HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 028-92 SRRE/HHWE NegDeclRESOLUTION NO. 28 - 92
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT (SRRE) AND
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT (HHWE) AND
APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Integrated Waste
Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) the City of Dublin has prepared a Source
Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and a Household Hazardous Waste
Element(HHWE); and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as
amended together with the State of California CEQA Guidelines and the
City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, require that certain projects
be reviewed for environmental impacts and that the environmental
documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the laws and guidelines previously described,
a Negative Declaration for the City of Dublin SRRE and HHWE has been
prepared by the City of Dublin Planning Department and is attached
hereto as Exhibit A and by reference made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said Negative Declaration was given as
legally required; and
WHEREAS, the Findings of the Negative Declaration identified
certain significant impacts which would be mitigated by the project
design; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section
21080(c)(2), the City of Dublin commits to incorporate proposed
mitigation measures identified in Exhibit A to eliminate significant
impacts in the design, construction, or operation of any solid waste or
hazardous waste facility; and
WHEREAS, the inclusion of mitigation measures would occur at such
time said facilities may be proposed within the jurisdiction of the City
of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, The City of Dublin shall also work with other
jurisdictions to ensure that mitigation measures are applied to any
facility within their jurisdictions that may be used to manage wastes
generated in the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires that a
monitoring program be included when a public agency adopts a Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Dublin finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance (Exhibit A) has been prepared and processed in accordance
with State and City laws and regulations, including CEQA, the State CEQA
Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, and that it
is adequate and complete.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, pursuant to California Public Resources
Code Section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation
Monitoring Plan as described in Exhibit B.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of March, 1992.
AYES:
Councilmembers Burton, Howard, Jeffery, & Moffatt
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Snyder
.a: ~eso28. agenda#9
CITY OF DUBLIN
',,., ~-"";i....__~ y RO. Box 2340. Dublin, CaIJornia 94568
"':--:-LIj'!%~-"-:""'
City Offices. 100 Civic Plaza. Dublin, California 94568
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(To be prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq. and the City of Dublin
Environmental Guidelines, Section 1.7(c), 5.5)
Description of the Project:
City of Dublin Source Reduction and
Recycling (SRR) Element and
Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)
Element.
Project Location:
City-wide (City of Dublin and extended
planning area)
Name Of Proponent:
City of Dublin
Findings:
I hereby find that although the proposed
project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because
the mitigation measures such as those
described in the initial study will be
added to the project(s) as they are
implemented.
I hereby find that there are no
potential adverse impacts either
individually or cumulatively to wildlife
resources and that no filing fee need be
paid to the Department of Fish and Game.
Initial Study:
The Initial Study is attached with a
brief discussion of the following
environmental components where
significant adverse effects of the SRR
and HHW Elements could potentially
occur:
1) Air
2) Water
3) Noise
4) Risk of Upset
5) Transportation/Circulation
6) Public Services
7) Human Health
8) Aesthetics
'~'reparation:
(510) 833-6610.
Signature:La 'u ence~'P/ll~ann%Director
Date: October 31, 1991
LLT/DHC:/SRRHHWND
This NegaElve Declaration was prepared
by the City of Dublin Planning Staff,
EXHIBIT
Offices. 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin. Cahiom.a 94568
CITY OF DUBLIN
NOTICE OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TO:
Interested Citizens, Responsible and
Interested Agencies
FROM:
Department of Planning
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, California 94568
Attention:
Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner
(510) 833-6610
DATE:
November 1, 1991
SUBJECT:
Notice of Proposed Negativ~ Declaration for the City
of Dublin Source Reduction and Recycling (SRR) Element
and Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Element.
The City of Dublin hereby presents notice that a Negative
Declaration has been prepared for the SRR/HHW Elements.
An Initial Study has been completed and is attached. The
circulation period for this proposed Negative Declaration
will extend from November 1, 1991 to December 1, 1991.
Comments should be addressed to Dennis Carrington at the
address listed above before December 1, 1991.
A~t. achments
CONTENTS
Background ............................................
Project Description ........................................
Project Location
SRR Element
HHW Element
Probable Environmental Effects of the Project ................... : . . .
1
2
2
2
6
8
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF DUBLIN SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELE~MENT
AND HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT
BACKGROUND
The City of Dublin, in the County of Alameda, has prepared a Source Reduction and
Recycling (SRR) Element pursuant to State of California requirements which mandate all cities
and counties in the state to participate in a local integrated waste management process.
In 1989, California Assembly Bill 939 was passed and legislation enacted in the form of
the California Integrated Waste Management Act (CIWMA) of 1989. This was done in response
to the need for diverting materials from landfills in order to preserve decreasing land fill capacity
and natural resources. The CIWMA requires cities and counties to divert 25 percent of solid
waste from disposal by January 1, 1995, and to divert 50 percent by January 1, 2000. The
CIWMA sets the following priorities from promoting integrated waste management:
Diversion through source reduction
Diversion through recycling and composting
Environmentally safe transformation and environmentally safe land disposal
Prior to enactment of the CIWMA, each county in California was required to prepare a
County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP) to provide a means for orderly management
and planning for solid wastes. The CoSWMP process is now replaced with the SRR Element
process for each city and unincorporated county area, and with California Integrated Waste
Management Plan (CIWMP) in each county. Three elements are to be included in a Ci'WMP:
SRR Element
Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Element
Siting Element
Each city in California must prepare the SRR Element and HHW Element for its
jurisdiction. In addition, each county must prepare the SRR Element and HHW Element and
siting element for the unincorporated portion of the county. The countywide siting element
identifies the location of transformation or disposal sites which have sufficient capacity for a
15-year period, so that solid wastes generated in the county that cannot be reduced or recycled
can be safely handled. Each county must also assemble all city and courit_y SRR and HHW
Elements into the CIWMP.
Preliminary Draft City of Dublin
Printed on recycled paper
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
For purposes of this Initial Study, the project description consists of the City of Dublin' s
SRR Element and the HHW Element. This section provides an overview of the Elements.
Additional detail may be found in the individual reports which are available for review at the
City of Dublin Planning Department, located at 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California.
As discussed later in this Initial Study, this environmental review is necessary prior to
adoption of the Elements by Dublin. Because the Elements could lead to the development of
solid waste and/or household hazardous waste facilities at a future date, project specific
environmental reviews would need to be conducted at that time when facility location and design
and operational characteristics are known.
Project Location
Dublin is located near Pleasanton and Livermore in the "Tri-Valley" portion of Alameda
County. The' City has the least population of the three cities within the Valley area.
Preliminary 1990 U.S. Census figures estimate Dublin's population at 23,229.
SRR Element
The purpose of the SRR Element is to specify the means by which the City of Dublin will
achieve the 25- and 50-percent diversion as mandated by the CI'WMA. This document includes
the goals and objectives for both short-term (present to 1995) and mid-term (1995 to 2000)
planning periods. The SRR Element objectives summarize the percentage of solid waste
diversion which the City of Dublin plans to attain, through each of the component programs
required by the CIWMA, as follows:
· Source Reduction
· Recycling
· Composting
· Special Waste
· Education and Public Information
· Disposal Facility Capacity
· Funding
· Integration
Dublin has developed an extensive set of goals and objectives. -These objectives
~encompass all areas affecting the diversion and disposal plans on both a qualitative and
:quantitative basis. The objectives are separated into six areas: administrative and operations,
source reduction, recycling, composting, special wastes, and education and public information.
Preliminary Draft City of Dublin
Printed on recycled paper
The qualitative objectives are described below. The quantitative objectives and the time period
to achieve them follow the qualitative objectives.
Admini~rative/Operations
Choose economically feasible technologies in recycling and composting that
provide workable solutions, maximize economies of scale, minimize siting
problems, and have the flexibility to change as the situation requires. Participate
in regional cornposting, materials recovery, and disposal facilities as appropriate.
Participate in and provide systems that allow monitoring of disposal and diversion
activities by each jurisdiction to ensure the ability to measure diversion progress
and to provide accountability. Require the accounting of all material taken out
of the jurisdiction for the purposes of diversion. Support Alameda County in
requiring that all waste disposed in the Altamont and Vasco Road Landfills be
weighed and reported by waste type, city origin, and weighed quantity. These
requirements should be incorporated into the appropriate Solid Waste Facility
Permit with the next revision.
· Minimize disruptive changes by encouraging modification to current systems.
Implement a comprehensive public education program to encourage waste
diversion (source reduction, recycling,- and composting) by all citizens both at
home and at work. Create citizen understanding of the benefits of recycling and
how to participate in local and state programs.
Source Reduction
Reduce yard waste, paper, and nonrepalrable products by 2.5 percent in 1995 and
3 percent in 2000.
Provide systems that allow monitoring of source reduction activities to measure
progress and to provide accountability.
Implement a public education program to encourage source reduction by all
residents both at home and at work. Create public understanding of the benefits
of source reduction and how to participate in local and state programs.
Prelhninary Draft City of Dublin
Printed on recycled paper
Recycling
Composting
Restructure garbage collection rates to reduce the discount provided for additional
cans of service with a goal of eventually achieving a uniform can rate.
Continue support for the County's Home Composting Program through education
and public information programs.
Develop and implement procurement guidelines for increasing the use of recycled
and reusable products in government agencies.
In the short term, expand the existing residential curbside collection program to
include multifamily residences in Dublin and all single-family residences as a
result of the introduction of mandatory garbage collection service. These actions
will increase diversion by 0.9 percent.
Where possible, direct all appropriate loads of concrete and asphalt generated as
waste products in Dublin to appropriate processing facilities for these inert solid
wastes, thereby increasing diversion by 1.6 percent.
Consider establishing a recycling program for source-separated high grade office
paper.
In the medium term, investigate potential participation in a regional MRF, by
directing all of Dublin's nonresidential waste to that facility. This will increase
diversion by 17.1 percent.
Divert 6.6 percent of the total waste stream by 2000 through a yard waste
composting program.
Support the development and implementation of a reasonable subregional
composting programs for source separated yard waste.
Provide for source-separated collection and delivery of yard waste from
residences to the subregional cornposting facility and direct self-hauled yard waste
to this same facility.
Preliminary Draft City of Dublin
Printed on recycled paper
Special Wastes
Continue to support the asbestos monitoring program of the Air Pollution Control
Division (APCD) of the County Environmental Health Department in order to
reduce as much as possible the risks associated with asbestos removal. This
activity will be maintained throughout the short and medium terms.
Support reasonable program to divert bulky items for recycling or reuse.
Support reasonable countywide programs to perform analytical testing of sandblast
sand to reduce hazard potential and evaluate recycling potential.
Work with the county to implement the new Medical Waste Management Act, in
order to reduce hazards associated with improper handling of biomedical wastes
and provide documentation of quantities.
Support reasonable programs to reuse, recycle, or transform used tires.
Education and Public Information
Create a 50 percent awareness level by 1995 among community residents
concerning Dublin's curbside recycling and green waste programs.
Encourage a source reduction and recycling curriculum in all of Dublin's
elementary and secondary schools by 1995.
Maintain the awareness levels and programs as described above and revise those
objectives accordingly to achieve the long-term SRR Element goal of 50 percent
reduction in solid waste disposal.
Quantitative Objectives. As required by Section 18731 of the State Planning Guidelines,
Table 1 shows the percentage of solid waste diversion Dublin has currently achieved and the
percentage of diversion Dublin plans to attain by the end of the short-term planning period
(1995) and the end of the medium-term planning period through source reduction, recycling, and
composting program activities.
Preliminary Draft City of Dublin
Printed on recycled paper
6
Table I
Waste category
Existing/projected diversion
Source reduction
Recycling
Composting
Special waste
Total existing/projected diversion
Waste Diversion Objectives
Waste diverted, percent
1990 1995 2000
1.9 2.5 3.0
22.5 26.9 44.0
- - 6.6
24.4 29.4 53.6
As Table 1 shows, Dublin has already achieved a high rate of waste diversion
(24.4 percent) and should have little difficulty in achieving the remaining diversion needed to
meet the 1995 requirement of diversion of 25 percent of total waste generated. A principal
assumption of this analysis, however, is that diversion credit will be allowed for diversion of
concrete and asphalt inert wastes. For 1990, an estimated 7,271 tons of concrete and asphalt
were diverted from landfill disposal, comprising 13.2 percent of total waste generated. The
diversion of concrete and asphalt inert wastes from lind fill disposal is allowed to be counted
pursuant to state law.
HItW Element
HHW is defined by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWlVlB) as
"any discarded material from homes that may threaten human health or the environment if
disposed of incorrectly." Examples of HEW include leftover paint, used oil, used auto batteries,
cleansers, furniture polish, pesticides, and pool chemicals.
Introduction. The California State Legislature recognized the importance of proper
disposal of HHW by requiring local governments to establish comprehensive programs for
managing HHW as part of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939).
AB 939 requires all counties and cities in the state to reduce the amount of solid waste entering
landf~ls and to plan and implement HI-tW programs. A new law, AB 2707, specifically
addressing the issue of HEW, was passed in January 1991 by the state legislature. AB 2707
elevates the importance of HHW management by making the HHW component a separate
element that is similar to the SRR Element.
Preliminary Draft City of Dublin
Printed on recycled paper
7
County Program. Alameda County, supported by all its cities, has pursued the
development of an HHW program for the last several years. This program satisfies Dublin's
needs and AB 2707 requirements. The County has acknowledged the need for an HEW
management program in the CoSWMP (CoSWMP, July 1987) and in the subsequent County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan (Tanner Plan, March 1989). On the basis of these planned
documents and the passage of AB 939 (1989) and AB 2707 (1990) which also require the County
to develop and implement an HHW program, the Alameda County Waste Management Authority
(Authority) developed an HHW/Mini-Generator Collection Program which was approved by the
County Board of Supervisors in June 1990. The proposed HHW program consists of building
three permanent HHW collection facilities to be located in the northern, southern, and eastern
sections of the County.
Specific locations for these collection facilities have not been selected. However, the
general locations of the facilities will be the north/central area, southern area, and eastern area
of the County. A northern facility will cover the cities of Piedmont, Emeryville, Oakland,
Berkeley, and Albany. The southern facility will cover the cities of Hayward, Castro Valley,
Fremont, Union City, San Leandro, and some of the unincorporated areas of the County. The
eastern facility will cover the cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and the remaining
unincorporated areas of the County. The operation of each facility will consist of collection,
chemical identification, sorting, storing, lab packing, recycling, and disposal. Facility staff wiI1
remove HHW from the users' vehicles, sort and identify the waste, recycle where appropriate,
and lab pack for disposal. The disposal of the wastes will be handled by a licensed hazardous
waste hauler under proper manifestation and supervision by the facility staff.
The Countywide HI-IW/Mini-Generator Collection Program consists of the following
individual programs: collection, recycling, and public education and information.
The proposed permanent HHW collection facility which will be located in the east county
will be the designated facility for Dublin. Collection of recyclable HHW, such as batteries, oil
and paint, will occur at permanent HHW collection facilities.
Load Checking Program. Load checking currently occurs at all transfer stations and
landfills servicing the County. The operator of these facilities is responsible for implementation
of this program.
Objectives. State Planning Guidelines require that this section include objectives for the
short-term (1991-1995) and medium-term (1996-2000) planning periods.
Short-Term Objectives
Support Alameda County's HEW program by participating in the Countywide
HHW Program when the permanent facilities come on-line.
Preliminary Draft City of Dublin
Printed on recycled paper
Encourage public participation in the County program by advertising the
availability and purpose of the permanent HHW disposal facilities.
Increase the number of Dublin residents using the Countywide HHW collection
facilities to 5 percent of Dublin's households by 1995.
Reduce by 10 percent the amount of HHW commingled with the solid waste at
solid waste facilities by 1995.
Medium-Term Objectives
1. Continue short-term programs.
Increase the number of Dublin residents using the Countywide HHW collection
facilities to 10 percent of Dublin's population by 2000.
Reduce by 25 percent the amount of HHW cornmingled with the solid waste at
solid waste facilities by 2000.
PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
The attached Initial Study Checklist has been prepared to summarize the probable
environmental effects of the proposed project. For purposes of the Initial Study, the project
description is the SRR and HHW Elements. This environmental review of the SRR and HHW
Elements is necessary prior to adoption of the Elements by the City of Dublin. This review,
however, is not adequate to support siting of a future date of any of the solid waste or hazardous
waste facilities identified in the project description. Information is not available at this time on
facility specifics, including design and operational characteristics, or operator. Appropriate
siting studies and project-specific environmental reviews will need to be conducted for those
projects. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project specific
environmental reviews would thoroughly consider potential project impacts, mitigation measures,
and alternatives. It would be entirely speculative to attempt to evaluate project impacts at the
present time. This Initial Study, however, does provide some general discussion of the potential
environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with these facilities. The discussion
in all areas of the checklist was prepared by Brown and Catdwell staff, including Mr. Paul
Scheidegger (managing environmental specialist) and Mr. Erv Nesheim'(chief solid waste
}engineer). These individuals are knowledgeable in the potential envirBnmental impacts
. associated with solid waste and hazardous waste facilities. The purpose of this discussion is to
inform the decision makers of the possible consequence of adopting SRR and HHW Elements
which commit the jurisdiction to support facility development and implementation.
Preliminary Draft City of Dublin
Printed on recycled paper
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Yes No
significant Mitigatable significant
adverse (Yes, No, adverse
effect (Unknown) effect
Unknown
effect
Earth. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions
or in changes in geologic
substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacement,
compaction, or overcovering
of the soil?
c. Change in topography or
round surface relief
~eatures?
d. The destruction, covering,
or modification of any
unique geologic or physical
features?
e. Any increase in wind or
water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
Changes in deposition or
erosion of beach sands, or
changes in siltation, depo-
sition, or erosion which
may modify the channel of a
river, stream, or the bed
of the ocean or any bay,
inlet, or lake?
2. Air.
in:
Exposure of people or prop-
ert to geologic hazards
suck as earth~t~akes, land-
slides, mudslides, ground
failure, or similar
hazards?
Development of a regional composting or Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) facility
would require ap ropriate site modifications to accommodate the project. Such
changes would liEely not be significant.
Will the proposal result
a. Substantial air emissions
or deterioration of ambient
air quality?
b. The creation of objection-
able odors?
Yes
Yes
c. Alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or
any change in climate,
either locally or regional-
ly? /
d. Construction or alteration
of a facility within one-
fourth of a mile of a
school, which might emit
hazardous air emissions? /
Achieving the state mandated recycling goals will reduce the quantity of solid
waste requiring disposal. As a result, the number of vehicle miles travelled
(VMTs) and motor vehicle emissions should be reduced. Reducing the amount of
solid waste and HHW requiring disposal would also reduce the potential impacts
associated with landfill gas and leachate production at the landfill and extend
landfill life.
-1-
Yes No
significant Mitigat~e significant
adverse (Yes, i adverse Unknown
effect (Unknown) effect effect
While overall benefit to air quality should result, increased motor vehicular
emissions can occur. Curbside collection and separate collection of recyclables
will result in more VMTs and motor vehicular emissions. A regional HHW facility
would be characterized by large numbers of private vehicles delivering small
amounts of recyclables and household hazardous waste which can also add to total
motor vehicle emissions.
Development of a regional composting facility or materials recovery facility
(MRF) would result in fugitive dust and exhaust emissions during construction
and operation due to transportin materials on the site and processing of the
materials that occur within the ~acitity.
These emissions, as well as those
be significant. However, there are a
operational measures which can reduce potential impacts to less than significant
levels.
Because a regional compost facility would not use sewage sludge, the potential
for nuisance odor conditions would be greatly reduced. Yard waste, however,
does contain substances which could produce odors during the stora e or
composting process. Pockets of anaerobic activity can generate hydrogen sulfide
gas I"rotten egg" odor). Potential odor impacts can be reduced to less than
significant levels through selection of the composting process, proper
management of the com ost piles, use of a process as recovery system and
various odor control ~eatures, and minimizing the ~ength of on-site storage.
3. Water. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the
course or direction of
water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns or
the rate and amount of
surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course
or flow of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of
surface water in any water
body?
e. Discharge into surface
waters?
f. Alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not
limited to, temperature,
dissolved oxygen or tur-
bidity?
g. Alteration of the direction
or rate of flow of ground-
waters?
h. Change in the quantity of
groundwaters, either
through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer
by cuts or excavations?
i. Substantial reduction in
the amount of water other-
wise available for public
water supplies?
j. Exposure of people or prop-
erty to water related
hazards such as flooding or
tidal waves?
k. Significant change in the
temperature, flow, or chem-
ical content of surface
thermal springs?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-2-
Yes No
significant Mitiga~'le significant
adverse (Yes, , adverse Unknown
effect (Unknown) effect effect
Development of a regional MRF, composting, or HHW facility would require
construction of impervious surfaces. The reduction in the recharge area coul~
result in a otent~al loss of roundwater resources. This may or may not be
significant Eepending on site ~ocation and groundwater characteristics, but
could be mitigated by use of an on-site retention/percolation pond. Increase
impervious areas also have the potential to result in, or contribute to,
significant drainage impacts at the site or on adjacent properties. Mitigation
would include design of a drainage system capable of accommodating a specxfic
design year storm as directed by the Regional Water Quality control Board
(RWQCB) and use of appropriate design safeguards as required by the State
Department of Health Services (DHS).
Development of a regional MRF, composting, or HHW facility also has the
potential to adversely affect surface water and groundwater ality at or near
the project site. Mitigation of these potential impacts wou~d be addressed
during facility design and include such measures as collection, treatment, ana
disposal of any potentially contaminated liquids on-site in a manner consistent
with the requirements of the RWQCB and the local sewage district, berming of
areas such as the compost drying area, use of enclosed structures, and use of
ap ropriate low permeabilit or sealed floor areas to prevent water
infiltration. For HHW facilities, compliance with all applicable hazardous
waste storage regulations would mitigate potential water quality impacts.
A regional MRF and composting facility would have specific construction and
significance of potential water supply ampacts would need to be
evaluated during project specific environmental review and in the context of the
water supply conditions that exist at the time. Design and operational measures
are available to minimize water use. Use of reclaimed water or non-potable
groundwater would need to be evaluated.
4. Plant Life.' Will the proposal
result in:
a. Change in the diversity of
species, or number of any
species of plants (includ-
ing trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of
any unique, rare, or
endangered species of
plants?
c. Introduction of new species
of plants into an area, or
in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing
species?
d.Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop?
Potential impacts to plant life and agricultural crops are site-specific
considerations. These considerations should be incorporated into facility
siting studies so as to avoid potential impacts to the extent possible. Project
specific environmental reviews will further consider these issues in detail and
develop appropriate mitigation measures.
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Change in the diversity of
specxes of animals (birds,
_ tiles, fish,
~ benthic organisms or in-
~ sects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of
any unique, rare, or en-
dangered species of
animals?
-3-
Yes No
significant Mitigat~e significant
adverse (Yes, , adverse Unknown
effect (Unknown) effect effect
c. Deterioration to or re-
duction of the habitats of
birds, land animals,
reptiles, fish, shellfish,
benthic organisms, or
insects)?
d. Interfere significantly
with the movement of any
resident or mi ratory
species of birds, land
organisms, or insects? /
Potential impacts to animal life are site-specific considerations. These
considerations should be incorporated into facility siting studies so as to
avoid potential impacts to the extent possible. Project specific environmental
review will further consider these issues in detail and develop appropriate
mitigation measures.
6. Noise. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Increases in existing noise
levels? / Yes
b. Exposure of people to
severe noise levels? / Yes
Curbside collection and separate collection of recyclables will result in more
refuse collection trucks that pass by each residence and will increase noise
levels slightly and on an intermittent basis. Noise levels will also increase
around regional HHW facilities due to increased numbers of vehicles and handling
of the recyclables and household hazardous wastes. Such noise levels, however,
are usually not significant. If problems do occur, noise impacts can be
mitigated using barriers.
Development of a regional MRF would result in increased noise levels due to
transporting the materials to the site and the processingof the materials that
occurs within the facility. The signifi-cance of potentialimpacts would depend
on the sensitivity of surrounding land uses. Generally, proper siting and
desi n of the containing structure(s) can mitigate noise levels external to the
facility. Application of CAL/OSHA and federal occupational and health standards
would mitigate noise levels to employees.
Increased noise levels would also be associated with a regional composting
facility. Noise impacts at composting facilities would be due '
materials into smaller sizes, processing equi ment, and vehicles distributing
composted material to their ultimate uses. T~e significance of potential
impacts would be dependent on site-specific characteristics, but could be
mitigated through use of proper ear protectors and appropriate design measures.
7. Light and Glare. Will the pro-
posal produce new light glare? /
8. Land Use. Will the proposal
result in a substantial altera-
tion of the present or planned
land use of an area? /
Development of a regional MRF, composting, or HHW facility will result in the
alteration of the resent land use of the area. During facility siting,
consideration should be given to locating these facilities on land that is planned
and zoned for these uses. Some revision to local planning and zoning laws may be
_ required before these projects can be approved. -
9.~' Natural Resources. Will the
proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use
of any natural resources?
b. Substantial deoletion of
any nonrenewable natural
resource?
-4-
Yes No
significant Mitigat~le significant
adverse (Yes, adverse Unknown
effect (UnknoWn~ effect effect
The SRR/HHW Elements will have a beneficial effect on natural resources by
encouraging the reuse of materials that would otherwise be disposed of in
landfills and by reducing the amount of household hazardous waste in the solid
waste stream than can threaten human health or the environment.
10. Risk of Upset. Will the pro-
posal result in:
a. A risk of an explosion or
the release of hazardous
substances (including, but
not limited to', oil pest-
icides, chemicals, or rad-
iation) in the event of an
accident or upset con-
ditions? / Yes
b. Possible interference with
an emergency evacuation
plan? /
c. Exposure of persons to
contaminated soil or toxic
materials? / Yes
Upset conditions (i.e., spills, fire or explosion) in a regional HHW facility
would have the potential to result in significant safety impacts and potential
public liability. Long-term and undetected spills could result in significant
soil and groundwater impacts, and fire or explosion could result in sIgnificant
short-term safety and a~r quality impacts. Implementation of adequate
collection, handling, storage, and off-site transportation for
recycligg/disposal of collected hazardous waste would reduce the potential
safety impacts of these substances to an insignificant level.
Transport of HHW by generators to a regional facility is subject to less control
than transport by licensed haulers. This has the potential to expose people to
toxic materials, but mitigation can be achieved by appropriate education of the
public.
11. Population. Will the proposal
alter the location, distribu-
tion, density, or growth rate
of the human population of an
area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal
housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation.
Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial
additional vehicular move-
ment?
b. Effects on existing parking
facilities, or demand for
new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon
existing transportation
systems?
d. Alterations to present
patterns or circulation or
~ movement of people and/or
r goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne,
rail, or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards
to motor vehicles, bicycl-
ists, or pedestrians?
Yes
-5-
Yes
significant Mitiga~ .... le
adverse (Yes, ~,
effect (Unknown)
No
significant
adverse Unknown
effect effect
Achieving the state mandated recycling goals will reduce the quantity of solid
waste requiring disposal. As such, the number of vehicles required to transport
in these service areas, but the additional vehicular movement is not considered
significant nor is the impact to the existing transportation system. Additional
vehicular movement in these service areas could create additional hazards to
other vehicles, bicycles, or pedestrians, but the impact should not be
significant.
Development of a re ional MRF, composting, or HHW facility could, depending on
site location, result in the introduction of new vehicular traffic into an area.
The potential impacts to the existing transportation systems and the potential
for traffic hazards would depend on where the sites are located and the
conditions of approach roadways. Typically, such facilities do not create
significant demands on existing street systems, but creation of traffic hazards
are issues that can assume importance. Vehicular accidents may occur when HHW
is being transported by individuals to, or haulers from , the facility.
14. Public Services.Will the pro-
posal have an effect upon, or
result in a need for new
altered governmental services
in any of the following areas?
a. Fire protection? / Yes
b. Police protection? / Yes
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities?
facilities, c
roads? / Yes
f.Other governmental
services?
A regional HHW facility would concentrate a variety of toxics and materials with
high explosive or incendiary potential. Under upset conditions at a facility,
highly specialized fire equipment and personnel would be required. Police
~1 oa on a~ if nearby evacuation of the public is
o
an accident occurred involving a truck
hauling major amounts of such materials through public streets.
Development of regional facilities such as an MRF or composting facility could
increase street maintenance costs sli htly. Regional facilities would create
slight demands on public services suc~ as fire protection and selected
overnmental services responsible for monitoring and permitting of solid and
~azardous waste facilities, but impacts would not be expected to be significant.
!5.' Ener y. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts
of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in
demand upon existing
sources of energ , or
require the development of
new sources of energy?
Curbside collection and separate collection of recyclables would create
additional demands for fuel but less fuel would be requirea to dispose of solid
waste. Increased recycling would result in a reduction in the amount of energy
required to manufacture the materials that are being recycled. Additional
materials processing would increase energy demand.
16. Utilities. Will the proposal
result in a need for new sys-
tems, or substantial alter-
ations to the following
utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
-6-
Yes No
significant Mitiga+~'le significant
adverse (Yes, ~ adverse
effect (Unknown~ effect
Unknown
effect
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Development of additional facilities for implementation of the SRR/HHW Elements
would require provision of appropriate utilities, but impacts are not
anticipated to be significant.
Achieving the state-mandated recycling oals will reduce the antity of solid
waste requiring disposal. The potent~a~ qualitative change o~the residual
materials could require some material handling and landfill design
modifications. These potential qualitative changes, which may be beneficial or
adverse, will need to be assessed as the wastestream changes.
17. Human Health. Will the pro-
posal result in:
a. Creation of any health
hazard or potential health
hazard (excluding mental
health)?
Yes
Yes
Exposure of peo le to
potential healt~ hazards?
Creation of a fire hazard
from flammable brush,
grass, or trees? / Yes
Curbside collection and separate collection of recyc!ab!es has the potential to
cause significant health impacts. However, collection of source-separated
materials with known characteristics is easier to engineer for safety than a
mixed waste stream. Containers and collection equipment can be designed to
minimize contact with any material, and the worker can be outfitted with
necessary safeguards such as gloves, ear and eye protecto'rs, dust filters, etc.
Separating the waste stream into various' subunits for collection tends to reduce
the weight of each container, thereby reducing the conditions for collector
lifting injuries, a common problem among waste haulers.
The use of mobile and processing e ipment, such as would occur in regional MRF
or composting facilities under conditions of traffic congestion and l~mited
space, present otential safety impacts. However, all impacts are subject to
m~tigat~on by tee applicationof CAL/OSHA and federal occupational and health
standards and proper design.
Composting also has the potential for spontaneous combustion arising from the
thermophilic conditions an a compost pile. This can be mitigated by proper pile
management.
The wastestream brought to a regional HHW facility for ' and materials
wastes, but could consist of any type of hazardous material utilized by
households and small quantity generators. Exposure of facility patrons and
employees to these materials could result in adverse health and safety imoacts.
However, with education of the facility patrons as to proper handling and'
transport and with proper handling and storage of collected wastes at the
facility in full conformance with CAL/OSHA and federal occupational and health
standards, potential impacts can be reduced to insignificance.
18. Aesthetics.
result in:
Will the proposal
a. The obstruction of any
scenic vistas or view open'
to public view?
b. The creation of an
aesthetically offensive
site open to public view?
Yes
-7-
Yes No
significant Mitiga~-~le significant
adverse (Yes, , adverse Unknown
effect (Unknown) effect effect
C®
The destruction of a stand
of trees, a rock out-
cropping, or other locally
recognized desirable
aesthetic natural feature? /
Any negative aesthetic
effect? / Yes
Source reduction, particularly of throwaway packaging, and strong markets for
beverage containers, as provided by the California "bottle bill" (AB 2020), will
reduce roadside litter and improve visual impacts throughout the community.
Improper or vandalized set-outs of rec clables at curbside can negatively impact
the appearance of residential neighborhoods and commercial areas. These
conditions can be miti ated by roper containerization and monitoring by both
the waste generator an~ the collector.
Any potential negative aesthetic effect associated with siting a MRF,
composting, or HHW facility can generally be mitigated by incorporating this
consideration into the siting process, and use of appropriate design measures
for softening/shielding views of the facilities from sensitive receptors.
19. Recreation. Will the proposal
result in an impact upon the
quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in
the alteration of or the
destruction of a
prehistoric or historic
archeological site?
b. Will the proposal result in
adverse physical or
aesthetic effects to a pre-
historic or historic bu!ld-
ing, structure, or object?
c. Does the proposal have the
potential to cause a
ph sical change which would
affect unique ethnic
cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict
t
exis ing religious or
sacred uses w~thin the
potential impact area?
Potential impacts to cultural resources are site-specific considerations. These
considerations should be incorporated into facility siting studies so as to
avoid potential impacts to the extent possible. Project specific environmental
review will further consider these issues in detail and develop appropriate
mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the extent possible.
21. Socio-Economic. Could the
project involve:
a. Expenditure of public funds
in excess of public
revenues generated by
private projects?
~ b. Reduction of low/moderate
~ income housing?
' c. Creation of demand for
additional housing?
d. Land use not in conformance
with character of sur-
rounding neighborhood?
e. Other (state):
-8-
.~ Yes No
· significant Mitiga~.e significant
adverse (Yes, . adverse Unknown
effect (Unknown~ effect effect
Development of a regional MRF, comDosting, or HHW facilit will alter the land
use of the project area. Compatibllity with surrounding ~and use is a
consideration that should.be ~ncorporated into facility siting studies so as to
avoid potential impacts to the extent possible. Mitigation measures developed
during project-specific environmental review will serve to enhance compatibility
of the project w~th surrounding land uses.
22. General Plans and Planning
Policy. Is the Project:
a. Inconsistent with the City
General Plan?
b. Inconsistent with specific
plans?
c. Inconsistent with other
adopted policies?
d. Potentially growth-
inducing?
23. Mandatory Findings of Sig-
nificance:
a. Does the project have the
potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,
substantiatl~ reduce the
habitat of fxsh or wildlife
species, cause a fish or
wildlife opulation to drop
below sel~ sustaining
levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the
number or restrict the
range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal,
or ellminate important
examples of the major
or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the
potential to achieve short-
term, to the advantage of
long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term
ampact on the environment
is one which occurs in a
relatively brief,
definitive period of time
while long-term impacts
will endure well into the
future.)
uatl limited, but cumula-
tive[y considerable? (A
project may impact on two
or more separate resources
where the ~mpact on each
resource is relatively
small, but where the effect
of the total of those
impacts on the environment
is significant.)
YES NO
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial
adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or
indirectly?
-9-
Approval of the SP'~nd HHW Elements would not res~ul~ in significant
environmental impal ~. Project specific environme ~1 reviews will be conducted
at the appropriate time when sites and projeczs ha~._ been defined. At this
time, proDect specific and cumulative impacts will be identified and evaluated.
24. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
[ ]
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures such as these described in the Initial Study will be added
to the project(s) as they are implemented. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE
PREPARED.
[ ]
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
DATE
( Signature
(Title)
r
-10-
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF DUBLIN
SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT (SRRE) AND
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT (HHWE)
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City
of Dublin hereby commits to take certain actions in the event a specific
solid waste or hazardous waste management facility is proposed in the
City of Dublin. The potential facilities discussed in the SRRE and HHWE
include Composting Facility, Material Recovery Facility, and Household
Hazardous Waste Collection Site.
The City of Dublin Planning Director will verify that the environmental
impacts of such a facility, as identified in this Initial Study are
reduced to insignificance through project design or adoption of
mitigation measures and that a program is provided to monitor compliance
with any such mitigation measures.
Further, the City Manager, or his/her designee, will work with other
cities and/or the County of Alameda to ensure that needed mitigation
measures are applied to any facilities approved within their
jurisdiction that will manage wastes generated from the City of Dublin.
a:resoexhb.agenda#9
EXHIBIT