Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 Approve Ala Co Haz Waste Mgmt Plan AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 10, 1989 REPORT PREPARED BY: Rod Barger, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Request for approval of the Final Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: Draft City Council Resolution approving the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan Attachment 1: Memo from William Fraley, Secretary of the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Authority Attachment 2: Revisions to the Final Plan in response to member agency comments Attachment 3: Alameda County Waste Management Authority Resolution No. 23 adopting Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan Attachment 4: City Council Agenda Statement dated March 13, 1989 concerning Final Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan RECOMMENDATION: 1) Open Public Hearing / 2) Receive Staff presentation 3) Hear Public Testimony 4) Close Public Hearing 5) Adopt Resolution approving the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None 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 has prepared this plan for Alameda County. The plan will ultimately affect 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 consultants hired to write the plan. On May 9, 1988, the City Council reviewed and commented on the draft Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan and draft EIR. The Council expressed their support of the draft plan and DEIR and directed Staff to indicate their endorsement to the County Waste Management Authority. After receiving endorsement of the draft plan by a majority of the cities in the ITEM NO. ; 4, R{, COPIES TO: Planning File County, as well as the Board of Supervisors, the plan was submitted to the California Department of Health Services (DHS) for review and comment. Comments on the draft plan were received from DHS on August 26, 1988. Revisions to the draft plan were made in response to DHS comments. This consequently lead to the preparation of the Final Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. On March 13, 1989, the City Council reviewed the Final Plan and provided comments on it to the Waste Management Authority. The Authority evaluated all comments on the Plan, revised it, and is now returning it to the Council for final review and approval. The Authority is requesting that affected jurisdictions hold public hearings to review and approve the plan by mid-July, 1989. The Waste Management Authority will consider the Final Plan approval at their July 26, 1989 meeting. If the Final Plan is approved by a majority of the cities in Alameda County, it would then be forwarded (by the Authority) to DHS for final review and approval. Once DHS approves the Plan, each City in the County (as well as the County) has 180 days to amend their general plans to incorporate the Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Specific dates for DHS approval and amending the general plans have not been established at this time. However, once in effect, the Plan will be utilized to guide the process of siting new hazardous waste disposal facilities and to guide the process of reducing sources creating hazardous and toxic materials. II. ISSUES Attachment 1 provides an indication of the revisions made to the Final Plan in response to member agencies comments. Major changes to the Final Plan include: - omission of siting criteria maps due to concern regarding the • appropriateness of the general areas shown on the maps; - Revision of the hazardous waste management hierarchy to make hazardous materials use reduction the top priority; - addition of Criterion 2.6 "Proximity to Residential Zones" to the exclusionary criteria; - addition of Criterion 2.7 "Redevelopment Areas" to the exclusionary criteria; - revision of Criterion 6.3 with regard to the siting of residual repositories in the watershed of an existing or approved reservoir; - addition of a detailed description of options for the waste minimization program. It should be noted that even with these revisions, no area in Dublin meets the site selection criteria, therefore, no hazardous waste management facilities would be located here. According to County Staff, although the Plan does not specifically identify where these sites would be located, it appears that Livermore could have potential to house a hazardous waste management facility. Although no hazardous waste management facilities would be located in Dublin, 1-580 and I-680 are major transit routes for carrying these wastes. There is potential for spills to occur in Dublin. At the meeting of March 13, 1989, the Council indicated their concern for potential spills as hazardous wastes are being transported through the County. The Council wanted to know who would be responsible for the cleanup of spills on freeways and City streets. In response to this concern, the County has indicated that CalTrans would be responsible for cleaning up spills on freeways. On local streets, local fire and police departments are responsible for cleanup of spills. In both cases, the jurisdictions can seek compensation from the party responsible for the spill. -2- III CONCLUSION In summary, conceivably no hazardous waste management facilities would be located in Dublin since the potential for a facility in the City would be eliminated through the waste facility siting procedure. Transport of waste along I-580 and I-680 will have indirect impacts on the City, with an existing potential of spills along these routes. After the plan is adopted, the City will need to amend the Dublin General Plan to incorporate the Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Staff recommends the Council adopt the Resolution shown as Exhibit A, approving the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. -3- RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ** ****X'**'i******X'*X'****** APPROVAL OF ALAMEDA COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, the fourteen cities in Alameda County and two sanitary districts have adopted a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, dated October 27, 1987, creating the Alameda County Waste Management Authority; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is a member of said Authority; and WHEREAS, the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement provides that the Authority is responsible for preparation, adoption, amendment, administration, policy-making, budgeting, planning and enforcement of the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, pursuant to California Government Code 66780.8 and California Health and Safety Code Sections 25135 through 25135.8; and WHEREAS, the State codes provide that the majority of the cities with a majority of the incorporated population must approve said Plan; and WHEREAS, the _Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #87091510) on said Plan was prepared on May 31,_ 1988 and transmitted by the Authority to all concerned parties for review and comment; and WHEREAS, the Authority did hold a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on August 24, 1988 on said draft EIR, which hearing was continued to meetings on September 28, October 26, November 16 and December 14, 1988; and WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared, reviewed and considered by the Authority at the public hearing held on December 14, 1988; and WHEREAS, the Authority, at its meeting of December 14, 1988, adopted a resolution (1) finding that the Final EIR for this project had been reviewed and considered by the Authority, (2) certifying that the Final EIR complied with the requirements of CEQA and State guidelines, and (3) adopting the document as the Environmental Impact Report for this project; and WHEREAS, the Authority held duly noticed public hearings and approved said Plan on March 22, 1989 after review by all concerned parties; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin reviewed the Plan adopted by the Authority on March 22, 1989 and held a duly noticed public hearing on July 10, 1989 as required by law; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has reviewed and considered all documents described herein, including the Final EIR for the project, all written material and public testimony at the public hearing, within the time period allowed by -1- • 1.` • f SJ the Authority; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act and state and local guidelines adopted pursuant thereto require this city to make findings where the Environmental Impact Report identifies one or more significant effects which would be likely to result from approval of said Plan; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for this project identifies significant environmental impacts that would be likely to result from approval of the Final Plan; and • WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is a responsible agency in the process of preparing and adopting the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby certify that the Final EIR for the project complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and all applicable state and local guidelines and is herebyadopted as the Environmental Impact Report for this project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council, of the City of Dublin hereby makes the following findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section-2100 et seq.) : a. The Final EIR has identified accidental spills and leakage and toxic gas emissions as significant impacts if appropriate control technology is not installed and maintained. Mitigation of these significant impacts in the City of Dublin will be undertaken by this agency in connection with either revision of this agency's general plan to conform to the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan or as part of a specific project ' proposal. b. The Final EIR has identified localized traffic impacts as potentially significant. Mitigation of these significant impacts in the City of Dublin will be undertaken by this agency in connection with either revision of this agency's general plan to conform to the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan or as part of the evaluation of a specific project proposal. c. The Final EIR identifies land use in the vicinity of any hazardous waste management facility as potentially adversely affected. Mitigation of this significant impact within the City of Dublin will be undertaken by this agency in connection with either revision of this agency's general plan to conform to the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan or as part of the evaluation of a specific project proposal. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the following alternatives to the proposed plan were considered in the Final EIR and are found to entail greater environmental impacts, or to be infeasible, for reasons stated in the Final EIR at pages 6-1 through 6-27: (a) no plan without phase-out of land disposal, (b) no plan with phase-out of land disposal, (c) plan that relies on local facilities rather than waste reduction, (d) plan that relies on regional off- site facilities with low-priority waste reduction, (e) plan that includes strict use of State Department of Health Services facility siting policies and criteria; and • -2- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, notwithstanding the significant impacts identified in the Final EIR certified by the Authority on the proposed Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, this agency has approved the plan because currently there is no countywide planning for dealing with reducing, treating, handling and disposing of hazardous wastes. Recent State legislation (the Tanner legislation -- AB 2948) authorizes and encourages • counties to prepare such plans. Alameda County is participating through the Authority. While the Final EIR identified certain significant impacts, the environmental consequences of continuing the status quo are likely to be worse than the environmental impacts of implementing the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan in an orderly manner; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Dublin does hereby approve the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, March 22, 1989; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this resolution be transmitted to the Authority; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Dublin will bring its General Plan in conformance with the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan as required by State law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of July, 1989. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -3- L f, Jc ' orci • ALAM E DA COUNTY WASTE MANAG ENT �> oR><n 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 (415), 670-5400 . JUN 8 1989 June 5, 1989 ",i 1 ( 0- 1- TO: City Council Members/ County Su..-. vis.. s/ District Board Members 'FROM: William H. Fraley, Secretary At •. SUBJECT: Alameda County Hazardous Wast• Management Plan The Alameda County Waste Management Authority approved the subject plan on March 22, 1989. On May 24, 1989 it clarified questions on the maps by approving a recommendation of the Hazardous Waste Committee to omit the maps from the document. This action may result in disapproval of the plan by the State. The Authority further specified that the staff was to work with city staffs to finalize maps for the first revision of the plan proposed for completion in the 1989/90 WMA budget. This plan is referred to your Council/Board for 45-day review period which would allow until mid-July for review and approval by your Council/Board, and approval for transmittal to the State DHS at the July 26 WMA meeting. As you recall, the plan was referred to your agency for a first 45-day review period in the early months of 1989. The plan must be approved by a majority of the cities with a majority of the population in the incorporated area of the County. The January 25, 1989 appendix should be used with the notation page of . corrections at the end of the March 22, 1989 plan. . • 0443i • ( S� > . ;•t � �Y :11; d � to � � Z r .t' .�' x v a ay t ` t • REVISIONS MADE IN THE FINAL PLAN IN RESPONSE TO MEMBER AGENCY COMMENTS - • 1/25/89 3/22/89 Plan Page Plan Page Revision • 1-2 to 1-4 1-2 to 1-4 The Hazardous Waste Management Hierarchy . was modified to make hazardous . materials use • reduction the top priority., Incineration was • moved to a separate category below treatment. 1-6 1-6 Paragraph 2 was revised as follows: - Siting_ Criteria: Under AB 2948,, the siting criteria apply only to offsite, multi-user hazardous waste management facilities, including transfer stations, recycling and treatment facilities, incinerators, and residuals - repositories. Oiiiii//vd//al,&r/t' /40M:444//kkk.AA//fir 16//i Shit t` //I AMall///0Ahh////dYildi///kakk/b hd - - These ' g�ridx`dX kkiki siting criteria (Chapter 9) will be used to direct developers as they seek sites in the County. 1-13 1-13 Paragraph 4. The third - sentence was deleted: "These are illustrated on a set of maps to identify general areas where these- needed facilities could potentially be located -- areas 'consistent with the plan's goals and policies, and with key environmental constraints." 2-6 2-6 Policy 1B. The first sentence was revised as - follows: Alameda County, its cities, special - districts and the Waste Management Authority will • continue to - encourage - economic development in Alameda. County .1//iiiliaiii//4-,W/J k,?ti bakk//f$k • 2-7 2-7 The hierarchy in Policy 2B was revised as follows: 1. Source reduction (including tonics use reductions ' 2. Reuse and recycling onsite - • - .. 3. Reuse and recycling offsite • 4. Treatment onsite • 5. Treatment offsite 6. Incineration 7. Secure disposal of residuals from recycling,- - treatment,. and incineration • 11:11 air! :4 Revisions Made in the Final Plan. • Page 2. 1/25/89 3/22/89 Plan Page Plan Page Revision The following sentence was added to the last paragraph of Policy 2B: "Where hazardous waste is amenable to forms of treatment other than - . incineration, these other forms of treatment should be given preference over incineration." 2-8 2-8 Policy 2C. The first sentence was revised as follows: Alameda County, its : cities, special. districts and the Waste Management Authority will-- tka646///,t1,///liV I//dddddddiY1///36ill. require through regulation that firms adopt and follow , this hazardous waste' management hierarchy to the maximum extent feasible both. .economically and practically. • 2-8 2-8 Policy 3A. The second sentence was revised as. follows: The county, its cities, the special districts and the Waste Management Authority will promote an aggressive -hazardous materials use reduction effort for all existing industry, and will encourage existing industry to conduct hazardous materials use reduction audits and develop plans for toxic use reduction. - 2-10 2-10 Policy 7. The first sentence was revised as follows: Alameda County, its cities, the special districts, and the Waste Management Authority recognize the important role played by hazardous waste transfer stations dispersed among clusters of generators, taking into consideration the siting of such facilities within the jurisdiction where the predominant amount of waste to be processed by the facility is generated. . 2-13 2-13 Policy 12E. The following sentence was added: "Facilities that are built - in accord with • intercounty agreements will receive local land • use approval in accord with existing legislation." . 2-15 2-14 The CSAC fair share policy language was made Policy 14. 3-10 3-10 Table 3-4. A footnote regarding the reduction of hazardous waste generated by Davis Walker in the - City of Hayward was added. • • Revisions Made in the Final Plan Page 3. • • - • 1/25/89 3/22/89 Plan Page Plan Page Revision • 3-11 3-11 Figure 3-2. -A footnote regarding the reduction of hazardous waste generated- by Davis Walker in the City of Hayward was added. 3-12 3-12 Table 3-5. A footnote regarding the reduction of hazardous waste generated by Davis -Walker in the - • • City of Hayward was added. • 3-14 3-14 The following sentence was added to the footnote: "As a result, total waste generated in the City of Hayward - has dropped from 7,305 tons in 1986 to 3,716 tons in 1988." - - 4-3 4-3 Table 4-1. - The following footnote was added in reference to Western Forge and Flange in the City of Albany: "This site was mitigated in June of • 1987." • 4-4 4-4 Fourth paragraph. The second -and third sentences • were revised as follows: The East Bay Disposal Company in Fremont ; ' is- i{X66 listed 46///4 • XiiaXXal/AAWRf//pfd//.// kkhA//bb//bHbb//ii • WiiX6W/1//kAAN WV1///AaWi/////iilliifXdia 6idia6t6i/aY1W/X666X//iiiiiiii64//6616Wi with DHS as a transporter, as a Registered California Hazardous Waste Hauler, for the purpose of hauling a limited list of hazardous wastes such - . as asbestos and infectious waste. $ii Five of the TSD facilities listed bb 44/1/F`ii147!j Electrofusion Corp., Fremont; Myers Container Corp., Oakland; National Starch • and Chemical Corp., Berkeley; . and two Naval Supply Centers, Oakland and Alameda) have permits for storage of hazardous wastes beyond 90 days. 4-11 4-11 The following paragraph was added after the third paragraph under "BACKGROUND AND EXISTING - REGULATIONS": On state highways and freeways, the CHP and Caltrans have primary responsibility • for the cleanup of hazardous waste spills. On surface streets in unincorporated areas, the local fire authority and the County Health . Department's Emergency Response Van will respond to hazardous waste spills. Within cities, the • local fire department has primary responsibility for the cleanup of hazardous waste .spills. The . • • ..•sTesodoad L TTtas; at;taads SutlenTeea uT 'aaluT 'pus seals TsaauaS ;o notleat;t1uapt auk uT uoTloun; aurgaodmt UP aAaas staalTaa 2ut4tS.. :paaaTap sum udsaseasd SnruoTTo; ark. ;o aaualuas 1sat; 0111 9-6 9-6 1¢XAIWP91/P1n11 1P/P156K1/P1P1$L¢PILM/PJ41 Y1Yt11MY1:P 1://XYHY??//¢X1MP1//PAP 's9TaTTtas; papaau ao; etaal.taa Sutats doTanap gem iqunoa uasa Tem sapTAoad 81'6Z EV :SMOTTo; SP pat;tpom sEM gdsaaeaed SuptoTTo; at ;o aauaquas asat; aqy S-6 9-6 •palaTap sum ..•••A1Tasdea sTt. doTaeap aapao ul.. SutuuTSaq udva2saea S-6 9-6 •sadiCL L3t1t7e; ;O 3sTT auk 04 pappe aaaM ..saTaTTtae; aSsao1S.. •udeaSeaed 1seZ • T-6 T-6 • ..•aaauMasTa • TEAoaddE, lsuteSe pns cue- . 1nama2eutW agsam snopaszeg LIuno0 epameTw auk ;o aaldega slid uT pautequoa etaaltaa Su- s auk Aq paut;ap wade TuaauaS auk ut -TsAOadde SuT4Ts ;o dons; uT SISISa uotcdmnsaad Suoags y.. :palaTep svv udsaSsaed auk ;o aaualuas gseT auy •udsa2eaed gsaT. T-6 T-6 .,•gZ LoiTod aag.. :uotgszautaut 04 aauaaa;aa 1mmm pappe SEM alougoo; 2ur.oTTo; alai •c-8 aTqui TT-8 TT-8 • •&luno0 epamuTy uT papaau aq 01 pnno; fP1;pit P F1VAlF1117/hleAW//MAMP111/779'3WAYAPNYV/;56X 11M51515191P/MI/IA///? kY IIANIM1W1:// YMP? ¢1114101 1/1A//Mill ,i/liAlTitae; 3o adA1 uaea ;o suoTquoTTdmt TequamuoaTAua auk_ Sutpuulsaapun uT 4STSSe TTTM uotlsmao;nt std :sAOTTo; SE pasTAaa sEM -aauaTuas puoaas agx •Z udsaSsaed T-8 T-8 •SadAl AlTTtae; 30 ISTT auk 01 papps sum a2eao1g •udea2eaed ISatd T-8 T-8 .•aatnaas amen auk apTAOad 04 TTt;pneT peog memna auk of aTge-teAB st lstmaua 3S0 alum :pappv sum 9311a4119S SutMOTTo; 9111 •gdea2saed gsra 8-c 8-S • • 'a1SEM auk ' ;O dnusaTa pne noTleaT;t1uapt auk uT 1STSSe 04 uT pa-Epp aq £sm usA asuodsag c ua2aama s,Lluno0 • notstAag aged us-Ed aged IIeTd 68/ZZ/£ 68/SZ/T •• . aSsd • IIe1d TsuTa auk uT apses SuotstAag • • Revisions Made in the Final Plan • • Page 5. • 1/25/89 3/22/89 Plan Page Plan Page Revision 9-7 9-6 The following sentences were added to the paragraph beginning "With these objectives in mind.. .": "Specific details, such as buffer zone distances, included in the siting criteria were taken from the above sources. The source of each criterion is noted where applicable." • • 9-10 & 9-11 9-10 & 9-11 Figure 9-2. "Storage" was separated - from "Transfer" in the title. Criterion 2.6 "Within 500 ft. of nearest residential zone" was added. Criterion 2.7 "Within primarily residential redevelopment areas" was added. Criterion 3.1 • (b) was modified to apply to•residences only. 9-14 to 9-20 9-14 to 9-20 Storage facilities.were added tothe criteria. 9-17 9-17 The following , criterion was added ' to the exclusionary criteria: (2.6) • "Proximity to . • Residential Zones" - No transfer station, 'storage or treatment facility may be located within 500 feet of the nearest residential zone or area designated in the applicable general plan for residential use (within or without the jurisdiction's city limits. 9-17 9-17 The following criterion was' added to the exclusionary criteria: (2.7) • "Redevelopment Areas." Unless specifically permitted by the local agency, those specific portions of redevelopment areas that are primarily residen- tial in orientation shall be excluded from facility siting. 9-24 9-24 The following sentence was added . to Criterion 6.3: "No residual repository may be located in or adjacent to the watershed of an existing or ' approved reservoir unless it can be demonstrated that the repository does not pose a threat to the quality of the water in the reservoir." 9-25 & 9-26 9-25 & 9-26 Section E. ILLUSTRATION OF SITING CRITERIA. The language in this section was revised to explain • that the maps had been removed from the plan, why they had been removed, and that removal of the maps does not preclude facility siting. 9-27 to 9-31 -- Figures 9-4 through 9-8 were deleted. • • • • Revisions Made in the Final Plan - Page 6. • 1/25/89 3/22/89 Plan Page Plan Page Revision. 10-2 10-2 The Hazardous Waste `Management Hierarchy was modified to make hazardous materials use • reduction the top priority. Incineration was moved to a separate category below treatment. 10-3 10-3 The following sentence was added to the first paragraph under the heading "Short and Long Range . . Implementation Plan": "The short-range program is scheduled to be carried out before 1990 and the long range program will be post-1990." 10-5 10-5 Table 10-1. • Authority Counsel was added to the list of advisors. • 10-8 10-8 & 10-10 A . new section, "Existing Hazardous Waste Minimization Programs," was added which describes existing hazardous waste minimization programs in the County. 10-9 10-9 Table 10-2. The table was revised to show that the City of Berkeley has its own hazardous waste • generator inspection program. 10-10 10-10 to 10-14 Under the heading "Hazardous Waste Minimization Program," language proposed by the City of • . Hayward was added which provides a detailed • description of options for the waste minimization program. 10-11 10-15 The following sentence was 'added under the heading "Funding:" "All available funding . sources, including state and federal sources will be thoroughly explored." E-1 E-1 The following footnote was added: "The Calderon rankings are in order of the importance of the site for review for impact on water- quality: No • inference of contamination or need for cleanup is • intended." E-34 . • E-34 The following footnote was added: "The Western Forge and Flange site was mitigated in June of 1987.': Appen. I Appen. I Entire appendix deleted. (Maps deleted) Appen. J Appen. J Relabeled Appendix I. 04081 �. . • • • ALAMEDA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY • • RESOLUTION NO. 23 AT MEETING HELD MARCH 22, 1989 • MOVED BY MR. FERTIG . . SECONDED BY MS.' FOULKES • ADOPTION OF ALAMEDA COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, the fourteen cities in Alameda County and two sanitary districts have adopted a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, dated October 27., 1987, creating the Alameda County Waste Management Authority; and _ 'WHEREAS the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement provides that the Authority is responsible for preparation, adoption, amendment, administration, policy-making, .budgeting, 'planning and enforcment of the Alameda . County . Hazardous Waste Managment Plan, pursuant to California Government Code 66780.8 and California Health and Safety Code Sections 25135 through 25135.8; and WHEREAS the Draft Hazardous Waste Management Plan, dated March 23, 1988, was prepared and transmitted by the Authority to all concerned parties for review and comment; and . WHEREAS public hearings on said draft Plan were held April 14, April 21, April 28, May 5 and. May 23, 1988, at which time all interested persons were provided the opportunity to be heard; and • WHEREAS a Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 87091510) on the -Plan, dated May 31, 1988, was prepared and transmitted by the Authority as Lead Agency to all concerned parties for review and comment; and WHEREAS the Authority held public hearings to consider said draft EIR on August 24, September 27, October 26, November 16,. and December 14, 1988, at which time all interested persons were provided the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report, dated December 14, 1988, was prepared containing the Draft EIR, comments received on the Draft EIR, the - Response to Comments, and Text Changes to be Incorporated in the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS the Authority, at its meeting of December . 14, 1988, adopted a - resolution (1) finding that the Final EIR had been review and considered by the - Authority, (2) certifying that the Final EIR complied with the requirements of CEQA and State guidelines, and (3) adopted the document as the Environmental Impact Report for this project; and vn r • i!cti � . r • • • Alameda County Waste Management Authority • Resolution No. 23 - March 22, 1989 • Page 2. WHEREAS a Final Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, dated January 25, 1989, was prepared and transmitted to all -concerned parties for review and comment; and - • WHEREAS, the Authority held a public hearing on the Final Plan on January 25 and March 22, 1989, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, for each public hearing cited in this resolution, a Notice of '. Public- Hearing was given as required by law; and WHEREAS this Authority has reviewed: and considered ' all documents described herein including the Final EIR, all written- material and public testimony at the public hearing; and - WHEREAS the California Environmental Quality Act and state and local guidelines adopted pursuant thereto require this Authority to make findings where the Environmental Impact Report identifies one or more significant effects which would be likely to result from approval of said plan; and WHEREAS the Environmental Impact Report for this project identifies significant environmental impacts that would be likely to result from approval of the Final Plan; and NOW THEREFORE, . BE IT RESOLVED that this Authority hereby makes the following findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public , Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.): . A. The Final EIR has identified accidental spills and leakage and toxic gas emissions as significant impacts if appropriate control technology is not installed and maintained. Changes or alterations to reduce these signifi- cant impacts are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and such changes can and should be adopted by such other agencies. Specifically, mitigation of these significant impacts will be undertaken by local agencies with land use jurisdiction in connection with either • revision of the agency's general plan to conform to the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan or as part of a specific project proposal within the agency's jurisdiction. • B. The Final EIR has identified localized traffic impacts as potentially significant. Changes or alterations to reduce these significant impacts are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and . such changes can and should be adopted by such other agencies. Specifical- ly, mitigation of these significant impacts will be undertaken by local agencies with land use jurisdiction in connection with either revision of • • �•1 Alameda County Waste Management Authority Resolution No. 23 - March 22, 1989 Page 3. the agency's general plan to conform to the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan or as part of the evaluation of a specific project proposal within the agency's jurisdiction. C. The Final EIR identifies land use in the. vicinity of any hazardous waste management facility as potentially adversely affected. Changes or altera- tions to reduce these significant impacts are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and such changes can and should be adopted by such other agencies. Specifically, mitigation of this significant impact will be undertaken by local agencies with land use jurisdiction in connection with either revision of the agency's general plan to conform to the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan or as part of the evaluation of a specific project - proposal within the agency's jurisdiction. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following alternatives to the proposed plan were considered in the Final EIR and are found to entail greater environ- mental impacts, or to be infeasible, for reasons stated in the Final EIR at pages 6-1 through 6-27: (a) no plan without phase-out of land disposal, (b) no plan with phase-out of land disposal., (c) plan that relies on local facilities rather than waste reduction, (d) plan that relies on regional off-site facili- ties with low-priority waste reduction, (e) plan that includes strict use of State Department of Health Services facility siting policies and criteria; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, notwithstanding the significant impacts identified in the Final EIR certified by the Authority on the proposed Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, this Authority has approved the plan because currently there is no countywide planning for dealing with reducing, treating, handling and disposing of hazardous wastes. Recent State legislation (the Tanner legislation -- AB 2948) authorizes and encourages counties to prepare such plans. Alameda County is participating through the Authority. While the Final EIR identified certain significant impacts, the environmental consequences of continuing the status quo are likely to be worse than the environmental impacts of implementing the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan in an orderly manner; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Authority does hereby approve the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, March 22, 1989; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of said Plan be transmitted to each member agency of the Authority for adoption at public hearings within the time period specified by the Authority and that the resolutions of adoption and notices of public hearing be transmitted back to the Authority. ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: • Alameda County Waste Management Authority Resolution No. 23 - March 22, 1989_ Page 4. AYES: Campbell (2), Monsef, Rubin, Skinner, Snyder, Fertig, Morrison, Sweeney, Wieskamp, Cortez, Riles (3), Foulkes, Mercer, Faria, Westgard, Martin, Kerr - 20. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. - WILL • A. .r TARY ALAIDA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT Al ::'.TY 0339d/1-3 �-�, rz• AGENDA STATEMENT . CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 13, 1989 • .-. SUBJECT: Oral Presentation 'by Alameda County Planning Department regarding Final . _ .. Alameda County Hazardous Waste • . Management Plan REPORT BY: Rod Barger, Senior Planner EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: Memo from William Fraley, Secretary of the Alameda " . - i County Hazardous Waste Management Authority Exhibit B: Letter to the Mayor from the Contra Costa Water 1 District 9 Exhibit C.: -Response to the Final Plan . ! by Dublin Police Services . . i • Final Hazardous Waste Plan has been • provided under separate cover to City .. . Council R_:COM14ENDATION: ;�, !n, k 1. Hear Alameda County Staff and City Staff presentations. . 2. Pose questions. 3. Identify all Council concerns with . the Final Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan and share . those comments/concerns with City• and County staffs. 4. Direct Staff fo write a letter to . the Alameda County Waste Management . Authority, specifying all Council • concerns. - _ FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Undetermined . . DESCRIPTION: I. BACKGROUND: • • In accordance with Assembly Bill 294S (the Tanner Bill adopted by the California State Legislature in 1956) every county _ in the State of Californ_:. _e required to prepare a F„�.:a.:cus Waste Management Plan. The Alameda County Waste Management Authority has prepared this plan for Alameda County. The plan . will ultimately affect 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 Count• Su.-.en and r ITEM NO. 76 2 • - On May 9, 1988, the City Council reviewed and commented on • • the draft Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan and - draft EIR. The Council expressed their support of the draft plan and DEIR and directed Staff to indicate their endorsement of support "to the County Waste Management Authority. In addition to • Dublin's review, the draft plan was reviewed by all other Alameda County cities and two special districts. The majority of the cities in the County supported the draft Plan.- It was - - - . . consequently forwarded to the Waste Management Authority for review and endorsement. The Waste Management Authority consequently directed the draft Plan .to the Board of Supervisors for review. The Board of Supervisors approved the draft plan. It was then submitted to the California Department of Health Services (DHS) for review and comment. Comments on the draft • plan were received from DHS on August 26, 1928. Revisions to the • draft plan were made in response to DHS comments. This consequently lead to the preparation of the Final Alameda County • Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The EIR for the plan was • certified by the Waste Management Authority on December 14, 1928 - • in accordance with CEQA. It• contains specific mitigation measures on all phases of the Plan, including the transport of these wastes along I-580 and I-680. At their meeting of January 25, 1989, the Waste Management Authority determined that member agencies should have an opportunity to review and comment on the Final Plan prior to consideration by the Authority. The Waste Management Authority is requesting that the City Council review and comment on the • • Final Plan at-tonight's meeting. The Waste Management Authority will consider all comments on the Final Plan at their March 22, 1989 meeting. The Authority will evaluate all comments, revise the Final Plan as necessary and return it to member agencies for a forty-five (45) day review period. Within this 45 day review period, the Council would be expected to hold a public hearing to review and adopt the Final Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. If the Final Plan is approved by a majority of . the cities in Alameda County, it would then be forwarded (by the Authority) to DHS for final review and approval. Once DHS approves the Plan, each City in the County (as well as the County) has 180 days to amend their general plans to incorporate the Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Specific dates for DHS . - approval and amending the general plans have not been established • at this time. However, once in effect, the Plan will be utilized : to guide the process of siting new hazardous waste disposal • facilities and to guide the process of reducing sources creating hazardous and toxic materials. . II. ISSUES Issues in the Final 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. • Waste Facility Siting Procedure 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 producer:;, must have good access to freeways and must be consistent with the goals and policies established with the Haza-doyisyaste Management Plan. C;77:, ' 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 in Dublin. 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, wetlands, 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 Final Plan includes County-wide naps that identify locations which conform to the first and second criteria outlined above. The site selection criteria are similar for ultimate . disposal sites ("residuals repositories") but the criteria are a little different, so as to make the residual repositories criteria even more restrictive. • It should be noted that no area in Dublin meets the site selection criteria, therefore no hazardous waste management facilities would be located here. The nearest facilities could • -- be located in Livermore, which includes sites for transfer, storage, treatment and incineration facilities. The only site in the County where a residual repository could be located appears to be in the general area west of Vasco Road near the boundary of . Contra Costa County just north of Livermore. _ The Final 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 recuires 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 appoint a local assessment committee (LAC) . The LAC must be appointed at least . - ninety (90) days before a land use permit for a hazardous waste facility is applied for. The committee would be made up of seven • members consisting of three representatives from the community, two from environmental or public interest groups, and two • representatives from affected businesses and industires in the City. 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,.p: County.through special. .. benefits and compensation". (Section 25199.7(d) (2) (A) , " ' . California Health and Safety Code.) • It should be noted that the local assessment committee must be formed only in jurisdictions where applications for hazardous waste facilities are submitted. Because no hazardous waste management facilities could conceivably be located in Dublin (the entire City is eliminated through the waste facility siting procedure) , there is no need for the City Council to appoint a local assesment committee at this time. However, if by some remote chance, someone decides to apply for a permit to build a • hazardous waste facility in Dublin, then the City Council would • • be required to form the local assessment committee and process the application. In this remote case, through the appropriate ' review process (Site Development Review, Conditiona Use Permit, Rezoning, etc.) , the City would have to process the application and deny it since no part of Dublin meets the criteria (established in the Hazardous Waste Management Plan) to house one of these facilities. 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 to work out the appropriate provisions or • conditions of an approval through the local planning decision making process (e.g. , Conditional Use Permit, .Site Development Review, etc.) . 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 is 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. 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 State Department of Health Services, etc. Also, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) remains in effect and an EIR may be required on any project. It should be noted that although no hazardous waste . management facilities would be located in Dublin, I-580 and 1-680 • are major transit routes for carrying these wastes. There is potential for spills to occur in Dublin. Other Comments on the Final Plan _ • There are a few comments on the Final Plan which should be considered as a part of this review. First, Exhibit B is a memo '. to the Mayor from the Contra Costa County Water District. The -- - - - Contra Costa County Water Districts concern with the'Final Plan revolves around the potential to designate a residual repository area adjacent to their• Los Vaqueros watershed boundary project. Contra Costa County Water District feels the proximity of their watershed boundary to Alameda County's residual repository area (near Vasco Road, 4 miles north of I-580) could have potentially . adverse consequences. The County may reconsider whether this will be the only potential residual repository location. County Staff has indicated that new sites could potentially be identified through the siting procedure process. This issue is still unresolved at this time. Alameda County Staff can answer any questions the Council may have on this issue. Exhibit C identifies comments from Dublin Police Service in response to the Final Plan. • 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. In summary, conceivably no hazardous waste. m_anagement facilities would be located in Dublin since the potential for a facility in the City would be eliminated through the waste facility siting procedure. Transport of waste along I-5S0 and I-680 will have • indirect impacts on the City, with an existing potential of spills along these routes. After the plan is adopted, the city - • will need to amend the Dublin General Plan to incorporate the • • Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Staff recommends that the • Council review the Final Plan and share their concerns/comments with city and County staffs so that they can be appropriately . addressed to the Alameda County Waste Management Authority as • • quickly as possible. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • '•/r .i :,.....;•... •/:r, ./ter..y:. .:9,;/ /� /.SY ,, ,4'.r/r,•„• . '/. `J•: .•/i• . • .'••/•'•...'• //I,!�',:,.,•1":, '(,•",• ;,= r/, •'/. :.ir' .Y1..;/.• may;.i' :,!i. :/;' Ii... ,.y< �ti.., r'., :rn.:C%9:.:r 'a'%4'/%•j/ .,1:1',: .; :fi .:f'!•a.i'%i,t. .i>. .,/, "i: 4. ��;.A.,•.�. :/•,, ^!r,///AI:"i;/J / y .r• i ''�ri:--✓.d.FyT r".;i;yu...�i-'//.l � ,tt.'. =/r..r..••h:,✓t l.r. •.�:f./f4:Xa': �•¢', 1 r'. ^l:^.I','`'i y,t:.j•'"'�••••cr•iv,,.� / _1 nrww ��■ r..wt•i•:_/...4$w.�..l�.�.�:i r.>•_l:i�l:ri..'✓.Jt'9✓.: 1;.!..^� .S • • • • ALAMEDA COUNTY vASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 399 Elmhurst Street,Hayward,California 94544 670-5400 • • January 26, 1989 • • • TO: County Administrator City Managers • . - District Managers .• r j�i FROM: William H. Fraley, Secretary t L1,�� I - SUBJECT: Referral of Final Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan • i with Request by WMA to Review aad Respond by March 12, 1589 • The Waste Management Authority, at the January 25, 1989 meeting, determined that member agencies should have an opportunity to review and • . comment on the final plan prior to final consideration by the Authority. Therefore, instead of the intended 90-day review period during which the member agencies would review and act on the plan, the tiBLI, requested • • member agencies to revieti'and•comment'on the Final-Plan by Earca"12 for l Authority consideration at the March 22 113-Lk meeting. Please schedule this for Staff, Council, Board consideration, and return • comments to me by March 12, 1989. • ' This plan is a referral and, therefore, is only referred to member agencies. We enclose a copy for your Clerk (for public review), Counsel ■ and Fire Chief. It is requested that your office distribute the copies r to the Clerk and Chief. A copy will also be available for public review at libraries. ' • • A limited printing was made so there are no copies for general distribution. • Please call me or Betty Croly if you have questions. A reply is requested by March 12, 1959. fF/j pb ' End. 2032S • I.