Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03291988 - T.1 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA T. 1 DATE: March 28, 1988 MATTER OF RECORD SUBJECT: Presentation By Representatives of the Hunger Task Force With Supervisors Powers and Fanden in attendance, John Bateson of. the Community Food Coalition and current Chairman of the Hunger Task Force commented on the recommendations in the Hunger Task Force report "In the Midst of Plenty, the Shadow of Hunger" , and the request for support for six anti-hunger legislative measures referred to in the Hunger Task Force letter to Mr. Rydingsword, Executive Director, Contra Costa County Social Services Department dated February 4, 1988. He introduced the following people to speak to the Board: Barbara. Chase with Contra Costa County Social- Service Department, commented on the food stamp program and the funding needed for printing informational pamphlets regarding the program; Becky Johnson spoke on the proposed expansion of the Nutrition Program for the Elderly; Paula James with the Contra Costa County Childcare Coordinating Council presented information on and needs of the school breakfast program in Contra Costa County; Dorothy Conway , WIC Director, commented on the status of the number of hungry people and the need for nutrition monitoring in the County; Carol Severin, Office on Homelessness, spoke in support of the recommendations in the Hunger Task Force Report. Since only two Supervisors were present, no action could- be taken but Supervisor Fanden commented that the recommendation to the full Board would be to adopt the recommendations in the Hunger Task Force Report and any follow through suggestions from . today, and perhaps this could be presented at the Board meeting on April 29, 1988. THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY NO BOARD ACTION TAKEN T. 1 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUN'T'Y, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on March 29, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak and Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Hearing- on proposal to shorten the landfill application process. Charles. Zahn of the Community Development Department, reviewed the March 18, 1988 report from the Community Development Department entitled: "Tiered Landfill Application Review Process, " a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment A. ;Thomas E. Stewart, Land Waste Management, 560 Railroad, Suite 204, Hercules, appeared and express strong opposition to a process that would amend or shorten the process that has been exercised on all landfill applications, stating that the conflict of interest ruling has precluded Supervisor Schroder from voting and is the reason the Board has been prevented from taking action on the other two landfill applications, not the amount of technical detail provided with the applications. . Sil Garaventa, Jr. , representing S & J Investments, stated that his company had strong and serious objections to any circumvention of the established process requiring full documentation and full environmental review and that changing the process at this time would be preferential treatment. Carol Hehmeyer, attorney for S & J Investments, advised that their position was that this proposal to shorten the landfill application process is preferential treatment for Waste Management Inc. and they oppose it strongly. She commented that the problems with the site will have .to be addressed and that permitting without having gone through the process is unfair and unwise. Steve Reid, Antioch, representing County Coalition to Protect Parks, Recreation and Water, advised that the Coalition supports any method of streamlining the process. He commented that the County needs to go ahead and get this crises solved. Mario Aquilino, representing Richmond Sanitary, read the comments of Larry Burch, Director of Engineering for Richmond Sanitary, challenging the idea of a speedy review and approval process and suggesting that sufficient potential environmental impacts exist that justify a complete EIR process being used on all new proposed sites, and that a new landfill should be located in Marsh Creek only if they pay for the required new road and if there is an irreversible moratorium placed to prevent any urban development southward from the current spheres of influence of Brentwood and Antioch. Jonathan Cohen, Attorney representing Land. Waste Management, strongly opposed the concept of a two-tier permitting process, suggesting that in the long run it could delay the procedure, and that it could have growth inducing impacts. He suggested that it was time for the Board to take a position on the two landfill applications before them. He also objected to the proposed special circumstances findings, commenting that it was inequitable to the current applicants. Janna Coverston read a letter from Joe Gomes, Vice Chair of the West County Solid Waste Management Authority setting forth that Agency' s concerns with the proposed tiered permitting process.. David Tam, representing the San Francisco Chapter of the Sierra Club, indicated that his group opposed the tiered process, suggested it could incur liability to the County, and further suggested that the County secure legal review of the proposed process before acting upon it. He suggested that CEQUA guidelines require full information on the project and would rule out the tiered process. He strongly suggested looking at alternatives. Supervisor Fanden requested that County Counsel review and report to the Board on the possibility of the Board incurring liability resulting from partial approvals during a tiered system process. Eric Hasseltine, representing Waste Management of North America, Inc. , advised that Waste Management is the largest company involved in the disposal of solid waste, and that they had an interest in the Marsh Creek site, that they have conducted initial studies on that property and there is significant potential for use of that site, and to that end they have released. a statement today indicating their full commitment to move ahead. He stated that they are not asking for special handling or shortening of process, and they wish to make it clear that the pursuit of a permit for the Marsh Creek site is based on the belief that the site is excellent. He stated that Waste Management in no way wishes to interfere with or involve itself with the process of other sites. He stated that Waste Management believes there is a need and use for another site. He suggested. slight modification to what the staff was proposing for the shorter processing of permits. Board members discussed the matter in some detail. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED THAT it will not modify its existing landfill-permit approval process by adopting the proposed two-tier process. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT' County Counsel is requested to report on the liability and other legal aspects of an expedited permit process. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Community Development Department is DIRECTED to review the proposal for a modified permit process as presented by the Waste Management, Inc. representative. I h.L.reby;.wrtlfy rnat,tms is a true and Corte.+copy bi an action taken and entered on the 8'olnutea of tho ,Ioard of Supervisors on the dale chown. PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the r5fvtr:l of Supervisors and County J sdminlst atnr, cc; Community Development , County Counsel County Administrator CONTRA COSTA COUNTY , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: March 18, 1988 TO: Boardof 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 w,as concerned with the possible means of reducing the timelines of the existing environmental and application review process'. During the discussion of the Murch 2nd memorandum, the Board further directed staff to report on the steps and timel!ines 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 landfi3-1 approval process_ _ was raised in connection with the proposed Marsh Creek landfill, to the extentsible both this and the March 2nd-.,',memoranda pos address issues and procedures that couldapplyto -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 at to this report because the earlier document contains descriptions of (our) nine phases of activity leading to the creation ' of a new TABLE A Summary Table TIERED APPLICATION PROCESS FOR A SANITARY LANDFILL PROJECT (Minimum Timeline) First Tier Second Tier xx* (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 xx 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 x It is assumed that the site has been selected and development rights obtained prior to the start of the first tier. xx 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. xxx 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 I 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 VTC--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 furtherl'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 Second Tier--Pre-application Activities Table A shows no elapsed time for second tier pre-application activities. Itl4is assumed that the applicant would be preparing the geo-technical, engineering, and development design work necessary for al' 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 tieri 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 tierllproject processing phases would be concerned with the review and i'! 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 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 tol„ 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 'Ii procedures for the proposed project on an individual 9basis (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 designlwill have to be bifurcated and generalized for a first tierhproject description- submittal.- COMMENT escription 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 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Board of Supervisors D TE: March 2, 1988 FROM: Harvey E. 'j'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 ,i'for sanitary landfills. This memorandum has been prepared in response to the Board order. Thecurrent 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'I project. Every project is unique in some respects, however. Recognizing!, this, the memorandum does make some specific references to a Marsh Creek landfilh which is the only "new" landfill which has been announced by a sponsor and to s'taff'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 July 10, 1984, establishes some of the specific policiesl� 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 �lmost 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. V - 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. 11 ** See Potentials for! Expedited Processing in text. Page 5 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,i 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 'iIreview, 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 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 onthe 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 agenciesi�such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District even as the standards and'Iprocedures 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 II -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 shor11 t end of the range (i.e. , possibly down to three months) to a two month reductioq at the high end (i.e. , down to four months) . Phase III, Draft Environmental Impact Report Review �I 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 pha11 se 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 preparatorylAo taking these items to hearings in Phase IV. 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 if completed (but afterl 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. !G 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, andiadopt 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 Clerk of the Board to reserve a hearing date, that the Planning Commission'sifindings 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 projects went to the Board in late July, 1987, and were originally scheduled for final decision in mid-December, 1987. ) Phase VI, ResponsibleiAgency 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!Ithe 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 9 It is noted that the 'County probably will be placing into operation several new or enhanced waste maInagement 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. PHASE I Sponsor CCCCDD Staff °Recruit EIR consultant. °Scope EIR with Responsible Agencies and public. Board of Supervisors °Transmit Solid Waste Manaaement 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. °Approve and publish DIER. PHASE III Sponsor CCCCDD Staff 3 mo. - 6 mo. DEIR °File Land Use 3 ---..- 'Prepare notices -:-_ REVIEW Permit (etc. )( ) °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 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 FINAL DESIGN °Pre''sent 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. - °Sub"init permit °Approve final design applications to plan. regulatory agencies. °Pre'pare and provide Health Services Dept. final design plan to ''County. OParticipate 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. °Obt'ain LAFCO °Participate in project approvals, if reviews. required. °Review proposed off- °Obt!'ain necessary site improvements. construction permits - and! approvals. - - POST-APPROVAL ACTIVITIES ( 12 mo. - 24 mo. ) Sponsor County Staff i °Install off-site improvements. °Obtain inspection specialist (e.g. , °Install on-site improvements. geo-technical inspector) . °Obtain necessary waste stream °Manage inspection program. commitments. °Reviewjimplement 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. - i4 3%2/88 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, opeli rations 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 facilify designed to the preliminary engineering level- in compliance with appricable 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 iexpectations 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. 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 otherpublicagencies 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, 11 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. ii PLANS, POLICIES, AND REGULATIONS 1. Provide a listeof the public agency plans, policies, laws and regulations that were util' zed in the preparation of 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 - i 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) . 4. Provide a Health Risk Assessment for the proposed project, acceptable-to the Bay Area Air Quality District, ora 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 - 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 fieldwork (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 field work 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 fau-its on the property o,�r in its immediate vicinity. - 7 - TRANSFER STATION ASSUMPTIONSMAR H CREEK E ( S �C EEK SIT ) 1. Account for EI'ast County transfer station to serve the project for both route collectillon vehicles E:nd 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 segme'ht 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 lstation 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 vicinify-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. _ a _ set►��'• EY 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. Thelcore 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 ',i drainage system, including ditches and sedimentation ponds - Air and 'Iwater monitoring installations - Buildings, and structures, including administrative, maintenance, and entrance facilities, and vehicle parking - Resource recovery features, including landfill gas storage, composting, chipping, recovered materials stbrage areas, and abandoned vehicle storage (if applicable) - Water supply, including wells, mains, storage, and delivery features -- .- - Storage 'jareas 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 - 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. Personneland visitor safety. j . Equipmentmaintenance. k. Emergencyprocedures 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 � j r l 5. The application for the project's Land Use Permit (and other planning enti- tlements) mayu 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 t