The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.2 Draft Hazardous Waste Mgmt Plan 'r CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 9, 1988 ORAL COMMUNICATION SUBJECT: Draft Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan EXHIBITS ATTACHED: A: Presentation materials for the draft Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management !!�- Plan RECOMMENDATION:'\, 1. Hear Staff Presentation. 2. Hear presentation and pose questions to Alameda County Staff and their consultant. 3. Direct Staff to follow-up on all concerns raised by the City Council by writing a letter to the Alameda County Waste Management Authority no later than June /P 30, 1988. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Undetermined DESCRIPTION: I BACKGROUND In accordance with Assembly Bill 2948 (the Tanner Bill adopted by the California State Legislature in 1986) every county in the State of California is required to prepare a Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The Alameda County Waste Management Authority is preparing this plan for Alameda County. The plan will ultimately effect the City of Dublin as well as all other cities in the county. The Alameda County Waste Management Authority is a joint powers agency composed of cities in Alameda County including Dublin. The Authority is made up of council members from each of the 14 Alameda County cities, an Alameda County Supervisor and two representatives from special districts. The Authority is formally responsible for preparing the Plan and involving the public in its preparation. The Alameda County Planning Department acts as staff to the Authority, and is responsible for coordinating the work of several consultants hired to write the plan. The consultant team is headed by David Morell (of Morell and Associates/Exceltech, Inc.) J On March 23, 1988, the draft Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan was completed and made available for public review and comment. The related draft EIR is nearing completion and will soon be ready for public review and comment. Public comment of the draft Plan and on the draft EIR is invited either verbally at various public meetings or in writing (up to June 30, 1988) . A final Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan is due to be submitted to the California Department of Health Services (DHS) by September 30, 1988. The plan will ultimately be reviewed and approved by DHS. However, this will occur following the plans approval by the Waste Management Authority, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and a majority of the cities in the County. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ COPIES TO: ITEM NO. 11o. Z • During tonight's meeting, the Council will hear introductory remarks from Betty Croly, Assistant Planning Director of the Alameda County Planning Department and a brief presentation of the Plan by David Morell. The presentation will focus on the draft Plan. Any questions you may have should be directed to either Ms. Croly or Mr. Morell. II ISSUES Responding to the Problem Alameda County faces severe problems effectively managing and disposing of its hazardous wastes. It is difficult for cities to deal with this problem individually. Cities are constantly faced with the problems of: - dealing with hazardous wastes from past mismanagement (such as contaminated soils, remedial action wastes, waste from spills and leaks) ; - dealing with hazardous wastes from present industrial activities (acids, metals, solvents, etc. ) ; and - dealing with hazardous wastes from future industrial operations at existing facilities and new ones. In response to these issues, State law now requires that the problem be met at a county-wide level, with appropriate inter-jurisdictional coordin- ation. This is the basic thrust of AB 2948 - to create the planning and permitting framework upon which private industry can develop facilities to properly process and dispose of hazardous materials. If this framework is not provided, we will continue to have inadequate disposal and management methods that will lead to the continued growth of environmental risks. At present, there are no sites within Alameda County approved for the disposal of toxic or hazardous wastes. For years such wastes have been shipped out of the County to the Kettleman Hills site located in the southern part of the Central Valley. It is anticipated that a properly planned hazardous waste management plan will benefit business and industries by allowing them to dispose of these materials at a lower cost. Plan Approval Process As previously mentioned, the draft Plan has been completed and the public review process has started. The draft Plan has been submitted to DHS for review. A series of five public input meetings (held in late 1987 and early 1988) have been held at various locations throughout the County. The last was held on May 5th in Fremont. At this time members of the County Staff and the consulting team will be making presentations to City and public agency officials. Presentation for the Dublin City Council was scheduled for May 9, 1988. After the completion of the public information meetings, the Authority will hold two public hearings, one on May 23 in Oakland and another on May 25, 1988 in Hayward. The times and locations of these meetings will be announced. The Council will be made aware of the time and place. Any interested individual may submit written comments on the draft Plan and draft EIR until June 30, 1988. Once all comments have been received (after the June 30th deadline) a final EIR will be prepared during July and August. Changes to the Plan will be made during this time. During the month of September, 1988, the Final Plan and Final EIR will go through the formal approval process by Alameda County city councils and the Board of Supervisors. Once approved by these bodies, the Waste Management Authority Board will approve the Plan. It is required that a majority of the cities in the County, representing a majority of the County's population must approve the Plan in order for it to be effecive. State law requires that the approved Plan be submitted to the State Department of Health Services no later than September 30, 1988. The State has until December 31, 1988 to approve the Plan. Once the State has approved the Plan, all cities in.the County and the County are required by law to amend their general plans to incorporate the Hazardous Waste Management Plan. This must occur by June 30, 1989. After June 30, 1989, the Plan will be in effect and it will be utilized to guide the process of siting new hazardous waste disposal facilities and guide the process of reducing sources creating hazardous and toxic materials. Draft Plan Overview Because of the complexity and length of the draft Plan, it is not possible for this report to cover the issues in a thoroughly comprehensive manner. It is recommended that each Council member review the Plan (which is available in the City Manager's Office) and provide comments/concerns to Staff (as well as to the County and their consultant during this session) . The draft Plan is divided into five sections. They are: Section I - Background and Purpose. This'section provides reasons why we must address the hazardous waste dilemma. It also explains the law and scope of the Plan. Section II - Current Hazardous Waste Management - Issues and Analysis. This section identifies the current hazardous waste generation patterns in the County, the types and sources of waste and the problems involved in disposing of these wastes. Section III - Future Hazardous Waste Management - Issues and Analysis. This section identifies the factors affecting future hazardous waste management. It projects future amounts and types of hazardous wastes generated. In addition it describes methods that will assist in reducing hazardous wastes and identifies the site selection and approval process. Section IV - Implementation Strategy. This section identifies the method in which the program is implemented and coordinated through regulatory compliance. In addition, it describes methods for waste source reduction, land use siting procedures, public involvement in the plan and government funding programs. Section V - Environmental Assessment. This section describes the Plan, its environmental impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives to the Plan. Waste Facility Siting Procedure Issues in the draft Plan of greatest concern to most cities and the public revolve around: 1. Where will facilities involved in treating, processing, or disposing of hazardous wastes be located (termed siting)? 2. What is the procedure for approving a facility that treats, processes, or disposes of hazardous wastes? The following discussion provides a brief overview of the Plan's approach in dealing with the siting process for hazardous waste treatment facilities and the process in which the facilities would be approved. This discussion is not meant to take the place of reviewing the draft Plan, therefore it is recommended that members of the Council take the time to review the draft Plan and draft EIR. Step I - Inclusionary Criteria: This step identifies all areas in the County which may be appropriate for locating these facilities based on identifying current zoning and general plan land use designations as either general or heavy industrial. These areas must be near hazardous waste producers, must have good access to freeways and must be consistant with the goals and policies established with the Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Dublin does not contain any general or heavy industrial lands per our Zoning Ordinance/Map and General Plan. This Plan does not propose any transfer, storage, treatment, incinerator or residual repository facilities to Dublin. -3- ' Step II - Exclusionary Criteria: In this step, lands that do not meet the criteria mentioned in Step 1 are removed from consideration. Another set of restrictions are applied (such as eliminating - sites within 200 feet of an earthquake fault; sites within dam or reservoir failure flood areas; sites within an approach zone for an airport; sites that are environmentally sensitive because of being open space, prime agricultural land, wetland, parks, culturally significant or wildlife habitats) . Step III - Conditional Criteria: Sites that are not eliminated by the Inclusionary Criteria listed in Step 1 and the Exclusionary Criteria listed in Step 2 are now allowed to move forward to the third step. This step assesses individual sites for specific limitations related to the land and its surroundings. These are conditional criteria that cover such matters as - proximity to residential zones or residents; proximity to immobile populations (schools, hospitals, etc. ) ; availability of local emergency and other services; location within a 100 year flood plain; access to sewers; air quality and noise impacts; soil conditions; ground water situations, etc. Here the risk assessment must be determined on a site by site basis. The draft Plan will include County-wide maps that identify locations which conform to the first and second criteria outlined above. The maps will be available during the public review process. The site selection criteria are similar for ultimate disposal sites ("residuals repositories" , as they are known) , but the criteria are a little different, so as to make the residuals repositorers criteria even more restrictive. The City Manager's of Alameda County have reviewed a preliminary draft of the siting criteria. Generally, they _are inconcurrence with the proposed approach, however they would like to see the establishment of a fixed "buffer zone" to protect residential areas. The City Manager's felt that the criteria for this "buffer" zone should be assessed on a case by case basis as projects are proposed. Processing Procedure The draft Plan sets forth a specific process for approval of proposed hazardous waste facilities (including transfer stations, treatment facilities, incineration facilities, new multi-user facilities and residual repositories) . The Tanner Bill requires that a number of provisions be complied with by the local government. The most significant requirement is that the legislative body of the local government (The City Council) must appoint a local assessment committee (LAC) . The LAC must be appointed at least ninety (90) days before a land use permit is applied for. It would be made up of a seven member committee consisting of representatives from the community, from environmental or public interest groups, representatives from affected businesses and the public at large. According to the statute, the LAC is to negotiate with the developer on the "detailed terms of provisions and conditions for project approval, which would protect the public health, safety and welfare, in the environment of the City or County, and would promote the fiscal welfare of the City or County through special benefits and compensation" . (Section 25199.7(d)(2)(A) , California Health and Safety Code.) The LAC has access to technical assistance grants funded by the State Office of Planning Assistance (OPA) to hire independent consultants to assist it. After an LAC is established, OPA calls a local public meeting bringing together all interested parties to identify issues of concern. The LAC would then work with City Staff and technical experts and staff from other agencies and organizations in working out the appropriate provisions or conditions of an approval. The State Law is not clear on the way in which the LAC would relate to a Planning Commission or Board of Zoning Adjustments in a normal conditional use or other zoning approval process. The law also provides that at the conclusion of the approval process, the local government can enter into a performance contract to assure compliance in addition to the normal enforcement of conditions of a zoning approval. The contractual approach is intended to provide alternative, and perhaps more effective, avenues for legal action should a problem arise with compliance. State law provides for an appeal process whereby the decision of a local government re-assessed by the State if an appeal is filed with the State. This means the appeal process gives the State a means of overturning the decision of a local government. The State Law does not reduce the obligation of a facility operator to obtain all other necessary permits from Regional Air Quality and Water Quality Boards, the Environmental Protection Agency, the -4- State Department of Health Services, etc. Also, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) remains in affect and an EIR must be prepared on any project. III CONCLUSION As mentioned earlier in this report, the Hazardous Waste Management Plan is a complex and extensive document that will hopefully have positive lasting effects once approved. This draft Plan is much too comprehensive to have all issues covered by this report. It is emphasized that The Council should review the draft Plan and draft EIR and share their concerns/comments with Staff so that they can be appropriately addressed to the Alameda County Waste Management Authority. IV RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council hear the County and consultants presentations, pose questions to them, and direct Staff to follow up on all concerns raised by the Council by responding to the draft Plan and draft EIR by June 30, 1988 (by letter) to the Alameda County Waste Water Management Authority. i I -5- ALAMEDA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 670-5400 RECEIVED, APR 4: 1988 March 31, 1988 CITY OF DUBLIN TO: County Administrator City Managers District Managers FROM: Betty Croly, Assistant Planning Director SUBJECT: Hazardous Waste Presentation Several managers have asked for a copy of material to be presented td councils and boards. To assist you in this we are sending a copy of the presentation made to the Waste Management Authority. Council and Board presentations will be similar. If you have not done so, please call me or Joyce Brewer (670-5400) regarding the date for presentation of the draft Hazardous Waste Plan for your agency. BC/jpb Encl. 16515 ion run, A tAHm ALAMEDA COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT EXCELTECH, INC. FREMONT, CALIFORNIA ae to BRIEFING NOTES MARCH 23, 1988 :Y STATUTORY BASIS AB 2948 (TANNER), 1986 i BASIC OBJECTIVES OF PLAN • Accept local responsibility to manage. Alameda County's hazardous wastes • Encourage waste reduction • Full public involvement • Determine needs for treatment of wastes • Estimate local facility siting requirements • Identify appropriate location • Prepare for plan implementation CONTENTS OF PLAN • Goals and Policies • Current Hazardous Waste Management • Projections of Future Waste Generation Need for New Facilities • Siting Criteria: Meeting Capacity Needs • Appropriate Locations for New Facilities • Implementation Strategy • Source Reduction and Regulatory Compliance Programs • Environmental Assessment CURRENT HAZARDOUS WASTE .MANAGEMENT Alameda County Hazardous Waste Summary 1986 60 , 000 50,500 I TOTAL 0 1009900 TONS 40 , 000 0 7 0 0 32,100 E- ,o Waste Oils v 20 , 000 15,600 Solvents Fr0Q)All Other Oils wastes 1,800 900 0 Manifested F Small Recycled Household Cleanup a,: Wastes* Quantity Wastes Wastes Underground • Generators' Tanks Wastes *Excludes One-Time And Recycled Wastes b ffilb lkt WN 14 MIN MIN.... SEEN PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION FUTURE HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION AFFECTED BY: • industrial growth - types and locations • industry action; source reduction and offsite treatment • county and city action: source reduction requirements and small generator assistance activities Defines needs for new offsite facilities APPROACH: HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS TO 2000 • Growth - ABAG estimates • Strict source reduction at new facilities - 50% • Aggressive source reduction at existing facilities - 26% GROWTH PROTECTIONS TO 2000 Services 109 % Construction 77% Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 64% Wholesale Trade 60 % Manufacturing 46% Retail Trade 44% Transportation; Communication, Utilities 38 % Government 18 % Residences 10 % Agriculture & Mining -16 % 2000-SOURCE REDUCTION PROJECTIONS (TOTAL TONS REMAINING*1 WITH MODERATE SOURCE REDUCTION 1229600 WITH AGGRESSIVE SOURCE REDUCTION 98,800 WITH STRICT SOURCE REDUCTION 859000 2000 BASELINE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROJECTION (No Source Reduction) (tons*) Waste Oils 58,200:- Miscellaneous Wastes 16,800 Non-halogenated Solvents 125700 Metal-Containing Liquids 103700 PCB's and Dioxins 83400 Non-metallic Inorganic Liquid 72800 All other 233000 Total: 1389600 *Rounded to nearest 100 tons NEED FOR NEW - FACILITIES W4' SITE NEW FACILITI �? • Land disposal phase-out • Source reduction important, but not complete • Alternatives needed • What facilities are needed & appropriate for for Alameda County—and where? ESTIMATING NEEDS FOR NEW FACILITIES • Amounts and types of hazardous waste generation • Extent of onsite treatment • Use of transportable treatment units • Export of wastes to facilities located elsewhere - To existing facilities - To new facilities • Need for new offsite facilities in Alameda County WASTE TREATMENT SEQUENCES _ HIGH OR LOW NEUTRALIZATION ! pH SOLUTIONS i RESIDUES WASTE METAL PRECIPITATION SOLUTIONS AQUEOUS ORGANIC CARBON ADSORPTION RESIDUES SOLUTIONS RESIDUES SPENT SOLVENT DISTILLATION OR WASTE OIL SOLID OR LIQUID INCINERATION STA33MIZATION REPOSITORY WASTE ORGANICS ALAMEDA COUNTY CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS WITH AGGRESSIVE SOURCE REDUCTION (TONS PER YEAR) OIL DISTILLATION/RECYCLING 369300 INCINERATION/THERMAL DESTRUCTION 209900 REPOSITORY 219400 STABILIZATION 169400 OUT-OF-STATE INCINERATION** 89400 SOLVENT DISTILLATION/RECYCLING 79700 PRECIPITATION 69500 NEUTRALIZATION 53300 CARBON ADSORPTION 12000 *ROUNDED TO NEAREST 100 TONS ** PCBS ALAMEDA COUNTY APPARENT OFFSITE FACILITY DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2000 (tons*) Wastes Requiring Typical Number and Treatment(a) FacilitY Scale of Scale (b) Facilities Potentially Required(c) Oil Distillation 36,300 40,000 1 Large Incineration 20,900 30,000 1 Small (d) Stabilization 16,400 Varies 1 or more designed to scale Solvent Distillation 7,700 10,000 1 Small Carbon Absorbtlon 1 ,000 Precipitation 6,500 70,000 Mobile Neutralization 5,300 Systems Repository 21,400 75,000 0(e) Transfer Facilities Large volumes 10,000 2 or 3 from small generators NOTES: (a) Estimated; assumes . aggressive source reduction at existing facilities and strict requirements at all new facilities (b) Based on typical economies of scale for private-sector hazardous waste management facilities. (c) Assumes basic comparability between capacity requirements and facility scale. (d) Assumes limited import of incineratable wastes to meet minimum facility size capacity. (e) Assumes export of wastes; repository siting not ruled out, but would require significnt imports of wastes to meet minimum facility size capacity. *Rounded to the nearest 100 tons. CAPACITY NEEDS SUMMARY • 2 OR 3 TRANSFER STATIONS • 1 SMALL INCINERATOR • 1 SMALL SOLVENTS RECOVERY FACILITY • EXPANDED WASTE OIL RECYCLING CAPACITY A MODEST STABILIZATION UNIT f MEETING CAPACITY NEEDS MEETING CAPACITY NEEDS DEVISE SITING CRITERIA IDENTIFY POSSIBLE AREAS - CONDUCT LOCAL SITING APPROVAL PROCESS - OBTAIN STATE/FEDERAL PERMITS - FULFILL CEQA COMPLIANCE - PURSUE POSSIBLE APPEAL PROCESS THE SITING PROCESS APPLIES TO: New offslte, multi-user facilities • All types of management facilities: - Transfer Stations - Treatment Facilities - Incineration Facilities - Residuals Repositories THE SITING PROCESS Relies on private developer to: - Assess market and service area - Project facility economics and size - Seek local land-use approval - Seek federal and state permits - Build and operate facility - Comply with environmental conditions of approval PLAN IS KEY TO PROCESS • Siting criteria must be reasonable • General areas must be identified • Approved by county, cities, and state • Incorporated into General Plans and zoning -> Without Plan, most facilities could be approved for any city or county industrial area by Appeals Board LOCAL LAND-USE DECISION = - d- • Aided by Local Assessment Committee • Facility must be consistent with General Plan - Goals, Policies - Siting Criteria NEW APPEALS PROCESS ON LAND-USE DECISION Decision subject to appeal - by developer - by "interested party" New state Appeals Board - Composition - Presumption in favor of local decision - Key issue: Consistency with Approved Plan - Can overturn local decision based on Plan and regional and state goals and policies =- SITING APPROACH • 3 types of criteria --> 3-step process - Inclusionarv: identify appropriate areas - Exclusionary: eliminate Inappropriate areas - Conditional: risk assessment needed for facility Must meet Inclusionary criteria first, exclusionary criteria second, and then assess conditional criteria i I L 1 PROCES. AND CRITERIA FOR TING NEW OFFSITE HAZARDOUS WASTE TRANS'rcn; TREATMENT, & INCINERATION FACILITIES Start 1. INCLUSIONARY CRITEAlA (1.1) Consistent with Plan Goals and PoGdes (1.2) Consistent with eAsting/proposed industrial land uses designated in applicable general plan' (1.3) Located near generators (1.4) Good highway access ! YES to ALL of above, .---elf NO to ANY.of above, then go to then site Inappropriate (- —2. EXCLUSIONARY CRITERIA 21)Within 200 ft.of fault 22)Within any environmentally sensitive areas: (a) ParWands/designated open spaces (b) Critical habitats/Uotic resource areas (c)Wetlands (d) Prime agricultural lands (e) Mneral resource areas .442.3)Within dam or reservoir failure innundation area 2.4) Within cultural or aethetic areas U(2.5) Within airport immediate approach zone NO to ALL of the Above, then go to If YES to ANY of abovo, thon slto Inappropriate 3. CONDITIONAL CRITERIA Facility may be sited if It meets the following conditions-- risk assessment may justify exceptions based on facility design and performance standards to mitigate impacts (3.1) Minimum distance to nearest residential zone/residence (a) 2000 ft.for ignitable,explosive, or reactive wastes;or incinerator (b)500 ft.for other wastes,facilities (32) 5000 fL from Immobile populations (e.g.,schools,hospitals,convalescent homes) (3.3) Capable local emergency services. (3.4) Stable soils (3.5) Outside 100-year floodplain (3.6) Not on highly permeable soils (3.7) Minimal threat to surface waters (3.8) Groundwater. (a) Outside major recharge zones (b) Not near supply wells and fields (c) Strong foundation (d) Adequate monitoring system (e)Geologic uniformity for monitoring (3.9) Access to sewertimpact on system (3.10) Air quality effects: (a) NSR & BACT required (b) In-area offsets required - (c) No net adverse impact (3.11) Transportation: (a) Designated truck routes (b) Population risks no higher than current (3.13) Minimum noise impacts if all of tho abovo mot to satisfaction of local land-use authority, thon Land-Use Approval with Appropriate Design and Performance Conditions PROCESS AND "RITERIA FOR S1TIV`= , _,NEW OFFSITE tiAZARDOUS WASTL RE-IDUALS REPOSITORIES . Start 1. INCLUSIONARY CRITERIA (1.1) Consistent with Plan Goals and Policies (12) Good highway access If YES to BOTH of above, If NO to ANY of above, then go to then site Inappropriate 2. EXCLUSIONARY CRITERIA 2.1)Within 200 ft.of fault 442.2) Within environmentally sensitive areas: (a) Parldands/designated open spaces (b) Critical habitats/biotic resource areas (c)Wetlands (d) Prime agricultural lands (e) Mineral resource areas 2.3) Within dam failure flood area 2.4) Within 100-year floodplain 2.5) On unstable soil (2.6) On highly permeable soil _.�2.7) Groundwater: (a) Within major recharge zones (b) Near supply wells (c) Over significant usable groundwater (2.8) Within 2000 ft- of nearest residence/zone (2.9) Within immediate airport approach zone (2.10) Within cultural or aesthetic areas ff NO to ALL of above, It YES to ANY of above, 3. CONDITIONAL CRITERIA Facility may be sited if it meets the following conditions— risk assessment may justify exceptions based on facility design and performance standards to mitigate impacts--.o .(3.1) Proximity to immobile populations (3.2) Capable local emergency seances (3.3) Minimal threat to surface waters (3.4) Groundwater: (a) Strong f0jjrA-vi i (b) Monitoring system (c) Geologic uniformity for montoring (3.5) Air quality effects (a) NSR & 6ACT required (b) In-area offsets required (c) No net adverse impact (3.6) Transportation: i (a) Designated truck routes (b) Population risks no higher than current (3.7) Minimal noise impact If all of the above met to satlsfactlon of local land-use authorlty, then Land-Use Approval with Appropriate Design and Performance Conditions APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS FOR NEW FACILITIES Figure 9 Y;rj•1 C =•"1 FACILITY SITING CRITERIA FOR ALAMEDA C, UNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN '.. d. yip rl\ ,'rj�.r�;., ;�.'�' �• '}J'r �` - •(i• •;! .• .._, .,• t`i•':�:�i.✓- ` C�� r ri. (>�hr. � `I � � ;.11-� ,<.{ \ '• / '1` • .]�'�\•.)•r: �;:rtwY\(�t,'.':��I666: �' .JS \.r../`-t - ?,� /... _f i•� ..i•��- fit`..':�`rr�.:•'� '• , \ � � � ] :..• p01.n11NAro•.Whkh W�o1raN •�:• °` T' �• \'/ �•' App11A.IWn M$06$06606d e GIIUU•�'' `v�!�b:";ii: ;rte• _ ` "` .,i ' )`� 1 Gl Y \ } 1,�.` ,1 )•1� - ;,.. .• i• )` •vau[r �Trsnsloritore^Tt"Vrm*• .��... 1' ''I�ryt. '}. ✓�'{`� •� .-fir.' <..�. .`.� �,+,*''�` i t�1 C-• •'i.i p,p klOYnntlom FOOpM.A ., �.�'�`. �'t .. s .�-T ^•-' �•?•• �•��~' s s ••' i �.•� „S, •'ti•� "1.1!;.is.�*..,;..• 1 - \` •�`\ 1 a..',• I �, , f•. .{ •�.. .1 Y�•, •.1 "a '� Rte,Nu1dIM P4pp_owy frooft�• ] ,•.•'. �,,, �' ��Y `\y` 1.:;� •'1s.1•• �.G ^i .!•� .�1`.. .~f• ,. . •- i"'t.�;i:J•+r.:^�.^•.4 1:> � ` -I `�'i�..�J;�,y - 4i:e�'��' � ti fir.��•• {''-.��] �s ! -��:,`��1�...,''.A�•:'.�A'i 1F'-]il��-. '.Y �.. ':e 11;,. 9. ...,. ,`.t;t•• / � .i`'-> �:>:•� 1(•`�• ..if<......, �f •A?.:.�...: +'• sit �`rL '`''" ~.'{' •'� O.1+ 't ii' _ � ..r.•\ :',1_—s�•_._'i..»««««�.«« �.�.�.«w •••{•, �.t� 1r,!• '�+ .` ...«..•.. :�. �t',, !s yr. vz • •a..; .`!?:*t i ,r. .yltlw �...«..�. ��' .:• sa�.'3ijii•a. 'i •� ;c tt .J„ if 't .�" ].1 n"W ;,� i•i•j:••:.•i" -'i`Ii' "1:-• •.t� � � Y•:[' �J.:.:raj�ii� .++:� .;•: i. ';-' 3 ., .:,.1 -air''+� (''- !r v :•.T::].•...,, _ .t icy• �.{�.�.:..• i1:1; - 1�'.'S,+v��o..�:!],, r a. ':a�•- ,2 t.;(-...tit .• .. a IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY y r ..i `V c� •1 1 i� �i J 1 yy�SS tJ e� 5� IMPLEMENTATION OVERALL OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY: ALAMEDA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOUR KEY AREAS PROGRAM COORDINATION/REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SOURCE REDUCTION/MEETING NEEDS OF SMALL GENERATORS • LAND USEIFACILITY SITING PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT THREE-YEAR WORK PLANS FOR EACH AREA OPTIONS FOR ACTION IN EACH AREA • HIGH COST ACTIONS • MODERATE COST ACTIONS • LOW COST ACTIONS IMPLEMENTATION • Continuing Oversight by Advisory Committee with Balanced Membership - Industry - Environmental - City - County • Four Work Groups - Program Coordination - Source Reduction Facility Siting - Public Involvement KEY DEADLINES PLAN PREPARATION AND APPROVAL PROCESS MARCH 31 - SUBMISSION OF DRAFT PLAN TO DHS APRIL/MAY - PUBLIC HEARINGS/CITY COUNCIL BRIEFINGS JUNE 30 - COMMENTS DUE. FROM PUBLIC, CITIES, DHS SEPTEMBER - FINAL PLAN APPROVAL BY COUNTY, AUTHORITY, MAJORITY OF CITIES DECEMBER 31 - DHS APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAN BY JUNE 30, 1989 - ALL CITIES AMEND THEIR GENERAL PLAN