Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03201990 - T.4 �1 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FRCP4. �. Harvey Bragdonll Director of Community Development J !' C/os t DATE: March 20, 1990 ~. County �'•. yc� COUN SUBJECT: Action on Marsh Canyon Landfill SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Approve the Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill Land Use Permit (LUP 2010-90), as modified by the Conditions of Approval recommended by staff (Exhibit A hereto) , the Special Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval (Exhibit B hereto), and the Findings (Exhibit C hereto) . REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND On March 13, 1990 the Board of Supervisors declared its intent to approve the Marsh Canyon Landfill. The .Board further expressed intent to consider special conditions of approval for mitigation for roadways, for the community and for preservation of open space and agricultural land. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATUR RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RE C ME ATION B ARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON March 20, 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER _ The Board conducted a public hearing- No one appeared to testify. Board members discussed the conditions with staff members to be certain that their various concerns were incorporated into the amended conditions. The Board modified the Special LUP Conditions listed as Exhibit B above, and incorporated Exhibit B, as modified, into the Conditions of Approvalfor the Land ��UssePerQmVit (Exhibit A); and approved the Land Use Permit (LUP 2010-90) including_ the Conditions VOTEAD_prRdiQF9,t"std as Exhibit A and the Findings attached as Exhibit C. 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: I . IV & V NOES: Ti AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT ABSTAIN: III OF, SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: County Administrator ATTESTED _ March 20, 1990 County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Marsh Canyon Landfill (via CDD) SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR H5/action.bo M382;'7-83 13Y DEPUTY s' LAND USE PERMIT 2010-90 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MARSH CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL I CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARCH 20, 1990 i a t TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTIONS PAGE 1. SHORT TITLE 1 2. RESPONSIBILITY 1 3. COMPLIANCE 1 4. VALIDITY PERIOD 2 5. SERVICE AREA 3 6. ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE WASTE 4 7. LOAD INSPECTION 5 8. ELIGIBLE REFUSE TRANSPORT VEHICLES 5 9. OPERATING PARAMETERS 6 10. WASTE MEASUREMENT AND CHARACTERIZATION 7 11. ADMINISTRATION 7 12. RATE REVIEW 10 13. FRANCHISE COMPLIANCE 11 14. LAND USE PERMIT CONSTITUENTS 12 15. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 13 16. SLOPE AND SEISMIC STABILITY 13 17. GROUNDWATER PROTECTION 15 18. SURFACE WATER PROTECTION 18 19. HAZARDOUS WASTE . 20 20. AIR QUALITY PROTECTION 21 21. NOISE CONTROL 25 22. VISUAL QUALITY 26 23. BIOTIC RESOURCES 28 i J j SECTIONS PAGE 24. BIRD AND VECTOR CONTROL 30 25. LITTER CONTROL 31 26. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 32 27. SITE SECURITY 34 28. CULTURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION 34 . 29. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 35 '. 30. SITE SERVICES AND UTILITIES 40 31. WASTE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY 43 32. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND CONDITIONS 44 33. CLOSURE AND POSTCLOSURE MAINTENANCE 45 34. ABANDONED VEHICLE STORAGE 46 35. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 47 36. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 51 ii 1. SHORT TITLE .1 Short Title. The Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill project is henceforth referred to in this document as the Landfill. 2. RESPONSIBILITY .1 Ultimate Responsibility. The conditions of approval identify the Landfill developer as the party responsible for implementing conditions involving construction and improvements, and the Land- fill operator for implementing conditions involving maintenance and management. Regardless of these identifications, the Land- fill owner shall be responsible for complying with all conditions. .2 Transfer of Ownership. The Land Use Permit for the Landfill shall run with the land; however, a new owner shall be responsi- ble for notifying the County Community Development Department of any change in ownership. A change in ownership shall be inter- preted to mean the acquisition of 5 percent or more of the value of the Landfill site covered by this Land Use Permit. (It is noted that other permits may not necessarily run with the land. ) 3. COMPLIANCE i .1 Compliance Objective. The Landfill developer and operator shall at all times comply with the requirements of Paws and permits applicable to the facility. .2 Design Standard. The Landfill developer shall design the Land- fill facility to meet the requirements of the. Central Valley -- Regional Water Quality Control Board for a Class II waste disposal facility. .3 State Minimum Standards. The operation and maintenance of this facility shall at all times comply with Minimum Standards for Solid Waste Handling and Disposal (California Administrative Code, Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 3) . .4 Land Use Permits. The Landfill developer and operator shall at all times comply with the provisions and requirements of this Land Use Permit. A violation of any of these conditions is cause for revocation of the Land Use Permit. .5 Solid Waste Facilities Permit. The Landfill ;operator shall conform with all provisions and requirements ofl the Landfill's Solid Waste Facilities Permit, which is based on the guidelines of the California Integrated Waste Management Board. J 2. / .6 Subchapter 15. The Landfill operator shall at all times comply with the provisions and requirements of Subchapter 15, Chapter 3, Title 23 of the California Administrative Code ("Subchapter 15") for a Class II waste disposal facility. .7 Other Regulatory Agencies' Requirements. The Landfill operator shall at all times comply with the provisions and requirements of other regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the facility. .8 Utilities, Service Districts, and Government Agencies' Requirements. The Landfill developer or operator shall at all times comply with the regulations and requirements of utilities, districts, or agencies which have jurisdiction over the installation of improvements or provide services to the landfill. .9 Notice Coordination. Copies (or originals) of all reports to other agencies concerning the design, operation, and maintenance of the Landfill facility shall be sent by mail or hand-delivered, to the Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor North Wing, Martinez, CA 94553-0095. .10 Monitoring and Inspection. All monitoring reports and results of inspection or analysis shall be made available to the County Health Services and Community Development Departments. Any indication of an emergency or other serious problem relating to public health and safety shall be reported at once. .11 Master Chart. The Landfill operator will maintain for reference a master. chart showing schedules and results of preparation, operation, monitoring and reporting in all major phases of the facility. 4. VALIDITY PERIOD .1 Validity Period. The Landfill developer shall install pre- requisite improvements and open the Landfill for receiving refuse within three years of the final approval of the project's Solid Waste Facilities Permit. This validity period shall be tolled while any appeal filed by parties other than the Landfill devel- oper is pending. The Landfill developer may request from the Director of Community Development one or more one-year extensions of the Land Use Permit. If the Land Use Permit is not implement- ed within the specified time, it shall become null and void. The Director of Community Development may allow each one-year extension if the Director finds that there are changed circum- stances which warrant the consideration of changes to the Conditions of Approval. 4 ` .. wr 3. .2 Operative Date. This Land Use Permit is valid upon approval by the Board of Supervisors. However, it shall not become operative until and unless the permittee (landfill owner, etc. ) first obtains and the Board of Supervisors grants a franchise to or approves an agreement with permittee (see Section 13, Franchise Agreements) . 5. SERVICE AREA .1 Area of origin. The area of origin of all refuse-bearing vehicles admitted to the Landfill shall be Contra Costa County. The Landfill operator shall not refuse to receive eligible wastes which originate in Contra Costa County provided such wastes are delivered to the facility in accordance with these Conditions of Approval and the Landfill's Solid Waste Facilities Permit, and provided that appropriate disposal fees are paid. .2 Out-of-County Wastes. The Landfill operator shall not receive waste from outside Contra Costa County unless such imports of waste are specifically approved by the Board of Supervisors. This condition shall not apply to waste . which may be received under the Emergency Use Provisions of Condition 6.5 or the Reciprocal Capacity Agreement of Condition 5.4. .3 Sub-County Service Area. If there is more than one Class II or Class III Landfill operating in Contra Costa County, the Board of Supervisors may establish sub-County service areas for each on a temporary or long-term basis. If the Board ha's established a sub-County service area for the Landfill, the operator shall not accept waste for disposal from outside such area.; .4 Reciprocal Capacity Agreement. The Landfill , operator shall receive waste from outside Contra Costa County if in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Reciprocal Capacity Agreement entered into by Contra Costa County with another county. Waste shall be received upon reasonable notice to the Landfill operator and the Board of Supervisors and direction by the Board to the Landfill operator as to the terms and conditions under which the waste will be received. The Board may specify disposal charges which are applicable only to the waste received under the Reciprocal Capacity Agreement. .5 Pre-Requisite Curbside Recycling Program. The Landfill shall not admit or dispose of waste loads from communities which do not have in operation a curbside recycling, or equivalent, program approved by the Board of Supervisors. Board ; of Supervisors approval may be interpreted as a consistency with a Board of Supervisors-approved Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. The Board of Supervisors may determine the eligibility of a 4. IV community's program. 6. ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE WASTES .1 Eligible Wastes. The Landfill operator. shall allow only wastes eligible for disposal in a Class II facility, as defined by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board to be admitted to the Landfill. The wastes admitted to the Landfill shall also be consistent with the Solid Waste Facilities Permit, administered by the County Health Services Department, and consistent with the Board of Supervisors' policies and these conditions of approval. To the extent allowed by law, the . Board of Supervisors may direct the . Landfill operator not to accept wastes that do not meet State and County policies and regulations. .2 Designated Wastes. The Landfill operator shall allow only those designated wastes (as defined by Section 2522 of Article 2 of Subchapter 15, of Title 23, of the California Administrative Code) approved for this facility by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and consistent with the Solid Waste Facilities Permit to be admitted for disposal. The Board of Supervisors may designate special rates for this waste. .3 Infectious Wastes. The Landfill operator shall accept only those infectious wastes identified in, and disposed of in accordance with the Solid Waste Facilities Permit. .4 Ineligible Wastes. The Landfill operator shall not allow the following wastes to be disposed at the Landfill: - a) Hazardous or toxic wastes. b) Radioactive wastes. c) Liquid wastes, other than utility sludges meeting Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. d) , Other ineligible wastes specified in the Solid Waste Facili- ties Permit administered by the County Health Services Department. .5 Emergency Use. If the service area of the Landfill is determined to be a sub-area of 'the. County, the County Health Services Department may allow legal waste originating in areas of Contra Costa County, other than those stipulated in Section 5, to have access to the Landfill for periods up to 180 days on an emergency basis. The department may grant one extension for no longer than 180 days. The Board of Supervisors may allow the emergency use of the Landfill to continue for a period up to two years. 5. .6 Hazardous Waste Screening and Management. See Section 19. .7 Area of Origin Restrictions. See Section 5. 7. LOAD INSPECTION .1 Eligible Vehicles and Loads. The Landfill operator shall screen loads to limit to the extent practicable the intake of ineligible waste. Prior to receiving waste, the Landfill operator shall prepare in writing a program for identifying eligible vehicles and screening loads at the Landfill entrance, random sampling and inspection for ineligible wastes, and checking .loads at the Landfill disposal area. The Load Inspection program shall include inspection for hazardous wastes and procedures for their handling and off-site disposal consistent with the Contra Costa County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The program shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services and County Community Development Departments. ..2 Load Covering. The Landfill operator shall spot check all incom- ing waste-hauling vehicles for proper covering or. containeriza- tion. The operator shall not admit waste loads which are susceptible to littering or leakage because of the lack of covering, inadequate covering, or disrepair :of screens or containers. i i 8. ELIGIBLE REFUSE TRANSPORT VEHICLES .1 Eligible Vehicles. The Landfill operator shall ' admit only the following refuse transport vehicles: a) Transfer station vans originating in a transfer station located. in Contra Costa County. Transfer I stations shall have a waste management program, which includes hazardous waste screening and resource recovery operations, approved by the Board of Supervisors. b) Demolition and construction material trucks' originating in Contra Costa County. If the Board of Supervisors has established waste reduction goals for the businesses and industries generating such wastes, the generators shall comply with such goals. c) Incinerated sewage sludge-hauling trucks ;originating at utilities located in Contra Costa County, or !other utilities serving Contra Costa County. d) Sewage and water treatment plant sludge trucks originating in Contra Costa County, with loads complying with Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board's solids-to- liquid requirements. i 6. e) Trucks hauling Designated Wastes approved for this Landfill by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The wastes shall originate in Contra Costa County. f) Other specialized waste transport trucks hauling wastes originating in Contra Costa County and identified in the Landfill's Solid Waste Facilities Permit. . .2 Service Area Restriction. See Section 5. .3 Emergency Exemption. See Condition 6.5. .4Reciprocal Exemption.. See Condition 5.4. 9. OPERATING PARAMETERS .1 Hours of Operation. The Landfill operator shall not open the Landfill to receive waste loads before 7:00 a.m. or after. 8:30 p.m. Refuse shall be covered by 8:30 p.m. at which time working lights shall be turned off. Entry and security lights shall be dimmed at 8:30 p.m. Other hours of operation, within these parameters, may be specified by the County Health Services Department in the Landfill's Solid Waste Facilities Permit. Special loads may be received at other times in accordance with procedures established by the County Health Services Department. The% Director of Community Development may administratively shorten or extend the hours of operations prescribed above after consultation with the Landfill operator, the County Health Services Department, and the Local Advisory Committee, after holding a public hearing to obtain the comments of other inter- ested parties. To shorten the hours of operation, the Director of Community Development shall find that the changes are needed to mitigate substantial noise, traffic, or similar impacts arising from the operation of the Landfill which were not known when this Land Use Permit was adopted. To extend the hours of. operation, the Director of Community Development shall find that longer hours will not .cause traffic, noise, glare, or similar impacts of Landfill operations to substantially increase in the vicinity of the Landfill. .2 Operating Days. The Landfill shall remain open for operation Monday through Saturday. .3 Maximum Daily Tonnage. The Landfill may accept for disposal a maximum of 3,500 tons of refuse per day through the year 2005. The Board of. Supervisors shall review and revise, if necessary, the maximum allowable tonnages per day, prior to the year 2005. If the Board establishes sub-County service areas, maximum tonnages for each Landfill shall be prorated to reflect their service areas. The Board may increase the maximum daily tonnages, if necessary, to reflect Reciprocal Capacity Agreements or emergency measures. !A ' 7. 10. WASTE MEASUREMENT- AND CHARACTERIZATION ' .1 Volume Estimation. The Landfill operator shall submit topograph- ic maps of the Landfill and a report of capacity absorption and fill rates to the Community Development Department every two years on the anniversary date of the Landfill's opening. The Landfill operator shall also submit an initial topographic map prior to receiving wastes. .2 Scales. The Landfill developer shall install certified scale(s) at the Landfill to weigh incoming and outgoing trucks. A weigh- ing program, subject to approval by the County Department of Health Services and Director of Weights and Measures, shall be implemented to monitor incoming wastes. .3 Waste Characterization. The Landfill operator shall participate with transfer station operators serving the Landfill in a program to characterize incoming wastes by type, amount, and originating community and perform detailed load inspections on vehicles according to a program specified by the County Health Services Department and the County Community Development Department. Reports shall be submitted to the County on a quarterly basis. 11. ADMINISTRATION .1 Permit Review. The Board of Supervisors will hold annual public hearings to review the Conditions of Approval for this Land Use Permit for three years beginning one year after the commencement of operations of the Landfill. The Board mayi refer proposed changes to the Land Use Permit to the County Planning Commission for processing. Thereafter, the County Planning Commission shall hold public hearings on the Land Use Permit at three-year inter- vals. As a result of a review and public hearing, the County Planning Commission may recommend to the Board of Supervisors new or modified conditions to improve the public health and safety. Nothing in this condition shall preclude the Landfill owner from applying for amendments to the Land Use Permit at any time or preclude the County from addressing emergency situations or new requirements imposed by State legislation or the courts. .2 Local Advisory Committee. The Community Development Department shall organize and the Landfill developer shall participate in a local advisory committee, consisting of elected , representatives of local residents and neighborhood associations, to comment and advise on the development of the Landfill and its operations. The Board of Supervisors may sanction the Local Advisory Committee as an official County committee. The committee shall be .established as soon as reasonably possible after the Board of Supervisors' approval of the Land Use Permit. Meetings of the committee,shall be initiated following the approval of a Land Use Permit and shall be held at least quarterly through the first two 8. � A + � years: of Landfill operation. Subsequently, meetings may be held annually, but with the provision for meetings on call by the chair or the written request of 3 or more members. The County Health Services Department shall be notified at least 10 days in advance of 'all meetings. Subjects for consideration at meetings will include but shall not be limited to safety and emergency procedures, Landfill-related traffic problems, screening of visual impacts and problems of litter, odor, and noise control. Meeting agenda also may include discussion of reports on the Landfill construction, operation and maintenance. The Landfill operator shall provide reasonable access to the landfill arranged through the Community Development Department. A surcharge on the tipping fee may be used to fund the advisory group's operations. .3 Insurance. and/or Bonding. The applicant shall provide the insurance and bonds specified by the units of government having approval authority over the project. Subjects will include, but not be limited to, continuity of Landfill operation, non-compli- ance, emergency measures, construction performance, landscaping and closure. .4 Notification Program. The Landfill operator shall prepare and implement a program to notify potential users of the Landfill of its opening and closing times, and the conditions of its use, including waste reduction and recycling requirements, site access regulations, and a detailed list of prohibited hazardous wastes and alternative disposal options. The program should be prepared in 'conjunction with the operator(s) of the transfer station(s) serving the Landfill. It shall be approved by the County Community Development Department. .5 Development Coordinator. The Landfill owner shall provide a fund to support a County Landfill Development Coordinator, if the County establishes the position, through the period of construc- tion and Landfill operations. The coordinator may be a staff member or a consultant. The owner shall make quarterly advance payments. The Landfill developer and operator shall provide such informa- tion as the Development' Coordinator may require to review plans and installations under the purview of the County, except that any requirements for additional studies shall be subject to the approval of the County's Director of Community Development. .6 Compliance and Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Landfill operator shall provide a fund to support County staff monitoring of compliance with the . Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, as designed and implemented by the County Community Development and Health Services Departments .7 Pre-Annexation Notification. 'If the Landfill owner decides to request annexation of the Landfill to a city, the owner shall notify the Board of Supervisors at least 180 days in advance of filing any application for such annexation. ; The Board may require the owner to consult with it or County staff to determine how solid waste management programs specified in these Conditions of Approval would be carried out subsequent to annexation. .8 Fee and Surcharge Disclosures. The Landfill operator may identi- fy the costs of public agency fees and surcharges on bills and receipts issued to Landfill users. .9 Interpretation of Conditions. The Director of the Community Development Department is authorized to interpret these condi- tions in the event that any clarification is needed. .10 Conditions of Approval Nos. 4.2 and 13.4 require a franchise or agreement to be established by this County. All of these Conditions of Approval shall be subordinate to the terms of said franchise or agreement, and the terms of said franchise or agreement shall control in the case of any conflict. There shall be no need to, amend these Conditions of Approval in the event of such a conflict. i .11 Several of these Conditions of Approval relate,, paraphrase or summarize laws and regulations which are imposed and enforced by other governmental agencies which have jurisdiction over -particular aspects of this project. It is this Board's intent in adopting these Conditions of .Approval to provide the applicant and the public with an overview of the scope of regulation applicable to this project and to provide this County with enforcement power if such laws and regulations enforced by other agencies are violated. Unless specifically 'stated in the Conditions of Approval, .however, it is not this Board's intent to establish rules or regulations which are stricter than the laws or regulations which are applied to this project by the other agencies with jurisdiction over aspects of this project. If another agency primarily responsible for some aspect of this project finds that any action or inaction is in compliance with, or .violates, any such law or regulation, that finding shall be conclusive. If these Conditions of Approval require some approval by any other agency and that agency declines to approve or disapprove the subject matter, such approval -shall be deemed to have been given for purposes of these Conditions of Approval. .12 This Board does not intend, by requiring the applicant to fund various measures, to make any decision regarding !whether or not, or how, any expenditures incurred may be recovered through the rate structure or otherwise by the applicant. Any such decision by this Board shall be reserved for its consideration in the franchise or agreement. No inference -regarding this issue is to be drawn from this Board's use of any particular terminology in these Conditions of Approval. 10. 'k .13 In any instance where a Condition of Approval provides that this Board will decide or act upon a certain matter, this Board may delegate the initial decision making or action with respect to that matter to the Director of Community Development or such other designee as this .Board determines to be appropriate, provided that there shall be a right of appeal to this Board from any decision of the Director of Community Development or other designee. 12. RATE REVIEW .1 Rate Approval. The Board of Supervisors shall approve all rates charged by the Landfill operator at the Landfill. The rates established by the Board will be not only maximum rates but also minimum rates. .2 Rate Review. The Board of Supervisors may review and approve rates annually in accordance with an approved rate application procedure. More frequent review of rates may occur if requested by the Landfill operator and if the Board determines that chang- ing circumstances warrant such review. The Board may also review rates more frequently if the Board determines that it is in the public interest to do so. .3 Form and Content of Rate Review Application. The Landfill operator shall submit its rate application in a form and content as specified by the County. Such application may require the Landfill operator to submit the application on forms and/or using computer software provided by or specified by the County. The County shall have the right to inspect and audit all records of the Landfill operator which support its rate review application. .4 Rate Application -Guidelines. The . rate application shall be designed to ensure reconciliation of rates with audited company financial statements; detailed year-to-year cost comparisons; documented guidelines for allowable expense categories, account- ing methodologies, allowable management costs and other cost elements; unit usage and unit cost data on major expense items; calculation and reporting of company productivity statistics by cost category; and fulldocumentation of assumptions and source materials. The rate application process shall also provide for comparative rate surveys with other similar operations. .5 Financial Statement. The Landfill operator shall maintain full and complete accounting records in conformity with generally accepted accounting principals applied on a consistent basis. A financial statement for the proceeding fiscal year, in such form and providing such information as the Board may require, shall be submitted with each rate review application. The financial statement shall be prepared and certified by a Certified Public Accountant currently licensed to practice in the State of Cali- fornia. The County, through a Certified Public Accountant appointed by the County for that purpose, shall at all reasonable times have the right to inspect and audit the records of the Landfill operator that supports the financial statements. The County reserves the right to determine which record(s) are rele- vant. .6 Scope of Rates. The Board of Supervisors may require that the Landfill operator include in its disposal rates amounts for purposes other than disposal, including but not limited to, charges for funding of inspections, charges relating to origin of waste such as out-of-County waste, franchise or agreement fees, closure and postclosure maintenance of other Landfills, solid waste management programs, such as general litter pick-up and abandoned vehicle removal, solid waste planning, and any other conditions of approval. 13. FRANCHISE AGREEMENT .1 Franchise and Agreement Compliance. The Permittee - Landfill operator shall be subject to the terms and conditions of any franchise or agreement established by the Board !of Supervisors. A draft franchise or agreement shall be submitted with or before the Final Development and Improvements Plan. .2 Assignment. The Landfill operator and the Landfill owners shall not assign or subcontract the franchise or agreement, any part of the franchise or agreement, or any obligation of the franchise or agreement without prior written consent of the Board of Supervisors. The term "assignment" shall include any dissolution, merger, consolidation or reorganization of the Landfill's ownership or the sale or other transfer of the controlling percentage of the owner's stock in the Landfill or the sale of 51% of the value of the assets ofi the Landfill's owners. .3 Contents. The franchise or agreement may contain such provisions as the Board of Supervisors deems necessary, including but not limited to complete indemnification of the County, liability insurance by type and amount, performance bond by type and amount, rights of the County to acquire ownership of the Landfill, funding for mitigation and reimbursement for County costs, funding for closure or post-closure costs, franchise or agreement fees rate review and approval procedure and determination of and consequences of breaches of the franchise. .4 Requirement. Permittee shall not establish, operate or carry on the business of a solid waste facility pursuant to this permit unless and until it has been first granted a franchise (or en- tered an agreement with the Board of Supervisors) . 12. 14. LAND USE PERMIT CONSTITUENTS • , .1 Initial Development and Improvements Plan. The Initial Develop- ment and Improvements Plan approved by this Land Use Permit, and implemented and modified by these Conditions of Approval, shall consist of the following schematic plans included in the appli- cant's December 1989 report entitled "Marsh Canyon Landfill Project Description (Volume I and II)/Design Drawings": a. Initial Facilities Site Plan b. Final Facilities Site Plan C. Nominal Base Grading Plan d. Final Grading e. Preliminary Mitigation Plan f. Gas Management Plan g. Liner Construction Sequence Plan h. Construction .Sequence and Waste Filling Plan i. Intermediate Sump Plan .2 Regulatory Agency Approvals. Subsequent to the approval of this Land Use Permit, the Landfill developer shall obtain approvals from the regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project, and obtain their detailed requirements for building, serving, and operating the Landfill. The approvals shall include, but are not limited to: a) Waste Discharge Requirements from the Central Valley Region- al Water Quality Control Board. b) Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate requirements from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. c) Nationwide General Permit (N26) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. d) Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Depart- ment of Fish and Game. The Landfill developer shall notify the Community Development Department if proposed •or adopted conditions or requirements of regulatory agencies do not appear to be consistent with this Land Use Permit or the Landfill's Environmental Impact Report. .3 Improvements Requirements. Subsequent to the approval of this Land Use Permit, the Landfill developer shall obtain approvals from the agencies, utilities, and parties having jurisdiction or control over the on-site and off-site improvements required by this Land Use Permit or by agencies having regulatory jurisdic- tion over the project. The Landfill developer shall notify the Community Development Department if proposed or adopted condi- tions or requirements do not appear to be consistent with this Land Use Permit or the Landfill's Environmental Impact Report. � . . 13. 15. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS PLAN .1 Final Development and Improvements Plan. Subsequent to the approval of the Land Use Permit but prior to the commencement of any construction, the Landfill developer shall submit a Develop- ment and Improvements Plan to the Community Development Depart- ment and obtain the approval of the Director of Community Development. The Development and Improvements. Plan shall be consistent with the project approved by the Land Use Permit, and prepared to a level of detail appropriate for the review of the engineering and construction of the project's on-site and off- site improvements. It shall be internally consistent with the project's Environmental Impact Report findings, these Conditions of Approval, regulatory agencies and others having discretionary approvals over the project, and the Solid Waste Facilities Permit issued by the County Health Services Department. The Community Development Department will coordinate the review of the plan by the Health Services Department, the Public Works Department, and other appropriate units of government. The Landfill developer shall comply with all provisions of the Final Development and Improvements Plan. The Final Development and Improvements Plan shall include: a) A Site Design Plan as described in the following sections. b) A Landscaping Plan (Section 22) . c) A Transportation and Circulation Plan (Section 29) . d) A Site Services and Utilities Plan (Section 30) . e.) A Surface Water Management and Sediment/Erosion Control Plan (Section 18) . f) A Landfill Gas Management Plan (Section 20) . g) A Habitat Preservation and Enhancement Plan (Section 23) . h) A Waste Reduction and Resource Recovery Program (Section 31) . .2 In approving the Development and Improvements Plan, the Community Development Department Director may allow the Landfill developer, upon request, to phase construction of Landfill modules and other features, except where timing is specified in these conditions. The submittal of the Development and Improvements Plan components may reflect this planning. 16. SLOPE AND SEISMIC STABILITY i .1 Landfill Slopes Objective. Landfill slopes shall be engineered to provide static and dynamic (seismic) stability under design criteria for. Class II Landfills. 14. .2 Seismic Design. The Landfill, its drainage features and operating components (lifts, berms, liners, leachate and gas collection systems and major stockpiles) shall be designed to withstand the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) including a minimum of 0.43g acceleration rate. The Landfill developer shall utilize a MCE (design earthquake) specified by the County Community Development Department and the. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The final design shall include a simulation model producing ground motion based on a Coalinga-type (1983) magnitude earthquake with an oblique thrust slip. The Landfill developer shall provide substantiation in the Final Development and Improvements Plan that the Landfill design will withstand the MCE. .3 Sycamore Canyon Fault Seismic Study. The Landfill developer shall explore for fault rupture hazard in the western portion of the site. Exploration planning shall be coordinated with the County's Planning Geologist, Central Valley Regional Water Quali- ty Control Board, and California Integrated Waste Management Board. No Landfill disposal shall be placed within 500 feet of the projection of the Sycamore Canyon fault until the permitting agencies agree that the hazard of fault rupture is not signifi- cant. Any disposal in close proximity to the area to be explored requires written authorization from qualified geologists, from the Landfill developer's consulting geologist, and all of the above-named agencies, stating that the disposal will not inter- fere with trench or. other exploration for fault rupture hazard. Fault rupture hazard. exploration results shall be reviewed and approved by the County Planning Geologist prior to submittal of the required Development and Improvements Plan to the County Community Development Department. .4- Landslide Study. The Landfill developer shall employ a licensed geotechnical consultant to conduct a supplementary study of landslides and slope stability in areas of the site affected by Landfill and improvements grading. The study shall be performed by a licensed geo-technical professional and be subject to the approval of. the County and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. •. The .Landfill developer shall incorporate the results of the study into the site grading program and the designs of overlying structures, which shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. .5 Geotechnical Inspector. The Landfill operator shall contract with the County, or through the County, for an independent geotechnical consultant, who shall be selected by and be respon- sible to the County. The consultant shall inspect regularly the installation and condition of liners, leachate control facilities and other installations, identified by the County, as they are installed. This provision shall remain in force over the life of the Landfill. . 15. .6 Landfill Design Stability. The Landfill developer shall provide a static and dynamic stability analysis of the final engineering design of the Landfill and its appurtenant improvements. The stability analysis method and the resulting analysis shall be approved by the County Community Development Department and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, and included in the Final Development and Improvements Plan. .7 Slope Monitoring. The Landfill operator shall install slope monitoring stakes on landslides and sensitive slopes which could affect an operating Landfill. The monitoring program shall be approved by the County Community Development Department. .8 Settlement Program. The Landfill developer shall implement a program to prevent fill settlement and an inspection program to detect and correct settlement problems. The developer shall compact the refuse and cover materials to maximum strength and design and maintain the necessary slope gradient to ensure proper surface water drainage. A network of settlement platforms shall be installed to monitor fill settlement at critical points. The station specifications and locations of these platforms shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. The Settle- ment Program shall be subject to the approval of the County Community Development Department and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. .9 Post-Earthquake Program. The Landfill operator shall prepare and implement an emergency program for inspecting theiLandfill facil- ity, dealing with failures, and providing refuse handling follow- ing a substantial earthquake. The program shall. be subject to the approval of the County Community Development' Department and the County Health Services Department. .10 Sedimentation Pond(s) Monitoring Program. The Landfill operator shall prepare and implement a failure prevention and warning system, including daily monitoring and visual inspection, for the sedimentation ponds. The program shall be approved by the County Community Development Department and shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. .11 Stockpile Stability. Commencing with the onset lof stockpiling, the Landfill operator shall continually analyze daily cover material stockpiles for stability to determine allowable heights and/or slopes. The results shall be available, to the County Community Development Department and the County !Health Services Department on demand. 17. GROUNDWATER PROTECTION .1 Groundwater Protection Objective. The Landfill shall not impair the beneficial uses of groundwater on the project site or in its vicinity. 16. ' • r iw .2 Landfill Liner. The Landfill developer shall install an engi- neered liner system, including a clay liner and a high-density polyethylene liner, which meets State Class II Landfill Stan- dards. The liner shall be approved by the Central Valley Regional Water . Quality Control Board; and its specifications and .design shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. .3 Leachate Collection System. The Landfill developer shall install a leachate collection system which shall meet State Class II standards. The leachate collection system shall be approved by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality . Control Board, and its specifications and design shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. .4 Surface Drainage System. See Condition 18.2. .5 Groundwater Monitoring. The Landfill developer shall install. a groundwater monitoring system and implement a monitoring program, as required by the Central Valley. Regional Water Quality Control Board. The monitoring stations' specifications, locations, and frequency of data collection requirements shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. To ensure protection for Round Valley and Marsh Creek, a monitoring station or stations shall be located in the Round Valley watershed. The proposed monitoring program shall be subject to review by the County Health Services and Community Development Departments. .6 Downstream Well Monitoring. The groundwater monitoring program shall include selected wells down gradient from the site. The wells shall be subject to approval by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County Health Services Department. The Landfill operator shall sample and analyze water from these wells on a quarterly basis. The location of these wells shall be identified in the Development and Improvements Plan. .7 Baseline Water Characterization. The Landfill developer shall conduct a groundwater characterization study for at least a one- year period following the approval of the Land Use Permit. The procedures for the study shall be specified by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County Health Services Department. .8 Liquid Waste Disposal. The Landfill operator shall comply with the requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board for disposal of de-watered sewage and other utili- ties' sludges in the Landfill to prevent excess liquid concentrations. The Landfill operator shall not accept other liquid wastes. 17. .9 Drainage Grading'. The Landfill developer shall grade completed fill areas to convey surface run-off to ditches at the fill perimeter for the purpose of limiting infiltration into the Land- fill. The grading specifications shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. .10 Leachate Management. The Landfill operator may reapply leachate removed from the leachate collection sumps to the Landfill for absorption by solid waste, or arrange for its transportation (pretreated if necessary) to an appropriate treatment and dispos- al facility. If leachate is returned to the fill area, it shall be injected under the Landfill's cover rather than applied over its surface. The return of .leachate to the Landfill shall be subject to the restrictions defined by the Central Valley Region- al Water Quality Control Board and the County Health Services Department. If leachate is transported to an off-site dispos- al/treatment facility, it shall be pre-treated on-site to meet all requirements of such facility before transport. If leachate build up becomes a problem, the County Health Services Department may require additional remedial measures, such as the placement of more soil cover, or the installment of a low-permeability earthen or synthetic cover. The Leachate Management Program shall be included as part of the Site Design Plan. .11 Water Balance Calculations. The Landfill operator shall provide water balance calculations, when requested by the County Health Services Department, to evaluate intermediate stages of Landfill operation to ensure .the. maintenance of a proper solids-to-liquid ratio. i .12 Leachate Holding Tanks. Holding tanks for leachate shall be tested to ensure chemical compatibility to prevent chemical degradation of said tanks. The Landfill developer shall submit test results to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County Health Services Department prior to the submission of the Development and Improvements Plan. .13 Secondary Containment. The Landfill developer shall construct a secondary containment system capable of containing 1.5 times the volume of. each leachate-holding tank. .14 On-Site Water Supply Wells. The Landfill 'developer shall construct any on-site water supply wells only after a hydro- geologic investigation has determined flow direction and relationship between water bearing strata, if any. Water supply wells shall utilize separate water bearing strata and shall be sealed to prevent communication between shallow and deep ground water. The locations and characteristics of water supply wells shall be described in the Development and Improvements Plan, and shall be subject to County Health Services Department and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board approval. Pump tests shall be provided for on-site wells located within. 500 feet of any domestic well to evaluate interference between wells. 18. .15 Off-Site Water Well Contamination. If the water quality of nearby domestic water supplies is impaired by Landfill leachate, the Landfill operator shall take immediate remedial action that is acceptable to the County Health Services Department and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Land- fill operator may be required to replace the impaired water supply. .16 Liner Installation Inspection. See Condition 16.5. .17. Working Face. The Landfill operator shall maintain a maximum daily working face of 3 acres in order to minimize surface water infiltration to the refuse, as well as to control dust and erosion, prevent vector proliferation, and minimize visual impacts. .18 Subdrain. If required by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Landfill developer shall install a permeable subdrain under the landfill liner to ensure drainage of groundwater and to provide a secondary conduit and means of collection of leachate should any leachate escape from the landfill's containment system. The applicant shall notify the Contra Costa Water District of the RWQCB's consideration of this matter and the landfill generally, and shall provide CCWD with any technical information that the applicant submits to RWQCB on this matter, to allow CCWD to effectively participate in RWQCB consideration of this matter. 18. SURFACE WATER PROTECTION .1 Surface Water Protection Objective. The Landfill shall not impair the beneficial uses of water bodies in the vicinity of the Landfill site. .2 Surface Drainage System. The Landfill operator shall install a surface drainage system which shall be designed to meet State Class II Landfill standards. It shall accommodate a 1,000 year design storm, as specified by the County Public Works Department and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) . The drainage system shall convey surface water around the active fill area without contacting the working face or any solid waste. The surface drainage system shall be approved by the CVRWQCB and the County Community Development Department, and included in the Development and Improvements Plan. .3 Marsh Creek Protection Program. The Landfill operator shall develop and implement a stream sampling program for Marsh Creek. The program shall include upstream and downstream sampling of the discharge from the sediment basins during rainy season storms which produce significant flow in the creek. The water samples shall be analyzed for the following: Chemical Oxygen Demand, 19. specific conductance, pH, Total Dissolved Solids, chlorides, sulfates, total iron, and nitrates (such as NO ) If the samples exceed regulatory limits, the operator shall notify the CVRWQCB and take remedial action. The creek protection program shall be approved by the CVRWQCB and the County Health Services Depart- ment. .4 Surface Water Management and Sediment Control Plan. The Landfill developer shall prepare and implement a surface water management and sediment control plan, which shall be subject to the approval of the County Community Development Department. The plan shall prevent substantial erosion on project site slopes and reduce the amounts of water-borne materials from reaching surface waters. It shall include the components listed below, and it shall be included in the Final Development and Improvements Plan. (a) Primary Grading. The Landfill developer shall perform primary grading for the project's fill modules, cover, roads, paved areas, building sites, and the construction of site slopes during the April through October low rainfall season. (b) Temporary Flow Restriction. If grading must be done during rainy periods, or if erosion is occurring on previously graded areas, the Landfill developer shall take corrective actions, which may include the .installation 'of ground cloth or the placement of hay bales. (c) Ground Cover. .The Landfill developer shall plant ground over on graded areas which are not to be developed within 90 days. The ground cover shall be consistent with the Land- scaping Plan. (d) Ditch/Swale Liners. The Landfill developer shall line any ditches and swales for conveying surface; runoff across sanitary Landfill areas to limit wateri infiltration. Drainage-ways across other areas shall be lined or planted to limit erosion. (e) Sedimentation Ponds. The Landfill developer shall install a sedimentation pond system, based on a 1,000-year 24-hour storm, to hold and process drainage from the Landfill property. The Landfill developer shall develop a program for monitoring storage volumes in the sedimentation ponds and releasing water depending on expected rainfall. The program shall include a preventive maintenance component which shall include a program for clearing of sedimentation ponds and maintenance of perimeter ditches and vegetative cover. The program shall be subject to approval from the County Community Development, Health Services, and Public Works Departments, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 20. (f) Runoff Conveyance. Erosion to ditches or gullies used to convey runoff shall be corrected by use of appropriate measures such as energy dissipators or rip rap. .5 Monitoring. The Landfill developer shall prepare and implement a surface water monitoring program to check for possible contamina- tion of off-site surface water drainage facilities. Sedimenta- tion pond outflow shall be monitored. The monitoring program shall be subject to approval of the County Health Services Department, the County Community Development Department, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. .6 Floodplain Restriction. The Landfill developer shall not place buildings or materials within the 100-year flood plain. 19. HAZARDOUS WASTE .1 Hazardous Waste Ineligible. See Condition 6.4. .2 Load Inspection. See Section 7. .3 Household Hazardous Waste Program. The Landfill operator shall develop a household hazardous waste collection and management program for the service area which is consistent with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan and with the County Wide Inte- grated Solid Waste Management Plan. The program shall be subject to the approval of the County Health, Services and Community Development Departments. The household hazardous waste shall be managed in accordance with the "Waste Minimization Hierarchy" identified in the County . Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The operator is encouraged to develop the program in cooperation with other waste management facilities and collection services. The proposed program, along with a schedule of proposed costs and funding sources, shall be submitted to the County departments no later than 6 months prior to the opening of the land-fill. The program shall include mechanisms for removing household hazardous waste from the wastestream which arrives at the facility. If the , household hazardous waste program (or a version of it) is approved by the County Board of Supervisors, and the program is funded, the Landfill operator shall implement it. The Landfill household hazardous waste program shall include a public informa- tion and education program approved by the County Health Services Department and the County Hazardous Materials Commission for notifying facility users and households in its service area of what constitutes hazardous waste and how such wastes are to be disposed of. The household hazardous waste program may be amend- ed if required by the County. Board of Supervisors in their review of the Land Use Permit. 21. .4 Transfer Station Pre-screening. The Household Hazardous Waste Program shall include pre-screening at transfer station(s) for identification and separation of hazardous materials. In addi- tion, Landfill entrance load screening procedures and a manual check program during unloading operations shall be included. Landfill operators shall be instructed to investigate suspicious containers for hazardous materials during bulldozing and other activities. Any hazardous materials found shall be set aside for proper collection and disposal. .5 Regulatory Agency Approvals. The collection and storage of toxic and hazardous waste pursuant to this section shall be subject to County Health Services Department, State Department of Health Services, and other regulatory agency approvals. 20. AIR QUALITY PROTECTION .1 Prevention of Air Quality Deterioration. The Landfill operator shall manage the facility in a manner that does not result in the significant deterioration of air quality in the vicinity of the site or in the Bay Area. The condition shall be interpreted as a requirement that the Landfill comply with terms of the Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate entitlements issued by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. .2 Odor Containment. The Landfill operator shall operate the Landfill in a manner that prevents odors from, being detected off-site, pursuant to Regulations 7-101 and 7-102 of the Bay Area Air Quality. Management District. If odors are reported to the County Health Services Department, or reports are relayed from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the County Health Services Department may require additional physical improvements or management practices, as necessary, to alleviate the problem. A small working face of 3 acres shall be maintained. A Landfill gas collection system and flaring mechanism (Condition 20.13) shall utilize Best Available Control Technology (!BACT) to reduce Landfill gas as a source of odor. If odors are detected in surrounding areas, complaints shall be logged by a Landfill operator. The source of the odor shall be identified and corrected. A response to the person lodging the complaint shall be made within 48 hours, detailing the problem and remedial action taken. The County Health Services Department shall have the authority to cease disposal at a particular area of the Landfill to control odors. .3 Refuse Cover. The Landfill operator shall cover newly disposed refuse with compacted soil cover meeting the requirements of the State of California (currently, a minimum of 6 inches of daily cover) . All working faces of the Landfill shall be covered by the end of the working day. Intermediate cover, meeting the 22. requirements of the State (currently a minimum of 12 inches) shall be applied over each layer of cells ("lift") . The frequency of cover shall increase in order to control odor, litter, or birds and vectors, if necessary, or if required by the Landfill's Solid Waste Facilities Permit. .4 Substitute Cover Materials. The use of a substitute refuse cover material, including synthetic foam, shall not be allowed unless the Landfill operator prepares a study of .the proposed material, presents the results to and acquires approval by the Board of Supervisors and the California Integrated Waste Management Board. .5 Odoriferous Loads. The Landfill operator shall cover odoriferous incoming loads immediately. .6 Dust Suppressants. The Landfill operator shall apply water or proven environmentally safe dust suppressants at least twice daily to working faces of the Landfill, unpaved access roads, and construction areas as determined to be necessary by the County Health Services Department. The Health Services Department may require sprinklering more frequently for control of particulates. .7 Area of Operations. See Condition 17.17 and-22.5. .8 Air Flow Monitoring. The Landfill operator shall monitor air flow on the site upon commencement of operations and shall provide background meteorological conditions including wind direction, wind velocity, on-site air flows, and temperature after the Landfill is in operation. These data shall be used to correlate odor, dust, or litter management with meteorological conditions. Air flow monitoring reports shall be submitted to the County Health Services and Community Development Departments. .9 Contingency Program. Prior to the start of filling operations, the Landfill operator shall prepare a "bad days" contingency program for managing the Landfill during periods of unusual wind speeds or directions, rainfall or drought, or. other atypical situations. This program shall utilize specific site monitoring information. The Landfill operator shall consider the comments of the local advisory committee and consult with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The program shall be approved by the County Health Services Department, and it may be revised from time to time. .10 Revegetation. The Landfill operator shall revegetate completed Landfill areas immediately. Revegetation shall be in accordance with the Development and Improvements Plan and shall be consis- tent with the County policy on landscaping and water conserva- tion. Intermediate and final cover areas shall be revegetated immediately. Excavations shall be revegetated or filled immedi- • 23. ately. Operating areas which will not be used for fill or construction for 90 days or longer, as well as stockpiled soil, shall be planted for dust and erosion control and for aesthetic purposes. i .11 Tree and Shrub Planting. The Landfill developer shall plant trees and shrubs downwind of the Landfill to aid in trapping dust. The planting program shall be included in the Landscaping Plan component of the Development and Improvements Plan. .12 Gas Control and Collection. The Landfill operator shall install a Landfill gas control and collection system in accordance with the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The system shall have the capacity to operate in an active mode, using a mechanical vacuum, to withdraw gas from the Landfill. The system shall be operated in an active mode as soon as practi- cal. The gas control and collection system shall be installed concurrently with the placement of wastes ,in the Landfill and shall be ready for operation when gas is produced. The gas collection and related recovery system shall be� subject to the approval of the Bay Air Quality Management District and County Community Development Department, and it shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. .13 Landfill Gas Processing. The Landfill developer. shall install a flaring mechanism, in accordance. with Bay Area Air Quality Management District guidelines/regulations, to combust the collected Landfill gas. The flare shall be of the nonilluminous type. Best Available Control Technology (BACT) shall be used, as defined and approved by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, in order to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO X) . i .-14 Methane Recovery. The Landfill operator shall install a methane recovery system simultaneously with the construction of the gas collection system, preferably utilizing the Landfill gas to produce energy when the Landfill has developedi enough gas to justify recovery. When required by the County Community Develop- ment Department, the Landfill operator shall conduct a study to determine how methane could be recovered from the gas and used for fuel or as a commodity. .15 Gas Monitoring. The Landfill developer shall install gas migra- tion detection probes and wells along the boundary of the Landfill footprint, near on-site buildings, and ' in other loca- tions specified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District or the County Health Services Department to monitor for subsur- face and surface gas migration. The gas monitoring stations shall be described in the Development and Improvements Plan approved by the County Community Development Department. If gas migration is found, the Landfill operator shall notify the County and take remedial actions. Training of employees for detection of gas migration shall be included in the employee training program. 24. ' .16 Lateral Gas Barriers. The Landfill developer shall install .a gas _ barrier or gas collection area on side slopes of the Landfill to prevent lateral gas migration through the sides of the Landfill. The barrier or gas collection area shall be approved by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. .17 Settlement Protection. The Landfill developer shall use flexible piping. and lightweight backfill for the Landfill gas collection system to ensure that settlement of the fill will not affect operation of the system. .18 Landfill Gas Testing. The Landfill operator shall test Landfill gas for its toxic composition and for toxic constituents. The testing program shall be subject to the approvals of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the County Health Services and Community Development Departments. The Landfill operator shall provide the results to the County Community Development Department and Health Services Departments on a quarterly basis unless a more frequent interval is specified in the Solid Waste Facilities Permit. .19 Leachate Disposal. See Condition 17.10. .20 Cell Re-Opening. Previously-covered cells shall not be reopened without permission from the County Health Services Department. .21 Fissure Repair. The Landfill operator shall inspect the. Landfill daily. Surface cracks, fissures, eroded areas, or inadequately covered areas on the Landfill may require repairs within 24 hours. This activity shall be included in the employee training program. .22 Permanent Road Paving. The Landfill developer shall pave and maintain permanent access roads to control dust. A road used for one year or longer shall be considered to be a permanent road. Road construction shall be described in the Development and Improvements Plan. .23 Temporary Road Paving. The Landfill developer shall pave and maintain temporary roads with gravel or crushed aggregate. Temporary roads shall be wetted or chemically treated when neces- sary to control dust. Road construction shall be described in the Development and Improvements Plan. .24 Speed Limits. The Landfill operator shall enforce speed limits set by the County Health Services Department on internal site roads. The Landfill operator shall install appropriate signs and speed control devices. The maximum internal on-site speed limit shall be 20 mph. 25. .25 Equipment Activity and Maintenance. The Landfill operator shall maintain Landfill equipment in optimum working :order to ensure that vehicle emissions are controlled and their potential for causing fires is minimized. Equipment shall be shut off when not in use. Maintenance records shall be kept on all pieces of Landfill equipment. The records are subject to review by the County Health Services Department. Equipment shall be stored, serviced, and repaired in a maintenance area designated in the Development and Improvements Plan and approved by the County Community Development Department. 21. NOISE CONTROL .1 Noise Control Objective. The Landfill operator shall manage the facility in a manner that minimizes noise impacts to area resi- dents. .2 Noise Monitoring Program. The Landfill operator shall prepare and implement a noise monitoring and abatement program, which shall be approved by the County Community Development Department and Health Services Departments. The program shall monitor day and night noise levels on a quarterly basis at the following sensitive receptor locations: Marsh Creek Road at the facility entrance; Round Valley property line; and the entrance to the Clayton Regency Mobile Home Park. The Director of Community Development may specify other monitoring locations. If the moni- toring noise levels at the Landfill boundary line or other monitored location exceed 60 dBA during daylight hours, or 50 dBA during the evening or at night, the County may require the opera- tor to institute additional noise reduction measures to bring noise emanating from the Landfill to the aforementioned levels or - less. I .3 Toe Berm. See Condition 22.4. .4 Mitigation Berms. See Condition 22.6. .5 Construction Hours. See Condition 32.1. .6 Operation Hours. See Condition 9.1. .7 Truck Noise Suppression. The Landfill operator shall require transfer trucks and other waste hauling vehicles using the facility to be equipped with factory-approved noise suppression equipment, including engine compartment insulation. The Landfill operator shall request that the California Highway Patrol active- ly enforce muffler and vehicle noise standards as required in the California Vehicle Code if, for any reason, noise from heavy trucks becomes a source of complaints in the project area, whether project-related or not. 26. .8 Landfill Vehicles and Equipment. The Landfill operator shall provide Landfill vehicles and equipment, during construction and operation, with the best available noise suppressing equipment to minimize sound generation. .9 Gas Flare Muffling. If flaring is used to dispose of Landfill gas, the flares shall be contained in a noise and glare-reducing housing. The housing shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services and Community Development Departments and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 22. VISUAL QUALITY .1 Visual Quality Objective.. The Landfill developer shall construct and operate the facility in such a manner that the high visual value of the surrounding area is maintained. .2 Landscaping Plan. The Landfill developer shall prepare and implement a site Landscaping Plan. The plan shall enhance the site's visual values as open space and its functional values as wildlife habitat. It shall minimize the visual impacts of the Landfill operations and appurtenant facilities through revegeta tion and landscape screening: The plan shall show the plant species, size, and locations to be used to blend in with the existing natural vegetation. Native and drought-tolerant species shall be used in accordance with County policy on Water Conserva- tion Landscaping. A landscape maintenance program will be part of the plan. A Landscape Plan shall be included in the Develop- ment and Improvements Plan. .3 Interim Revegetation. Interim revegetation shall be required on - all areas that will be inactive for more than 90 days. Revegeta- tion shall include native grasses, shrubs and trees to lend more variety and natural appearance to the finished Landfill. .4 Toe Berm. The Landfill developer shall install the toe berm as soon as practical at the lower (northwest) end of the Landfill, which shall be landscaped to shield the view of the disposal area from Marsh 'Creek Road and reduce noise. The berm shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. .5 Area of Operations. Except during construction of modules and other major installations, the Landfill operator shall limit unvegetated working areas of the Landfill, including the daily working face, to 25 acres for appearance and to control dust and erosion. The restriction shall not apply to grading for founda- tions, cover, site roads, berms and other construction, providing these are carried out expeditiously. 27. _ .6 Mitigation Berms:'�,:.If required by. the County Community Develop- ment Department, the Landfill developer shall install landscaped mitigation berms at the face of each lift in areas visible from off the site, before beginning refuse disposal on the lift. The berms shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. . .7 Entrance Screening. The Landfill developer shall install land- scaping along Marsh Creek Road adjacent to the Landfill site to screen the entrance area and facilities from Marsh Creek Road users. This screening shall make use of existing trees and be planted as soon as possible during construction, prior to the beginning of Phase I operation. The entrance screening program shall be included in the Landscaping Plan. .8 South Ridge Planting Screen. The Landfill developer shall estab- lish a visual berm and/or planting screen of drought and wind tolerant trees and shrubs in the "saddle" to mask the portion of the Landfill visible from Round Valley. .9 Water Tank Screening. The Landfill developer shall provide landscaping to screen the facility's water tanks and the Contra Costa Water District's water storage reservoir tank. Where possible, the landscaping shall .be installed prior to the instal- lation of the tanks. Consideration shall be given to subsurface or partially buried tanks, and to painting structures with earth-tone colors. The water tank screening program shall be included, in the Development and Improvements Plan. .10 Tree Retention. The Landfill .developer shall utilize as many existing trees as possible, particularly at the entrance and on the southwest-facing slope. .1-1 Lighting. The Landfill developer shall design and locate the lighting system to reduce glare and. to not substantially impact area residents. Focused directional security and operational lighting shall be in-stalled. Operation lighting on the working face shall be turned off by 8:30 .p.m. Security and entrance lighting shall be dimmed at 8:30 p.m. If the operating hours of the Landfill are changed pursuant to the provisions of Condition 9.1, the Director of Community Development may specify new lighting time restrictions. .12 Trail Easement. The Landfill operator shall consult and coordi- nate with the County and the East Bay Regional Park District when these agencies are implementing plans for regional trails in the area. If a trail is to be located across a portion of the Land- fill property, the Landfill operator could be required to dedicate a trail easement and to ensure adequate landscape buffers/screening to minimize conflict of land use. 28. .13 Litter-Control.. See Section 25. 23. BIOTIC RESOURCES .1 Biotics Protection Objective. The Landfill developer shall construct and operate the facility in such a manner that ensures, through protection and enhancement measures, that there is no net loss of significant habitat, wetland or woodland. .2 Revegetation Plan. The Landfill developer shall design and develop a Revegetation Plan as part of the Landscape Plan to consist of the following components. a) Revegetation Practices Program. This program shall include ,.but not be limited to a listing of species to be used (native, drought-tolerant types) , identification of sizes and locations, and appropriate application specifications. b) Revegetation Schedule. The schedule should be coordinated with facilities development and Landfill module phasing. c) Weed Monitoring and Control Program. This program shall include but not be limited to a listing of noxious weeds, a monitoring program, and abatement measure options. d) Wildlife Enhancement Program. The revegetation plan shall be designed ' to rehabitate or reestablish the vegetative types that .existed on the site before the Landfill, where feasible, in order to support wildlife dispersing from surrounding areas. .3 Habitat Preservation and Enhancement Plan. The Landfill develop- er .shall design and develop a Habitat Preservation and Enhance- ment Plan as part of the Development and Improvements Plan to consist of the following components. a) Oak Woodland Program. The Landfill .developer shall replace/ enhance a minimum of 140 acres of blue oak woodland habitat through an on- or off-site mitigation program. The develop- er shall be responsible for acquisition of any land required for this program, -for the planting of trees, and for a maintenance program, which shall be effective for the opera- tional life of the Landfill. These programs shall be designed and implemented in consultation with the East Bay Regional Park District and the County Community Development Department. The Board of Supervisors may require the opera- tor to dedicate the property or deed all development rights for the off-site enhancement area to the County, or a public agency of the County's choosing. b) Wetlands Program. The Landfill developer shall replace/en- hance a minimum of 3 acres of wetlands equal in type to those eliminated by site development. This program shall be developed and implemented by the developer, in consultation 29. with the U.S: Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) , and the County Community Develop- ment Department, as appropriate. c) Red-legged Frog Management Program. Designed and implement- ed by the Landfill developer in consultation with the CDFG, this program shall ensure the maintenance of the red-legged frog population on the site. d) Marsh Creek Protection Program. The Landfill developer shall design and engineer the new road crossing of Marsh Creek in conjunction with the CDFG's Stream Alteration Agreement requirements to ensure the protection of that creek habitat. Also see Condition 18.3. .4 Phased Construction. The Landfill operator shall construct and operate the Landfill in phases in order to reduce the acute impact to vegetation and wildlife habitat. Mature trees should be removed only as needed, not more than one year in advance of module development. .5 Grazing. The Landfill operator shall exclude any grazing activi- ties from the site during the operating life of the Landfill to allow natural restoration of existing degraded grassland for the purpose of enhancing .vegetative habitat on undisturbed areas. This condition shall not preclude consideration of grazing after Landfill closure. .6. Wildlife Exclusion and Vector Control. . The Landfill operator shall construct fences around the site, limit the size of the working face, and cover refuse at least daily in order to exclude wildlife and control vectors at the site. The wildlife fencing - program shall be designed in consultation with the CDFG and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) . i .7 Vegetation Protection. The Landfill developer shall employ dust suppression measures to prevent damage from dust loading on vegetation (see Condition 20.6) . Periodic watering of vegetation adjacent to the fill working area should be used to clean the vegetation. .8 Wildlife Surveys. Prior to the Final Development and Improve- ments Plan submittal, the Landfill developer shall conduct additional surveys to establish the presence or indicate the absence of the following species at the Landfill site. a) San Joaquin kit fox. The survey shall be conducted accord- ing to USFWS recommendations. If dens are found, the developer shall follow USFWS guidelines regarding appropri- ate mitigation procedures. 30. b). . ..Checkerspot Butterfly. A rare plant survey , for Plantago _ erecta, the butterfly's host plant, shall be conducted during March to May. If evidence of the plant is found, the Landfill developer shall notify the USFWS, which would determine appropriate mitigation.' c) California Tiger Salamander and Alameda Whipsnake. This survey shall be conducted in the appropriate season prior to construction. If either are found, the developer shall notify the USFWS, . which would determine appropriate mitiga- tion. 24. BIRD AND VECTOR CONTROL .1 Bird and Vector Control Objective. The Landfill operator shall manage the facility in such a manner that discourages birds, and prevents and controls vectors at the site. .2 Refuse Cover. See Condition 20.3 .3 Working Area Limitations. See Conditions 17.17 and 22.5. .4 Bird Control. If birds become a problem at the Landfill in the judgement of the County. Health Services Department, the Landfill operator shall institute a contingency bird control program. Such a program may consist- of monofilament or wire lines suspend- ed in the air at appropriate intervals over and around the active disposal area. The Landfill operator ,shall retain a biologist during the initial .period of operation to (1) assess the effec- tiveness of the monofilament line for bird control and (2) assess the effect of the line on avian predator species. If necessary, additional corrective measures shall be taken at that time. Such - measures may include a reduction in the size of the working face of the Landfill, the use of nets over the working face, or the use of a habitat manipulation and modification program. .5 Rodent Control. If waste compaction does not .eliminate live rodents from .the Landfill footprint, or if rodents (other than small numbers of- field mice, etc. ) occupy facility landscaping or agricultural areas, the operator shall work with the County Health Services Department to identify the reasons for the Pres- ence of rodents and make appropriate changes in operational procedures. If an eradication program is necessary, the use of alternative rodent control programs such as sustained 'live trapping using nonpoisonous baits, and natural biological control shall be considered. Anti-coagulants shall be administered by a pest management professional in a manner which minimizes exposure to avian predators. Class 1 pesticides shall not be used. 31. .6 Mosquito Control. The Landfill' operator shall grade areas within the Landfill property to prevent ponding of water which could harbor' mosquitos (except for sedimentation ponds and riparian habitat areas) . - Sedimentation ponds shall be stocked with mosquito fish. If a mosquito problem persists, the County Health Services Department may require the preparation 'and implementa- tion of additional mosquito control measures, such as spraying of non-toxic larval suppressant. .7 Fly Control. The Landfill operator shall limit the size of the working face and shall cover refuse daily in order to prevent fly proliferation. If an eradication program is necessary, the use of a pest-control specialist shall be considered. 25. LITTER CONTROL .1 Litter Control Objective. The Landfill operator shall manage the facility in a manner that .confines litter to the working face of the Landfill, prevents litter from accumulating on other parts of the site, and prevents litter from being blown off the site. .2 Load Covering. The Landfill operator shall implement a program to limit uncovered loads from arriving at the Landfill. The program shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services Department. .3 Load Cover Enforcement. If routine enforcement of load cover requirements is not effective, the Landfill operator shall offer to contract with the Sheriff's Department to enforce regulations requiring the covering of trucks and trailers. .4- Contingency Litter Control. Under windy conditions, the Landfill operator shall cover the refuse with soil as often as necessary to control blowing litter. The County Health Services Department shall have the authority to enforce this requirement. .5 Portable Litter Fences. The Landfill operator shall install portable fencing near the working face of the Landfill to inter- cept wind-blown debris. .6 Permanent Litter Fence. The Landfill operator shall install a permanent fence of wire around the current fill area of the Landfill. The location shall be subject to the 'approval of the County Health Services Department. .7 On-Site Litter Policing. The Landfill operator shall remove litter from the litter fences and planting screens at least once each day. On-site roads shall be policed at least daily. The County Health Services Department may require more frequent policing to control the accumulation of litter. 32. .8 Off-Site Litter Policing. The Landfill operator shall provide weekly (or more frequent) litter clean-up along Marsh Creek Road from the Morgan Territory Road/Marsh Creek Road intersection to Walnut Boulevard and from the Deer Valley Road/Marsh Creek Road intersection north to Chadbourne Road during the Landfill's first year of operations. Based on the experience of this period, the County Health Services Department may modify frequency of clean-up and/or area of coverage. If wind-blown litter from the Landfill reaches other properties, the County Health Services Department may require the Landfill operator to remove the litter and may require the operator to institute additional measures to prevent recurrence of the problem. .9 Littering Signs. The Landfill operator shall post signs, as determined necessary by the County Public Works Department, along access roads to the Landfill noting littering and illegal dumping laws. The Landfill operator shall post signs at the Landfill entrance noting the hours . when the Landfill is open. The operator should periodically publish these laws and operating hours in mailings to Landfill clientele. .10 Clean-Up Bond. The Landfill developer shall deposit a surety bond for $10,000 payable to the County to use for clean-up in the event of emergency or disputed littering or spills. 26. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY .1 Public Health and Safety Objective. The Landfill operator shall manage the facility in a manner which does not impair the public health and safety of persons living in its vicinity, Landfill users, or Landfill employees. .2 Emergency Plan. The Landfill operator shall prepare an emergency plan specified by the Solid Waste Facilities Permit and approved by the County Health Services Department. The Emergency Plan shall include the following: (a) A fire and explosion component. (b) '=. A seismic component. (c) A hazardous waste spills and contamination containment component. (d) An evacuation component. .3 Employee Safety Equipment. The Landfill operator shall provide or require employees to provide safety equipment, such as safety glasses, hard hats, safety shoes, gloves, coveralls, and noise reducers as required by state and federal safety agencies and the County Health Services Department. 33. .4 Employee Training.. , The Landfill operator shall develop and implement training and subsequent refresher training programs covering accident prevention, safety, emergencies and contingen- cies ("bad-day" scenarios) , gas detection, identification of hazardous materials and ground fissures, first aid, and instruc- tion in the use of equipment. The programs shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services Department. .5 First Aid Equipment. The Landfill operator shall provide and maintain first aid supplies located in easily accessible areas. The supplies shall be consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements and subject to the approval of the County Health Services Department. .6 Emergency Communications. The Landfill operator shall provide radio phones or telephones for employee use to call for medical and other emergency assistance. Phone numbers to use for outside emergency assistance shall be clearly posted on the Landfill and in other work areas. The communications system shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services Department. .7 Emergency Eye Baths and Showers. The Landfill operator shall provide facilities for emergency eye baths and emergency showers. The facilities shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services Department. I .8 Equipment Maintenance. The Landfill operator shall prepare and implement an equipment maintenance program which shall be approved by the County Health Services Department prior to the .. commencement of operations. The program shall address transfer vehicles and other refuse-conveying vehicles stored on the site as well as the transfer station's refuse-moving vehicles and mechanical equipment. Vehicles and equipment shall be regularly inspected and cleaned to reduce the risk of fires. I .9 Vehicle Inspection Area. The Landfill developer shall construct a vehicle inspection/weighing area accessible by: the California Highway Patrol. .10 Gas Migration Monitoring. The Landfill operator shall prepare and implement a gas migration monitoring program to detect under- ground gas migration. Landfill buildings and paved areas within 1,000 feet of the Landfill shall be monitored. The monitoring program shall be approved by the County Health Services Depart- ment. .11 Refuse Cover. See Condition 20.3. .12 Load Inspection. See Section 7. 34. 27. SITE SECURITY .1 Security Objective. The Landfill operator shall manage the facility in a manner that prevents . unauthorized persons from having access to the working areas of the Landfill both during and after operating hours. .2 Security Fencing. The Landfill developer shall install a securi- ty fence around the perimeter of the site with lockable gated entrances and exits. The fence shall be located to minimize its visual impacts. It shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. .3 Security Staffing. The Landfill operator shall staff the Land- fill 24 hours per day. Private security services may be retained when the site is not open. .4 Security Lighting. The Landfill developer shall install and operate adequate lights at the entrance area to the Landfill. The lighting shall be provided in a manner which minimizes glare to nearby residents and road users. The security lighting shall be covered in the Development and Improvements Plan. 28. CULTURAL RESOURCES .1 Cultural Resource Preservation Objective. The Landfill developer shall construct the :facility in such a manner that preserves or documents .important archaeological or historic sites. .2 Site CA-CCo-603H (Foskett House) . The Landfill developer shall protect the historic structure identified as CA-CCo-603H in the - Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . If this structure is used as a site facility, the Landfill operator shall preserve as much of the original appearance and integrity of the structure as possi- ble. .3 Sites CA-CCo-545H, CA-CCo-588, and CA-CCo-602. The Landfill developer shall subject . these sites, identified as such in the EIR ., to detailed significance evaluations. These investigations shall be conducted by qualified professionals in East Bay pre- historic studies. If any site is found to be significant, the Landfill developer shall 'implement the following mitigation measures. a) Avoidance of the site through modification of the Landfill footprint or related facilities that would allow for the preservation of the resource in its present location. b) If the site cannot be preserved through avoidance, data recovery through excavation shall take place. The excava- tion shall be accomplished by a qualified professional. 35. If subsurface testing reveals no associated cultural deposits and the sites are determined to be isolated bedrock ' milling sites, then mitigation can be limited to the photographing and drawing of the features prior to their destruction. .4 Archaeology. The Landfill operator shall cease work in the immediate area if buried human remains or archaeological features (e.g: , petroglyphs) are uncovered during construction or opera- tion. Work in the immediate area shall cease until a qualified archaeologist is consulted and approves resumption of work. Should human remains which may be of Native American origin be encountered during the project, the County Coroner's Office shall be contracted pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Health and Safety Code. The County Community Development Department shall also be notified. 29. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .1 Traffic Objective. The Landfill operator shall manage the facil- ity in such a manner that provides safe, efficient transport of solid waste on adequate roads, while minimizing congestion on the major road system and impacts to local residents. .2 Improvements Responsibility. All improvements deemed necessary as described in these Conditions of Approval shall be constructed and/or paid for totally at the expense of the Landfill developer unless other arrangements are specified. .3 Access Route. Access to the Landfill site shall be via State Highway 4, Walnut Boulevard, and Marsh Creek Road. When con- structed, the Delta Expressway shall become the principal access route. No trucking associated with the Landfill operations shall be permitted on Marsh Creek Road, west of the site. The Landfill operator shall specify use of the prescribed route in all user contracts and shall notify non-contract users of the requirement. I .4 Submittals to Public Works Department. The Landfill developer shall submit improvement plans and cost estimates to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, for all on-site and off-site road improvements, which are to be' prepared by a registered civil engineer, and shall pay plan rIeview and con- struction inspection fees and post security for all improvements required by the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code or the Condi- tions of Approval of this development. 36. Preliminary plans of both on-site and off-site road and bridge improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Division of Public Works for review and approval prior to com- mencing work on the detailed plans. The preliminary plans shall be drawn to scale and shall show proposed geometric layout, profiles, . typical sections, lane delineation and other pavement markings, and signing. The preliminary plans shall be subject to the approval of the East Diablo Fire Protection District. The Landfill developer shall deposit a cash deposit .with Contra Costa County, the amount to be determined, which represents the estimated cost of full time qualified construction inspectors for the work. Upon the final acceptance of all the work, the amount still owing the County will be billed to applicant for payment within 60 days, or the amount of. deposit in excess of expendi- tures will be refunded to the applicant. .5 Landfill Access Road. The Landfill developer shall install a paved two-lane access road between Marsh Creek Road and the work- ing face of the current Landfill. A new bridge across Marsh Creek, with a paved roadbed width of at least 26 feet, shall be provided. A paved facility parking lot, turnaround lane, and parking/turnoff lanes shall be provided. The. geometrics shall be designed based on the largest .type of trucking potentially avail- able for hauling. On-site road lane widths shall be at least 10 feet, with additional widening as necessary to facilitate turn- ing. All weather shoulders, 3 feet in width (minimum) , shall be constructed adjacent to all paved surfaces which are not protected by asphaltic concrete dikes or curbs. The structural section will be designed using the Caltrans method evaluating the R-Value and Traffic Index, both of which will be determined by the County. The Landfill access roads shall remain private and will not be accepted by the County for maintenance. The on-site roadways and bridge shall be maintained by the developer, as necessary, to keep the facilities in as good as new condition at all times. An occasional graded aggregate-surfaced road, where necessary, shall be constructed and maintained to support the expected traffic, and shall be watered periodically, or treated with a dust palliative to control excessive dust. .6 Roadway Clearances. Horizontal and vertical clearances from the roadway to obstructions shall be obtained from the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. The Caltrans . Highway Design Manual, Bridge Design Manual, and Traffic Manuals shall become the standards applicable to all on-site and off-site work. Standards not covered in the Caltrans manuals shall be resolved by refer- ring to the 1984 edition of the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Streets and Highways, or by the application of standard practices as determined by the County. 37. .7 Landfill Entrance:-." 'Prior to Landfill operations, the Landfill developer shall fully construct the Marsh Creek Road entrance to the site. This local on-site improvement shall provide for the widening and realignment of Marsh Creek Road, construction of acceleration, deceleration and left turn lanes. Standards of design, and lengths and widths of the various elements of the intersection shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works and Community Development Departments.. .8 Marsh Creek Road. Prior to Landfill operations, the Landfill developer shall fully widen, reconstruct, overlay and/or realign Marsh Creek Road, between the Landfill entrance and the Walnut Boulevard intersection. The final roadway section shall provide 32 feet of pavement, with all-weather shoulders at least 3 feet (or as required by Caltrans or ASSHTO standards) in width on each side. The design speed shall be the anticipated travel speed of the improved roadway plus 10 mph, and will be determined by the County Traffic Engineer. Truck climbing lanes and turnouts may be required if determined necessary by the Public Works Depart- ment. Necessary drainage and associated miscellaneous items of work shall be installed. Any rights of way, other agency per- mits, construction entries, or easements necessary to accomplish the total work described herein shall be acquired by the develop- er at his sole cost, and such rights of way shall be deeded or otherwise dedicated to Contra Costa County. Acceptance of all new work and right of way will be done by Contra Costa County upon successful completion of the final inspection' and expiration of warrantee period. All pavement work shall be :designed for a 20-year life. The . . improvements required herein are to be considered staging of the ultimate 72-foot wide roadway and be compatible therewith. This work will consist generally of five sections discussed below: a. Prior to Landfill operations, the Walnut Boulevard/Marsh Creek Road intersection shall be widened, reconstructed, and overlayed as necessary to provide adequate left and right turn lanes for vehicles accessing and returning from the Landfill. The engineer shall submit preliminary plans for the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Intersection lighting may be required. b. Prior to Landfill operations, the Deer Valley Road/Marsh Creek Road intersection shall be widened, reconstructed and overlayed as necessary to provide adequate left turn chan- nelization on Marsh Creek Road. The engineer shall submit preliminary plans for the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Intersection lighting may be required. C. Prior to Landfill operations, Marsh Creek Road, at the entrance to the Clayton Regency Mobile Home Park, shall be widened, reconstructed and overlayed as necessary to provide adequate left turn channelization. The engineer shall 38. submit preliminary plans for . the review and approval of the Public Works Department. The westbound lane shall be least 20 feet measured between the painted centerline stripe and the top of the embankment or sound wall as. appropriate. Intersection lighting may be required. d. Prior to Landfill operations, the Landfill developer shall participate in an improvement district, benefit area, or other cooperative arrangement with Contra Costa County and the City of Brentwood to improve the Balfour Road/Walnut Boulevard intersection. The amount due from the developer shall be proportionate to the anticipated Landfill truck traffic at the intersection. The extent of the improvements and the amount due from the developer shall be mutually defined by the County and the City and approved by the ,County. The new intersection .shall be sketch planned and estimated by the developer's engineer and submitted to the Public Works Department of Contra Costa County and the City of Brentwood for review. The design shall be subject to final approval by the County. The new intersection shall be operational when the Landfill opens. Unless an improvement district or alternative is established by January 1, 1991, it will be necessary for the Landfill developer to advance the money for the project to assure timely completion prior to commencing Landfill operations. Upon establishment of ,the improvement district, the funds so advanced will be subject to partial refund under a separate agreement with the County. Contra Costa County will administer the project. Any funds received for the project shall be placed in a separate account, and shall be subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors. .9 Compliance with Bridge and Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance. The Land- fill developer shall comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Countywide Area of Benefit, East County Region, and the East/Central County Travel Corridor Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Because of the unusual nature of the project, the rate of fee for the .Countywide Area of Benefit shall be calculated specially for the Landfill operation, based on the traffic impacts, and shall be subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors. .10 Delta Expressway Funding. The Landfill operator shall partici- pate in an improvement district, benefit area, or other coopera- tive arrangement, to assist in funding the construction of the Delta Expressway. The Landfill operator shall be required to pay an amount for the construction proportionate to the traffic generated by the Landfill, adjusted for truck use. The County of Contra Costa, with review by Caltrans, shall prepare the design and cost estimates, and the prorata developers' share. Funds from the Landfill operator shall be deposited in a separate account established by the County to be used exclusively for the Delta Expressway. Disbursements shall be subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors. 39. .11 Recreation Facilities Relocation. ` The Clayton Regency , recrea- tional facilities shall be relocated by the Landfill developer, at his sole expense, before Landfill operations begin, or shall otherwise be protected from errant traffic and noise. The relocation plan or protection shall be subject to the review and approval of the mobile home parks' owner, the mobile home park association, and the County Community Development Department. The Director of Community Development may modify this condition if the Director determines that its implementation is impractical. .12 Peak Period Traffic Management. The Landfill developer shall prepare a study, in conjunction with the operators of transfer stations serving the Landfill, for managing transfer vehicle traffic to reduce peak period conflicts with traffic on Highway 4. The study shall identify changes to the conditions of approv- al needed to implement a peak-period traffic reduction program. The study shall be approved by the County Public Works and Commu- nity Development Departments and shall be provided to the County Community Development Department with the Development and Improvements Plan. The Director of Community Development shall specify peak period traffic restrictions. In accordance with the findings of the study, the Director of Community .Development may order the preparation of subsequent studies and specify subse- quent peak period restrictions if the Director has cause to believe that needs or conditions have changed. The Landfill operator shall comply with such restrictions and shall require compliance in contracts with Landfill users. The study shall consider the following recommendations identifiedinthe project EIR. a. Transfer trucks should not leave the Landfill between 5:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. b. Transfer trucks should not leave the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill between 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. C. Transfer trucks shall not leave the Acme Transfer Station between 3:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. I .13 Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths. Bicycle and pedestrian improve- ments shall be planned by the Landfill developer.1 A path system along Marsh Creek Road shall be planned and incorporated into the various improvement plans, and shall be incorporated into the Transportation and Circulation Plan. The plan shall also be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. The plan shall attempt to locate the facilities away from the the highway pavements. Caltrans standards shall apply to the bicycle path system. The plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department and the Community Development Depart- ment. 40. .14 Water.,Transport. Water transport to the site during construction shall be limited to 5,000 gallons per 3-axle truck and 7,500 gallons per 5-axle truck on Marsh Creek Road, due to the antici- pated pavement condition on Marsh Creek Road. Legal weight restrictions imposed on any access route must be observed. Dependent upon the outcome of deflection studies, .and the con- struction schedule, this requirement may be modified upward by the Public Works Department on Marsh Creek Road east of the site. The restriction will not be. changed on Marsh Creek Road west of the site. Using equipment other than that specified shall require Public Works Department approval. .15 Road Maintenance. Prior to beginning of operations, the Landfill -developer shall enter into a road maintenance agreement with Contra Costa County for Walnut Boulevard and Marsh Creek Road. The, agreement shall obligate the developer to pay the County, quarterly, a proportional share of the perpetual cyclic road maintenance costs as will be determined by the Public. Works Department. The . share shall be prorated on the basis of projected truck loadings. . 30. SITE SERVICES AND UTILITIES PLAN .1 Objective. The Landfill developer shall design, develop and manage the facility in such a manner that services and utilities adequately meet the Landfill's requirements, while ensuring the protection of site employees, area residents and the surrounding environment. .2 Site Services and Utilities Plan. The Landfill developer shall prepare and submit a Site. Services and Utilities Plan, and obtain - the approval of the County Community Development Department prior to beginning construction. The Site Services and Utilities Plan shall include: a) A fire protection component (see Condition 30.8) . b) A water service component (see Condition 30.3) . .3 Water Service Component. The Landfill developer shall prepare and implement a Water Service Component, covering available water resources, estimated total water needs and supplies, Landfill construction and operation, landscaping, fire protection, employee hygiene and human consumption water needs, and water supply sources. Potable water shall be provided for hygiene and consumption. .4 Water District Annexation. Extension of a water pipeline to the Landfill site would require Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) actions; including amendment of the Contra Costa Water District's (CCWD) Sphere of Influence and annexation of the project area by the CCWD. The Landfill developer is responsible for applying to the CCWD for a water pipeline extension. 41. .5 Water Pipeline Extension. Upon approval of the Landfill develop- er's request for.water district annexation and water service, the CCWD would be responsible for designing, estimating the cost, and constructing the pipeline extension. All costs' of extending a water pipeline to the Landfill . site, including a CCWD reservoir tank, shall be borne by the Landfill developer. .6 Temporary Water System. The Landfill developer may import water to the site via trucks during the construction phase of Landfill development. The source of the imported water shall be the hydrant on Morgan Territory Road, 100 yards south of Marsh Creek Road. The "construction phase" refers to those activities of Landfill development up to, but excluding, the acceptance of any waste. The Landfill developer shall meet all requirements of the Contra Costa Water District, the East Diablo Fire Protection District, and the County before importation commences. .7 Construction Timing. Access roads and water supply systems shall be installed and in service prior to any combustible construction and/or related Landfill activity. No construction, excavation, or grading work shall be started on this Landfill facility until a plan for the water supply system has been submitted to and approved by the County Health Services Department. .8 Fire Protection Component. The Landfill operator shall develop and implement a Fire Protection Component meeting the requirements of the East Diablo Fire Protection District to contain and extinguish fires originating on the Landfill property and off-site fires caused by landfill operations. It shall include a training for all employees. The program shall be subject to the approval,of the County Health Services Department. :9- Fire Fighting Water Main. The Landfill developer shall provide sufficient size and quantity of above-ground main, which when connected to the respective storage tank, shall be capable of supplying the required portable monitor (see Condition 30.12) with a minimum fire flow of 1,000 GPM delivered to the working face of any open cell in the Landfill operation. .10 Fire Cover. The Landfill operator shall store a supply of soil nearby the working face to be used for fire suppressant. The adequacy of the cover stockpile shall be determined by the County Health Services Department in cooperation with the East Diablo Fire Protection District. .11 On-Site Water Storage. The Landfill developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection which shall include on-site storage. The storage tanks) shall have a useable capacity of not less than 240,000 gallons of water and shall be capable of delivering a continuous flow of 1,000 gallons per minute. 1\ 42. .12 Fire Fighting Appliance. The Landfill operator shall provide a minimum of one (1) approved portable master-stream firefighting appliance (monitor) located within fifty (50) feet of each work- ing face of any open cell in the Landfill. .13 Fire Breaks. The Landfill developer shall provide and maintain firebreaks as follows: a) A minimum 100-foot firebreak around the perimeter of each Landfill disposal area, b) A minimum 60- foot firebreak around the perimeter of the entire site and around any buildings or similar structures. The firebreaks shall be placed to minimize any adverse visual effects. Their locations shall be subject to the approval of the East Diablo Fire Protec- tion District. The firebreaks shall be included in the Develop- ment and Improvements Plan. .14 Fire Extinguishers. The Landfill operator shall provide Landfill equipment with fire extinguishers large enough to fight small fires on the equipment or on the Landfill. The extinguishers and their distribution shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services Department and the East Diablo Fire Protection District. .15 Equipment and Cleaning. See Condition 20.25. .16 Smoldering Loads. The Landfill operator shall check incoming loads and direct vehicles hauling smoking or burning trash to a designated place apart from the current fill area. The loads shall be dumped immediately and the- fire extinguished before the waste is incorporated into the fill. .17 Emergency Equipment Access. The Landfill operator shall desig- nate access points and routes for: local fire protection agency -- access to all parts of the Landfill. The access points shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan and shall be subject to the approval of the East Diablo Fire Protection District'. .18 Smoking Prohibitions. The Landfill operator shall prohibit smoking on the Landfill except in designated areas. In no event shall smoking be allowed near the working face of the Landfill and the fuel storage area. Signs shall be clearly posted and enforced. .19 Toilets. The Landfill operator shall provide portable chemical toilets near the active disposal area for use of workers and drivers. Their placement and maintenance shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services Department. I ` 43. 31. WASTE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY .1 Waste Reduction and Resource Recovery Objective! The Landfill operator shall manage the facility in such a manner that .complies with the State's waste management hierarchy of source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and land disposal; and that is consistent with the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. .2 1990-1995 Resource Recovery Program. The Landfill operator shall participate with the transfer station(s) operator(s) , route collection companies and direct haulers in designing and imple- menting a resource recovery and recycling program for the service area which is consistent with the goal of diverting 25 percent of all solid waste generated in the County from landfill facilities by January 1, 1995. .3 1996-2000 Resource Recovery Program. Prior to 1995, the Landfill operator shall prepare and submit for review and approval by the County Community Development Department a resource recovery and recycling program for the service area, covering the period from 1996-2000, which is consistent with the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan's goal of diverting a total of 50 percent of all solid waste generated in the County from landfill facili- ties by January 1, 2000. .4 Materials Recovery. The Landfill. operator shall.. prepare. and implement a program for recovering recyclable !materials from refuse loads brought directly to the Landfill. ; The operator shall coordinate the material recovery program with the opera- tor(s) of a transfer station(s) serving the Landfill. The program shall be consistent with the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan and shall be subject to the approval of the County Community Development Department. I .5 Composting Project. The Landfill operator .shall develop and implement a pilot program for composting organic material at the Landfill site. The program may occur off-site,: and shall be approved by the County Health Services and Community Development Departments. The compost shall be used for Landfill landscaping, cover material or other approved uses. The purpose of the pilot project shall be to determine the feasibility of large-scale on- site composting. The composting operations shall meet the State Department of Health Services' regulations on land application, if applicable. The pilot project shall be in operation within six months of the opening of the Landfill. Its results shall be considered at the second Land Use Permit review. .6 Wood Chipping. The Landfill operator shall establish a program to encourage landscape services and construction/demolition material haulers to segregate wood material for chipping. The program shall be approved by the County Community Development Department and shall be placed in operation within six months of the Landfill's opening. 44. .7 Methane .Recovery. The Landfill operator shall explore the use of methane in Landfill gas collected for air pollution reduction, as . .a fuel or commodity. The .operator shall report findings to the Community Development Department at the time of the Landfill's periodic reviews. If there is an economic use found for recov- ered methane, and if the County subsequently includes the use in its Integrated Waste Management Plan, the Landfill operator shall implement the methane recovery program. .8 Equipment Maintenance. The Landfill operator shall maintain motorized Landfill equipment to assure maximum fuel efficiency. .9 County Resource Recovery Management Program. When directed by the County, the Landfill operator shall impose a tonnage sur- charge adequate to support a County Resource Recovery Management Program consisting of the Office of Resource Recovery Management and its program. The cost of the program to be supported by the surcharge shall not exceed $100,000 at 1987 levels. If other solid waste disposal facilities are subject to this or a similar condition, the County may pro-rate the cost of the program among them according to a formula approved by the Board of Supervisors. 10.. Fund Recovery. The Landfill owner .may recover funds provided to the County in advance of the opening of the Landfill through subsequent rate adjustments or surcharges approved by the County. The County may pro-rate the cost of the program among other waste disposal facilities it approves which are subject to similar conditions. 32. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND CONDITIONS .1- Hours of Construction. The Landfill developer shall restrict outdoor construction activities to the period from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. .2 Exemption. The Landfill developer may request, in writing, and the Director of Community Development may grant, exemptions to Condition 32.1 for specific times for cause.. An example is the placing of concrete. .3 Access Roads. Before commencing Landfilling operations, the Landfill developer shall install and pave the site access road from Marsh Creek Road to the Phase I excavation area (see Initial Facilities Site Plan drawing of the Initial Development and Improvements Plan, Condition 14.1) . This installation shall include the new bridge over Marsh Creek and the turnaround lane. 45. .4 Phasing Plan. The Landfill developer shall design a Phasing Plan setting forth a schedule of construction activities and projects, with detailed information provided on sensitive installations such as the Landfill liner and the leachate collection and gas management systems. Sensitive installation projects shall be subject to inspection by the Geotechnical Inspector (Condition 16.5) . The necessary installations of the Surface Drainage System (Condition 18.2) and Surface Water Management and Sediment Control Plan (Condition 18.4) shall be in place before major excavations commence in order to ensure controlled surface water runoff. .5 Dust Suppression. The developer shall sprinkle or chemically treat graded areas and temporary pavements to control dust, as determined necessary by the County Health Services Department. 33. CLOSURE AND POSTCLOSURE MAINTENANCE .1 Submittal of Plan. The Landfill operator shall. submit to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Califor- nia Integrated Waste Management Board, and the County Health Services Department, a plan for the closure of the Landfill and postclosure maintenance of the Landfill as required by State law, but no later than, upon application for a Solid Waste Facilities Permit. Copies of the closure and postclosure maintenance plans shall be submitted to the County Community Development and Health Services Departments. .2 Funding of Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan: The Land- fill operator shall submit to the Board of Supervisors and California Integrated Waste Management Board evidence of finan- cial ability to provide for the cost of closure and postclosure maintenance in an amount not less than the estimated cost of closure and 15 years of postclosure maintenance, as contained in the submitted closure and postclosure maintenance :plan. Evidence of financial ability shall be in the form of a trust fund ap- proved by the Board of Supervisors in which funds will be deposited on an annual basis in amounts sufficient to meet closure and postclosure costs, when needed, or an equivalent financial arrangement acceptable to the Board of Supervisors and the California Integrated Waste Management Board. The operator shall maintain a trust fund balance that equals or exceeds the requirements of State law or regulation, notwithstanding however, that the trust fund balance shall be at least equal to the then current closure and postclosure cost estimate at, such time that the Landfill has reached one-half of the permitted capacity. The Trust Fund balance requirement shall be appropriately adjusted if the Landfill is closed in stages under Condition 33.4. 46. .3 Revision to Plan and Cost Estimates. Should state law or regula- tion regarding closure and postclosure maintenance plan and funding of the plan change at any time, the Landfill operator shall submit any required changes to the. closure and postclosure maintenance plan and/or evidence of financial ability to the Board of Supervisors at the same time as submittal to the appli- cable state or regional agency. .4 Staged. Closure of the Landfill. The Landfill operator shall close the Landfill in stages if compatible with the filling sequence and the overall closure plan. .5 Use of Landfill Following Closure. . Use of the Landfill site subsequent to closure shall be in the public interest and shall be for open space only. The Board of Supervisors may require the Landfill operator to deed all development rights for the Landfill site to the County to ensure fulfilment of this condition. .6 Posclosure Maintenance. The Landfill operator shall institute a postclosure maintenance program to ensure that containment and monitoring facilities retain their integrity. If damaged areas are found, the operator shall notify the County and take remedial actions to prevent odor and Landfill gas problems. 34. ABANDONED VEHICLE STORAGE .1 Storage Requirement. The Landfill operator shall provide a minimum 10-acre area on the Landfill site for the storage of abandoned vehicles awaiting salvaging, if required by the Board of Supervisors. The storage site operator shall accept only vehicles directed to the site by a. law enforcement agency -- operating in Contra Costa County, which shall be responsible for the vehicle until its title is conveyed to a salvager. The site would provide storage only; operations of disposing, salvaging, and security of abandoned vehicles shall not be the responsibili- ty of the operator. The site may be subject to further planning and development approvals, and would be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. The storage of abandoned vehicles shall be subject to conditions-set by the County Health Services Department, and may be subject to the approvals of regulatory agencies having jurisdiction. .2 Off-site Storage Option. The Landfill operator may establish the abandoned vehicle storage area at another location, which shall be subject to the approval of the County Community Development Department. ' 47. 35. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL .1 Land Use. a. The applicant shall put forth a good faith effort to purchase the four existing properties directly across Marsh Creek Road from the project site. A good faith effort shall be deemed to mean a bona fide offer to purchase the properties for their fair market value, as such is determined in an appraisal prepared by a qualified real estate appraiser acceptable to the County. b. The areas of the project site not needed for landfill or related operations will be left in open space or compatible uses. .2 Community Service and Utilities. i a. The applicant shall cooperate with the Contra Costa Water District to notify the East Diablo Fire Protection District of the timing and duration of any use of fire hydrants for temporary water supply to the project site. The applicant shall cooperate with the Water District to provide precise water demand figures and truck filling times to the Fire Protection District, and to install meters on each fire hydrant used. b. The applicant shall participate in the East Diablo Fire Protection District's benefitassessment program for ongoing operational costs and pay new development fees for on-time costs for stations and equipment in the same manner as other new development and commercial operations in; the East County area. i C. The applicant shall wash equipment daily iduring landfill operations to wash away refuse collected in the machinery and to loosen grease and oil. This condition is a standard Solid Waste Facilities Permit requirement, and to the extent of any conflict between this condition and the requirements of a Solid Waste Facilities Permit, the Solid Waste Facilities Permit shall govern. i d. The applicant shall regularly inspect landfill machinery and vehicles operated by the applicant for electrical shorts and hydraulic or fuel line leaks. This condition is a standard Solid Waste Facilities Permit requirement, and to the extent of any conflict between this condition and the requirements of a Solid Waste Facilities Permit, the Solid Waste Facilities Permit shall govern. 48. . e. The . applicant shall provide spark arrestors for all earth-moving equipment operating at the project site. This condition is a standard Solid Waste Facilities Permit requirement, and to the extent of any conflict between this condition and the requirements of a Solid Waste Facilities Permit, the Solid Waste Facilities Permit shall govern. f. On any dead-end fire department access road in excess of 150 feet in length on the project .site, the applicant shall provide approved areas for turnaround of fire department apparatus. g. Where there is open space on the project site for public or private use, the applicant shall provide access or the Fire Protection District into these areas from public ways. These access ways or fire trails shall be a minimum of 16 feet in width to accommodate fire equipment. h. All open spaces on the project site shall be left in their natural state in accordance with the East Diablo Fire Protection District's weed abatement standards. i. A fire safety plan shall be included in the applicant's closure plan, and to the extent necessary and feasible, monitoring and flaring of methane gas shall continue during post-closure use of the project site. j . The applicant shall apply to and obtain from the East Diablo Fire Protection District for any District permits which may be required to comply with Fire Code requirements. k. Prior to construction, the applicant shall contact all entities operating pipelines on or adjacent to the project site to precisely locate any such pipelines and associated equipment and to identify appropriate precautionary measures tobe taken during construction and development of the project site. .3 Water Service The applicant shall provide 24-hour access to the reservoir on the project site for the Contra Costa Water District. .4 Aesthetics and Visual Quality The applicant shall avoid use of the stand-by borrow area, if possible. 49. I .5 Public Health and Safety a. The applicant shall monitor leachate for hazardous wastes and increase screening of incoming waste loads if hazardous wastes are present in the leachate in any significant amount, in accordance with the requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. b. If, as a result of monitoring, the County Health Services Department as the local enforcement agency determines that there is a vector problem, the LEA may require the applicant to use a professional pest control service, and the applicant shall comply with this requirement. C. The applicant shall design and maintain the sedimentation basins for the landfill to minimize mosquito problems. d. The applicant shall provide to the County an annual summary of leachate monitoring, uses of leachate on the project site, and treatment methods. This annual summary may be combined with the applicant's compliance with mitigation monitoring requirements imposed in connection with this Land Use Permit. e. The bird control program for the landfill shall emphasize methods that are least likely to kill or injure birds. f. The applicant shall include habitat modification in the site revegetation plan pursuantto which appropriate areas will be seeded to obtain vegetative growth of 10 to 12 inches in height to discourage birds. .6 - Traffic and Circulation In connection with implementation of any bicycle: and pedestrian path system, the applicant shall investigate alternate bicycle and pedestrian path routes to determine if sites other than along the haul route are feasible. .7 Cultural Resources The applicant shall consult with the local Native American community regarding the archaeological program for testing and excavation of prehistoric archaeological sites. .8 Vegetation a. The applicant shall conduct routine inspections for rodent and fly breeding, and cooperate with the County in allowing routine County Health Services Department (as LEA) inspections for rodent or fly breeding. If signs of rodent or fly- breeding are observed, and if required by the Health Services Department, the applicant shall consult with a pest control specialist. 50. b. The applicant shall conduct routine inspections of surface drainage facilities and access roads, such routine inspections to be made at least daily during high rainfall periods. Erosion control measures such as mulching or temporary berms should be instituted as soon as possible if problems are detected. C. The applicant shall maintain a stockpile of low permeability soils on the project site. .9 Air Quality a. The applicant shall include routine inspections in the - post-closure plan, with daily inspection during .:. high-intensity rainfall to determine if vegetative soil cover areas, monitoring facilities, or the final cover are damaged. Damaged areas shall be repaired as soon as weather conditions permit. b. No buildings shall be constructed over the landfill itself. C. There shall be a 100-foot buffer area surrounding the landfill. This buffer area may be coordinated with other buffers to be provided pursuant to the Conditions of Approval, and may be provided on the project site. d. To the extent that any air quality regulation contained. in these conditions of approval conflicts with the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District shall govern. e. The applicant shall adopt and implement an odor control program to minimize odor impacts on Marsh Creek Road. .10 Litter a. The applicant shall implement the following measures to control potential litter problems: minimizing push distances for waste, designing fill plans to minimize exposure to the wind, compacting waste immediately after off-loading, engineered wind berms when necessary, and prohibiting use of tippers to off-load the waste from transfer trucks. b. The applicant shall increase the amount of litter fencing and the number of employee hours devoted to litter pickup, if litter remains a problem in off-site areas. 51. C. The landfill shall be operated in a manner which prevents litter from adversely affecting nearby properties, including the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. The applicant shall immediately resolve any litter problems affecting nearby properties, including the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. .11 Noise a. The applicant shall maintain a 100-foot buffer zone between the landfill and adjacent sensitive receptors. This buffer zone may be coordinated with other buffer zones to be provided pursuant to these Conditions of Approval, and may be provided on the project site. b. If determined to be necessary and practicable to eliminate noise impacts, the applicant shall participate in the future funding of sound walls at appropriate locations along the haul route. If a citizens' or advisory committee is established with respect to this project, the applicant shall work with this committee to determine sites where sound walls may be required. .12 Geology and Soils The applicant shall advise employees and nearby residents of emergency evacuation procedures. If requested,' the applicant shall cooperate with the County in formulating an appropriate education program. .13 Engineering Design Review The applicant shall maintain a minimum solid-to-liquid ratio of -- 5:1 by weight or such other ratio .as is required, by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. i .14 Fiscal Impacts I The applicant shall fund the periodic evaluation of pavement conditions along the haul route. 36. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL i .1 Transportation System Impact Fee. The Landfill ; operator shall pay to the County of Contra Costa a Transportation Impact Fee of $2.00 per ton of waste received at the Landfill to mitigate the general impacts of the Landfill-generated traffic ;on the County's road system. The operator shall deposit the fee monies quarterly in a segregated account established by the County. The fee shall be considered to be a pass-through business cost for the purposes of rate setting. 52. .2 Open Space and Agricultural Preservation Fee. The Landfill operator shall pay to the County of Contra Costa an Open Space and Agricultural Preservation Fee of $2.00 per ton on solid wastes received at the Landfill to mitigate the general impacts of the Landfill on open space, existing and proposed recreational facilities, and agriculture. The operator shall deposit the fee monies quarterly in a segregated account established by the County. The fee shall be considered to be a pass-through business cost for the purposes of rate setting. .3 Property Value Compensation Program. The Landfill operator shall provide funding for the preparation of a property value compensation program study when requested by the County of Contra Costa. The study will address the means of determining the extent of property value losses or reductions attributable to Landfill impacts, such as aesthetics, noise,traffic, or pollution, and the means of compensating property owners for said losses or reductions. When a compensation program is adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the Landfill developer shall fund it in the manner specified by the Board. If the Board of Supervisors determines that progress on the implementation of a compensation program is not proceeding in a timely manner, the Board may require the use of a facilitator and/or an arbitrator. The fee shall be considered to be a pass-through business cost for the purposes of rate setting. .4 Resource . Recovery Program Fee. The Landfill developer or operator shall pay to the County of. Contra Costa a resource recovery program fee of $200,000 annually, beginning April 1, 1990. The developer or operator shall deposit the monies in a segregated account established by the County. The extent of the fee shall be subject to reconsideration when a franchise or agreement is established for the Landfill. The resource recovery program fee from its inception shall be a pass-through business cost for the purposes of rate setting. .5 Violation of Prescribed Haul Route. Upon a determination by the County that a user of the Landfill has violated Condition of Approval Section 29 by using a prohibited access route, and upon a written direction by the County, the Landfill operator shall impose on that user the sanction that is directed by the County. Such sanction may include a surcharge on the tipping fee, prohibition against accepting waste from that user for a designated period of time, revocation of County refuse-hauling license, or other sanction directed by the County. A system for reporting alleged violations and for monitoring enforcement data . shall be established by the County and Landfill operator. CAZ:jal marshfin.coa 3/27/90 C %F46 1P tc BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE MARSH CANYON LANDFILL SITE LAND USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ( "CEQA" ) , AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM LAND USE PERMIT NO. 2010-90 (MARSH CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, California (this "Board" ) adopts the following findings regarding the Marsh Canyon Landfill Site Land Use Permit No. 2010-90 (this "Land Use Permit" ) . I . INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This Land Use Permit is one step in this Board' s efforts to approve additional landfill capacity for Contra Costa County (the "County" ) . This County' s existing landfills are nearing capacity and -,Che County has a pressing peed to develop additional landfill capacity. These findings are adopted by this Board to comply with CEQA' s requirement for findings and generally to explain the Board' s decision in approving this Land Use Permit . _ A. Relation Of This Land Use Permit To The Previously Approved General Plan Amendment And Program EIR. i This Land Use Permit is this Board' s site-specific approval of the Marsh Canyon landfill project, following this Board' s prior adoption of a general plan amendment designating the Marsh Canyon site for a landfill . Pursuant to that general plan amendment and this Land Use Permit, the Marsh Canyon Landfill Site may be developed as a Class II landfill to provide landfill capacity for this County for approximately the next 40 to 70 years. On October 10 , 1989 , by adoption of Resolution 89656, and on October 17 , 1989 , by adoption of Resolution 89683 , this Board approved a general plan amendment designating Marsh Canyon as a sanitary landfill site (County File No. 4-89-CO) . This general plan amendment for the Marsh Canyon Site was adopted as part of an overall action whereby this Board adopted 1 a general plan amendment (the "General Plan Amendment" ) consisting of five severable parts for five sanitary landfill sites (Bay Pointe Sanitary Landfill , Keller Canyon Landfill , East Contra Costa Landfill, Kirker Pass Landfill , and the Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill) . In addition, in December 1989 the County adopted a revised County solid waste management plan ( "CoSWMP" ) . The County was required to take these actions pursuant to the California Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972 , California Government Code sections 66780 et seq. , as then in effect, and pursuant to the peremptory writ of mandamus issued in California Waste Management Board v. Board of SuPervisors, Contra Costa County Superior Court No. 89-00833 (the "Litigation" ) . The Litigation was initiated against the County to require submission of a final revised COSWMP, and the peremptory writ of mandamus required this Board to approve additional landfill capacity. The obligation to approve additional landfill capacity has been included as one of this County' s obligations in its waste export agreements with other counties . The General Plan Amendment and revised CoSWMP were adopted following preparation of a Program EIR (the "Program "EIR" ) for those actions . The County determined that the CEQA documentation for the CoSWMP, the General Plan Amendment, and land use permits or other approvals for individual landfill sites should be prepared in tiers pursuant to CEQA' s authorization of tiered environmental review. The first tier was the Program EIR on the CoSWMP and the General Plan Amendment : ' The second tier of this process is environmental review of individual projects' such as this Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill Site, through a site-specific EIR. The general plan amendment for the five landfill sites :is referred to in- these findings as the "General Plan Amendment . " That part of the general plan amendment for the Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill , pursuant to which this Land Use Permit is adopted, is referred to in these findings as the "Marsh Canyon General Plan Amendment. B. This Land Use Permit . This Land Use Permit is for the construction, development and operation of the Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill Site as described in the staff report, the applicant ' s project description, and in the EIR referenced below. This Land Use Permit is adopted subject to conditions of approval set forth as an exhibit to the Board' s resolution approving this Land Use Permit . These conditions of approval are collectively referred to in these findings as the "Conditions of Approval . " The Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill is a project proposed by Waste Management of North America, Inc . The Marsh 2 Canyon Site i.s under option to a subsidiary of Waste Management of North America, Inc . This option will be contributed to Contra Costa Environmental Technologies, a partnership currently being formed. The Marsh Canyon Landfill ' Site will be operated by Waste Management of North America, Inc . The Marsh Canyon Landfill Site is one of five landfill sites in the 1989 revised CoSWMP which was approved by this Board, by a majority of the County' s cities with a majority of the County' s incorporated area population, and by the California Waste Management Board between August and December 1989 . The Marsh Canyon Landfill Site is located west of Byron, approximately one mile southwest of the intersection of Marsh Creek Road and Deer Valley Road. The Marsh Canyon Landfill Site (sometimes referred to in these findings as the "Project Site" ) consists of approximately 1, 123 acres, of which 290 acres are proposed to be used for landfill, and approximately 20 acres are proposed to be used for support and related facilities . The remainder of the site (about 813 acres) will be kept as buffer areas and open space. The landfill has an estimated refuse capacity of 87 million cubic yards, and is estimated to provide all needed refuse capacity for the County for 40 to 70 years . The overall construction, development and operation of the Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill pursuant to this Land Use Permit and the Conditions of Approval , and the development of the Project Site, may be collectively referred to in these findings as the ""Project . " This Land Use Permit. is .the basic entitlement from this County for development of the Marsh Canyon Landfill Site, although the Project cannot be developed until the County has approved a Final Development and Improvements Plan as well as a franchise agreement for operation of the landfill . The applicant also must obtain certain regulatory agency approvals, including permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Integrated Waste Management Board, prior to operating a landfill on the site. County staff has estimated that it will take approximately two years for the applicant to obtain these required additional approvals and return to the County for approval of a Final Development and Improvements Plan. C. The Environmental Impact Report . The California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA" ) , as amended, and the State CEQA Guidelines require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR" ) for certain public and private sector projects requiring discretionary actions by California' s governments . The discretionary power to approve this Land Use Permit and the Project resides with the County, 3 and the Country is the Lead Agency pursuant to CEQA for the issuance of this Land Use Permit .and the Project . The County prepared an initial study dated April 6 , 1989 , on this Project . The initial study concluded that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment and concluded that an EIR was required. Accordingly, the County as Lead Agency determined that an EIR was required for .this Project and, on April 13, 1989 , issued a Notice of Preparation to the State Clearinghouse and to various public agencies, organizations. and individuals . This Notice of Preparation contained a project description, notice of a public scoping meeting and the County' s initial study. Comments were received on the Notice of Preparation through May 12 , 1989, and at a public scoping meeting on April 28 , 1989 . The County determined that the CEQA documentation for the Marsh Canyon Landfill Site would be prepared in tiers . The first tier was the Program EIR referenced above. The second tier of this process is the EIR on this Land Use Permit , which is a site-specific EIR. In November, 1989 , the Draft EIR for- this orthis Land Use Permit was published by the County and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, concerned citizens, and other agencies . The County Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on this Draft EIR in the City of Brentwood on December 11 , 1989 . The public review period -ended on December.. 28; 1989 . The comments made at the public hearing, the written. comments submitted,-and the responses to those comments arb contained in the Response Document. that is part of the Final EIR on this Land Use Permit. On February 5, 1990 , the Final EIR for the Land Use Permit was published, consisting of the Draft EIR and the Response Document . In addition, pursuant to provisions in the Draft EIR and in the Response Document, the Final EIR incorporated a number of. other documents, including the previously referenced Program EIR. The County published a notice of completion on February 5 , 1990 , and sent copies of this notice together with the Final EIR Response Document to those persons who submitted comments on the Draft EIR, and to government'-agencies which may use the EIR in making further decisions on this Project. This notice stated that copies of the Final EIR would be available for review at the Contra Costa County central and branch libraries, . and at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. On February 7, 1990 , the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator adopted a resolution finding that the Final EIR for this Land Use Permit was prepared, processed and completed in accordance with CEQA and the State and County Guidelines , and finding that the EIR is adequate in its coverage of 4 environmental. impacts, mitigation measures, . alternatives, and other environmental effects that could result from the adoption of this Land Use Permit . In adopting this resolution, the Zoning Administrator also transmitted the Final EIR to this Board with the recommendation that it be certified. On February 7, 1990 , the County Planning Commission held a special meeting and public hearing on the Land Use Permit . By a vote of 6 to 1 , the Planning Commission recommended to this Board the approval of the Land Use Permit, subject to certain conditions of approval . On February 13 , 1990 , this Board held a public hearing regarding certification of the Final EIR for this Land Use Permit . This hearing was combined with a hearing on certification of the Final EIR for the Keller Canyon Landfill Site. No one appeared at this public hearing to challenge the adequacy of the EIR on the Marsh Canyon Landfill Site. On February 13 , 1990 , this Board unanimously certified that the Final EIR had been completed in compliance with CEQA. On February 13 , 1990 , following the hearing on the Final EIR, this Board held a public hearing on this Land Use Permit during which oral and written testimony wasireceived. This hearing was closed as to further oral testimony on February 13, and the Board directed staff to accept written comments on this Land Use Permit through February 20 , 1989 . On March 13 , 1990, this Board stated its intent to approve the Land Use Permit and instructed County staff to prepare conditions of approval and to prepare these findings . At its March 13 meeting, the Board also stated its intent. to adopt, -as a general policy, a generic mitigation program, applicable to any landfill to be approved, of tonnage fees totalling approximately $6/ton. These fees include a general road improvement fee of $2/ton, an open space fee of $2/ton, and a general host community mitigation fee of $2/ton. The County, as the lead agency, has determined that a written finding shall be prepared for each potentially significant impact identified in the EIR. In addition, as required by Public Resources Code section 21081 . 6, this Board adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for this Land Use Permit, as set forth below in these findings . Finally, this Board adopts conditions of ;approval in addition to those attached to the Board' s resolution, in order to clarify and expand upon certain conditions and to incorporate additional mitigation measures from the EIR. 5 For. purposes of these findings, the EIR for this Land Use Permit consists of : the Draft EIR; the Final EIR including the Response Document dated February 1990; the initial study for the Land Use Permit; all documents incorporated into the the EIR ( including all appendices) ; all notices of preparation, completion, and other notices relating to the EIR, and this Land Use Permit; and all appendices, exhibits, supplements, and. documents incorporated by reference into the EIR. The Program EIR is incorporated into the EIR, as stated in the EIR. In addition, a summary of this Board' s and the County' s prior consideration of other landfill sites is incorporated by reference into this EIR. The EIR contains a summary of the following reports and the reasons why various sites analyzed in these reports were rejected prior to approval of this Land Use Permit : 1) the Solid Waste Management Project report done by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District in cooperation with Contra Costa. County in February 1985; 2) the Southeast County Landfill Siting Study, prepared for Contra Costa County in June 1986; and 3) the Final Report of the Landfill Siting Task Force adopted by this Board of Supervisors on July 21 , 1987 ; This Board finds that the Program EIR is properly incorporated into the EIR pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines . By incorporating these studies into the Program EIR and into the EIR, and by incorporating the Program EIR into this EIR, this Board has notified the public that these documents are a part of the environmental documentation for this Land Use Permit . This Board has reviewed the Program EIR and these reports in its consideration of the Project and this Land Use Permit, and the EIR contains a summary of the information in these reports that supports this Board' s decision. The EIR for this Land Use Permit and the Project may be collectively referred to in these findings as the "EIR" or the "Final -EIR" . D. Certification Of The EIR. In adopting these findings, this Board again certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and that it was presented to, and reviewed and considered by, this Board prior to approving this Land Use Permit and the Project. 6 E. Adoption Of County Policies . This Board hereby adopts general policies .in regard to this Project as set forth in Exhibit "A" hereto . The general policies are based upon recommendations in the EIR, and this Board intends that these policies shall be binding upon the County and the applicant . Exhibit "B" attached to these findings , is incorporated into these findings as if set forth in full . This Board intends that this exhibit is duly adopted and approved by this Board as a part of these findings and as a part of this Board' s approval of the Land Use Permit . F. Mitigation Measures - General Findings . These findings contain numerous specific findings based upon mitigation measures set forth in the EIR. With respect to each finding set forth in these findings relating to mitigation measures , incorporation of mitigation measures into this Project, or imposition of mitigation measures as Conditions of Approval, this Board makes the following additional findings : 1 . Except where specifically stated to the contrary in these findings, all of the mitigation 'measures recommended in the EIR have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval , either by adoption of additional conditions of approval as set forth above or by inclusion in the listing of conditions, of approval attached as an exhibit to this Board' s resolution approving the Land Use Permit . Although the Conditions of Approval may not use the exact wording of the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR, in each such instance, the adopted Condition of Approval is identical to or substantially similar to the recommended mitigation measure. Unless specifically stated to; the contrary, all such measures are, and are intended to be, equally effective in avoiding or lessening the identified impact as are the mitigation measures as worded in the EIR. In each instance where this Board states in these findings that one or more-mitigation measures are adopted, this Board means that such measures or their substantial equivalent is adopted. 2 . In some instances, mitigation measures are recommended which are within the jurisdiction of other agencies . In each such case where mitigation measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another agency, and not this County, such changes either have been adopted by the other agency as a part of its regulations or other enactments, or can and should be adopted by such other agency in passing upon approvals required for this Project . 7 3 . The EIR states that none of the recommended mitigation measures themselves give rise to any significant environmental impacts , unless such an impact is identified in the EIR. The EIR identifies two recommended mitigation measures which might result in significant impacts .- (i) mpacts :(i) implementation of an energy recovery facility and ( ii) the possible requirement of transfer stations and exclusion of self-haulers.. The findings of this Board regarding these measures are set forth below. With respect to all other mitigation measures , this Board adopts the EIR' s determination that these measures themselves will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts . 4 . The status of implementation of the mitigation measures which are incorporated into or imposed upon this Project and this Land Use Permit shall be included in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program as set forth in Section VII , below, of these findings . Compliance with these mitigation measures is subject to the continuing control of the County. 5 . It is this Board' s intent to adopt all mitigation measures recommended by the EIR unless such measures have been rejected or modified by these findings . If a measure has through error been omitted from the Conditions of Approval or from these findings, it shall be deemed adopted by these findings . 6 . In. adopting . these findings , this Board- intends to adopt complete and thorough findings with respect to all .matters discussed in the EIR. This Board hereby incorporates into these findings, and adopts as its-own findings and conclusions, the findings and conclusions set forth in the EIR; except that this incorporation of the EIR' s findings and conclusions shall not apply in any case where the EIR' s findings and conclusions are contradicted by a finding or statement in these findings . G. Description Of The Record. The record before this Board relating to this Land Use Permit includes, without limitation, the following: 1 . The application for this Land Use Permit, together with all documents, files and reports on this Land Use Permit maintained by the County Community Development Department; 2 . The application for the Marsh Canyon General Plan Amendment, together with all documents, files and reports on: (a) the Marsh Canyon General Plan Amendment and (b) the other provisions and parts of the General Plan Amendment (all 8 . such documents, files, and reports being maintained by the County Community Development Department) ; 3 . All staff reports on this Land ;Use Permit; 4 . All staff reports on the Marsh ' Canyon General Plan Amendment and on the other provisions or parts of -the General Plan Amendment; 5 . All staff reports on other landfill sites; 6 . All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed by the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission and this Board before and during the public hearings on this Land Use Permit and the EIR; 7 . The Final EIR on this Land Use Permit, including all notices relating to the EIR and all documents and reports incorporated by reference into the EIR; 8 . The Program EIR, including all notices relating to the Program EIR and all documents and. reports incorporated by reference into the Program EIR; 9 . All EIRs and related notices, appendices and reports, which have been prepared for other landfill sites, including without limitation all EIRs which have been prepared for the Keller Canyon, Kirker Pass, Bay Pointe and East Contra Costa Landfill sites; 10 . All applications, studies , EIRs, and other environmental or other documentation pertaining to any alternate landfill sites which have been prepared: or submitted to the County; i 11 . The Solid Waste Management Project Report prepared by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District in cooperation with the County in February 1985; 12 . The Southeast County Landfill Siting Study, prepared for the County by a consultant in June 1986; 13 . The final report of the Landfill Siting Task Force adopted by this Board on July 21, 1987; 14 . All pleadings, court orders, judgments, writs and returns in the Litigation referenced above in Section I .A; and 15 . All matters of common knowledge and all official enactments and acts of the County, such as (a) the 9 County General Plan, (b) the County Code, (c) other County policies and regulations, (d) the County Solid Waste Management Plan and revisions to it, and (e) applicable state and Federal laws, rules , and regulations . The discussions and findings which follow for each category of possible environmental impact recite some of the background information relating to this Land Use Permit . All findings made by this Board herein are each based on all of the facts in the entire record before this Board, including without limitation the information which is recited in the discussion in each particular category of these findings . This Board intends that any finding or determination required or permitted to be made by this Board shall be deemed to be made if it appears in any portion of this document or elsewhere in any Board order , resolution or ordinance pursuant to which these findings are prepared or to which these findings are attached, and that all of the text included in this document constitutes findings and determinations by this Board, whether or not any particular caption, sentence or clause includes a statement to the effect that this Board is making a finding. The discussions of facts in the categories set forth ..,below may be primarily or entirely based upon the EIR in some instances , but this Board intends that each finding herein is based on the entire record, including without limitation all written and oral testimony to the Zoning Administrator , the Planning Commission and this Board. The omission of any relevant fact from the summary discussions below is not an indication by this -Board that a particular finding is not based in part on the omitted fact . In certain instances , this Board adopts findings in the alternative regarding mitigation measures, project alternatives, or other matters . In each such case, this Board is adopting such findings in the alternative because there are one or more grounds for the particular finding, or one or more findings to . support this Board' s action, and each of the alternative findings is 'supported by substantial evidence in the record. If any one alternative finding is rejected by a reviewing court for any reason, this Board intends that all other findings on the particular subject matter shall remain as the findings of this Board on the particular matter . II . FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED IN THE INITIAL STUDY NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT This Board adopts and makes the following findings regarding those certain potential environmental impacts of this 10 Land Use Permit General Plan Amendment and the Project which were determined in the initial study not to be potentially significant adverse environmental impacts . j I A. Facts . 1 . The initial study on this Project contains an explanation for its conclusions following each of the questions appearing in the initial study. In addition, the EIR at page C&R-396 explains why it was determined that this Project will not have potentially significant adverse impacts on the environment in certain areas or categories of impact . These impacts determined to be insignificant are also discussed on page S-39 of the Draft EIR and following. 2 . This Land Use Permit and the Project will not have a potentially significant adverse effect in reducing development on surrounding lands, on local electrical , gas , telephone, police and school and parks services and will not have a significant impact on other governmental services . This Project will not substantially reduce public water supply, alter the course of water or change the amount of surface water on any body of water . 3 . This Project will have its own emergency response program. This Project will not generate .significant parking demands,.. because only a small amount of space is required for employees, visitors and landfill equipment . 4 . The Project will not affect unique ethnic cultural values or restrict access to or use of sacred or religious areas, or destroy paleontological resources . The impact of the Project on site CA-CCo-542H, a historic rock shelter, is not significant because this rock shelter is not historically significant . 5. No rare, threatened or endangered plant species were identified on the site, so the reduction in such species is not a significant impact of the Project . Implementation of the Project would not have a significant impact on air movement, moisture, temperature or local or regional climates . 6 . The Marsh Canyon Site is not unique, as it is typical of upland ridge and valley areas of Eastern Contra Costa County and no geologically important features were encountered at the site . B. Findings . This Board finds that : 11 ;. 1 . With respect to the categories of impact set forth above, 'this Land Use Permit and the Project will not have a potentially significant adverse impact on the environment . 2 . Because- these impacts were determined to be insignificant in the initial study, no mitigation measures are required to be adopted pursuant to CEQA relating to the foregoing insignificant impacts, no analysis of these impacts is required in the EIR, and no finding is required regarding these impacts . 3 . To the extent that these impacts might be characterized as significant by persons disagreeing with this Board' s findings, this Board finds that the environmental , public health, economic, social and other benefits of this Land Use Permit and the Project outweigh and override any such purported significant impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section VI , below) . III . POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT . IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE AVOIDED OR SUBSTANTIALLY LESSENED BY ADOPTION OR INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES This Section III of these findings includes the findings of this Board for the impacts of the Project that can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The Final EIR states on page C&R-385 of the Response Document that all potentially;.significant impacts _of =the Project which are not listed in the EIR in Section IV.A or in Table S-1 , Part A (pages S-5 to S-9 of the Draft EIR) have been determined to be capable of mitigation to a level of insignificance by the imposition of mitigation measures . This Board finds that all potential impacts of this Project which are not listed in the EIR either in Section IV.A or in Table S-1, Part A, can and will be mitigated to insignificance. The specific findings of this Board for each category of such impacts are set forth below in this Section III . The findings of this Board regarding unavoidable impacts of the Project (those impacts listed in the pages of the EIR referenced above) are set forth in Section IV, below (findings regarding unavoidable impacts) and in Section VI , below (the Statement of Overriding Considerations) of these findings . A. Land Use And Planning 1 . Facts . (a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on land use and planning at pages III-1 through 12 III-28 . The only impacts, of the Project on land use and planning which are listed as unavoidable are the effect on four residences directly across the Marsh Creek Road from the Project Site, the removal of acreage from grazing„ and elimination of one cattle operation. (b) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to these impacts of the Project at pages III-25 , III-26, C&R-89 , C&R-91 , C&R-161 , and C&R 386 . One of these, compliance with other mitigation measures generally, is incorporated into the Project by the imposition of the Conditions of Approval based upon the other mitigation measures listed in the EIR. Out of the remaining mitigation measures, the measures relating to grazing are not incorporated into or imposed upon this Project, and the other mitigation measures listed or recommended in the EIR are all incorporated into the Conditions of Approval . (c) The EIR lists several mitigation measures relating to grazing. Phased construction of the project if determined to be appropriate by the County to permit grazing to continue is listed as part of the project proposal , and a grazing feasibility study, continued grazing activity on the site, and bringing new land into grazing use are listed as proposed mitigation measures . These measures are -not incorporated into this Project or imposed as Conditions of Approval . (d) Grazing on the Project Site has substantially reduced the: environmental and biotic, value of the Site. In the discussion of mitigation measures for vegetation impacts, the EIR recommends elimination of grazing of the Project Site to allow natural restoration of the degraded grassland now found there. Imposition of continued grazing as a mitigation measure is not consistent with imposition of this and other recommended mitigation measures discussed in the EIR. (e) The impact of the Project on land use and planning matters generally is not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable or irreversible impact of the Project, and the only land use impacts .listed as unavoidable are the impact on the four residences across Marsh Creek Road, the loss of grazing land, and the elimination of one cattle operation. i 2 . Findings. This Board finds that : (a) All of the mitigation measures relating to land use and planning have been incorporated into or imposed 13 upon the Project , excepting only those measures relating to grazing which are rejected as set forth below. (b) The mitigation measures providing for phased construction to allow grazing, grazing onsite, a feasibility study of grazing during landfill operation, and bringing additional lands into grazing are rejected as infeasible and undesirable. These measures are not incorporated into the Project or imposed as Conditions of Approval . These measures are infeasible because they conflict with other mitigation measures recommended. by the EIR and because these measures will further damage the plant resources on the Project Site . The other measures with which these grazing measures conflict include measures to improve and enhance vegetation and habitat on the Project Site. These other measures are more important than the grazing measures for the following reasons : ( i) the Project Site has been degraded in the past by grazing, ( ii) the enhancement of vegetation and habitat will produce environmental benefits or offset environmental impacts relating to native plants and animals , and ( iii) preserving grazing has a small economic benefit and adverse environmental impact . (c) This Project will be constructed in phases, as stated in the applicant ' s project description and in the EIR. The purpose of constructing the Project in phases is to provide for use of only one part of the Project Site at a time, - and to minimize the working face of the landfill . The purpose of constructing the `Project in phases is not to allow grazing to continue. Constructing the Project in phases so that grazing may continue was originally listed as part of the Project and as a mitigation measure. Although the Project will still be constructed in phases, the mitigation measure calling for phased construction to promote grazing has been rejected as set forth above. To the extent that this minor change constitutes a change in the Project, this change does not constitute a significant change requiring important revisions to the EIR, a change in circumstances, or significant new information, as set forth in further detail in Section VII of these findings (additional environmental findings) . (d) The recommended mitigation measures requiring collectors to regularly collect waste and provide informational notices are in effect by operation of law and by operation of franchise agreements between garbage collectors and this County or cities , as the case may be. Garbage collectors throughout the County are required to collect waste and provide certain notices . These measures are already in effect and thus have been adopted. 14 (e) Except as set forth below in Section IV (findings on unavoidable impacts) , impacts of the project relating to land use and planning will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level . (f) Any land use impacts which remain, despite the land use mitigation measures, are overridden and outweighed by the environmental, public health, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as more fully stated in the Statement ,of Overriding Considerations (Section VI of these findings, below) . B . Community Services And Utilities . 1 . Facts . (a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the • Project on community services and utilities at pages III-29 through III-47 . The EIR does not list any impacts of the Project relating to community services and utilities as unavoidable. (b) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to these impacts of the Project at pages III-41 through III-46, C&R-197 , and C&R-198 .. These mitigation measures include a variety of measures relating to fire protection, police services, road maintenance, waste water treatment and disposal, easements and County solidiwaste management services . (c) All of the recommended mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project through the Conditions of Approval, with certain exceptions . The use of fire retardant foam as a daily cover is not a part! of this Project, although the use of soil for daily cover remains a part of this Project. Mitigation measures applicable to the Contra Costa Water District, such as notice to the' Fire Protection District of fire hydrant use, and notice of construction dates and traffic detours, are within' the jurisdiction of the Contra Costa Water District, and are not part of the -Conditions of Approval . (d) This Project ' s impacts on community services and utilities are not unavoidable or irreversible. 2. Findings . (a) The mitigation measures relating to community services and utilities have been incorporated into or imposed upon this Project, excepting only those measures relating to foam cover (which are rejected) and those measures 15 relating to the Contra Costa Water District (which are within that District' s jurisdiction) . (b) The mitigation measures relating to foam cover are rejected. Use of an artificial foam for daily cover of the waste deposited during that day was initially suggested as part of the Project . The applicant has since determined that there is adequate soil on the Project Site to provide soil as a daily cover . The use of soil is preferred because it avoids any possible adverse impacts of using foam. The use of foam cover accordingly is not part of the Project and is prohibited by the Conditions of Approval . There is accordingly no reason to mitigate the impacts of using foam cover . To the extent that the elimination of foam cover constitutes a change in the Project, this change does not constitute a significant change requiring important revisions to the EIR,,. a change in circumstances, or significant new information, as set forth in further detail in Section VII of these findings (additional environmental findings) . (c) The mitigation measures calling for some action by the Contra Costa Water District (including notice to the East Diablo Fire Protection District of fire hydrant use, and notice of construction dates and traffic detours) are within the jurisdiction of the Contra Costa Water District, which is an independent agency with its own jurisdiction over pipeline construction and related matters . The Water District can and should implement these mitigation measures when the water pipeline is approved or constructed. (d) The mitigation measure providing that the applicant shall pay tonnage fees has been incorporated into this Project by the numerous fee requirements imposed. (e) Impacts of the Project relating to community services and utilities will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level . (f) Any community service and utility impacts which remain, despite the community service and utility mitigation measures, are. overridden and outweighed by the environmental, public health, economic, social and other benefits of this Land Use Permit and of the Project, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section VI of these findings, below) . C. Water Service. 1 . Facts . 16 (a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on water service at pages III-48 through III-57 . (b) The EIR recommends various, mitigation measures relating to these impacts of the Project ;at pages III-55 through III-56 . These mitigation measures include a variety of measures relating to extension of a water main to the Project site, and a number of these measures are recommendations for action by the Contra Costa Water District . (c) The mitigation measures also include encouraging the use of agricultural preserve contracts , and a suggestion that the County could rezone existing designated agricultural lands in order to increase minimum parcel sizes . (d) The impact of the Project on water services is not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable or irreversible impact of the Project. The EIR lists possible growth-inducing results of the water main extension as unavoidable. 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : (a) All of the mitigation measures relating to water service have been incorporated into or imposed upon this Project, excepting only those mitigation measures which are rejected as set forth below, and excepting those mitigation measures which are under the jurisdiction of the Contra Costa Water District . -- (b) The mitigation measure recommending that the County encourage use of agricultural preserve contracts is already in effect in this County. This County has .an existing policy of encouraging such contracts, and such contracts are automatically renewed pursuant to state law in most instances . This mitigation measure accordingly has been adopted by operation of current County policies and state law. (c) The mitigation measure recommending that the County adopt a right-to-farm ordinance is already in effect by operation of state law. California has adopted a "right-to-farm" law which provides that preexisting agricultural uses generally cannot be declared to be nuisances by the owners of newly developed property near the agricultural use. This measure, as prevailing state law, mitigates any possible growth-inducing impacts to an equal or greater extent than the adoption of a county right-to-farm ordinance. This mitigation measure accordingly has been adopted by operation of existing state law. 17 (d) The mitigation measure stating that the County could -�downzone existing agricultural lands is not needed because existing general plan designations , zoning designations, Williamson Act contracts, and County policies minimize or substantially reduce the possibility of development in the Project vicinity. This mitigation measure is apparently recommended to offset perceived growth-inducing impacts of the water main extension. Existing County policies and. designations will help to minimize any possible growth-inducing impact, thus helping to offset any growth-inducing impact of the water main extension. The purchase or current ownership of lands in the Project vicinity by the Park District or other public agencies will also mitigate growth-inducing impacts . (e) The extension of a water main through Marsh Canyon, while it is a necessary precondition to substantialgrowth or development along Marsh Creek Road, is not sufficient in itself to allow such development . General plan designations, zoning designations, Williamson Act contracts, County policies and environmental conditions substantially reduce the possibility of development in the Project vicinity and along Marsh Creek Road. (f) The size of the water main to be extended along Marsh Creek Road is under the jurisdiction of the Contra Costa Water District, and not this County. The Contra Costa Water District can and should, in approving the water main extension, adopt an appropriate size for the water main to serve the landfill and to serve existing surrounding neighbors whose water supply can be improved by extension of the water main, but not to serve extensive or future development . (g) The mitigation measure providing for downzoning of existing agricultural lands is rejected. The existing agricultural lands are generally designated A-2 for general agriculture, and the County has already determined that A-2 zoning is the appropriate designation to promote agricultural use. The purpose of this recommended mitigation measure is to generally protect agricultural uses, and that is also the purpose of the A-2 designation, so this mitigation measure is not necessary. (h) In addition, this Board finds that the appropriate time for considering any downzoning of County agricultural lands generally to protect those lands, to the extent that such a downzoning can reasonably be implemented, is in connection with the proposed revision of the County general 18 I I - i • I • I plan which is currently. scheduled for consideration by the County during this spring of 1990 . This Board is not making Any commitment at this time to downzone existing agricultural lands, and believes and finds that the existing A-2 designation is sufficient to protect agricultural lands from growth-inducing impacts of this Project, together with other measures and limitations as set forth above. ( i) The various mitigation measures applicable to the Contra Costa Water. District are within the Jurisdiction of the Contra Costa Water District, which is an independent public entity with its own jurisdiction over water service matters . These mitigation measures are separating the construction area from active traffic lanes, watering for dust control , use of backfilling or plate trenches, temporary paving, phased construction of the water main, restricted stopping and parking within the construction area, design of the reservoir on the Project Site, use of flagmen or flagwomen, notice to local emergency services with construction plans and services, limiting transport of materials and equipment to off-peak hours , and limiting the hours of water delivery. The Water District can and should implement these mitigation measures during the time that the water main extension is being constructed or planned, or during the time that the reservoir on the Project Site is being constructed and planned, as the case may be. (j ) The mitigation measure recommending that the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). include only the area of the landfill and the Water District ' s sphere of influence amendment is accepted in part, and rejected in part . It is this Board ' s intent that the water main extension which is approved by the �Contra Costa Water District, and the sphere of influence amendment which is approved by LAFCO, will be appropriately restricted so as to limit possible growth-inducing impacts . In particular, this Board accepts this mitigation measure generally, but rejects this mitigation measure to the extent that it is inconsistent with providing treated water to the Clayton Regency Mobilehome Park or to other existing (not future uses or additional development) in the Project vicinity. With this qualification, the area of the sphere of influence amendment is within the jurisdiction of the Contra Costa Water District and the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission, which are both independent agencies with their own jurisdiction over water matters generally and sphere of influence amendments, respectively. The Water District and LAFCO, with their respective jurisdiction over water main extensions and sphere of influence amendments, can and should implement this mitigation measure as modified when and if a sphere of influence amendment is considered. 19 W Except as set forth below in Section IV (findings and unavoidable impacts) , impacts of the Project - relating to water service will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level . The findings of this Board regarding growth-inducing impacts of the water main extension are set forth in Section IV, below. ( 1) Any water service impacts which remain, despite the water service mitigation measures , are overridden and outweighed by the environmental , public health, economic, social and other benefits of the Project as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section VI of these findings, below) . D. Aesthetics . 1 . Facts . (a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on aesthetics and views at pages III-58 through III-78 . The EIR does not list any general impact of the Project relating to aesthetics and views as . unavoidable or irreversible. (b) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to these impacts of the Project at pages III-78, C&R-139 , and C&R-388 . These mitigation measures include. planting of trees and .shrubbery, revegetation, appropriate building materials, . trash collection, ..and other measures to reduce aesthetic and visual impacts . (c) The impact of the Project on four residences directly across from the Project Site is listed in the EIR as an unavoidable impact of this Project, in part based upon visual impacts . This impact on four houses, including the visual impact on those four houses , is discussed in Section III .A, above. The findings of this Board with respect to that impact on the four houses are set forth in part in that section as well . (d) The impact of the Project on aesthetic qualities and views is not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable or irreversible impact of the Project . 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : (a) All of the mitigation measures relating to aesthetics have been incorporated into or imposed upon this Project . 20 I (b) Impacts of the Project relating to aesthetics and views will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level . (c) Any aesthetic and visual impacts which remain, despite the mitigation measures for aesthetics and views, are overridden and outweighed by the environmental,. public health, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section VI of these findings , below) . E . Public Health And Safety. 1 . Facts . (a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on public health and safety at pages III-79 through III-96 . (b) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to public health and safety at pages III-93 through III-95, C&R-87, C&R-97 , C&R-124 , C&R-156, and C&R-257 . Recommended mitigation measures include educational programs, design of sedimentation basins to. minimize mosquito problems, pest control and bird control matters . (c) The EIR includes a number of recommended mitigation measures relating to the use of artificial foam for daily cover at the Project Site. As set forth above, this Project originally included either the use of soil or artificial foam for daily cover . Based on� the determination that sufficient soil is available, . and thus that the adverse impacts of using foam can be avoided, the Project has been modified to eliminate the use of foam cover . The various mitigation measures which would apply to the use of daily foam cover accordingly are not incorporated into the Conditions of Approval . These conditions include use during non-rainy days only, restrictions on the grade of the waste cell to be covered by the foam, approval for one year periods only, a containment area for foam materials, and operation on performance standards . i (d) The impact of the Project on public health and safety is not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable or irreversible impact of the Project. 2. Findings . This Board finds that : i 21 (a) All of the mitigation measures relating to public health and safety impacts have been incorporated. into or imposed upon this Project, excepting only those measures . relating to foam cover (which are rejected) . (b) The mitigation measures relating to foam cover are rejected, because the Project no longer includes foam cover, as previously explained in these findings . The elimination of foam cover from the Project avoids any adverse impacts of using foam .cover, so that it is not necessary or desirable to adopt mitigation measures to reduce those impacts . (c) Impacts of the Project relating to public health and safety will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level . (d) Any public health and safety impacts which remain, despite the public health and safety mitigation measures , are overridden and outweighed by the environmental , public health, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section VI of these findings, below) . t F. Traffic And Circulation. 1 . Facts . (a) . The EIR discusses. the impacts of the Project on traffic and circulation at pages III-97 through III-132 . The only impact of the Project on traffic and circulation which is listed as unavoidable is increased traffic generated by this Project . (b) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to traffic and circulation at pages III-129 through III-132, C&R-16, C&R-130 and C&R-372 . These measures include upgrading of pavement deterioration impacts, regulation of transfer truck and other travel patterns , mitigating traffic safety impacts by adding left turn lanes and widening intersections, funding certain traffic improvements and other measures . 22 i (cY The EIR states that analysis of the Project Site and various roadway options for providing access to the Project Site suggest that there are fewer impacts on land use, safety and construction if the chosen access route to the Project Site is used, as opposed to any of the other .possible alternatives . (d) The impact of the Project on traffic is set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable impact of the Project . 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : (a) All of the mitigation measures relating to traffic have been incorporated into or imposed upon this Project . (b) The mitigation measure calling for County approval and environmental review of any change in the haul route is adopted as County policy and in effect by operation of law. The haul route is specified in the Conditions of Approval as Highway 4 , Walnut Boulevard, and Marsh Creek Road. (c). Except as set forth below in Section IV (findings on unavoidable impacts) ; impact's of the Project relating to traffic and circulation will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level : (d) Any traffic and circulation impacts which remain, despite the traffic and circulation mitigation measures, are overridden and outweighed by the environmental , public health, economic, social and other benefits of this Land Use Permit and of the Project, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section VIS of these findings, below) . G. Cultural Resources . 1 . Facts . (a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on cultural resources at pages III-133 through III-143 . The only impact of the Project on cultural resources which is listed as unavoidable is the impact on one homestead site and one bedrock milling site. These sites are potentially significant . 23 (b) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to these impacts of .the Project at pages III-140 through III-141 , and C&R-337 . These measures include preservation of the existing Foskett House on the Project Site, subsurface testing, and avoidance or excavation of significant archeological sites . (c) The homestead site which will be affected by this Project involves such features as a foundation, a possible cellar depression, a well , two possible backfilled privy pits, and a spring box. (d) The bedrock milling site which would be affected by this project consists of a single bedrock mortar depression. No artifacts or surface evidence of midden deposits were observed. (e) The Conditions of Approval include a program for subsurface testing of these sites, and then mitigation of the impacts either through avoidance of the site or data recovery and excavation. (f) The impact of the Project on cultural resources generally is not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable or irreversible impact of the Project . The only related impact listed as unavoidable or irreversible is the impact on the two sites referenced above . 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : . (a) All of the mitigation measures relating to cultural impacts have been incorporated into or imposed upon this Project. (b) Except as set forth below in Section IV (findings on unavoidable impacts) , impacts of the project relating to cultural resources will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level . (c) Any cultural impacts which remain, despite the cultural mitigation measures, are overridden and outweighed by the environmental, public health, economic, social and other benefits of this Land Use Permit and of the Project, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section VI of these findings, below) . H. Vegetation. 1 . Facts . 24 (a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on vegetation at pages III-144 through III-165 . The only impact of the Project on vegetation which is listed as unavoidable is the loss of up to 2 acres of wetlands and up to 140 acres of oak woodland. (b) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to these impacts of the Project at pages III-163 through III-164, and C&R-390 . These mitigation measures include a detailed revegetation plan, eliminating cattle grazing on the property, dust suppression, enhancement programs for wetland and blue oak habitat, and additional rare plant surveys beyond those plant surveys and investigations which were completed as part of the environmental review for this Project . (c) The EIR contains a complete analysis of the Project ' s impacts on vegetation, notwithstanding the recent drought conditions . The EIR is based upon a complete investigation of the property for rare and endangered plant species . Nevertheless, because California has experienced drought conditions over the past three years, the EIR recommends additional rare plant surveys on the Project Site following normal winter rains . (d) Pursuant to the Conditions of Approval, the small amount of wetland acreage which will be lost as a result of this Project will be replaced on an acre for acre basis . (e) Pursuant to the Conditions of Approval , the oak woodland acreage which will be lost as a result of this Project, will be replaced on an acre by acre basis by land which will be specifically managed for the preservation of oak wood land. The Project Site has been used in thejpast for grazing, which has adversely affected vegetation on the Site. (f) The impact of the Projection vegetation generally is not set forth in the EIR as an unavodable. or irreversible impact of the Project, and the only related impact listed as unavoidable is the loss of some amount of wetland and oak woodland. 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : (a) All of the mitigation measures relating to vegetation have been incorporated into or imposed upon this Project . 25 (b) Except as set forth below in Section IV (findings on unavoidable impacts) , impacts of the Project relating to vegetation will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level . (c) Any vegetation impacts which remain, despite the vegetation mitigation measures , are overridden and outweighed by the environmental , public health, economic, social and other benefits. of the Project, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section VI of these findings, below) . I . Wildlife. 1 . Facts . (a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on wildlife at pages III-166 through III-179 . No impact of the Project relating to wildlife is listed as unavoidable. (b) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to wildlife at pages III-177 through III-178 , and C&R-144 . These measures include provisions to minimize problems with pest species and protect native wildlife, additional surveys for certain species, a habitat preservation and enhancement plan, and revegetation program. In addition, a program to maintain the population of red legged frogs on the Project Site is being prepared by the applicant in cooperation with the California Department of Fish and Game. (c) Site surveys for endangered species have been completed and endangered species were not found on the Project Site, as described in the EIR. These studies were based upon, and completed in accordance with, the protocol previously recommended by the East Bay Regional Parks District for the analysis of rare and endangered species in this .area of the County. (d) The EIR discusses the possibility that the Project- Site will be attractive to gulls, and the possibility that this will result in some water quality impact at the proposed Los Vaqueros Reservoir . Numerous mitigation measures relating to birds and vector control generally are set forth in the Public Health and other sections of the EIR, and the impact of the Project on Los Vaqueros Reservoir specifically and public health generally is not set forth as an unavoidable impact of the Project . (e) The Project ' s impacts on wildlife are not set forth in the EIR as unavoidable or irreversible. .26 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : (a) All of the mitigation measures relating to wildlife have been incorporated into 'or imposed upon .this Project. (b) The impacts of this Project relating to gulls, and any related impacts, are mitigated to a less-than-significant level . (c) Impacts of the Project relating to wildlife will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level . (d) Any wildlife impacts which remain, despite the wildlife mitigation measures , are overridden and . outweighed by the environmental, public health, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section VI of these findings, below) . J. Air Quality and Meteorology. i 1 . Facts . j (a) The EIR. discusses the impacts of the Project on air quality and meteorology at pages III-180 through III-201 . No impacts of the Project relating to air quality and meteorology are listed in the EIR as unavoidable. , (b) The EIR recommends various: mitigation measures relating air quality and meteorology at pages III-199 through III-200, and C&R-94 . These mitigation measures include dust control, a gas extraction system, steps to minimize odor , and steps to minimize litter . (c) Some of the mitigation measures refer to controlling dust or odor by placing a daily cover of soil or artificial foam on the landfill . The use of foam cover is not a part of this Project . The use of daily soil cover is required as a Condition of Approval . (d) The Project ' s impacts on air quality and meteorology are not set forth in the EIR as unavoidable or irreversible. 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : 27 (a) All of the mitigation measures relating to air quality have been incorporated into or imposed upon this Project, excepting only the use of sanitary foam for daily cover (which is rejected) . (b) . The mitigation measure providing for the use of artificial foam is rejected. As explained above in these findings, the Project was modified to eliminate the use of artificial foam for daily cover, and to retain the use of soil for daily cover . The use of soil for daily cover will mitigate the impacts of this Project to the same extent as would the use of artificial foam for daily cover, and the use of soil will avoid adverse impacts associated with the use of artificial foam. Accordingly, while the use of soil as a daily cover is adopted as a mitigation measure and a Condition of Approval, the use of artificial foam is rejected. (c) Some of the mitigation measures which are recommended, and which have been adopted as Conditions of Approval, relate to compliance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations . Although this Board has adopted these mitigation measures, this Board also finds that compliance with measures relating to the BAAQMD regulations are within the jurisdiction of that District, which is an independent agency with its own jurisdiction over air quality matters . The District can and should implement any such mitigation measures as a part of its own approval of permits required for development of this Project . (d) Impacts of the Project relating to air quality and meteorology will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures which are incorporated into or imposed upon this Project as set forth above. (e) Any air quality impacts which remain, despite the air quality mitigation measures, are overridden and outweighed by the environmental, public health, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as more fully stated in the Statement of overriding Considerations (Section VI of these findings,.- below) . K. Noise. 1 . Facts. (a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on noise at pages 111-202 through 111-214 . No impact of the Project relating to noise is listed as unavoidable in the EIR. 28 i (b) . The EIR recommends various ' mitigation measures relating to noise at pages III-213 and C&R-372 . These mitigation measures include limits on landfill operation time, construction activities, noise shielding and muffling devices on equipment, buffer zone, and possible future funding of sound walls along the truck haul route. (c) The EIR states that hills will reduce noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors . The Conditions of Approval include a good faith effort to purchase the four homes most directly affected by the Project . (d) The Project ' s noise impacts are not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable or irreversible. 2 . Findings. This Board finds that : (a) All of the mitigation measures relating to noise have been incorporated into or imposed upon this Project . (b) Other Conditions of Approval and natural conditions will substantially lessen or avoid noise impacts . Hills will mitigate noise impacts on all residents except those across from the landfill entrance. The impact on those residents will be mitigated completely by the requirement that the applicant attempt to purchase their homes . Unless those owners refuse to sell their homes, and thus choose to accept the impact, the good faith sale and purchase of those homes will eliminate or reduce this impact. (c) Impacts of the Project relating to noise will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level . I (d) Any noise impacts which remain, despite the noise mitigation measures , are overridden and outweighed by the environmental , public health, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section VI of these findings, below) . L. Ener 1 . Facts . (a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on energy at pages III-215 through III-222 . The only impact of the Project on energy which is listed as unavoidable is use of energy in Project construction, operation, closure, and hauling waste to Project Site. 29 (b) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to energy at pages III-220 through III-222, and C&R-385 . These mitigation measures include a prohibition on self-haulers , encouraging resource recycling, maintaining landfill equipment for maximum fuel efficiency, investigating the feasibility of utilizing energy from methane gas, and location of transfer stations to minimize energy consumption. (c) This Project does not include a methane gas energy production system, and does not include transfer stations . The EIR states that implementation of an energy recovery system and location of transfer stations could result in other potentially significant impacts . Separate environmental review will be required before any provision is made to utilize gas from the methane recovery system for energy, or before -any transfer station is sited. (d) The energy impacts of the Project are set forth as. an unavoidable impact of the Project in the EIR. 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : (a) All of the mitigation measures relating to energy have been incorporated into or imposed upon this Pr.oj.ect . (b) To the extent that utilizing energy from methane gas or siting transfer stations may have significant environmental effects , those effects will be analyzed in one or more separate environmental reviews to be completed in accordance with State law before any such program. is adopted. This Project does not include either methane recovery or transfer stations. There are no plans to include methane recovery as a part of the Project, and such energy production at any particular location is not presently reasonably foreseeable. (c) Except as set forth below in Section IV (findings on- unavoidable impacts) , impacts of the Project relating to energy will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level . (d) Any energy impacts which remain, despite the energy mitigation measures, are overridden and outweighed by the environmental , public health, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as more fully stated in the. .Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section VI of these findings , below) . 30 M. . Geology And Soils . 1 . Facts . (a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on geology and soils at pages III-223 through III-250 . The only impacts of the Project on geology and soils which are listed as unavoidable is possible unstable earth conditions , and' disruption, displacement and compaction of soil . (b) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to geology and soils at pages III-247 through III-249 , C&R-92 , C&R-128 , and C&R-374 . These measures include detailed investigations in addition to those investigations completed as part of this environmental review, erosion sediment control plan, design of the Project to withstand groundshaking, monitoring, and additional supervision of the Project by geotechnical experts . (c) The Conditions of Approval include numerous measures relating to soil stability. These include design of the Project to meet all seismic stability requirements of a class II landfill . (d) The Project impacts relating to disruption and compaction of soil will be limited ,to the Project Site. i (e) The impact' of- the Project ion geology and soils generally is not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable or irreversible impact of the Project The only related impacts listed as unavoidable are alteration of topography, slope stability, and soil disruption, displacement and compaction. 2 . Findings . This Board finds that: (a) All of the mitigation measures relating to geology and soils have been incorporated into or imposed upon this Project . (b) Except as set forth below in Section IV (findings on unavoidable impacts) , impacts of the Project relating to geology and soils will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level . 31 (c) Any geology and soils impacts which remain, despite the geology and soils mitigation measures, are overridden and outweighed by the environmental , public health, economic, social and other benefits of this Land Use Permit and of the Project, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section VI of these findings, below) . N. Hydrology And Water Quality. 1 . Facts . (a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on hydrology and water quality at pages III-251 through III-264 . No impacts relating to hydrology or water quality are listed as unavoidable in the EIR. (b) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to hydrology and water quality at pages III-262 through III-263 , and C&R-393 . These mitigation measures include sedimentation control , discharge monitoring, leachate collection and management and other measures . (c) The impact of the Project on hydrology and water quality generally is not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable or irreversible impact of the Project . 2 . Findings . This Board finds that: (a) All of the mitigation measures relating to hydrology and water quality have been incorporated into or imposed upon this Project . (b) Impacts of the Project relating to hydrology and water quality will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level . (c) Any hydrology and water quality impacts which remain, despite the hydrology and water quality mitigation measures, are overridden and outweighed by the environmental , public health, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section VI of these findings , below) . 0. Engineering Design Review. 1 . Facts . 32 (a) : , The EIR discusses the impacts of the • Project on relating to engineering design review at pages III-265 through III-277 . The EIR does not list any impacts of the Project relating to engineering design review as unavoidable. (b) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to engineering design review at pages . III-273 through III-277 . These measures include management systems for leachate, gas, and stormwater . (c) The mitigation measures and engineering design review items that are described in the EIR are incorporated into the Conditions of Approval . (d) The impacts of the Project relating to engineering design review are not set forth in the EIR as an unavoidable or irreversible impact of the Project. 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : (a) All of the mitigation measures relating to engineering. design review have been incorporated into or imposed upon this Project. (b) Impacts of the Project relating to engineering design review will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level . (c) Any engineering design review impacts which remain, despite the engineering design review mitigation measures, are overridden and outweighed by the environmental , public health, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section VI of these findings, below) . P. Rate Base Implications, Fiscal Impacts, And Effect On Property Values . 1 . Facts . I (a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project relating to the rate base, fiscal impacts, and property values at pages III-278 through III-294 . None of the Project ' s impacts relating to these matters are listed as unavoidable in the EIR. (b) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to these impacts of the Project at 33 pages III-292; and III-293 . The measures include County review of the landfill cost, funding periodic evaluation of pavement ' deterioration, the method of setting aside funds for closure and post-closure activities, and general implementation of other mitigation measures as recommended in the EIR to offset property value effects' of the Project . (c) Periodic examination of project costs is a part of this County' s approval and regular reconsideration of a franchise agreement, and this measure can and will be implemented with .the consideration of a franchise agreement . (d) The method of setting aside funds for closure and post-closure and will be included in a franchise agreement . (e) The Project ' s impact on the rate base, fiscal matters , and property values are not set forth in the EIR as unavoidable or irreversible. 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : (a) All of the mitigation measures relating to the rate base, fiscal impacts , and impacts on property values have been incorporated into or imposed upon this Project . (b) The mitigation measure providing for reexamination by the County of landfill project costs is adopted., and can and will be implemented as the County issues additional approvals for this Project, including a franchise or simila-r agreement, and as the County monitors compliance of this Project with mitigation measures generally. (c) The mitigation measure relating to the means of setting aside funds for closure and post-closure cost is adopted. This measure can and will be implemented through provisions to be included in a franchise or similar agreement, which must be approved by the County before the applicant may develop the. Project. The applicant shall be bound by these provisions in the franchise or similar agreement . (d) The Project ' s impacts relating to the rate base, fiscal impacts, and impacts on property values will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level . (e) Any rate base, fiscal or property value impacts which remain, despite the rate base, fiscal , and property value mitigation measures, are overridden and outweighed by the environmental, public health, economic, 34 social and other benefits of the Project, as more fully stated • in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section VI of these findings, below) . (f) In the alternative, the impacts of this Project relating to the rate base, fiscal impacts, ' and property values are not environmental impacts of this Project, and this Board is not required to impose any mitigation measures or adopt any findings relating to these impacts . An EIR is not required to review economic impacts of a project . The economic impacts of this Project do not contribute to any environmental impacts other than the environmental impacts already analyzed in the EIR. Mitigation measures have been adopted for those impacts, and findings have been made for those impacts, as set forth elsewhere in these findings . Q. : Cumulative Impacts . 1 . Facts . (a) The EIR discusses the cumulative impacts of the Project at pages IV-7 through IV-13 , in addition to the discussion of these impacts in the various impact categories analyzed in the EIR. The EIR does not list any cumulative impacts as unavoidable. The EIR does not separately list any mitigation measures for cumulative impacts, but includes numerous mitigation measures for each of the impacts which is discussed in the cumulative impact analysis . (b) The EIR states that several impacts of the Project are potentially significant when considered with other approved planned and reasonably foreseeable projects . These are traffic impacts , increased air pollution, and impacts generally on traffic, air quality, noise, public services, loss of agricultural land, open space, and wildlife habitat. These impacts are not listed as unavoidable. I 2 . Findings. i This Board finds that : I (a) Cumulative impacts of the project will generally be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the adoption of mitigation measures as referenced above in these findings . (b) To the extent that any cumulative impacts remain, despite the mitigation measures for all categories of environmental impact as set forth above in these findings, those cumulative impacts are overridden and outweighed by insignificance, the environmental, public health, 35 economic , social and other benefits of this Land Use Permit and of the Project, as more fully stated in the Statement of ' Overriding Considerations (Section VI of these findings, below) , IV. FINDINGS REGARDING UNAVOIDABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 , this Board adopts and makes the following findings regarding those certain environmental impacts of this Land Use Permit and the Project set forth below. A. Impact On Four Residences . 1 . Facts . (a) The Draft EIR states on page IV-1 that the Project will have an adverse impact on four residences directly across Marsh Creek Road from the Project Site. The EIR lists this impact as significant and unavoidable. The impacts described in the EIR relating to this impact are primarily visual impacts . (b) The Conditions of Approval include a good faith effort by the applicant to purchase these four residences . This requires the applicant to make an offer to purchase the home, as specified in the Conditions . (c) There are a number of additional residences located in the general vicinity of Marsh Canyon, although the impact on these four residences is the only impact on residences that - is identified in the EIR as significant and unavoidable. (d) The relatively low number of residences in the general vicinity of Marsh Canyon, as opposed the number of residences in the general vicinity of alternative landfill sites which have been or are being considered by the County, is a social and environmental benefit of the Marsh Canyon Landfill Site and of°;: this Project . 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : (a) The impact of this Project on the four residences may be substantially lessened by the requirement that the applicant make a good faith effort to purchase the homes at fair market value. Nevertheless, this impact is still potentially significant . 36 (b) This impact •is potentially significant with respect only to these houses . This is not an overall or general significant impact of the Project . In comparison to other landfill sites, one of the advantages of thi's Project Site is that there are fewer homes located close to the landfill . (c) The impact of the Project on these four homes is overridden and outweighed by the environmental , public health, economic , social and other benefits of the. Project, as more fully stated in Section V, below, of these findings (the Statement of Overriding Considerations) . (d) The impact of this Project on a small number of nearby residences is a benefit of this Project when compared to .alternate sites for a landfill project which are near a greater number of residences . B. Removal Of Grazing And Loss Of One Cattle Operation. 1 . Facts . (a) The Draft EIR states on page IV-1 that the Pro7ect will have an adverse impact as a result of the loss of cattle grazing acreage and elimination of one cattle operation:- , The EIR lists this impact as significant and unavoidable. (b) The EIR notes that the productivity of the site has been reduced by overgrazing, and grazing on the site has reduced vegetation and harmed biotic values . The Project Site is not subject to a Williamson Act agricultural preserve contract, and many surrounding lands areiused for grazing. i (c) Many of the agricultural lands surrounding and in the area of the Project Site are subject to Williamson Act agricultural preservation contracts . In order to cancel one of these contracts, this Board would have to make a number of findings, including findings that cancellation would not result in removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use and findings that cancellation would not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development . (d) Unless proper cancellation findings can be made and are made, the Williamson Act contracts will remain binding and in effect for at least ten years . Pursuant to the Williamson Act, these contracts are automatically renewed each year for an additional ten year remaining term, unless a notice of non-renewal is filed. The EIR states that, as of July 1989, 37 no notices of nonrenewal for these lands had been filed with the County. 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : (a) The value of the Project Site as agricultural land has been reduced by overgrazing, and there are substantial lands in the vicinity of the Project Site devoted to agricultural and grazing uses . It is likely that many of these surrounding lands will remain in agricultural and grazing uses, especially those lands governed by Williamson Act preservation contracts . The significance of the removal of one cattle operation on the Project Site, and the reduction in grazing acreage on this site alone, is substantially reduced because the surrounding lands are likely to remain in agricultural use for a substantial period of time. (b) Nevertheless , this impact is potentially significant . This impact is significant on a cumulative basis. (c) The impact of the Project on grazing on .. the Project Site and on the one cattle operation on the Project Site, in addition to the impacts of the Project on grazing generally, are overridden and outweighed by the environmental, public health, economic, social and other benefits of the Project as ore fully. stated- in Section VI , below, of these findings (the Statement of Overriding Considerations) . C. Loss Of Wetland And Oak Woodland. 1 . Facts . (a) The Draft EIR states on page IV-1 that the Project will have an adverse impact on a small amount of wetland and a large amount of oak woodland acreage. The EIR lists this impact as significant and unavoidable. The impacts described in, the EIR relating to this impact are loss of up to 2 acres of wetland and the loss of up to 140 acres of oak woodland. (b) The Conditions of Approval include a revegetation program and a habitat preservation and enhancement plan. The habitat preservation and enhancement plan includes a wetlands program whereby the Project developer shall replace or enhance a minimum of 3 acres of wetlands similar in type to the 2 acres of wetlands that would be lost on the Project Site. 38 (c) The oak woodlands program includes replacement or enhancement of a minimum of 140 acres of blue oak woodland habitat either through on-site mitigation or off-site mitigation. This program is to be developed in consultation with the East Bay Regional Park District, and the developer may be required to dedicate the development rights to the lands used in this oak woodland program to a public agency. 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : (a) These impacts will be substantially lessened by the imposition of the Conditions of Approval . The Conditions of Approval include wetland and oak woodland enhancement -programs for a number of acres equal to or greater than the nuinber of acres that will be affected by this Project . (b) In addition, the wetland and oak woodland that will be preserved or enhanced as a result of these mitigation measures will be managed for preservation purposes . The Project Site has been used for grazing and other agriculture, a use which is inherently incompatible with preservation of wetland or oak woodland, and has not been managed for wetland or oak woodland preservation. , (c) Nevertheless, this impact ' is potentially significant . Even though an equal or greater amount of , wetland and oak woodland acreage will be preserved or enhanced, wetland and oak woodland on the Project Site will be lost . - - (d) The impacts of the Project on wetland and oak woodland are. overridden and outweighed byithe environmental, public health, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as more fully stated in Section VI , below, of these findings (the Statement of Overriding Considerations) . D. - Slope Stability And Compaction. 1 . Facts . (a) The Draft EIR states on page IV-1 that the Project will have certain adverse impacts relating to soils and soil stability. These impacts include potentially unstable earth conditions, disruption and compaction of soil at the landfill, - and changes in the existing topography of the Project Site. The EIR lists these impacts as significant and unavoidable. 39 (b) The Conditions of Approval include numerous measures relating to soil stability. These include ' design of the Project to meet all seismic stability requirements of .a Class II landfill , on-going studies in addition to the soil and seismic studies already performed, monitoring programs, and regular inspection by an independent geotechnical expert . (c) In its analysis of slope stability impacts generally the EIR states that , if proper engineering design is not used, slope failure could adversely affect the landfill . Proper engineering design can and will be used on all aspects of the construction and operation of this Project . (d) The EIR also indicates that the Project Site generally is not at risk from fault rupture hazards . The EIR also states that the overall static factor of safety (FS) for the Project would range from about 3 during initial construction to about 5 for the final configuration of the landfill . An FS greater than one implies stability. (e) The EIR also states in the Response Document that operations plans for the landfill will minimize erosion and will not have an adverse impact on surrounding hillsides . 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : (a) The impacts of this Project relating to soils, soil disruption and alteration of topography, and soil compaction are unavoidable to some extent . Nevertheless, this impact can be substantially lessened by the recommended mitigation measures such as proper engineering design. This impact of the Project is limited to the Project Site and will not adversely affect surrounding lands . (b) The various Conditions of Approval regarding seismic design, landfill slope engineering, additional geotechnical studies when required ( in addition to the studies performed as part of the environmental review) , monitoring measures, and consultation with independent geotechnical experts will substantially lessen slope and soil stability impacts . (c) Nevertheless, these impacts of the Project are potentially significant . (d) The impacts of the Project relating to soil, alteration of topography, soil disruption, soil 40 e CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARSH CANYON LANDFILL PROJECT EXHIBIT "A" TO THE FINDINGS General County Policies Adopted for this Project a. The haul route to this landfill shall not be changed unless specifically . approved by this County following appropriate environmental review as required by law. b. Transfer stations shall be designed and located to minimize energy consumption. C . If it is determined to be desirable following appropriate environmental review, the County may require the applicant to construct a methane energy recovery facility at the Project site. d. The County will periodically review- Project costs, including a review of such costs during consideration of any franchise or agreement . I e. Such a franchise or agreement shall include a method of setting aside funds for closure and post-closure costs . i I I i !A C: 5 . This Board finds that the Project will not create a nuisance or an enforcement problem within the community. The Conditions of Approval will mitigate impacts which would potentially cause nuisances or enforcement problems, and the County retains full power to enforce these Conditions of Approval . 6 . This Board finds that the Land Use Permit will not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood. As set forth above, in these findings , existing County policies and designations will help to preserve surrounding areas in agricultural use and will limit any growth-inducing impacts of this Project . 7 . The Marsh Canyon Landfill Site, and its surroundings and locations, have special conditions and unique characteristics which make it suitable for this Land Use Permit and the Project . The Project Site is removed from densely populated areas, thus minimizing impacts of the Project on County residents . The canyon topography of the Project Site is particularly suited to a landfill and will help to shield surrounding areas from adverse impacts . C. Miscellaneous . 1 . In addition to the foregoing specific findings, this Board hereby incorporates into these findings by this reference the applicable portions of the County Staff reports and studies, oral and written evidence submitted into the record, the EIR, this Board' s resolutions and! the Conditions of Approval, all relating to this Land; Use Permit and the Project . 2 . This Board intends that the foregoing findings and determinations be considered as an integrated whole and, whether or not any subdivision of these findings cross-references or incorporates by reference any other subdivision of these findings, that any finding and/or determination required or permitted to be made by; this Board with respect to any particular subject matter of this Land Use Permit and .the Project shall be deemed made if it; appears in any portion of these findings and determinations or in the EIR, or in any document incorporated into these findings by reference. This document in its entirety constitutes findings and determinations by this Board whether or not any particular sentence or clause states such. 3 . Each and all of the findings contained herein are based upon competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to this Land Use Permit and the Project, including, without 77 f i s. limitation, that evidence presented in hearings on this Land Use Permit and the EIR before the Planning Commission, the Zoning Administrator and this Board. The findings and determinations herein constitute the independent findings and determinations of this Board in all respects and are fully and completely supported by competent and substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 78 • a this County' s pressing need for a new landfill and thus protecting existing businesses and residents in the County. In addition, by locating a landfill away from heavily populated areas , this Land Use Permit and the Project will minimize the impacts of a new landfill on the tax base. 5 . This Board finds that this Land Use Permit and the Project have been approved with numerous Conditions of Approval which will mitigate or offset the impacts of this Project upon the neighborhood in which it will be located. By locating this Project away from heavily populated areas, this Land Use Permit minimizes neighborhood impacts . 6 . This Board finds that the likelihood of a nuisance being created by this Project is minimal , due to the substantial Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures imposed upon this Land Use Permit and the Project , which mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval may be enforced by this County. 7 . This Board finds that special conditions and exceptional characteristics of the Project Site, and the Project Site' s location or surroundings justify approval of this Land Use Permit and the Project . The Project. Site is located in a canyon which helps to minimize visual and other impacts of the Project . In addition, the Project is located away from heavily populated areas , thus minimizing the impact of a new landfill on County residents . B. Findings Pursuant to Contra Costa County Section 26-2. 2008 . 1 . As set forth above, this Land Use Permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the County, and will further such health, safety and general welfare. 2 . As set forth above, this Land Use Permit and the Project will not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the County. 3 . As set forth above, this Land Use Permit and the Project will not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the County as a whole. 4 . This Board finds that the Land Use Permit and the Project will not adversely affect the policies and goals of the County General Plan. The County General Plan has been amended to provide for the Marsh Canyon Landfill Site, and this Land Use Permit is consistent with the General Plan as 75 "s i amended 'by the Marsh Canyon General Plan Amendment . Without limiting the',!, foregoing finding generally, this Board also makes the following findings : (a) This Land Use Permit and the Project are consistent with the land use designation for the Project Site, pursuant to the Marsh Canyon General Plan Amendment and the 1989 CoSWMP revision. (b) This Land Use Permit and the Project are consistent with general plan policies limiting the expansion of domestic water and sewage services to urban growth areas . The waterlines to be constructed to serve the Project can be sized adequately to serve the Project and not be of growth-inducing size, and appropriate sizing for any extension of water capacity can and should be decided by the Contra Costa Water District . Because this water pipeline extension is intended only to serve the Project (and perhaps to mitigate water supply problems for existing residents in the vicinity of the Project) the water pipeline extension does not constitute an expansion of domestic water services , but only constitutes the provision of water to a sanitary landfill use, and the change in existing domestic water use for certain existing development to treated pipeline water from well water . (c) This Land Use Permit and the Project are consistent with general plan policies against placing growth-inducing highways or roads outside of urban growth areas . The roadway improvements proposed ` as part of this Project are designed to improve traffic flow and safety and not to increase roadway capacity. The presence of the landfill , and of transfer trucks, will tend to discourage new development, so that these improvements will not be growth inducing. (d) This Land Use Permit and the Project. are not required to be consistent with the proposed amendment and update of the overall County General Plan, because that overall update. has not been adopted and is not in effect . Nevertheless, this Project is consistent with the proposed plan because if.Jdoes not locate a landfill site in an environmentally sensitive area because, among other things , extensive onsite grazing has already degraded the Project Sites vegetation and wildlife habitat . In addition, this Project is consistent with, and will further, the proposed policy that new landfill sites should be located so as to minimize potential impacts upon existing and future residents . This Project is removed from existing residential centers, and that is a benefit of the Project . 76 V (j ) This County. does not have :sufficient . funds to develop and process a new landfill site itself , considering the many demands and statutory obligations that must be provided for within this County' s limited budget . 2 . Findings This Board finds that: (a) This Board has reviewed the Program EIR and the landfill siting reports referenced above as part of its consideration of landfill sites generally and of this Project . (b) This Board has previously considered a range of alternate sites for landfills, and has rejected many of those sites , as set forth above . (c) This Board may continue to consider one or more of the other landfill sites approved as part of the General Plan Amendment, depending on the results of the 1990 referendum elections . This Board may find, in so doing, that one of these other sites, considering all of the vaious impacts, is also desirable to resolve this County' s need for a new landfill . (d) This Board now finds , however, that these other sites approved as part of the General Plan Amendment are not environmentally superior to the Project, considering all of the characteristics and impacts- of the Project and various sites . This Board further finds that none of these other sites are superior to the Project in terms of overall economic, public health, social and other benefits . Although particular impacts at one or more of these sites may be less than this Project, the other sites would have one or more other significant impacts which are as or more severe, such as proximity to a greater number of homes, or. increased traffic and aesthetic impacts . G. In General . In general, and based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board finds that : (a) There are not changes in the Project subsequent to preparation of the EIR which require important revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts . Those changes which have been made in the Project are minor , technical , and do not result in new significant environmental impacts or impacts of increased severity. 73 (b) There are not substantial changes with respect to tte circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken which changes would require important revisions in the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts . (c) There is no new information of substantial importance showing that the Project will have significant impacts not previously analyzed in the EIR, impacts which are substantially more severe, mitigation measures or alternatives which are newly determined to be feasible, or additional mitigation measures or alternatives not previously considered which would substantially lessen one or more significant impacts . IX. GENERAL Based on the entire record, this Board makes the following general findings and determinations and intends them to be generally -applicable to this Land Use Permit and to all findings and determinations as a whole contained herein. A. Findings Pursuant to Contra Costa County Code Chapter 418-4 . 1 . This Board finds that this Land Use Permit and the Project will further the health, safety and welfare of the people of this County -by providing an environmentally sound means and site for disposal of the County' s solid waste stream, and by relieving this County' s pressing need for a new landfill site. 2 . This Board finds that this Land Use Permit and the Project will further the orderly development of property in -the County by providing a sound means of waste disposal located away from heavily populated areas . As set forth above, this Board has also found that existing County policies and designations will offset potential growth-inducing impacts of this Project . 3 . This Board finds that this Land Use Permit and the Project will further the preservation of property values by locating a new landfill site away from heavily populated areas, at a site which minimizes the impact on neighboring residents . In addition, the numerous mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval imposed upon this Land Use Permit and the Project will help to preserve property values by minimizing the outward impact of the Project . 4 . This Board finds that this Land Use Permit and the Project will protect the County' s tax base by resolving 74 (v) Access to the Kirker Pass site is superior to two (2) unnamed sites near Kirker Pass Road. (vi) Access to a site south of Antioch at the end of Briones Valley Road is infeasible, because of the high potential cost of road improvements and because access to the Marsh Creek Landfill Site is superior . (vii) The cost of road improvements to a site at the end of Camino Tassajara Road is prohibitive and access to the Kirker Pass site is superior . (viii) The cost of road improvements to a site on the east of Camino Tassajara Road, south of Highland Road, is prohibitive, and access to the Kirker Pass site is superior . ( ix) Access to a proposed site west of Camino Tassajara Road, and east of Doherty Road is prohibitive due to the cost of road improvements , and access to the Kirker Pass site is superior . (x) Use of the Sand Quarry site is incompatible with two proposed reservoirs, and the site will be highly visible due to low rolling terrain, as the Sand Quarry site is not a canyon landfill site. (xi) The Vasco Road site is located at an extreme distance from waste generation sources, creating a significant cost to reach the site, and is located too close to archaeological sites . (xii) The Camino Vaqueros site is too close to the proposed Kellogg Reservoir , has a relatively small capacity, and possible access problems . (xiii) The Armstrong Road site is very remote and difficult to access, with a significant cost to reach the site. (xiv) The Briones Valley site is located too close to future residential development, and would be highly visible due to low rolling terrain rather than a canyon landfill site configuration. (XV) The proposed Altamont site is located at an extreme distance from waste generation sources, creating a significant cost to reach the site, and is located in close proximity to archaeological sites . 71 f (xvi) The Refuse Canyon Naval Station site is located on naval property. The complete explanation of these conclusions is set forth in the 1985, 1986, and 1987 reports referenced above . These reports are incorporated into the Program EIR, and they are part of the record before this Board. The Program EIR is also part of the record before this Board regarding this Land Use Permit . This Board has reviewed these reports and the Program EIR as a part of its consideration of this Project . The conclusions and findings of these reports as well as of the Program EIR with respect to these sites are each incorporated by reference into these findings . (e) In addition to the Marsh Canyon Landfill Site, this County has approved portions of the General Plan Amendments for the Bay Pointe Sanitary Landfill (County File No . 5-89-CO) , the Keller Canyon Landfill (County File No. 3-89-CO) , the East Contra Costa Landfill (County File No. 6-85-CO) , and the Kirker Pass Landfill (County File No . 24-84-CO) . (f) Following approval of the General Plan Amendments, referendum petitions were submitted to the County asking this Board to rescind or place on the ballot those parts of the General Plan Amendment for the East Contra Costa, Keller Canyon, and Kirker Pass landfill sites . In response to these petitions, this Board has rescinded the Kirker Pass General Plan Amendment, and placed the. Keller' Canyon and the East Contra Costa parts of the General Plan Amendment on the June 1990 ballot . (g) No applicant is currently pursuing or proposing the Bay Pointe site, which is also subject to a U. S . Navy easement. (h) No private sponsor has proceeded to complete a site-specific application for Bay Pointe, no site-specific environmental review of that site has been completed, and the various easements on that site, including easements i<n favor of the U.S .. Navy, are unresolved and may prohibit development of that site. ( i) A referendum petition was filed against the earlier general plan amendment for the Kirker site, and the Board rescinded that general plan amendment. No private sponsor has completed a site-specific application or environmental review of the Kirker Site since the adoption of the General Plan Amendment . 72 specific comments were not accepted, the reason that the comments were not accepted is set forth. (c) The response to the comments from the Clayton Regency Residents Association is adequate. This response discusses the issue raised, determines that that issue is not significant, and suggests a possible mitigation measure regarding that impact . That mitigation measure or a substantially similar measure has been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval . (d) The response to the City of Brentwood ' s Comments regarding the Delta Expressway are adequate. The EIR does analyze the impact of landfill traffic prior to construction of the Delta Expressway, and identifies the traffic routing without the Delta Expressway as the "current plan" . If the Delta Expressway is constructed, certain traffic impacts may be further mitigated, but the EIR contains adequate analysis of traffic impacts without the Delta Expressway. (e) The EIR contains an adequate response to the City of Brentwood' s Comments regarding traffic impacts generally and selection of the preferred haul route. Based on the information set forth regarding various routes in the EIR, the EIR concludes .that the preferred route has fewer impacts on the land use, safety and construction than other routes . The response documents also contains a detailed chart of traffic volumes and capacity at intersections in the City of Brentwood. (f) The selection of the preferred haul route and the impacts of that route are also analyzed in applicable sections., of the EIR' s analysis project alternatives . (g) The EIR is not required to consider the other four sites approved by this Board in 1989 as possible alternatives to Marsh Canyon. All of those sites together were analyzed at the program EIR level prior to adoption. of the General Plan Amendment . (h) In general, the responses to comments contained in the EIR are adequate and responsive. F. other Landfill Sites . 1 . Facts. (a) During the years 1984-1987, three landfill siting studies were performed in the County to identify potential sites . These studies initially considered 22 sites , which were later narrowed through a ranking system to 69 seven sites . Four of the final seven sites recommended to this Board were sites identified in the revised CoSWMP and in the General Plan Amendment adopted in 1989 . The reasons that the other sites were rejected are listed in Table 6 .3-1 of the Program EIR. Generally, sites were rejected because they did not meet the County' s list of criteria for new landfill development . These criteria are set forth in Table 6 .3-2 of the Program EIR and that information has been incorporated into the EIR for this Land Use Permit . It was intended that developers of landfills would use this information to identify future sites in the County. (b) During the first study, three sites were proposed by the private sector -- Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill (KPWML) , East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (ECCSL) and Central Landfill . The Central Landfill proposal was withdrawn in December of 1986 . In 1987, the County Planning Commission completed hearings and environmental review on KPWML and ECCSL. Both were unable to obtain a majority approval by the Board of Supervisors . In 1988 , the Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill and Keller Canyon Landfill were proposed by the private sector . (c) The referenced studies , the 1985 Solid Waste Management Project report, the Southeast County Landfill Siting Study prepared in June 198,6, and the Final Landfill Siting Task Force Report adopted in 1987, are incorporated into the Program EIR and are part of the record before this Board. These studies analyze many proposed sites„including the Marsh Canyon Landfill Site and the other sites designated in the General Plan Amendment . (d) The Program EIR contains an explanation of the primary reasons why many of the sites analyzed were rejected. With respect to these specific sites, the Program EIR sets forth the following summary of these conclusions : ( i) The Christie Road site has insufficient capacity to meet minimum solid waste disposal needs for a. landfill site in the -county. ( ii) The Cummings Skyway site has a significantly reduced capacity, because of the rerouting of Highway 4 . ( iii) The Ozol site conflicts with a nearby naval jet refueling facility. ( iv) New development is encroaching upon the Big Canyon site. 70 a speculative flight of fancy. Any such impact, if it would occur, would be significant . While a water pipeline extension may be one of the many necessary conditions to such development, the extension is not sufficient to create such development . (b) Any possible growth-inducing impacts of the Project will be substantially lessened by existing general plan designations , zoning designations, and Williamson Act contracts which restrict the ability to develop lands in the vicinity of the Project Site. (c) This Board' s prior actions in considering large development proposals in this area confirms that a possible figure of 7, 000 or 61 , 000 units in the Marsh Creek Road corridor is unrealistic and speculative. Any such development proposals or series of proposals would require separate environmental review, amendment of the existing County General Plan, amendment of the existing County zoning ordinance, and may include cancellation of Williamson Act contracts . It is uncertain whether or not the Board could make the required findings to cancel such Williamson Act contracts . (d) The responses to comments in the EIR relating to growth-inducing impacts and cumulative impacts are adequate. The comments did not set forth the unrealistic figure of 61 , 000 units, and the responses are not required to take into account or engage in mere speculation. The existing responses include a good faith reasoned analysis in response to the comments made. •(e) The comments regarding cumulative and growth-inducing impacts, and related testimony, do -not constitute changes in the Project, changes in circumstances, or new information, any of which would require important revisions to the EIR. These comments and testimony are by definition not a change in the Project or a change in circumstances . These comments and testimony do not constitute new information requiring revision to the EIR, because these comments and testimony were known at the time the EIR was prepared, and because the comments and testimony do not show that the Project will have a more significant growth-inducing cumulative impact than is discussed in the EIR, due in part to the fact that the comments ignore existing general plan, zoning, and Williamson Act designations in addition to this Board ' s past record with respect to proposed changes in such designations . (f) The responses to comments contained in the EIR relating to growth-inducing impacts, cumulative impacts, and other impacts are adequate. These responses 67 provide suffi"ciently detailed explanations of the response, and a good faith reasoned analysis of the response. E. Responses to Comments . 1 . Facts . (a) The Final EIR Response Document contains a complete copy of the oral comments on the EIR made at the December 11, 1989 public hearing, and the written comments on the EIR submitted to the County. The Response Document also contains responses to each of the comments made. (b) General comments regarding growth-inducing impacts of this Project were submitted by the Sierra Club ;and the Greenbelt Alliance. There are specific responses to each of these comments . In some instances , the response indicates that the comment is speculative. (c) The Clayton Regency Residents Association made comments at the public hearing regarding the location of a play yard within the mobile home park. The Response Document contains a complete response to these comments . This response states that the impact of increased truck traffic on this play yard is not significant , but also suggests an additional mitigation measure. That measure has been incorporated into or imposed upon the Project . (d) The City of Brentwood also provided numerous written comments on the EIR, and the Response Document contains complete responses to those comments . 2 . Findings . Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board finds that : (a) The Board is not required to adopt findings that each response to a comment in the Final EIR is adequate. Nevertheless, this Board adopts these findings in response to"materials submitted to this Board, to clarify that the response to comments regarding growth-inducing impacts, comments from the Clayton Regency Residents Association, comments from the City of Brentwood, and comments on the EIR generally, were responded to fully and adequately. (b) This Board' s findings regarding the comments on growth-inducing impacts are set forth in Section VIII .D, above. The responses to comments on growth-inducing impacts are adequate. In those instances where 68 .w C. Recycling. 1 . Facts (a) This County has implemented an aggressive recycling and resource recovery program as part of the 1989 CoSWMP revision, and will implement further aggressive resource recovery measures in response to the 1989 waste management legislation. (b) One or more individuals testified that no new landfill sites should be approved in this County, and that recycling and resource recovery measures should be adopted as an alternative to siting of a new landfill . (c) Measures to reduce the quantity of solid waste requiring landfill disposal could be implemented, but would not be sufficient to eliminate the need for new landfill capacity in this County. Waste reduction programs would have the limited effect on extending the site life of the existing landfill sites in this County. In particular, waste stream reductions attributable to easily implemented low technology programs such as composting and recycling would not prolong the life of existing landfills much beyond, the projected 1990 to 1993 closure dates . 2 . Findings . Based upon the EIR and the entire record„ this Board finds that : i (a) This County has adopted an; aggressive resource recovery and recycling program. (b) This program is a complement to adoption of new landfill sites, and to approval of this Land Use Permit and the Project . The adoption of recycling and resource recovery programs as an alternative to this Land Use Permit, and the Project, or as an alternative to siting new landfill sites generally, is impractical because such programs will not eliminate the need for new landfill sites and will not significantly increase the relatively short remaining life of the County' s existing landfills . (c) The adoption of such programs as an alternative to this Land Use Permit and the Project is not feasible or reasonable. D. Cumulative and Growth Inducing Impacts . 1 . Facts . 65 (a) The EIR discusses cumulative impacts of the Project at pages IV-7 through IV-13 , in ' addition to discussion of cumulative impacts in various impact categories analyzed in the EIR. The EIR also analyzes growth-inducing impacts , in part in its discussion of water service impacts . The EIR concludes that cumulative impacts can be reduced to a level of insignificance, and states that growth-inducing impacts of the Project may be limited by the County' s application of its general plan and zoning ordinance designations, and by the effect of existing Williamson Act agricultural preservation contracts . (b) Representatives of the Sierra Club claim that the EIR should have analyzed cumulative impacts including the development of up to 61 , 000 homes, at 4 units per acre, across,.. a 6 mile by 4 mile .corridor extending two miles out on either side of Marsh Canyon Road. The Sierra Club representative then stated development of up to 7 , 000 homes was possible pursuant to existing zoning designations . The first calculation apparently is based on the assumption that a 24-square-mile area between the Marsh Canyon Landfill Site and the City of Brentwood will be developed with homes on quarter-acre lots . These calculations were not submitted as comments on the EIR. (c) Many of the lands in the vicinity of the Project Site and in the vicinity of Marsh Canyon Road between the.,Project Site .and the City of Brentwood are designated as agricultural lands in the existing County General Plan and in the existing County zoning ordinance. Some of these lands are protected pursuant to Williamson Act agricultural preserve contracts . In addition, some of these lands are not capable of development for single family residences due to steep slopes , conflicts with other agricultural uses, and other environmental factors particular to those sites . These lands are currently designated for agricultural use in the draft of the County' s new general plan. (d) In prior actions, such as a proposed general plan. •amendment and Williamson Act contract cancellation for the S.W.. Cowell Foundation Project, in 1987, this Board has rejected development proposals in the general vicinity of the Project Site. 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : (a) The suggestion that approval of this Land Use Permit and the Project will lead to development of 7, 000 units or 61 , 000 units in the Marsh Creek Road corridor is 66 (a) The Project was modified to eliminate the possible use of a sanitary foam blanket for daily cover . The Project was also modified by reducing the site footprint for the landfill to. 290 acres, reducing the landfill capacity to 87 million cubic yards, rather than 96 million yards , and certain technical changes were made in the landfill liner and the leachate collection and removal system as discussed at page C&R-354 . In addition, the correct figure for daily cover material needs was determined to be 5 . 6 cubic yards . The EIR states that these changes in the Project are minor technical changes . (b) The EIR states that the change in in-place waste capacity is not an adverse impact . The resulting change in the material needs of the Project would have a significant, positive effect on the environment , indicating a reduced likelihood that the Project will need to use other sources besides on-site soil for daily cover . (c) The Project as modified by these minor technical changes will not increase any of the impacts of the Project as analyzed in the EIR. The overall operation of the Project will remain the same, and the Project Site and haul route remain the same. The elimination of sanitary foam for daily cover will eliminate the identified impacts of its use, and will not result in new impacts . The use of soil cover is fully analyzed in the EIR. 2 . Findings . Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board finds that : (a) The Project modifications do not result in any significant environmental impacts which were not considered in the EIR, and do not increase the severity of any environmental impacts considered in the EIR. The Project modifications are minor technical changes and will reduce some of the adverse environmental impacts of the Project . Therefore, the project modifications do not constitute changes which require major or important revisions to the EIR. (b) The Project modifications do not constitute substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken or require major or important revisions to the EIR. These modifications are minor changes to the Project, and are not changes in circumstances . (c) The Project modifications do not constitute new information relating to the Project which shows any additional significant effects, or more severe significant 63 effects, when compared to the impacts analyzed in the EIR. Nor do the Project modifications constitute new information - creating a need for further consideration of mitigation measures . The Project modifications are minor technical changes in the Project, rather than new information relating to the Project . (d) Based on the standards set forth in Public Resources section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162-15164 , this Board finds that there is no basis in the record before it to support requiring the applicant to prepare an addendum to the EIR, a supplemental EIR or a subsequent EIR to address the Project modifications . B. Watershed Studies . 1 . Facts . (a) One person testified before this Board that this Land Use Permit and the Project should not be approved because certain watershed studies had not been completed by this County. (b) The watershed studies to which the individual referred are studies of watershed that is miles downstream of the Project Site . These studies are unrelated to the Project. These studies relate to the East Contra Costa Irrigation District. canal in Brentwood and the watershed below that point....% Brentwood .is: 3 to 4.. miles. from the Project Site. (c) The EIR contains a complete analysis of hydrology and water quality impacts of this Project and further study .-of the referenced watershed is not necessary to evaluate this Project . 2 . Findings . Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board finds that:... (a) The referenced watershed studies are unrealted to this Project, as they are related to watersheds located some distance from this Project . The water quality and hydrology impacts of this Project have been thoroughly analyzed in this EIR, mitigation measures have been imposed, and 'findings have been made by this Board, as set forth above. The cited studies are separate and unrelated to this Project . (b) These studies do not constitute new information relating to the Project . 64 residents depend upon such solid waste disposal . This Land Use ` Permit and the Project will provide adequate and environmentally sound sanitary landfill capacity for the next 40 to 70 years for this County, facilitating the provision of social services within the County. This is a social benefit of this Land Use Permit and the Project . 10 . Jobs and economic development . This Land Use Permit and development of the Project will provide jobs over a period of many years . During the initial construction of the Project Site, this Project will provide construction jobs over a period of several years . Over the long-term operation of the Marsh Canyon Landfill , this site will provide jobs for a number of sanitation-related workers . As set forth above, this Land Use Permit and the Project, by providing for adequate sanitary landfill capacity, will also generally protect existing businesses in the County and provide for economic development of the County. For the reasons set forth above, all of the unavoidable impacts of the Project, such as the impacts generally relating to the four residences , removal of grazing and loss of a cattle operation, loss of wetland and oak woodland, slope stability and compaction, effect on cultural sites, consumption of energy, extension of a water. pipeline and resulting growth inducing impacts, and loss of recyclable material , all as described in more detail above, are outweighed and overridden by the benefits of this Project . B. Other Environmental Impacts . With respect to any other impacts of the Project and this Land Use Permit which may be (or may be determined to be) unavoidable adverse impacts, notwithstanding the conclusions in the Final EIR that other impacts are either insignificant or mitigated to a level of insignificance, this Board finds that the aforementioned environmental , public health, social , economic and other considerations warrant approval; of this Land Use Permit and the Project notwithstanding the fact that any such impacts of the Project . VII . FINDINGS REGARDING MONITORING OR REPORTING OF CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES Section 21081 . 6 of the California Public Resources Code requires this Board to adopt a monitoring or reporting program regarding CEQA mitigation measures in connection with these findings. This monitoring and reporting will be done pursuant to the following program, which this Board hereby 61 adopts in fulfillment of the CEQA mitigation monitoring or reporting requirement : A. The Community Development Department shall file a written report with this Board approximately once each year , beginning on or about the first anniversary of the approval of the Final Development and Improvement Plan and continuing throughout the time that the Project is developed and operated pursuant to this Land Use Permit and additional approvals which may be granted by other regulatory agencies regarding this Project. The written report shall briefly state the status in implementing each mitigation measure which is adopted as a Condition of Approval or which is incorporated into the Project . The written report may include information from other agencies regarding implementation of the mitigation measures . When such information from other agencies is included, the report shall include such additional information, if any, as the Department deems necessary to provide a complete report on the implementation of mitigation measures . B. This mitigation monitoring report may be combined with any other requirement of annual review by the County which is imposed upon this Project pursuant to the Conditions of Approval or pursuant to any other permits which are obtained for this Project . C. Community Development staff shall review the written report and determine whether there is any unforeseen, unusual and substantial delay in, or obstacle to, implementing the adopted or incorporated mitigation measures which requires action by the County, and .shall report any such delay or obstacle to this Board. D. If any interested party requests it, the report will be provided to such party in writing. E. If the staff or this Board determines that action is required to ensure that one or more mitigation measures is implemented, then the staff shall advise this Board of the situation, :and this Board, staff, or a designee of this Board shall consult with the applicant and shall take such measures as are reasonably necessary (provided such measures are otherwise allowed by law to apply to this Project) to implement the subject mitigation measure. VIII . ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. Modifications to the Project . 1 . Facts . 62 other features to protect the environment and provide for ` proper waste management. These Class II standards, will provide a higher level of environmental protection at new landfill sites in the County than currently exists at County landfill sites, and this is a substantial environmental benefit of this Project . Adoption of this Land Use Permit as a means of siting additional landfill capacity also is necessary or desirable to fully implement the goals and policies of County solid waste management planning as will be required by the 1989 legislation. The 1989 legislation requires the County to encourage recycling, composting and other creative waste management practices which reduce the waste stream. As this Land Use Permit and the siting of additional capacity is necessary or desirable to fully implement the County' s solid waste planning, the collection of recycled materials and reduction in the solid waste stream which will be accomplished as a part of the County' s overall solid waste management planning (and as reflected in certain of the Conditions of Approval) is an environmental benefit of this Project . 4 . Public health benefits . This Project will have public health benefits . There is an existing public health concern in the area of the Project Site, namely, poor quality drinking water, especially in and near the Clayton Regency Mobile Home Park. This- Project, by facilitating an appropriately sized water main extension to serve existing residents, will help to improve the quality of drinking water for current residents living near the Project Site. This will help to alleviate a pre-existing public health problem. 5. Marsh Canyon' s Location Will Minimize The Impact Of A New Landfill On County Residents . The Marsh Canyon Landfill Site will minimize the impact of a new landfill on County residents because of its location. The Marsh Canyon Landfill Site is distant from significant population centers . Because the landfill is distant from population centers and has fewer homes near the landfill when compared to other sites, the impacts, of living near a landfill will be avoided for a greater number of the counties resident . 6 . Marsh Canyon' s topography is particularly suited for a new sanitary landfill . The Marsh Canyon Landfill Site is particularly suited for a new sanitary landfill because of its topography. 59 The topography of the Marsh Canyon Landfill Site is particularly suited for a new sanitary landfill . The Site ' s topography will accommodate a very large volume of waste, allowing capital costs for a new landfill to be amortized over this large volume, offering this County' s residents an economy of scale which will help to maintain garbage disposal rates at a lower level than would otherwise be the case. The Site ' s topography as a canyon helps to ensure .that there are minimal visual impacts resulting from construction and operation of the landfill, and the topography helps to shelter the Site from winds and accordingly minimize the spread of litter . In addition, the topography of the Canyon provides a buffer between the landfill and adjacent uses . Finally, because of the size of the Canyon, it can accommodate the solid waste of this County for a period of 40 to 70 years . 7 . Reduced export- of solid waste to other counties . Existing landfills in the County are expected to close between now and 1991 , and the County has accordingly entered into solid waste export agreements with Solano and Alameda Counties . The export of this County' s waste to other counties results in adverse energy, environmental and traffic impacts . Adoption of this Land Use Permit and development of the Project will reduce or eliminate the County' s need to export solid, waste to other counties . This will reduce or eliminate the adverse ener-gy, .environmental and traffic impacts of transferring waste outside of- the County and is an environmental benefit of this Land Use Permit and the Project . 8 . Overall economic social benefit to the County. Adequate landfill capacity is necessary for continued economic development of the County as well as the preservation of existing jobs and businesses for County residents of all income levels . The failure to provide adequate landfill capacity would adversely affect existing businesses by making it more difficult to operate in the County, and would discourage or prevent other businesses from locating in the County. By providing for adequate landfill capacity for the next 40 to 70 years, this Land Use Permit and the Project provide a substantial overall economic benefit to the County and its existing businesses and residents . The provision of adequate sanitary landfill capacity also provides a social benefit to the County and its residents . The provision of a number of services, depend upon a reliable and assured source of adequate and environmentally sound solid waste disposal, just as existing businesses and 60 VI . STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS • This Board adopts and makes the following. Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the unavoidable (or potentially unavoidable) environmental impacts of this Project , as discussed above, and the anticipated environmental , public health, economic, social and other benefits of the Land Use Permit and Project . A. Generally. This Board finds that, to the extent that any impacts (including cumulative impacts) attributable to this' Land Use Permit or to the Project are unavoidable, such impacts are overridden by, and acceptable in light of, the environmental , public health, social, economic and other overriding considerations set forth herein because these benefits outweigh any such impacts of this Project . Specifically, this Board finds that the following environmental, public health, social , economic and other considerations warrant approval of the Land Use Permit notwithstanding any unavoidable or unmitigated impacts. This Board finds that each of the matters set forth below is, independent of the other matters, an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project . 1 . The County has an imminent need for a new landfill. The County has a pressing need for a new -landfill due to the closure of the County' s three existing landfills . The closure of these landfills has begun. Approximately one-third of the County' s daily waste stream is now being exported to Alameda County, and approximately 10 percent of the County' s daily waste stream is expected to be exported to Solano County beginning sometime in spring 1990 . The remaining landfills in the County are expected to remain in operation for up to two years, although such continuing operation is not assured. The remaining landfills are not expected to remain in -operation over the long term. Continued use of the Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill near Antioch during the next two years is contingent on approval of a controversial height increase application. Increased diversion of the County' s waste stream to the other landfill at West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill could shorten the life of that landfill to less than the two-year period, although the Regional Water Quality Control Board may not allow this other landfill to accept higher daily tonnages . As a result of the impending closure of the County' s existing landfills and the short-term duration of export agreements, 57 there is a critical need for new landfill capacity in the County. 2 . This Land Use Permit Will Further Compliance With the County' s legal obligations . The County must identify new landfill sites to comply with governing state law and to fulfill its legal obligations pursuant to export agreements with Alameda and Solano Counties . The state law regarding landfill siting with which the County is required to comply is the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (A.B. 939) , . which generally replaced applicable provisions of the California Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972 . The:;Marsh Canyon General. .Plan Amendment was adopted in part in response to the peremptory writ of mandamus in the Litigation referenced above. The County has a continuing obligation to approve new landfill capacity. This schedule .specified in the Litigation has been written into the export agreements between this County and Alameda and Solano Counties . In Alameda County, failure to meet the agreed schedule will authorize that county' s Zoning Administrator to initiate proceedings to reduce or eliminate the importation of this County' s solid waste. The, 1989 legislation requires the County to identify specific areas for the location of new or expanded disposal or transformation facilities . Because of the long time required to obtain approvals necessary for a sanitary landfill site, and because of the impending closure of the County' s existing sites,- -approval of this Project will allow the County to achieve compliance with the requirements of the new law in time to avoid a serious shortage of landfill capacity. Finally, there is substantial time, risk and uncertainty involved in obtaining all necessary approvals for a new landfill . site. Many of these approvals must be obtained from other agencies . Accordingly, to the extent that this County may approve more than one. landfill site (whether conditioned upon a referendum election or not) , approval of this Project and one or more other sites is necessary to provide a reasonable chance that at least one site will ultimately be approved and developed. 3 . Environmental and waste management benefits . The Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill will be developed to Class II sanitary landfill standards . Class II landfills are required to have liners, leachate collection systems, and 58 G. Alternate Road Access Alternative. This Board finds that the Alternate Road Access Alternative, and each of the variations within that alternative, is infeasible and less desirable than this Land Use Permit and the Project, and rejects the Alternate Road Access Alternative for the following reasons : (a) Pursuant to this alternative, an alternate means of road access would be used for transfer trucks to reach the Project Site. This alternative is not an alternative to the Project itself, but only an alternative to one aspect of the Project, the access route. (b) Route 1 , part of this alternative, is the longest route, and includes Highway 4 in Oakley and Brentwood, Lone Tree Road, Deer Valley Road and Marsh Creek Road. (c) Route 2, part of this alternative, would follow Lone Tree Way and Deer Valley Road. Deer Valley Road is a substandard rural route that would require significant reconstruction. i (d) Route 3 is a variation of Route 2 and would be comprised of sections of Fairview Avenue and Balfour Road. (e) Route 4 would follow the Delta Expressway if that new roadway is constructed. '(f) Route 2 and Route 3 would require substantial reconstruction of Deer Valley Road, Fairview Avenue and Balfour Road, as the case may be. (g) The Delta Expressway does not yet exist . (h) This alternative does not reduce environmental impacts of the Project . Instead, this alternative shifts those impacts from one roadway to another, in some cases increasing the severity of the impacts . For example, the impacts on Deer Valley Road, a substandard rural road, would require significant reconstruction, and would be significant . ( i) The various alternate roadways which have been analyzed for alternate access routes either do not exist, are substandard or would themselves suffer significant adverse impacts as a result of the adoption of this alternative. 55 H. Findings Applicable To All Of The Alternatives . v With respect to all of the alternatives evaluated in the EIR, this Board adopts the following findings as additional ; reasons for 'approving the Project and rejecting alternatives to the Project : (a) The County must approve a landfill to resolve the need for new landfill capacity. On balance, the proposed alternatives will not provide environmental or other benefits that would justify adopting them rather than the Project . The environmental , public health, economic, social and other benefits of the Land Use Permit and the Project clearly justify its approval rather than any of the alternatives . (b) As set forth in Section VIII .F, below, many of the impacts of the Project are similar to impacts of. any new landfill . This is an additional reason to approve the Project and reject the alternatives . (c) This Land Use Permit is only one of the approvals necessary for development of the Project, and approvals from other agencies are required as well . There is accordingly substantial time, risk, and uncertainty involved in . approving and developing a new landfill . This Board may approve another landfill site in addition to this site . This Board believes it is desirable and prudent to approve this site at this time. to ensure that at' least one site will be fully approved and developed. As explained in Part VIII F, this Board has rejected numerous alternative sites . By these findings this Board. also determines that none of the remaining sites are superior to this site in terms of environmental , public health, economic, social or other factors . This site is superior to the other proposed sites in several respects as is explained in Part VIII F. 56 (c) By combining the two canyons , approximately 100 percent more open space and grazing land would be committed to landfill footprints, and the portion between the two landfills would be lost to wildlife and perhaps native habitat . (d) The adjacent canyon is next to the Round Valley property recently purchased by the East Bay Regional Parks District, and drains into that property. Landfill operations in this canyon could have significant impacts on park and recreational activities in Round Valley, and those impacts would be substantially more severe than the impacts of this Project . Development of the adjacent canyon, either as a second landfill site or as the only landfill site, might not be compatible with development of a new regional park in or around Round Valley. (e) The adjacent canyon would require additional waterline extension and road development, resulting in significant additional one-time project expenses . (f) As stated elsewhere in these findings, many of the environmental impacts of this Land Use Permit and the Project have been or will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, and this Land Use Permit and this Project will provide many benefits, including environmentally sound- disposal of-solid wastes and the resulting environment'al::; publ'i-c health,.. economic; social- and other benefits to the entire County. i (g) Under this alternative, if the Project Site were not developed for a landfill and the adjacent canyon was developed as the sole landfill , this alternative would increase the cost of access to the alternate landfill and have more significant impacts upon surrounding lands, including proposed parkland. E. No Transfer Station Alternative. This Board finds that the No Transfer Station Alternative is infeasible and less desirable thanthis Land Use Permit and the Project, and rejects the No Transfer Station Alternative for the following reasons : (a) This alternative would not use transfer stations and transfer trucks to convey waste to the Project Site. This would result in many more truck trips on Marsh Creek Road and other regional roads . (b) Without transfer stations this alternative could result in substantial traffic and adverse impacts on Marsh Creek Road west of the Project Site. If the 53 Project is adopted, transfer truck traffic would not be allowed on Marsh Creek Road west of the Project Site. (c) This alternative would result in increased adverse traffic and circulation impacts . This alternative would have increased impacts on Marsh Canyon Road and other regional roads to the east of the Project Site, and would have an impact on Marsh Canyon Road to the west, which would not be affected by the Project as proposed. (d) This alternative would reduce opportunities for recycling and materials recovery that would take place at transfer stations . With aggressive resource recovery programs at transfer stations , the waste stream could be reduced by approximately 25 percent . (e) This alternative will reduce the potential for recycling and resource recovery, thus shortening the life of the landfill on the Project Site, and requiring the County to find additional landfill capacity. The loss of nonrenewable resources under this alternative would be greater than the loss of resources pursuant to the Land_ Use Permit and the Project. F. Off-Site Cover Alternative. This Board finds that the Off-Site Cover Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than this Land Use Permit and the Project•, and rejects the Off-Site Cover Alternative for the following reasons : (a) Pursuant to this alternative, soil cover would be purchased or obtained on the open market and trucked to the Project Site from other locations . . This alternative assumes that ten trucks per day, traveling six days per week, would bring soil to the Project Site during nonpeak hour periods . This alternative would result in increased trucking costs and increased traffic impacts on roads leading to the Project Site and residences and other receptors along those roads.:. (b) There is sufficient soil and geologic material onsite to provide cover . The. use of a standby borrow area on the Project Site is allowed if it is needed. (c) This alternative is less desirable than the Project because it is not necessary to provide adequate cover for .the fill . The use of cover from the Project Site itself will avoid potential impacts of this alternative, and accordingly the Project is preferable to this alternative. 54 C. Off Site/Reduced Service Area Alternative. This Board finds that the Off-Site/Reduced Service Area Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than this Land Use Permit and the Project at this time, and rejects the Off-Site/Reduced Service Area Alternative at this time for the following reasons : (a) Pursuant to this alternative, more than one sanitary landfill would be approved by the County and this Project would receive wastes only from service areas that are currently served by Valley Waste Management, which is affiliated with Waste Management of North America, Inc . Under this alternative, the Marsh Canyon Landfill Site would not serve any residents of the County who are not currently served by Valley Waste Management . (b) This alternative would reduce the rate of waste delivery to the Project Site, and therefore reduce some impacts associated with that delivery. Waste brought to the Project Site would have to travel through East County, as it would under the Project, and this alternative would still result in traffic impacts in East County. (c) Siting more than one sanitary landfill would have greater impacts than siting only one sanitary landfill . More land would be removed from agricultural production during the use of landfill operation and the potential for land use conflicts with adjoining properties would be greater . The potential for adverse impacts on vegetation and wildlife would be greater with multiple landfills, fire hazard dangers may be greater, andivisual screening of the greater number of landfills would' be more difficult. Approval of multiple landfills would require much higher short-term capital expenditures, having a very substantial economic impact and perhaps resulting in substantially increased garbage collection rates for County residents and businesses . (d) The EIR states that the economic impact of this alternative on the viability of the Marsh Canyon Landfill Site would be considerable. Revenues could drop in comparison to the percentage of County wastes that: would be delivered to the Project Site, or rates for the area served by the Project Site would be raised substantially. The EIR also concludes that this alternative may not be economically feasible for some garbage collectors . (e) The Off-Site/Reduced Service Area Alternative would not eliminate any of the significant impacts of this Project . 51 (f) This Board has conditionally approved or declared its intent to approve one other landfill site, the Keller Canyon site. This approval or declaration of intent is conditional upon the results of the June 1990 election on the Keller Canyon referendum. (g) The service area for any approved landfill may be determined when this Board approves a franchise agreement for the landfill . (h) This Project is the only landfill site which is currently before this Board with a current EIR and which is not subject to a referendum petition. This Board cannot adopt this alternative at this time. (i) In rejecting this alternative at this time, this Board is not making any commitment or inference, or declaring any intent, either to adopt or to reject this alternative in the future. This Board may consider whether or not to approve another landfill as soon as unconditional approval of another landfill site can be considered by this Board. Also, the question of service areas will be determined either when this Board considers another landfill site or when the Board reviews a franchise or agreement for one or more landfill sites . D. Adjacent Canyon Alternative. This Board finds that the Adjacent Canyon Alternative, including both variations of that alternative, is infeasible and less desirable than this Land Use Permit and the Project , and rejects the Adjacent Canyon Alternative, including both variations of the alternative, for the following reasons : (a) This alternative consists of two variations, a combined landfill site including the Marsh Canyon Landfill Site and the adjacent canyon as an additional landfill, as well as using the adjacent canyon only. Both variations of this alternative would have increased impacts . (b) Under each variation of this alternative, the canyon just to the south of the Project Site would be added to the landfill or would serve as the only landfill . This canyon drains southeasterly in the Round Valley, and is similar in size and location to the Project Site. By combining two canyons into the Project, the Project would roughly double its lifetime and costs could be spread out over a longer time. This adjacent canyon is more remote than the Project canyon from existing residences on Marsh Creek Road, but is closer to, and drains into, Round Valley. 52 alternative, as well as the findings and determinations y .previously made by the County regarding alternate sites, as set forth in Section VIII .F, apply to this alternative. (e) If no landfill were approved at any site pursuant to this alternative, this alternative would leave the County with three options for solid waste disposal : using existing sites, developing radical waste reduction programs not requiring a new landfill , or exporting the entire waste stream . of the County. In adopting the. 1989 CoSWMP revision, this Board found all of these alternatives to be impractical . This County already produces a large volume of solid waste and the permitted landfill space is rapidly being filled. Any expansion of existing landfill sites would provide capacity for only one or two years . The export of large amounts of wastes to other counties is expensive and unreliable, and subject to the continuing approval and agreement of those counties . With radical waste reduction programs, a substantial portion of the County waste stream would still need to be deposited in sanitary landfills . (f) Adoption of the No Project Alternative would be contrary to this County' s obligations pursuant to its export agreements with Alameda County and with Solano County. (g) As stated elsewhere in these findings , many of the environmental impacts of this Land Use Permit and the Project have been mitigated to a less-than-significant, and this Land Use Permit and this Project will provide many benefits, including environmentally sound disposal! of solid wastes, and the resulting environmental , public health, economic, social and other benefits to the entireCounty. (h) Many impacts of this Project have been avoided or substantially lessened. The fact that :comparatively few residences are located near this landfill site is a benefit of this Project . Adopting this alternative would eliminate this benefit, and the avoidance or reduction of many Project impacts reduces the desirability of this alternative. (i) Existing landfill sites have insufficient capacity for the County' s waste stream,. a substantial portion of that waste stream will remain even if radical waste reduction programs were adopted, and export agreements with other counties are expensive and unreliable. (j ) The environmental , public health, social, economic and other benefits derived from this Land Use Permit and the Project as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations would not be obtained. 49 B. .-::;..Rail Transportation Alternative. This Board finds that the Rail Transportation Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than this Land Use Permit and the Project, and rejects the Rail Transportation Alternative for the following reasons : (a) The Rail Transportation Alternative is an alternative to that part of the Project involving the transport of solid waste to the Project Site. As described in the EIR, wastes would be hauled in rail containers from the Richmond or Martinez collection stations to a railroad transfer station which would be located along existing railroad track between Brentwood and Byron, approximately seven miles from the Project Site. This alternative would still require transportation of waste from this transfer station to the Project Site along Marsh Creek Road. (b) The primary benefit of this alternative would be elimination of transfer truck travel on Highway 4 through Oakley and Brentwood. Most other impacts of the Project would also arise if this alternative were adopted. This alternative eliminates only one impact of the proposed Marsh Canyon Landfill Site, and does not reduce or eliminate any other site-specific impacts, thus diminishing the benefit of approving the Rail Transportation Alternative. (c)' -This alternative would include substantial potential environmental impacts in itself . A new railroad transfer station could include noise, traffic, air and water pollution, fire, explosion risks, degradation of aesthetic values and incompatibility with surrounding land uses, -among other environmental impacts . . The off-loading facility between Byron and Brentwood would be located in an agricultural core area of the County, and the impacts on this area can be avoided by adopting the Project . (d) The EIR concludes this alternative may not be economically feasible. Transfer stations would still be needed to receive waste, and transfer trucks would still be required to 'transport wastes to the Project Site. (e) This alternative would primarily mitigate truck traffic impacts, and. truck traffic impacts are not unavoidable significant impacts of the Project . This alternative would add potentially significant adverse impacts . Because this alternative would further mitigate an insignificant impact by adding a potentially significant adverse impact, this alternative is undesirable. 50 range of alternatives analyzed in this site-specific EIR. This v process began in 1984 when the County began a series of landfill siting studies . Through various studies, ' the. Program EIR, and site-specific EIRs, the County has evaluated many sanitary landfill sites . These various reports and studies are all a matter of public record, they have previously been considered by this Board and they were incorporated by reference into the Program EIR. The information in these reports supporting this Board' s decision is summarized in the EIR, and this Board has considered these reports in approving the Land Use Permit . As a result of these studies and this ongoing process, the General Plan Amendment for five different sanitary landfill sites was approved in October 1989 . These five sites are the Bay Pointe Sanitary Landfill, the Keller Canyon Landfill , the East Contra Costa Landfill, the Kirker Pass Landfill and the Marsh Canyon Landfill Site which is the subject of this Land Use Permit . Following the adoption of the General Plan Amendment for these five sites, site-specific environmental review and consideration by this Board has been completed for only the Keller Canyon Landfill and this Marsh Canyon Landfill Site. Out of these two sites, the Keller Canyon portion of the General Plan Amendment has been suspended due to the filing of a referendum petition. The alternatives evaluated in the EIR for this Land Use Permit are in addition to the various alternatives which have previously been analyzed as a part of the County' s ongoing landfill siting process discussed above. With respect to the scope of the alternatives evaluated in the EIR, this Board finds that the EIR •sets forth a reasonable range of alternatives to this Land Use Permit and to the Project . Specifically, this Board finds that numerous alternate sites have been considered by the County in selecting landfill sites, and those alternate sites are adequately discussed and evaluated in the EIR, the Program EIR, and documents incorporated into the EIR or the Program EIR. The Program EIR explains why many of the alternate sites originally considered were rejected. In addition, this EIR and this Land Use Permit are the second phase of a series of development approvals pursuant to which the County is considering several possible landfill sites as possible alternative landfill disposal sites . Unlike situations where a local government is considering one site at a particular location, the evaluation , of alternative sites for a landfill for the County is ongoing as required by the provisions of state law, this County' s export agreements with other counties, and this County' s urgent need for new landfill capacity. In addition, the County' s consideration of landfill sites began with a consideration of 47 many possible alternate sites, many of which have been rejected. This ongoing process and the reasons why many of the sites which were originally considered and evaluated have been rejected are summarized in the EIR and in Section VII .F, below (findings regarding alternate landfill sites) . This Board adopts the findings set forth below in Sections V.A regarding the alternatives analyzed in the EIR, including certain findings which apply to all of the alternatives as set forth below in Section V.H. In addition, this Board' s findings regarding the range of alternatives evaluated in fight of the prior consideration of other sites are set forth below in Section VIII .F. A. No Project Alternative. This Board finds that the No Project Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than this Land Use Permit and the Project, and rejects the No Project Alternative for the following reasons : (a) Pursuant to this alternative, this Land Use Permit would not be approved and a sanitary landfill would not be developed at the Marsh Canyon Landfill Site. Under this alternative, it is possible that no new landfill would be developed in the County in this century, and this County would not make any progress at this time towards resolving its passing need. for new landfill capacity. (b) If this alternative was adopted, this County may have to site one or more landfills in locations that are closer to more 'homes and that may have greater impacts upon nearby- residents . This alternative would eliminate a primary benefit of this Project . (c) There are two possibilities for future use of the Project Site pursuant to this alternative. The Project Site could be maintained in grazing use, or ranchettes or luxury homes could be developed on the Project Site at some time. If the Project Site remained in its current use with grazing, this alternative might not have growth-inducing or cumulative impacts . Grazing on the Project Site would continue to degrade vegetation and other biotic values on site. If the Project Site is developed into ranchettes or luxury homes , such development could have potentially significant impacts on adjacent land uses and on agricultural and open space lands, including growth-inducing or cumulative impacts . (d) To the extent that this alternative implies that a landfill would be developed at another site, the findings of this Board with respect to the adjacent canyon 48 (a) The loss of recyclable materials is a potentially significant impact of this Project . Nevertheless, this impact might be avoided or substantially lessened. This Project is part of an ongoing County solid waste management and planning effort that includes a substantial commitment to recycling. This impact may be avoided by the County' s continuing implementation of recycling programs as referenced above. (b) The loss of recyclable materials is overridden and outweighed by the environmental , public health, economic, social and other benefits of the Project as more fully stated in Section VI , below, of these findings (the Statement of Overriding Considerations) . I . Changes Listed In The EIR As Irreversible. 1 . Facts . (a) The Draft EIR lists a number of irreversible environmental impacts in Section IV.E. The EIR does not list these impacts as significant and unavoidable. The impacts described in the EIR as irreversible are alteration of Marsh Canyon topography, alteration of visual aesthetics, alteration of surface drainage, removal of existing plant and animal habitat, death or displacement of wildlife, potential impact upon s"pecia`1`'status plant and animal species, placement of municipal wastes in Marsh. Canyon, potential groundwater or air contamination, loss of potentially recyclable -materials once disposed, and commitment of nonrenewable resources for hauling waste to the site. I i --. (b) The EIR states that the only listing of significant unavoidable impacts is the listing contained in section IV.A and the corollary part of the summary. This listing of irreversible impacts in section IV.E is a separate listing, and each impact listed in section IV.E is not necessarily unavoidable and significant . I (c) Some of the impacts listed as irreversible are similar or identical to significant unavoidable impacts as listed in section W.A. Some of the irreversible impacts are different than the impact's listed as significant and unavoidable. 2 . Findings . Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board finds that : 45 (a) Of the impacts listed as irreversible, - those impacts 1-1 are not also listed as unavoidable and significant, are not unavoidable significant impacts . These irreversible impacts generally are not listed in the EIR as unavoidable significant impacts of the Project . (b) Those irreversible impacts of the Project which are also listed as unavoidable significant impacts are significant or potentially significant, as set forth in these findings previously. This Board has already adopted findings regarding these impacts, as set forth above. (c) All of these irreversible impacts of the Project are overridden and outweighed by the environmental , public health, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as more fully stated in Section VI , below, of these findings (the Statement of Overriding Considerations) . K. Other Environmental Impacts . 1 . Facts . (a) The EIR does not list any other impacts of this Project as unavoidable and significant . 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : (a) Except for any impacts of this Project which are determined to be unavoidable and significant as set forth above, the other impacts of this Project are either insignificant, or have been avoided, substantially lessened, or mitigated to a less-than-significant level . (b) Any such impacts remaining, despite the mitigation measures set forth for each category of environmental impact, are overridden and outweighed by the environmental , public health, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as more fully stated in Section VI , below, of these findings (the Statement of Overriding Considerations) . V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT The approval of this Land Use Permit and the Project by this Board are part of a lengthy, ongoing process of considering and approving new sanitary landfill sites in the County to replace the existing sanitary landfills which will soon be closed. This ongoing process has involved the consideration of numerous different sites above and beyond the 46 (b) : As stated above, most of the lands surrounding the Project Site are governed by Williamson Act agricultural preservation contracts that will remain in effect for a substantial time. (c) The EIR concludes that cumulative impacts can be reduced to a level of insignificance, and states that many of the mitigation measures imposed on this Project will generally mitigate cumulative impacts . The EIR also notes that any growth-inducing impacts of the Project may be limited by the County' s application of its general plan and zoning ordinance designations, and by the effect of existing Williamson Act contracts . (d) The EIR states that any growth-inducing impact of this Project will be indirect . (e) The lack of a substantial number of residences near this landfill is a benefit of this Project . (f) The lands between the Project Site and the City of Brentwood along Marsh Creek Road are generally designated in the existing General Plan and in the existing County zoning ordinance for agricultural use. Williamson Act agricultural preservation . contracts apply to some of these lands . The proposed General Plan update for the County continues to designate most of these lands for agricultural use. (g) In 1987, this Board rejected a general plan amendment and Williamson Act cancellation for; the proposed S.H. Cowell Foundation project, which would have included substantial new residential and other development .! 2 . Findings . Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board finds that : (a) The extension of the water pipeline, and resulting growth inducing impacts, are a potentially significant impact of the Project . Nevertheless this impact may be substantially lessened. Many of the agricultural and open space lands in the Project Site vicinity and along Marsh Creek Road are designated in the County' s general plan and/or zoned for agricultural and open space uses . In addition, the draft of the proposed revision of the County general plan designates the lands in the vicinity of the Project Site for agricultural use. (b) In addition, this Board has rejected large development proposals in these areas previously. The 43 ' f existing designations for surrounding lands, this Board' s prior rejection of 1,arge development proposals, and the substantial testimony that it is disadvantageous to development near a . landfill site, confirm that growth inducing impacts of this Project may be substantially lessened or avoided. This Project, by placing a land use which is perceived to be undesirable in an agricultural area, may help to discourage development on surrounding agricultural lands and preserve them in agricultural use. (c) Nevertheless, growth-inducing impacts of the Project which may result from the extension of the water main are at least potentially significant and potentially unavoidable. (d) The extension of the water pipeline, and any growth-inducing impacts of the Project which may result from that extension, are overridden and outweighed by the environmental , public health, economic; social and other benefits of the Project as more fully stated in Section VI , below, of these findings (the Statement of Overriding Considerations) . H. Loss Of Recyclable Materials . 1 . Facts . (a) The Draft EIR states on page IV-1 that the Project',will` have an adverse impact resulting from the loss of potentially recyclable materials when they are disposed into the landfill . The EIR lists this impact as significant and unavoidable. (b) The Conditions of Approval include provisions for a prerequisite curbside recycling program. In addition, the County' s 1989 CoSWMP revision includes substantial programs to encourage more recycling in the County. Pursuant to the 1989 integrated waste management legislation, the County will be required to achieve even greater source reduction through recycling and other means . (c) Recyclable materials can be screened and sorted at transfer stations or at other locations prior to reaching the landfill . Materials which are recycled, either through a curbside recycling program, sorting at a transfer station, or some other recycling program, will not be deposited into the landfill . 2 . Findings . Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board finds that : 44 stability, and soil compaction are overridden and outweighed by • the environmental , public health, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as more fully stated in Section VI , below, of these findings (the Statement of Overriding Considerations) . E. Effect On Two Cultural Sites . 1 . Facts . (a) The Draft EIR states on page IV-1 that the Project will have an adverse impact on two potentially significant cultural sites . The EIR lists this impact as .significant and unavoidable. The EIR states that the significance of these sites are potentially significant . (b) The Conditions of Approval include detailed excavation and evaluations of these sites for potential significance. If the sites are determined to be significant, then either the site must be preserved or data recovery through excavation shall take place. (c) One of the two potentially significant sites is CA-CCo-602, a bedrock milling site consisting of a single bedrock mortar depression. This site was studied as a part of the environmental review for this Project; and no artifacts or evidence of midden deposits was found. (d) The other ' site, CA-CCo-545H, is a potentially significant homestead site. The site includes a stone foundation, a possible cellar depression, a well, two possible backfilled privy pits, a cistern, a spring box, and associated piping. This site was also studied as ! a part of the environmental review for this Project, and some artifacts, including metal and glass objects, were found. 2. Findings . This Board finds that : I .(a) The impact of this Project on these two sites is potentially significant . (b) The impact of this Project on the two cultural sites is overridden and outweighed by the environmental , public health, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as more fully stated in Section VI ,. below, of. these findings (the Statement of Overriding Considerations) . 41 F. Consumption Of Energy. 1 . Facts . (a) The Draft EIR states on page IV-1 that the Project will have an adverse impact as a result of energy consumption. The EIR lists this impact as significant and unavoidable. (b) The Conditions of Approval include maintenance of equipment for energy efficiency, and an energy recovery system, if deemed feasible pursuant to a separate environmental review. (c) Some expenditure of energy is required to haul waste to any landfill . At this time, a substantial portion of this County' s waste is being exported to other counties, resulting in increased use of energy to haul waste to the landfill sites in those other counties . 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : (a) This impact is potentially significant , although it is . possible that energy impacts of the Project will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The Conditions of Approval include maintenance of equipment for energy efficiency and a possible energy recovery system. An energy recovery system, if implemented, may reduce energy impacts of the Project. Nevertheless, the impacts of the Project relating to energy are potentially significant . (b) The energy impacts of the Project, including any additional energy which may be required for .this Project, are overridden and outweighed by the environmental , public health, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as more fully stated in Section VI , below, of these findings (the Statement of Overriding Considerations) . G.: Water Pipeline Extension And Growth Inducement . 1 . Facts . (a) The Draft EIR states on page IV-1 that the Project will have an adverse impact arising as a result of the water pipeline extension and the possible premature loss of . agricultural and open space lands . The EIR lists this impact as significant and unavoidable. 42