Waste Management Board. It is conceivable that the project sponsor can bring about a somewhat shorter Phase VI by the early preparation of the various submittals to the regulatory agencies and the County, but not much below the 10-month short-end timeline (say, by about a month) . Post-Approval Activities The final phase in the landfill development lies between the California Waste Management Board's review of a project(s) Solid Waste. Facilities Permit and the opening of the landfill. This is basically the construction phase, although public agencies are involved in inspection activities and in some construction permit approval activities. -- Table 1 shows a 1-year to 2-year timeline for this phase, but estimating a time- line without Land Use Permit conditions of approval and construction plans is highly speculative. Every landfill's construction program Es__ - unique. The -- _ critical path for construction -is likely to -be the installation of off-site = improvements rather than site development itself. - The particular construction that is likely to be--the most troublesome is the improvement of off-site access roads between a freeway and the landfill entrance to accommodate heavy transfer van trucks, but the extension of water service, if-required, can be difficult t& accomplish too. In the case of the proposed Marsh Creek landfill, a major question at this time is when the "Delta Expressway" will be available for use if this proposed thoroughfare is to accommodate landfill traffic between the present State High- way 4 freeway and Marsh Creek Road. Another major question is the availability of an East County transfer station. It is doubtful that self-hauler traffic can be allowed direct access to a Marsh Creek landfill, and it is likely that the distance to the Marsh Creek location justifies transferring solid waste from route collection vehicles to transfer vans as well. Either the landfill sponsor or the East County collector could provide an East County facility (or facilities) but there is no currently proposed transfer station. Page 9 It is noted that the County probably will be placing into operation several .new or enhanced. waste management and inspection programs during this phase. This assumes that the project's Land Use Permit conditions of approval and, possibly, Development -Agreement will contain similar provisions to those developed for the Kirker Pass and East Contra Costa landfill projects. Since this construction phase is largely at the initiative of the sponsor, and subject to such things as seasons, the weather, and possible dependence on other projects, the ability of the County to influence its duration is slight. None- theless, if everything else fell into place with unusual. alacrity, County staff might be able to expedite inspections and organize programs affecting a landfill (since the financial support for these activities will be provided by the spon- sor) and shorten the schedule by, say, a month. TABLE 2 EXISTING LANDFILL APPLICATION PROCESSING PROCEDURE Nominal Time Line PRE-APPLICATION PHASES (18 mo - 36 mo)(1) PHASE A Sponsor CCCCDD Staff(2) 12 mo. - 24 mo. SITE 'Investigate sites 'Perform site studies SELECTION 'Select site 'Provide information °Buy%option site PHASE B Sponsor CCCCDD Staff 6 mo. - 12 mo. PRE-APPLICATION °Perform site- °Identify application ACTIVITIES specific studies requirements appro- °Prepare Compre- priate to site hensive Project Description Board of Supervisors °Submit General Plan Amendment review 'Authorize staff to authorization conduct a General request Plan Amendment review --------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ PROJECT PROCESSING PHASES (22 mo. - 44 mo. ) PHASE I Sponsor CCCCDD Staff 2 mo. - 3 mo. PROJECT REVIEW 'Submit Compre- °Review-_Comprehensive START-UP hensive- Project Project Description Description for completeness. 'Submit General °Accept General Plan Plan Amendment Amendment application - application 'Perform initial CEQA °Submit request for review (assume EIR) . Solid Waste Man- 'Prepare CEQA Notice agement Plan of Preparation Amendment package and file °Comment on EIR with State Clearing- consultant selection house (maximum 30 and EIR scoping. days) . 'File NOP with State Clearinghouse (maximum 30-day response period) PHASE I Sponsor CCCCDD Staff °Recruit EIR consultant. 'Scope EIR with Responsible Agencies and public. Board of Supervisors °Transmit Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment request to Solid Waste Commission. °Execute EIR consultant contract. PHASE II Sponsor CCCCDD Staff .4 mo. - 6 mo. DRAFT EIR °Provide additional 'Manage consultant DEVELOPMENT information, as preparation of Draft needed. EIR. °Critique consultant's drafts. °Manage review of Administrative Draft, DEIR. OApprove and publish DIER. PHASE III Sponsor CCCCDD Staff 3 mo. - 6 mo. DEIR °File Land Use 'Prepare notices P - REVIEW Permit -(etc. ) (3) °Distribute DEIR applications OFile CEQA_Notice for Phase 4 of Completion °Provide informa- (minimum 45-day tion DEIR Review and Comment period) . 'Notice DEIR completion and public hearing. 'Prepare staff reports. °Produce hearing transcript. 'Produce EIR Response Document 'Prepare GPA for Phase IV °Prepare Solid Waste Management Plan amend- ment for Phase IV. PHASE III Sponsor County Planning Commission °Hold EIR public. hearing(s) . °Acton Final EIR. PHASE IV Sponsor CCCCDD Staff 2 mo. - 3 mo. PLANNING . 'Present project. 'Prepare and distribute COMMISSION °Provide informa- public hearing notices. PERMIT tion. °Prepare staff report(s) . REVIEW 'Prepare responses to County Planning Commission inquiries. °Prepare resolutions, findings, and trans- mittal document. County Planning Commission 'Conduct permit hearings. °Act on permit applications. °Adopt findings on EIR,` permits. County Solid Waste Commission 'Review CoSWMP amendment request. 'Transmit recommendation to Board of Supervisors. PHASE V Sponsor Clerk of the Board 1 mo. - 2 mo. BOARD OF °Present project.;. . . 'Prepare-and .distribute SUPERVISORS 'Provide informa- public hearing notices. PROJECT tion. _ORecord hearings. HEARINGS 'Prepare decision- documents. CCCCDD Staff °Prepare and present staff report(s) °Respond to the Board inquiries. °File CEQA Notice of Determination. Board of Supervisors °Conduct public hearing(s) . °Act on Final EIR, GPA, CoSWMP and LUP (etc. ) applications. PHASE VI Sponsor Board of Supervisors 10 mo - 24 mo RESPONSIBLE °Provide Final EIR 'Transmit Solid Waste AGENCY to Responsible Management Plan REFERRALS & Agencies. Amendment to cities r FINAL DESIGN °Present project to and California Waste cities and Management; support California Waste reviews. Management Board. 'Carry out additional CCCCDD Staff studies and design improvements, as 'Review studies and required by County final design plan. and regulatory 'Prepare implementation agencies. agreements. OSubmit permit °Approve final design applications to plan. regulatory agencies. °Prepare and provide Health Services Dept. final design plan to County. 'Participate in project Submit Solid Waste reviews. Facilities Permit °Prepare, approve, and application to transmit Solid Waste County; support Facilities Permit. permit before California Waste Public Works Dept.. . Management Board. OObtain LAFCO °Participate in project approvals, if reviews. required. °Review proposed off- OObtain necessary site improvements. construction permits -- and approvals. -- POST-APPROVAL ACTIVITIES (12 mo. - 24 mo. ) Sponsor County Staff °Install off-site improvements. 'Obtain inspection specialist (e.g. , °Install on-site improvements. geo-technical inspector) . °Obtain necessary waste stream °Manage inspection program. commitments. °Review%implement resource recovery, °Initiate applications for associated out-reach, and other programs required facilities (i.e. , transfer station) by Land Use Permit Permit and Solid if not a component of the primary Waste Facilities Permit. project. (1) "Nominal" in this case is an expected optimal time range which is based on experience. It is neither the minimum which can be plotted on a flow chart, nor the worst case. (2) The County Community Development Department is identified as the lead department; other County departments, particularly the County Administra- tor, County Counsel, Health Services, and Public Works, will be signifi- cantly involved. (3) "Etc." could include the cancellation of an Agricultural Preserve and the approval of a Rezoning, if necessary. CAZ:jn 6d:expedite.txt • y 3%2%88 INFOh"tAT���� CRITERIA FOR SOLID WASTE FACILITY COMPREHENSIVE PROJECT DESCRIPTION [MARSH CREEK LANDFILL VERSION] PURPOSE The Comprehensive Project Description is a project application report consisting of development, operations and closure plans and support information and stud- ies. It is prepared by the applicant, for submission to the Community Develop- ment Department, as a part of an initial application for a solid waste (or hazardous waste) disposal facility in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. The purpose of the Comprehensive Project Description is to help. assure that a project submitted for processing will be well considered, technically feasible, economically reasonable, and environmentally suitable, and will be accompanied by substantiating information to facilitate its review. The heart of the Comprehensive Project Description is a waste disposal facility , designed to the preliminary engineering- level in compliance .with applicable local, state, and federal plans, laws- and regulations. The facility design is to be based on the specific physical characteristics of the site and its vicini- ty and on reasoned expectations of wastestream and service area feasibilities. The Comprehensive Project Description is to identify and describe off-site improvements and facilities needed to support the on-site facility. The Comprehensive Project Description needs to be adequate for developing an Environmental Impact Report for local planning applications (which may include a General. Plan Amendment, a Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment, an Agricultural Preserve Cancellation, a Rezoning, and a Land Use Permit) , responsible agency approvals,. and a Solid Waste Facilities Permit. 03�vltl�tf:; 7Y ' ' P. In the development of an Environmental Impact Report for a waste disposal project, the Comprehensive Project Description is intended to enable County staff and the County's consultants to perform an independent review of the sponsor's proposals and analyses rather than perform original work. (In prac- tice, the EIR preparers often perform some original work as well as ask the sponsor to supplement the Comprehensive .Project Description. ) PROJECT SUMMARY STATEMENT Provide a conceptual description of the proposed project, emphasizing the rea- sons the sponsor is proposing the project, what waste disposal services the project would provide, why the site was selected, why the project design was selected, and why the project would be expected to be feasible. The project summary may be a separate document, or designed to be distributed as a separate "Executive Summary" document. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 1. Provide a legal property description of the proposed project site. 2. Provide a list of assessors'. .parcels comprising the site. 3. Provide a scaled area map of parcels comprising .the site and of adjoining ownerships (within 300 feet as a minimum) . See APPLICATION AND SUBMITTAL. 4. Provide proof of the sponsor's eligibility to make the requisite applica- tions for the project. 2 _ • Y " SSAry 4 _ S PUBLIC AGENCY CONTRACTS 1. Contact the County Community Development Department for information on the County General Plan, the Solid Waste Management Plan, and relevant ordi- nances and policies. Contact the County Public Works Department and Health Services Department. 2. Contact other public agencies expected to exercise discretionary control over the proposed project to identify their requirements and processing processes. 3. Ascertain which public agencies may require an Environmental Impact Report, or Statement, to act on the proposed project (i.e. , identify potential Responsible Agencies for CEQA purposes) . 4. Provide a list of public agency contacts, including the persons' names, titles, addresses, and telephone numbers. PLANS, POLICIES, AND REGULATIONS 1. Provide a list of the public agency plans, policies, laws and regulations that were utilized in the preparationof the Comprehensive Project Descrip- tion. The.--list should include measures directly pertaining to waste dis- posal and measures pertaining to the planning and development of the site, its environs, and the locales of off-site improvements.— 2. Identify, at appropriate places in the Comprehensive Project Description, how the proposed project was designed to conform to the applicable plans, policies, laws, and regulations. - 3 - GENERAL PROJECTION CRITERIA 1. Assume a prime projection period of 30 years, beginning in 1990. Provide 5-year projections for the prime projection period. Subsequently, 10-year intervals may be used (and more generalized assumptions utilized) through the life of the facility. 2. Assume Central, East, and West County wasteshed scenarios unless others are agreed upon. The applicant may propose other scenarios. 3. Population and related figures should be consistent with the County Solid Waste Management Plan and cleared by the County's Planning Demographer. WASTE VOLUMES AND CHARACTERIZATION (The following items should be related to, or compared with, comparable informa- tion in the County Solid Waste Management Plan. ) 1. Provide sample waste constituent analyses for representative components of the base wastestream. Special components should include large landscape material loads, construction/large demolition debris loads, utilities' ashes and sludges, and large-quantity commercial/industrial wastes,--which are usually--transported directly to a landfill (not amenable to transfer station operations) and which may be su-itable for special resource recovery programs. 2. Identify wastes requiring special handling, such' as designated and infec- tious wastes. 3. Provide waste stream projections by major constituent by wasteshed. Assume no substantial resource recovery in base projections. 4. Analyze the anticipated effects of resource recovery on wastes received at the landfill (include the effects of expected waste recovery programs at the landfill) . - 4 - AIR QUALITY INFORMATION 1. Develop an air quality analysis and forecasting program in consultation with the Bay Area Air Quality Management staff and County staff. The pro- gram should identify data and methodological requirements for air quality measurements and projections relative to applicable laws and regulations; and it should specify measurement techniques and projection models the applicant proposes to use. The items below are to be developed in accor- dance with this program. 2. Provide base case (ambient) air quality and characteristics data, on an annual basis, for the site and its vicinity The data should include measurements of criteria pollutants. 3. Provide air movement (wind) .data for the site vicinity, and air movement data for the site itself. The air movement data is to be used for litter control planning as well as for dispersal analyses for particulates, other criteria pollutants, and toxics (the latter if the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) or State Department of Health Services (SDOHS) staff recommends inclusion) . . Provide a Health Risk Assessment for the_proposed project, acceptable to the Bay Area Air Quality District, or a letter from the BAAQMD stating that - - a Health Risk Assessment will not be .required. - 5. Provide air, quality projections for the project site and its vicinity for any level-of-service scenario, and applicable emission control installation system (e.g. gas flaring, power generation) proposed by the applicant. 6. Provide odor generation and control analyses for the site and its vicinity. 7. Provide air quality projections for the transportation access roads pro- posed to be used for the project. Provision of this item may be postponed and subsequently provided, according to County specifications, for use in the project's Environmental Impact Report. 5 - ARCHAEOLOGICAL INFORMATION 1. Provide a document review of the site and its vicinity in consultation with the Anthropology Laboratory of Sonoma State University., 2. Provide .a reconnaissance field study of the site by a qualified archaeolo- gist. 3. If the document review, or field study, indicates the presence, or probable presence, of significant archaeological features, the- sponsor should- con- sult with County staff to determine whether the information warrants more detailed studies as part of the Comprehensive Project Description design process or later during the development of the Environmental Impact Report. ECONOMIC INFORMATION 1. Provide estimates of the costs of the primary waste disposal facility and the costs of off-site improvements. ---2. Identify the proposed means of paying for-the proposed improvements. 3:-` .Provide estimates of the labor force that would be"employed--on the project during construction and during operations. 4. Identify components of tipping fee costs, such as expected public agency surcharges. 5. Provide information on. special pricing, if proposed, for wastestream compo- nents such as wood and concrete. 6 - y GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION (The geotechnical study is intended to substantiate that the proposed site is physically suitable for the development of a sanitary landfill pursuant to County and State (e.g. , Regional Water Quality' Control Board and California Waste Management Board) requirements. It is also the basis for the proposed design of the landfill proper and aspects of the site's landscape design. It may be assumed that a new landfill in Contra Costa County will be designed to comply with the requirements of Subchapter 15, Chapter 3, Title 23 of the Cali- fornia Administrative Code for a Class II facility. ) 1. Provide topographic mapping, at no greater than 5-foot intervals within the landfill footprint and its drainage area, of sufficient accuracy and detail to prepare a development plan for the site (e.g. , for determining drainage, cuts and fills, and grades) . 2. Provide field work (e.g. borings) and laboratory test results: (a) Characterizing the bedrock underlying the site for waste disposal facility purposes (including primary and secondary permeabilities) . (b) Characterizing surfical materials for use as ordinary landfill cover and low-permeability landfill cover__ (c) Locating and characterizing groundwater formations beneath the site and in hydraulic continuity with the site. 3. Provide fieldwork to determine surface water flows on the site and within related drainage basins. Estimate 50-year and 100-year design floods and storms. 4. Identify and characterize permanent and intermittent ,standing water bodies on the site. 5. Identify seismic features, such as active and inactive earthquake faults on the property or in its immediate vicinity. - 7 - 6. Estimate maximum probable and maximum credible design earthquakes for the site. 7. Identify and characterize landslides and other features of geologic insta- bility on the site. HABITAT INFORMATION 1. Consult with the California Department of Fish and Game (and other agencies if suggested by the DFG) to determine -potential habitat issues affecting the project site. 2. Provide a base case study of plant and wildlife communities on the site. The study should be performed under the direction of a qualified biologist. 3. Provide, in conjunction with the base case study, a description of the effort taken to identify classified rare and endangered, or potentially threatened, species. NOISE INFORMATION -- _ - — 1. The sponsor need not provide a noise -study for the site and its access roads as part of the Comprehensive Project Description because- noise can be evaluated when the project's Environmental Impact Report is prepared (when various* activity scenarios have been defined). However, the sponsor may find there is a need to conduct noise studies for project design purposes. If such noise studies are carried out, they should be provided to the County as part of the Comprehensive Project Description. 8 - v i TRANSFER STATION ASSUMPTIONS (MARSH CREEK SITE) 1. Account for East County transfer station to serve the project for both route collection vehicles and self-haulers in the project because: a. As a minimum, an East County transfer station will be required to serve East County self-haulers (for generally the same reasons as self-haulers would be required to use a transfer station to dispose of refuse at the East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, and because allow- ing any direct self-hauler access would encourage the use of the west- ern segment of Marsh Creek Road) . b. The East County population distribution, road system and waste origin- to-destination flow appear to be conducive to the location of a transfer station in East County to serve route collection vehicles. 2. If the landfill proposes to serve Central County, route collection vehicle and self-hauler traffic may be assumed to arrive by transfer truck (e.g. , an Acme transfer station, or a South County station serving that area) . 3. If the landfill proposes to serve West County, route collection vehicle and self-hauler traffic may be assumed to arrive by transfer truck (e.g. , a -- transfer station in the vicinity the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill) . TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION INFORMATION _ 1. Consult with CALTRANS, the County Community Development and Public Works Departments, and potentially affected cities, to obtain information on roads, transportation plans, and access and circulation problems. 2. Select one or more proposed access routes between the project site and a freeway. - 9 - sflFC:i{o 3. Provide base case information, including traffic loadings, roadway develop- ment, and pavement conditions on the proposed site - freeway access road(s) and (to the extent applicable) on the freeways linking the service area(s) to the access road(s) . 4. Provide traffic projections by 5-year intervals (see General Projection Criteria and Transfer Station Assumptions) to forecast the effects of directing project traffic to the freeways and access roads described in Item #3. The traffic model selected should be capable of projecting vari- ous service area scenarios, including whole County service, and projecting traffic management scenarios. The model and the modeling data should be available to the County and its EIR consultant to run scenarios other than those provided by the sponsor. 5. Provide proposals for internal circulation, off-site road and intersection improvements, and pavement improvements, in the Development and Improve- ments Plan. WATER SUPPLY INFORMATION (Unless a local fire protection agency proposes more stringent requirements, use the water supply and storage requirements--developed for the Central,- East--Contra -- Costa and. Kirker--Pass landfill projects by the Riverview Fire Protection Dis- trict. ) - - - 1. Identify proposed water supply sources and estimate utilization for land- fill operations, landscaping, fire protection, and hygiene and consumption. 2. Identify water transmission and storage installations and facilities, in- cluding the locations and sizes of water storage tanks, in the Development and Improvements Plan. 10 - RM AT01,d hr PRELIMINARY. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (The preliminary Development and Improvements Plan consists of several component plans described, as is appropriate, in plan texts, data, illustrations, and graphic plans. The core of the Development and Improvements Plan is a prelimi- nary engineered landfill design, related to the geotechnical study for the project) . The Preliminary Development and Improvements Plan should include the following preliminary plan components: a. Site Design Plan Original and final site contours, including major cuts and fills - Landfill design, including anti-pollution installations (leachate collection, gas collection, liners, barriers) modules, lifts, and final cover Surface drainage system, including ditches and sedimentation ponds Air and water monitoring installations Buildings, and structures, including administrative, maintenance, and entrance facilities, and vehicle parking Resource recovery features, including landfill gas storage, composting, --- p g, chipping, recovered materials storage areas, and abandoned vehicle storage (if applicable) Water supply, including wells, mains, storage, and delivery features Storage areas for cover b. Transportation and Circulation Plan (May be combined with the Site Design Plan and the off-site Improve- ments Plan. ) - On-site roads and circulation features - Off-site road rights-of-way and intersection improvements, slope easements, and utility easements - Pavement and other roadway improvements - 11 - A C. Off-Site Improvements Plan Water, sewer, gas, electrical improvements d. Landscaping Plan Planting, including preparation (landfill compost use encouraged) , species (drought-resistant, native species encouraged) , size, and maintenance -. Visual barriers, including landscape screens, permanent berms, and lift-levelmitigation berms - Habitat replacement and enhancement e. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan - Grading control program, including ground cover and reseeding. Flow control installations, including curbs and restrictors Sedimentation ponds f. Site Services and Utilities Plan - Fire protection Water service - - Sewering service PRELIMINARY OPERATIONS PLAN (The core of the Preliminary Operations Plan is an initial program indicating how the facility operator proposes to comply with the provisions of Article 7, Chapter 3, Division 7, Title 14, of the California Administrative Code, which will become requirements of a Solid Waste Facilities Permit at the end of the approval process. Additionally, some of the operating requirements will be incorporated into the project' s Land Use Permit (LUP) as LUP Conditions of Approval. ) 12 _ The Preliminary Operations Plan should address: a. Records keeping, including waste receipts (weighing) , and vehicle maintenance. b. Leachate handling. c. Landfill gas monitoring d. Cover requirements. e. Bird and vector control f. Litter control. g. "Bad days" program (unusual wind) . h. Load inspection and handling, including illegal loads, hazardous waste constituents, and special load disposition. i. Personnel and visitor safety. j. Equipment maintenance. ' k. Emergency procedures and inspections. 1. Site security. M. Sanitation. n. Dust control. . o. Working face requirements. PRELIMINARY CLOSURE AND RE-USE PLAN (The Preliminary Closure and Re-use Plan is an initial plan for closing the facility in compliance with State law and for the site's re-use. ) The Plan should address: a. Closure financing b. Closure installations C. Re-use concept d. Post-closure monitoring 13 - APPLICATION AND SUBMITTALS 1. Submit a letter to the Board of Supervisors requesting the Board to author- ize the Community Development Department to conduct a review of the County General Plan on the subject of amending the County General Plan to accommo- date a sanitary landfill on the proposed site. (The Board previously indicated that it would authorize landfill project reviews. ) 2. Submit a letter to the Community Development Department requesting the General Plan Amendment. Submit the Comprehensive Project Description with the letter. Pay General Plan Amendment fees. Staff will notify the appli- cant if the application is complete, or if it is not, what additional information is required. (The acceptance of the application will initiate the CEQA process. EIRs have been required for all previously submitted new landfill projects. ) 3. Submit a Plan Set of large-scale drawings to accompany the Comprehensive Project Description. The plans should be capable of reduction to an inter- mediate size for future project review and to 8 1/2" x 11" or 8 1/2 x 17" page-size for use in the EIR and other communications (the page-size reduc- tions will probably be used in the Comprehensive Project Description) . The Plan Set will include the following maps and plans: a. Location map - b. Parcel map (showing adjoining ownerships) -C. Topographic map d. Plant community map e. Preliminary Development and Improvements Plan (may require more than one sheet) f. Off-site Improvements Plan 4. The applicant will provide such additional information as may be needed to proceed with the Environmental Impact Report and .the project' s entitlements during the review and hearing processes. - 14 - 5. The application for the project's Land Use Permit (and other planning enti- tlements) may be submitted when the project's Draft Environmental Impact Report has been distributed. (The LUP proposal should consider the infor- mation developed by the Draft EIR and, of course, will be subject to modi- fications resulting from the Final EIR. ) CAZ:jn 6d:airqual.txt 15 -