HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.2 Amend Alameda Solid Waste Mgmt Plan 2)0- � o
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 12, 1985
SUBJECT Amendment to Alameda County Solid Waste Management
Plan to Import and Dispose San Francisco Solid Waste
and Sludge at Altamont Landfill
EXHIBITS ATTACHED Letter from Solid Waste Management Authority dated
October 25, 1985 and attachments; Environmental
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
RECOMMENDATION 1 ) Consider issues and direct City Council Authority
Representative to relate the City ' s position to the
Authority
2 ) Comment as appropriate on Environmental Initial
Study
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Undetermined at this time
DESCRIPTION In accordance with State Law, each County is required
to have a Solid Waste Management Plan. In the County of Alameda, the Solid
Waste Management Authority was formed consisting of representatives from the
City and the County. The City of Dublin is presently a member of this
Authority and Mayor Peter Snyder is the City' s representative on the
Authority.
The Solid Waste Management Authority is presently considering an amendment
to the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan which would permit the
importation and disposal of San Francisco solid waste and sludge at the
Altamont Landfill. This amendment is proposed by Oakland Scavenger and
would permit San Francisco to import and dispose up to 15 million tons of
solid waste over a 50 year period beginning November 1, 1988. The amendment
would also permit San Francisco to dispose up to 130, 000 tons per year of
sludge over that same 50 year period. An amendment to the Solid Waste
Management Plan requires the endorsement of a majority of the Cities.
The City has received a request from the President of the Alameda County
Solid Waste Management Authority for the City to consider and endorse the
Authority' s approval of this amendment.
Both the Alameda County/City Management Association and the San Francisco
Import Committee of the Authority have made recommendations with respect to
this amendment. A copy of a letter from Don Blubaugh, Chairman of the
Alameda County/City Management Association, as well as the San Francisco
Import Committee report of October 23 , 1985, are attached for your review.
It ' s important to know that the San Francisco Import Committee of the
Authority initially developed a Memorandum of Understanding with San
Francisco which would permit San Francisco to export 10 million tons of
solid waste in January 1985. As part of that Memorandum of Understanding, _
numerous conditions were placed upon San Francisco in order to mitigate any
negative environmental impacts and also to maintain the life of the Altamont
Landfill. This MOU does not commit the Solid Waste Management Authority.
Also, since the development of the MOU with San Francisco, the San Francisco
Import Committee has recommended to the Authority that it consider
permitting the disposal of the 15 million tons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
n �J COPIES TO:
9
ITEM NO. . 7
AGENDA STATEMENT: Amendment to Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan
Page 2
ISSUES
The major issues associated with consideration of this amendment are as
follows:
1) Should Alameda County permit agencies outside of the County to dispose
of refuse at the Altamont Landfill? By permitting San Francisco or any
other agency to dump at the landfill, the life of that landfill could be
shortened unless conditions are placed on the outside agency which would
facilitate actions that prolong the life of the -landfill for Alameda
County residents.
It is Staff ' s position that there must be guarantees that Altamont meet the
needs of Alameda County residents first, and that the capacity is assured
for Alameda County users if import from outside agencies is permitted.
2 ) Should San Francisco be permitted to import refuse over the next 50
years? If San Francisco is permitted to import 15 million tons of
refuse on an uninterruptable basis, it has been estimated by Authority
staff that the 15 million ton mark would be reached in 24 to 25 years.
However, the San Francisco Import Committee of the Authority has
recommended that Oakland Scavenger Company be required to pursue the
evaluation of the feasibility of a waste-to-energy plant or other
resource recovery facility and that Oakland Scavenger Company exercise a
good faith effort in attempting to put into operation a waste-to-energy
plant within 15 years in Alameda County. If Oakland Scavenger does not
make a good faith effort towards developing a waste energy plant, the
Committee recommends that the import of San Francisco refuse be reduced
from 15 to 10 million tons over the 50 year period. The Committee
believes that the 50 year period is necessary in the event that Oakland
Scavenger does develop a waste-to-energy plant in order to provide
sufficient term for bond financing of such a plant.
It is Staff ' s recommendation that the Council concur with both the 15
million ton limit as well as the 50 year term with the conditions outlined
by the San Francisco Import Committee.
3 ) Mitigation Fees. There has been considerable debate with respect to the
utilization of a $3. 50 per ton mitigation fee which would be charged to
San Francisco. It is recommened that the import fees from San Francisco
be deposited with the Authority and be used for the following purposes:
a) to acquire land to be publicly owned to replace the capacity
used by San Francisco or other importers;
b) to fund waste to energy projects that reduce the waste stream to
the Altamont;
c) to acquire land to buffer sites from future land use
incompatibility problems;
d) to pay for road maintenance and litter pickup on roads used for
import that are locally owned and maintained;
e) to pay for other direct environmental mitigation measures;
f) to fund recycling programs on a County wide or sub-County wide
basis.
These recommendations were developed by the Alameda County/City Management
Association and Staff concurs with these recommendations. It should be
noted that the San Francisco Import Committee has not incorporated these
recommendations into their report but recommends that a plan be developed by
the Authority within 6 months of State approval of the Plan Amendment and
after review of the expenditure plan by member agencies.
AGENDA STATEMENT: Amendment to Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan
Page 3
4 ) Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration The County has
undertaken an Environmental Initial Study and has determined that all of
the significant environmental impacts can adequately be mitigated.
These mitigation measures will occur through the various permit
processes which Oakland Scavenger will be required to go through.
Staff concurs with the County' s assessment.
RECOMMENDATION
It is Staff ' s recommendation that the City Council review the issues
outlined above as well as any other pertinent issues which need to be
brought to the attention of the Authority and direct the Council ' s
representative on the Authority to forward those comments to the Authority.
Mayor Snyder, the City Council ' s representative to the Authority, will also
be able to elaborate on any issues that the City Council may wish to discuss
at the meeting.
ALAM EDA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 (415) 881-6401
October 25, 1985
C�.
Mayor and City Council
City of Dublin
P. 0. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mayor Snyder:
Enclosed is a copy of the report dated October 23, 1985, with supporting
documents, to the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority from the
Authority S.F. Import Committee, recommending local agency endorsement and
Authority approval of the County Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment
proposed by Oakland Scavenger Company as modified by the Committee recommended
conditions.
The amendment and recommendations are described in the Committee report and
attachments. The Authority discussed the report in detail at its October 23,
1985 meeting, and directed that it be referred to each member agency for
review and response. The Authority requested each member to report on their
agency's discussion at the November 20, 1985 meeting. The Authority then
intends to adopt a tentative amendment which will reflect member agencies
concerns at the November 20 meeting. This tentative amendment will be
referred to each member agency for endorsement prior to the final action by
the Authority on December 18, 1985.
Your attention to this matter, consistent with the Authority schedule, is
appreciated.
Please feel free to contact Bill Fraley, County Planning Director at 881-6401
for any assistance on this project from the Committee or Authority staff.
Very truly yours,
RG/WHF/JPB Ruth Ganong
Encl. President
cc: County Administrator
District Managers
County Manager
04725
ALAM EDA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 (415) 881-6401
October 23, 1985
TO: Members and Alternates, SWMA
FROM: Alice Creason, Chair, S.F. Import Committee
SUBJECT: S.F. Import Plan Amendment
The recommendation contained in the committee report should be presented to
your member agencies for review, discussion and endorsement prior to the next
meeting of the Authority.
It is important the the Authority resolve a final action on the proposal no
later than the Authority meeting on December 18, 1985.
It is expected that your agency members will need this time to review and
understand the proposal in order to resolve a position for action. Therefore,
the earlier this matter is brought to their attention, the better their
understanding and support will be.
Members of the S.F. Import Committee and staff will be available to answer
questions for you or your agency members.
Please feel free to contact us at your convenience.
0462S
T �
G 74
Oil-
As Orally Revised at Authority Meeting of October 23, 1985
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
COMMITTEE REPORT - OCTOBER 23, 1985
Report of the San Francisco Import Committee
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Authority review this Committee report and
recommendations in conjunction with the public hearing on the proposed Plan
Amendment to import and dispose San Francisco solid waste and sludge at
Altamont Landfill.
BACKGROUND:
The following chronology summarizes previous consideration by Authority and
S.F. Import Committee:
February, 1982. Authority approves plan amendment to permit importation of
San Francisco solid waste from November 1, 1983 to October 31, 1988.
November, 1982. Based on discussions at Authority workshop, Authority
invites San Francisco to make a presentation of its future needs; directs
staff to confer with San Francisco.
December, 1982. Presentation by Roger Boas, San Francisco CAO, that San
Francisco is seeking 5 million tons of capacity and has approached several
jurisdictions other than Alameda County. Authority directs that 10 million
tons of capacity be used as the basis for study of possible import to Altamont
landfill.
January, 1983. Oakland Scavenger Company submits proposal to Authority to
import 10 million tons of San Francisco solid waste and sludge and submits
report "Proposed Modification to the Altamont Sanitary Landfill, January,
1983" (blue cover). (The report supplements information provided by OSC in
conjunction with the original plan amendment for importation 1983-88.)
Authority finds the proposal not in conformance with the County Plan and
directs the Regional Issues Committee to consider a proposed plan amendment.
April, 1983. Authority sets public hearing date for June, 1983. Directs
staff to begin environmental analysis.
May, 1983. After discussion with Regional Issues Committee and Authority
staff, OSC submits "Supplementary Information" (second blue-covered report).
June, 1983. Authority opens public hearing and continues matter to permit
County of Alameda to designate Altamont Landfill in the County General Plan
and to complete revisions to the Conditional Use Permit for the landfill.
Y
Solid Waste Management Authority
S.F. Import Committee Report - October 23, 1985
Page 2.
October, 1983. Authority appoints S.F. Import Committee to negotiate with
San Francisco.
November, 1983. County Board of Supervisors approves General Plan Amendment
to designate Altamont Sanitary .Landfill.
February, 1984. Authority agrees to continue public hearing to August, 1984
to permit S.F. Import Committee and San Francisco to consider a waste-to-
energy plant in connection with proposed plan amendment.
April, 1984. Revised Conditional Use Permit approved by County; includes
requirement for OSC to contribute to roadway improvements.
August - October, 1984. Public hearing continued to permit completion of
negotiations between S.F. Import Committee and San Francisco.
January, 1985. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by Roger Boas and
S.F. Import Committee for conditions relating to import and disposal of up to
10 million tons of solid waste and up to 130,000 tons per year of sludge over
a 50 year period. MOU submitted to Authority for consideration.
March, 1985. Public Hearing for proposed plan amendment opened. Item
continued at request of OSC to complete negotiations between Company and San
Francisco. Authority releases Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration
on import of 10 million tons of solid waste for review and comment by
interested parties.
June, 1985. After completing negotiations with San Francisco, OSC requests
revision to proposed plan amendment to increase the amount of solid waste to
be imported from 10 million tons to 15 million tons. Submits report "Proposed
Modification to Altamont Sanitary Landfill, June, 1985" (gold cover).
June - September, 1985. Public hearing continued to allow review by member
agency managers.
September, 1985. Member agency managers present report. Public hearing
continued to permit preparation of CEQA document for revised (15 million tons)
OSC proposal and preparation of S.F. Import Committee final report.
October, 1985. S.F. Import Committee and staff hold several meetings with
OSC to consider the proposed plan amendment. S.F. Import Committee completes
committee report and recommendations for consideration,by full Authority.
1
Solid Waste Management Authority
S.F. Import Committee Report - October 23, 1985
Page 3.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU):
The MOU agreed to in January, 1985 by San Francisco and the S.F. Import
Committee for submittal to the Authority is attached. The MOU provides 20
conditions recommended to be included in the Plan Amendment and a contract
between City and Authority.
Major features of the MOU include:
a. San Francisco agrees to pay Authority a mitigation fee of $3.50 per
ton of solid waste and sludge, plus inflation adjustment. The MOU
specifies conditions relating to $8 million in "up front" option
money over seven years and conditions for termination of contract.
b. The mitigation fee is to cover all project effects relating to
traffic impacts, depletion of landfill capacity, and environmental
impacts.
C. San Francisco is permitted to export up to 10 million tons of solid
waste, with an annual tonnage limit, within a 50 year period to begin
between 11/1/88 and 11/1/93 and to export up to 130,000 tons of
sludge over the same period. Waste flow is interruptable at
discretion of San Francisco.
d. San Francisco ensures that the extent of resource recovery will
continue to be at least equal to that required of entities in Alameda
county.
e. Disposal of sludge is restricted to the amount absorbable by San
Francisco solid waste at a minimum solids-to-liquids ratio of 5:1.
Priority is given to disposal of Alameda County sludge in the event
Alameda County agencies decide to dispose at Altamont.
f. No hazardous waste is to be accepted at Altamont from San Francisco.
g. A Contingency Plan shall be submitted by San Francisco and OSC for
Authority approval.
h. The number of San Francisco transfer trucks and sludge tank trucks is
limited during peak traffic hours.
i. Authority and San Francisco commit to cooperate with Combustion
Engineering Inc. to assess the feasibility of locating a
waste-to-energy plant at Altamont, including a comparison to other
candidate sites in the Bay Area (a separate plan amendment would be
needed to site such a facility in Alameda county).
The MOU agreed to by the Committee and San Franisco does not commit the
Authority to any action.
Solid Waste Management Authority
S.F. Import Committee Report - October 23, 1985
Page 4.
AGENCY MANAGERS REPORT:
The report of the managers of the member agencies of the Authority is
contained in the September 12, 1985 letter by Don Blubaugh, Hayward City
Manager (attached).
Major features of the managers' report are:
a. Importation of waste is a policy issue to be determined by Authority
and elected officials of member agencies.
The managers recommend careful consideration of capacity, impacts,
and economics; Alameda County should not "compete" economically with
other counties for import of wastes.
b. Capacity should be assured for Alameda County users at least 50 years
into the future, based on clear independent evidence of need
projections.
C. The possible future needs of Alameda County jurisdictions that do not
presently use Altamont landfill should be included.
d. The contract should terminate after 15 years with an option for
Authority to terminate as early as 10 years.
e. The managers recommend that all import fees from San Francisco
commencing in 1988 be deposited with the Authority for use for the
following purposes mitigating project impacts:
• Acquisition of land to be publicly owned to replace capacity.
• Acquisition of land to buffer landfill sites.
• Waste-to-energy projects.
• Road maintenance and litter pickup on local roads used for
import.
• Other direct environmental mitigation measures.
• Recycling programs on a countywide or sub-countywide basis.
f. Managers recommend possible amendments to Authority Joint Powers
Agreement to permit implementation of expanded Authority role.
g. Alameda County jurisdictions should defer consideration of any
hazardous waste facilities until a regional or state-wide system has
been adopted.
r '
Solid Waste Management Authority
S.F. Import Committee Report - October 23, 1985
Page 5.
PROJECT PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES:
Project Proposal. (Oakland Scavenger Company)
The subject plan amendment is a revised proposal by OSC to import from San
Francisco up to 15 million tons of municipal solid waste (msw), with an annual
limit regulated by the formula in the MOU, and up to 130,000 tons per year of
municipal wastewater treatment plant sludge. The solid waste and sludge would
be disposed at Altamont landfill over a 50 year period to begin 11/1/88.
OSC has accepted all conditions contained in the Proposed Negative Declaration
dated October 7, 1985. These conditions incorporate conditions contained in
the MOU, including the mitigation fee of $3.50 per ton. This proposal is not
part of the rate base of local franchises.
The OSC proposal differs from the MOU in the following:
a. Total tons increased from 10 million to 15 million.
b. The proposal is not an "option" to dispose but a guarantee by San
Francisco to dispose beginning on 11/1/88.
C. The S.F waste flow would be committed on an "uninterrupted flow"
basis until the maximum tonnage is reached.
d. The inflation factor would begin on 11/1/88 with the first fee
adjustment on 11/1/89. The MOU provided for the inflation adjustment
to begin one year after payment by San Francisco of the .upfront
option money which would be due at completion of all necessary
permits and contracts. Staff estimates that, under the MOU, the
first fee adjustment could occur as early as 11/1/87, if the upfront
money were paid on 11/1/86.
Alternative 1. (MOU)
Adopt the original proposal and conditions contained in the MOU. This would
permit importation of 10 million tons of msw over a 50 year period rather than
the 15 million tons now proposed. The mitigation fee, up front option money,
inflation adjustment, and interruptable waste flow would be as stated in the
MOU.
This 10 million ton alternative at $3.50 per ton is acceptable to San
Francisco. OSC states that this alternative is not acceptable based on
economic feasibility relating to the $3.50 mitigation fee.
Solid Waste Management Authority
S.F. Import Committee Report - October 23, 1985
Page 6.
Alternative I.A. This alternative, presented to the S.F. Import Committee by
OSC, would provide for importation of only 10 million tons from San Francisco,
as provided by the MOU and Alternative 1, but would include a mitigation fee
of $2.50 per ton instead of the $3.50 per ton provided in the MOU. The
Committee finds that this would provide insufficient funds to mitigate impacts
identified under CEQA.
Alternative 2.
Accept the present OSC proposal to increase the amount of msw to 15 million
tons under the terms of the MOU as may need to be adjusted (i.e. , same as "OSC
Project Proposal" above) but add the following conditions in accord with the
timetable:
a. OSC agrees to pursue an evaluation of the feasibility of a waste-to-
energy plant or other resource recovery facility deemed acceptable by the
Authority. OSC to submit a signed contract for a consultants' report
within 6 months of the date all permits and contracts are in place. The
components and timelines in the consultants' contract to be approved by
the Authority. The consultants' report to be completed one year after
signing of the consultants' contract.
b. Importation from San Francisco would be determined as follows:
(1) OSC shall exercise good faith in attempting to achieve an operating
waste-to-energy plant within 15 years in Alameda County to serve
jurisdictions that use Altamont landfill. OSC's good faith shall not
be affected if public agencies refuse to grant necessary approvals or
if factors such as changes in . state or federal law prevent
development of such a facility.
(2) If after 15 years there is no such operating plant, the Authority
shall determine whether OSC has exercised good faith in pursuing
development of such a facility, even though not successful. If the
Authority finds that OSC has exercised good faith, the total tonnage
imported under the plan amendment shall remain 15 million tons. If
the Authority determines that OSC has not exercised good faith, the
15 million tons of importation under this plan amendment shall be
reduced to 10 million tons as provided under Alternative 1.
(3) Proposal for 15 million tons would remain in effect for 50 years if a
San Francisco plant is operational within 15 years to provide
necessary amortization period and disposal capacity for non-
processibles and combustion residues generated from San Francisco msw.
Proposed time limits on importation would begin on date of start of
importation (November 1, 1988).
r
Solid Waste Management Authority
S.F. Import Committee Report - October 23, 1985
Page 7.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (CEQA):
The Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project
are attached. The documents are prepared pursuant to CEQA, signed by the
project sponsor and released for review and comment by interested parties. A
Negative Declaration is proposed because all environmental impacts identified
in the Initial Study are to be mitigated through conditions agreed to by the
project sponsor. The Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration evaluate the proposed plan amendment for 15 million tons of
municipal solid waste and 130,000 tons per year of sludge.
EVALUATION
The S.F. Import Committee continues to support the proposal contained in the
MOU. - "Alternative 1" above for 10 million tons over a 50 year period with
the included conditions. The Committee support for Alternative 1 is
consistent with the terms of the MOU. The Committee clearly understands that
this proposal is economically unacceptable to OSC.
After completion of the MOU by the Committee and San Francisco, OSC held its
own negotiations with San Francisco and then revised its Project Proposal to
increase the total amount of msw from 10 million to 15 million tons. The
agency managers reviewed the MOU and the revised OSC proposal and submitted
recommendations to the Authority. The Committee reviewed the OSC proposal and
managers recommendations and other recent information and found the new OSC
Project Proposal is a variation of the MOU which presents changed circum-
stances which the Committee recommends should be considered and evaluated by
the Authority and member agencies.
S.F. Import Committee Recommends:
The Plan be considered for amendment as follows:
1. Adoption of Alternative 1, the initial proposal contained in the
M.O.U. (10 million tons, 50 years, option payments, $3.50 per ton
mitigation fee and other MOU conditions.) The Committee continues to
support Alternative 1.
1A. The Committee recommends that Alternative lA not be considered (the
initial proposal contained in the MOU but with a mitigation fee of
$2.50 per ton, as proposed by OSC. ) The Committee finds this would
provide insufficient funds to mitigate impacts identified under CEQA.
2. In view of the changed circumstances identified above under
"Evaluation," preventing the implementation of Alternative 1, the
Committee recommends the member agencies endorse and the Authority
approve Alternative 2, increasing maximum importation from 10 to 15
million tons, with changes to the conditions of the MOU contained in
the revised OSC Project Proposal, and with required good faith effort
to achieve a waste-to-energy plant.
r
Solid Waste Management Authority
S.F. Import Committee Report - October 23, 1985
Page 8.
The Committee recommends that any amendments to the plan (Alternative 1 or 2)
include the following:
-a- Only waste generated in San Francisco shall be imported to Alameda
County. Nonprocessible material and residuals from a San Francisco
./ waste-to-energy plant may be imported at a ratio according with
generation of San Francisco msw.
-b- Authority require OSC to study the means necessary to protect
Altamont landfill from incompatible land use development and to
present a completed report on this matter to the Authority within 18
months of the date all permits and contracts are in place. An annual-
report shall be presented to the Authority thereafter.
-c- Authority require OSC to present for Authority approval a schedule
for a plan for resource recovery for the Alameda County portion of
their disposal operation, including but not limited to recycling and
curbside collection, with alternatives available and costs. Plan to
be completed within 18 months of the date all permits and contracts
are in place. The program and economics shall be subject to approval
by the Authority and affected local jurisdiction(s). The program
shall be compatible with a waste-to-energy plant and shall work to
achieve the goals contained in the County Solid Waste Management Plan
as may be amended by the Authority from time to time.
-d- OSC shall submit a progress report annually to the Authority
commencing one year after all permits and contracts are in place, in
accord with all approved schedules, concerning all conditions of the
plan amendment. This includes scheduled progress toward a waste-to-
energy facility, recycling and curbside collection, or other projects.
-e- Endorsement of the Committee-recommended plan amendment by member
agencies. As part of said endorsement, it is understood that the
amendment is not part of franchise agreements between OSC and member
agencies.
-f- The $3.50/ton mitigation fee and $8 million "upfront" option money
applies whether Alternative 1 or 2 is selected.
-g- Mitigation fees received from San Francisco shall go to an Authority
interest-bearing account.
(continued on next page)
Solid Waste Management Authority
S.F. Import Committee Report - October 23, 1985
Page 9.
-h- The mitigation fee shall be adjusted for inflation in accord with the
formula and dates provided.in the MOU.
-i- The Committee also recommends that the Authority adopt an expenditure
plan to mitigate short- and long-term impacts of San Francisco
importation within 6 months of State approval of the plan amendment,
and after review of the expenditure plan by member agencies.
-j- Other such conditions which the Authority determines appropriate as
the result of, the public testimony and member agency response.
10/25/85
WHF/de:1214P
• r "
i .
Y�° F H
' J
#�3 CITY OF HAYWARD . OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER
P
September 12, 1985
Ruth Ganong, President
Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority
County of Alameda
399 Elmhurst Street
Hayward, CA 94544
Dear Ms. Ganong:
As Chair of the Alameda County City Management Association, I am pleased
to convey to the Authority our organization's response to Ayn Wieskamp's
letter of April 25, 1985, regarding additional San Francisco import to the
Altamont Landfill.
Rather than creating a task force, we decided to address this issue
as a group including all Alameda County cities and the County. We also invited
all special districts involved in waste management to join us for this purpose.
Three separate meetings were held, and what follows represents the
unanimous recommendations of all agencies party to these discussions.
It is important to note that in addressing the issue of San Francisco
import we viewed this matter in a more global perspective of other outside
agencies making future requests for import. Thus, our deliberations took
longer than might normally be expected. Additionally, all of our discussions
were centered around the disposal of non-hazardous wastes though a comment is
made later in this letter for consideration about hazardous material disposal.
Altamont is a facility that first must meet the needs of Alameda County.
It was the strong conviction of the group that the Altamont facility (and
all other Alameda County landfills) should be viewed as a resource of residents
and businesses of Alameda County. Any consideration of import from other counties
should be made only after there is clear independent evidence that sufficient
capacity is there for all of Alameda County or that fees are provided by importers
to acquire such additional capacity. Further, we believe that whenever import is
considered that capacity is assured for Alameda County users at least 50 years
into the future.
It is realized that some agencies in Alameda County do not now use Altamont,
but in calculating Alameda County needs, the future possible needs of these
agencies should be included.
Should import of wastes from outside the County be permitted?
Clearly this is a policy issue to be determined by your Board and the
respective Alameda County and City elected officials. There is some sentiment
in the County that we should not become the dumping grounds for other counties,
and that each county should provide for its own needs.
On the other hand, there is a view that waste management is a regional
issue and that political boundaries do not always reflect current day practical
considerations. It was acknowledged that the courts may not permit one to
arbitrarily decide to not permit import. Additionally, there is always the
possibility that the State may enter the field by mandating some action on
our part or preempting local regulations.
In sum, it is our view that the policy decision should be based on a
rational agreement involving such matters as capacity, impacts, economies,
etc.
It was also noted, that while we should require the maximum compensation
justified by the impacts of importation, we should not be swayed by the payment
of a large sum of money. Trash disposal is expensive. Careful analysis will
have to be made to assure that there is capacity for the future.
Above all it was felt that Alameda County should not be competing economically
with other counties for the import of wastes.
San Francisco Import - 50 Years
Should the Authority elect to permit further import from San Francisco,
we believe that the 50 years requested is far too long a period of time for such
a commitment.
It was observed that there are too many changing standards and technologies
to make this long term commitment to an outside agency. We are concerned about
contractually agreeing to something today that is "safe" perhaps becoming unsafe
some time in the near future.
Also it was noted that most Alameda County jurisdictions have only 20 to 25
year commitments from Oakland Scavenger.
We urge that no agreement be approved for longer than 10 years with a five
year notice of termination. In other words, should circumstances warrant, in
the fifth year notice could be given to terminate in the 10th year - in the
sixth year notice of termination could be given to be effective in the 11th
year. The contract should terminate in the 15th year.
Further, any importer should be required to engage in recycling, waste-to-
energy operations and the like that are undertaken by Alameda County jurisdic-
tions.
Mitigation Fees.
There was considerable debate among agency attorneys about whether fees
for import could be charged beyond what was needed for mitigating the impacts
- 2 -
of import. The prevailing view was the safest approach was to use the money for
mitigating measures.
Setting aside the legal issues, the managers as a matter of policy recommend
the use of import fees for mitigation measures. (It is assumed that this does
not affect the current five-year agreement with San Francisco that terminates
in 1988.)
It is recommended that all import fees from San Francisco (commencing in
1988) be deposited with the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority to
be used for the following:
- To acquire land to be publicly owned to replace the capacity used
by San Francisco or other importers.
- To fund waste-to-energy projects that reduce the waste stream.
- To acquire land to buffer sites from future land use incompatability
problems.
- To pay for road maintenance and litter pick up on roads used for
import that are locally owned and maintained.
- To pay for other direct environmental mitigation measures.
- To fund recycling programs on a County-wide or sub-County-wide
(several cities) basis.
It is specifically noted that such fees should not be used for the general
operations of the Authority, but such money could be used to offset costs
associated with import negotiations.
Further, it is recommended that in the case of San Francisco import fees
and any others in the future, that the Authority prepare and present for
ratification of its member agencies a specific financial allocation plan for
the permitted uses of the money.
Additionally, all agencies party to any import arrangement must agree to
have the hauler of import responsible for spills clean-up. This should not
come from import fees, but should be in addition to them.
Role of Solid Waste Management Authority.
The Managers' group did not have time to carefully review the current Joint
Powers Agreement establishing the Authority. In light of a new role(s) (acquiring
land, funding waste-to-energy projects, etc.) that could result from our recom-
mendation, there is likely to be need for amendments. We have taken the liberty
to recommend for your consideration responsibilities for the Authority to share
with its creating agencies and roles and responsibilities to be the exclusive
jurisdiction of cities and special districts.
CITY AND SPECIAL DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITIES:
Franchising for waste collection or performing it with agency employees.
Determinations of levels of services and whether mandatory or not.
- 3 -
i
CITY AND SPECIAL DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITIES - Continued
Curb side or back yard pick up determinations.
Whether or not to operate recycling programs.
Determining franchise fees.
Setting of collection and disposal rates.*
* There may be some shared responsibility regarding
disposal rates with the Authority.
AUTHORITY RESPONSIBILITY WITH AGENCY RATIFICATION:
Planning.
Intergovernmental Commitments.
Disposal rates affected by Authority commitments re import or
waste-to-energy projects.
Facilities and land acquisition and development.
Permits of a non-ministerial nature.
AUTHORITY RESPONSIBILITIES:
Providing for staffing.
Encouraging and funding research and development projects.
Training and education.
Annual Operating Budget.
Ministerial Permits.
Facility Planning.
Keeping plan in conformance with State Law.
Hazardous Materials.
As noted above, our discussions have centered on non-hazardous materials.
It is our view that hazardous waste management in Alameda County must be
considered as part of an operating region-wide or state-wide integrated system
to be successful.
Alameda County jurisdictions, individually or collectively, should defer
considerations of any hazardous waste facilities in the County until a regional
or state-wide system has been adopted.
4 -
Alameda County cities not now using Altamont or other County facilities.
As noted above, such jurisdictions should have first call on Alameda
County facilities and should pay their appropriate share of "buy in" to an
existing operating facility if capacity exists or to contribute to the
Authority necessary funds for land acquisition for future capacity needs.
Disposition of Authority Assets.
Our recommendation to you in the event of import is that the Authority
acquire land and/or sponsor waste=to-energy projects. We have not discussed
the individual interests of the various parties that make up the Authority.
We do believe it important that the basic decision to move in this direction
be made and that we introduce the concept of public ownership of land fill
site(s) . Additional time can be spent later determining what happens in the
event the Authority should cease to exist.
The Alameda County Managers (and district representatives) appreciated
the opportunity to render advice and recommendations to you on this very
important matter. We will be happy to meet with you to discuss this matter
further. Also, we stand ready upon your request• to assist in any way we
can on other Authority business.
Sincerely yours,
onald A. Blubaugh, City ager
Chair, Alameda County City Management
Association
5 -
ALAM EDA C U NTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 (415) 881-6401
October 8, 1985 -
Interested Parties:
With this letter we transmit for your review and comment copies of a proposed
Initial Study and Negative Declaration relating to a proposed amendment to the
Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority Solid Waste Management Plan to
include importation and disposal of San Francisco municipal waste and
wastewater treatment plant sludge at the Altamont Sanitary Landfill after
October 31, 1988. A detailed project description is contained in the attached
documents.
This transmittal supercedes the Initial Study for the same project transmitted
to you on April 23, 1985. At the applicant's request, the proposed project
has been revised to provide for importation and disposal of up to 15 million
tons of municipal waste, compared with 10 million tons in the original
proposal.
A 30 day review period is allowed for review of the proposed Negative
Declaration and Initial Study; all comments on these items should be received
by the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority, at the letterhead
address, no later than November 12, 1985.
If you have any questions on this matter please call Betty Croly, Assistant
Planning director, or Dick Edminster, Planner III, at this office.
ery truly yours,
William.H. Fraley
Authority Secretary
Enclosure
WHF:de/1708D
PROPOSE) NMA= tBaARATTCN
Alameda Canty Solid Waste Mmagement Authority (ACSVW (Lead Agcy)
1. Project Name: Importation and Disposal of San Francisco Mmicipal Solid Waste and Wastewater
Treatment Plant Sludge at Altamont Sanitary Landfill, Post 1988.
2. Description, Location, and Assessor's Parcel Nmber(s): Import and disposal not to exceed 15
million tons of San Francisco municipal waste over a maximmm 50 period to begin between
ll 76178-8 and .11/01/93 and import and disposal of up to 130,000 tons year of San Francisco
sludge in conrmction with disposal of solid waste at Altamont Sanitary
landfill, located in unincorporated Alameda County at 10840 Altamont Pass Road, Livermore
Area, Assessor's Parcel Nos. 99B-6275 and 6250•-1.
3. Persons or Entity Uadertsking Project: Oakland Scavenger Company
4. Responsible Agencies: California Waste Mwvigement Board, Regional. Water nality Oontrol Board
(Central Valley), Bay Area Air Quality Management District, AMG, Oo. Fire Patrol, OD. Health
c.'are Services Agency (LEA), State Fish and Game, State Div. of Forestry.
5. Finding:
Based on the attached Initial Study, the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority
(De`i ai on-making body) has found that:
The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
R The significant effects of the project noted in the attached Initial Study have
been eliminated or mitigated by revisions to the project so that the potential
adverse effects are reduced to a podnt where no significant effects would occi
6. Date of Public Notice of Declaration: October 11, 1985
7. laid of Review Period: November 8, 1985
Sigoature
ACS Secretary
Title
Date
I5SWU OF THIS N93AM E DPMWMCN DUES NOT IMPLY APHWM OF THE PEa=
ItGMAI. SMDT
Alameda County Salta Waste Mmmeme,t Authority (AMW (Led may)
1. GMM& DFGMnCN
A. Project Name: Importation and disposal of San ftmcisco Mmicipal Sol.td %wte and
Wastemter Treatme t Plant Sludge at Altamont Sanitary Imdfill, Pbst 1988
B. Project someor: Oakland Scavenger Phaoe: (415) ,465-2911
Address: 2601 Peralta Street, Oakland, CA 94607
G' Assessar''s Parcel knbers(s): 99B-6275 1-1, 6225-1, 6250•-1
D. EdatiS zwIM.-_"A" Agricultural, Conditional use Permit No 0-3010
E. Pled Designatims:
(feral Plea: Agricultural; site designated as solid waste facility .
SPeciftc Plan: N/A
Other: Amendment to County Solid Vbste mat Plan requited
F' DmCrIPtion: IWort and dispoaal of up to 15 million tons (with anmual limitation)
over a maximum 50 year period to between ]7]1 88 and 93 and iMD=t add
of up to tons year San FYancjsoo allydge in Cm Junction with
diposal of San Francisco solid waste, at Altamont Sanitary 7, fili
G. Iawtim: 10840 Altamant Piss Road north side 0.8 miles northeast of intersection
with Dyer Road, Livermore Area M_***�y Township
H' 27vlramm3tal Settling (alape, vggitat ca, 19tammv., soil type, .�.i� ,in„ni
c1affi, ): See Pnvirc�tal Impact Report, Altamont Sari
Dew, 1975, prepared by Almeria Cou► p �' Landfill,
(avai�Ah�P �' �'� Depart, SCH #76012603
for r�evies� at the Alameda Coon Flaming Dapertment).
I. Other Agencies Wick Require Approval:. M' BWOM (Central Valley). BWO, On. HCSA
Div. of Bnv. Health (LEA) co. Fire Patrol ABAG State Fish 6 Game State Div. of
Farestzy.
J. Awlysts Betty GYoly late Received: Auxmt 19, 1985
1
• E
L !VALUATION
Check the appropriate boxes. Circle or specify hems marked Vas—If more =
than one possibility in category. AU phases of proiect planning implememsLon
and operation must be conioered. AU Items checked Yes or Unknown must
be discussed in Section IV.
A. Gotloalc Fact=
Could the Project or In related activities affect,or be
affected by,the foUowing: F
I. Seismic haaarb.baduding fault surface rupture.
hgMf action4 seismic shaking,landslrding,tuhami
b+hdU«h Yes
2. Slope failure Yes
3. foil hazards: soil creep,shrink-swill Yes
(expansiveness).high erosion potential
a. Yinaral resources X
S. Other(State)
Comment
IL hydrakoc'aetors
Could the Reject attest.r be affected by,the
lollawing:
L public or private water supply X
L Septic system functioning(bade@uste
percolation,high water table,location in X
relation to watercourses,eta)
3. Maeased sedmwrsauan rates .._1�5--
a. Surface or groundwater quality kontaminent
Other than sediment.i.e.urban runoff,nutrient
enrichment,pesticides.temperature.dissolved Yes
• �sygen.tu.l
3. Groundwater recharge X
L Watercourse configuration,capacity,or
hydraulic
-2-
�
y
7. Degradation of riparian corridor,marsh,lake, X
estuary,slough
L ImQemed runoff due to impervious surfacing ---�
!. flood hazard areas,their depth or event X
10. Cumulative saltwater fatr lion
It. Other(State) X
Comment::
C. aiotic Factors
Could the Project affect,er be affected by the
fottowing:
1. Known habitat of rare/endangered plants or X
aatimals(designate specific species,it mWwn) ----
2. Unique or trap*biotic esmmurdty -- X —
2. Wildlife habitat or migration corridor
k Alterations to the plant community -- X
S. Fire hazard from Ilammable brush,grass,
or tr X
ees —,�
f. Anadromoss lishery ----
7. Lana currently utilised for agricutwe �,— X
L Other(State) —— X
CAWWWM
Q (Noise,Air and>nWv Factors
Could the Project affect,er be affected by,the
following:
1. Existing raise levels(ambient and single
event) -
-3-
�t
f
2. Ambient air quality my hydrocarbon, ° 1A
thermal, odor, dust,smoke,radiation, � � f
etc.) :.X
2• Climate(locoll or . - - X -
y regionally)
4. Use of substantial amouets of fuel energy %
I Cumulative Increase In energy demand,
Mise,or air pollutarusa X
L Other LState) X
Comments:
L fttual Resources
Could the Project affect,or be affected by,tier
sa♦e,extraction or oorservation of any natural
resources x
_ eenrment::
F- CUlUrallAwthatsc tacum
CAN d the Project affect or n oWt in thr
following
L The established character,earthetia or X
tur+cliwLI S of the surrounding arse
2. Physical chance affecting unique
ethnic cultural values
2. Restriction of existing MU1100 or
sacred uses within the potential bnpact
°rea X
C Prehistoric or historic buildings,
structure,objects or unique cultural
feature x
S. Archaeological er paleoMUSlogical X
L Areas having important visual/sCsnic
value
7. Adopted acenic hijhevays or area of X
seenic value
L Lands preserved order an airladtural,
wwdc,or open space a mtract X
• I Hazard to people or property from risk
at explosion or release of haxuclmn
substwlm either an site or In tranait Yes
-4-
v
4C :.
10. Significant new fight or Aare Impacts } f
an the site or surrounding area X
11. Displacement of people or kulness
- -
activity •X
1L "lie ammversr _ X _
• 13. Other(State)
X
Comments:
G. Public Sarviaa Faemrs
Could the Project or its related activities have
effect upon ar result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas:
L Fire protection 7f�S
2. ftgce protection X
2. Schools X
C lark and recreation facllities X
S. Traffic(increases in awgestlon,hasard) YES
L Rner y naporse or evaluation plans X
7. Maintenance of public facilities
(roads,aw wwls,eta)
L "Be mass transportation or alternative
trarnpertation nho9 (preempting of seine) X- - x -
1. Other(State)
M. "AC Utility Factors
Could the Project ar its related activities wve
an effect on or result in a need for new systems
or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
L Sewer ar septic systems X
2. Water for domestic use and fire protection X
—5—
3. Natural S&s or electricity _X
a. Storm water drainage
X
3. Solid waste disposal _IMS
IL Communication systems X
7. Plant facilities for any of the•above(sewer x
plants,microwave sutsoa,water twos,etc.)
L Ocher(State) X
Commanu:
L Soda-Etanosnic
Cosdd the Project lmolvw..
1. Expenditure of public fund, in ascau of public X
'= revenues ge mated by private projects ---
L Reduction of Sow/moderate Income housing __ X
X
3. Creation of demand for additional houaleg
b. Land use not In ardar nano with dtaracter X
ad asst utsding neighborhood _--
3. Other(State) X
Carnmemm.
YZS No
1 coneral Plans and PUM&4 Peflq
It the Projects
I. ksconssistent with the County General Plan
L bseonabtant with Specific Pliru - X
3. kiconaietent with other adbpted pmUcim X
4. Pate ntiWy Qowth.ledu inj JL
1/ Oaainty General Plan has been Mended in accord with State
law to designate site as solid waste facility.
-6-
• f -
Commentu
K. Odd lbtwttid Impacu Sp cific w pr000(ascribe)
-7-
i
DL MANDATORY PZNDINGS or SMGN»PICANCE E;
Pursuant to Section 13012 of the State E1R Guidelines,a project shall be found
to hove a significant effect on the environment d any of the following are true:
YES NO
1. The project has the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species,ca use a fish or wildlife population to drop below self
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 eliminate important esampJes X
ad the major periods of California history or prehistory
t The project has the potential to achieve short-term to the
disadvantage of Jong-term environmental goals. �.,,X_
3. The project has possible rwironmentaJ effects which are
"vidually limited but cumulatively considerable. (Cunhulativ ly
eenaiderable mew that the AatmentaJ effecu of an hhdividual
project are considerable when viewed in c v*ctien with the X
effects of past projects,the effects of other Current projects,
and the allecu of probabJe fuatve projects.)
a. The envb 0-mf 1W effects of a project will cause sumuntial X
adverse eifecu on human Asings,either directly W indirectly.
tY. MNIFICANT IMPACTS AND FLASMLL MITIGATION MEASURES
Ali significant or unknown impacu Mdicated in Section 11 above should be docribed
and feasible mitigation measures recommended wherever possible.
See attached sheets.
Available for inspection at Alameda County Planning Departa►ert:
a. Conlitiaial Use Permit Igo. C-3010.
b. -Solid Waste Facilities Permit No. 01-:AA-009.
C. E nviroaY Mtal Ialpact Report, Altammt Sanitary Landfill (1975)
SCH #76012603.
d, Woodward-Clyde Consultants, "Soils, Geology and Groundwater
Investigation, Altamont Landfill Site".
e. Oakland Scavenger Cmipany:
"Proposed modifiraticn to the Altamont Sanitary Landfill, .
January, 1982".
. "proposed Modification to the Altamont Sanitary landfill,
January, 1983".
"Proposed Modification to the Alt mt Sanitary landfill,
Supplementary Information, May, 1983".
. "Proposed Hod icatim to the Altamont Sanitary Landfill,
June, 1985".
f. Initial Study and Negative Declaratian,•Ill>portation and Dis-
posal of San Francisco Mtaiicipal Waste at Altamont Sanitary
Landfill, November 1, 1983-October 31, 1988 (adopted by Ahmed
County Solid Waste ISanager*nt Authority, Fury 24, 1982) .
-8-
IV. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES
Potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures relating to the
operation of the Altamont Sanitary Landfill without importation of solid waste
and sludge from San Francisco are addressed in the Environmental Impact Report
adopted by Alameda County in 1976 (SCH #76012603).
Potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures relating to the
existing agreement to allow importation of San Francisco solid waste for five
years, 1983-1988, are addressed in the Initial Study for the Negative
Declaration adopted by ACSWMA, February 24, 1982.
The following environmental impacts and mitigation measures relate solely to
the present proposal to import solid waste and sludge from San Francisco after
October 31, 1988.
Major operational changes from pre—San Francisco waste import conditions that
would result from importation of San Francisco wastes after October 31, 1988
are:
Increase in the size of the daily refuse cell from 10'x150'x75' to
10'xl50'xl35' (except were a daily refuse cell is determined by the
Local Enforcement Agency to be unnecessary to meet performance
standards for solid waste disposal);
more rapid excavation of on—site cover materials;
disposal of wastewater treatment plant sludge and possible
Incorporation with disposed municipal solid waste;
based on a five day week, a maximum of 114 round trips per day by San
Francisco solid waste transfer vehicles and approximately 30 round
trips per day by San Francisco vehicles hauling treatment plant
sludge.
These operational changes are Identical to those of the existing agreement to
import for five years, except for the addition of treatment plant sludge and
an increase in the projected truck traffic due to an increasing volume of
solid waste from San Francisco. Based on the report dated January, 1983,
Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority has determined that larger
daily refuse cells and more rapid excavation of on—site cover material will
cause no additional impacts to those identified in the EIR; and that Altamont
Sanitary Landfill has sufficient leachate control capacity and liquid
a`,sorption capacity to dispose sewage treatment plant sludge.
Potential significant environmental impacts and feasible mitigation measures
are:
Factors A.I. seismic hazards A.2. sloe failure and A.3. erosion. Any
Possible adverse impacts will be mitigated by Conditional Use Permit No.
C-3010 Condition 8, incorporating recommendations of Woodward—Clyde,
Consultants contained in report "Soils, Geology and Groundwater Investigation,
Altamont Landfill Site."
—9—
Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority
Initial Study
Significant Impacts and Possible Mitigation Measures
Factors B.3. increased sedimentation and B.4. groundwater qualit . any
possible adverse impacts will be mitigated by Conditional Use Permit No.
C-3010 Condition 6, annual report on water quality and disposal activities to
County Planning Department and Condition 8, drainage and erosion control as
recommended in the Woodward-Clyde, Consultants report; and by Central Valley
RWQCB Discharge Requirement and Monitoring and Reporting Program (Order No.
77-233); Local Enforcemenut Agency Solid Waste Facility Permit No. 01-AA-009,
Provision 2, semi-annual monitoring of leachate.
Factor F.9. risk of release of hazardous substances. Altamont Sanitary
Landfill is presently designated a Class II-1 facility; no hazardous waste as
defined in Health and Safety Code Section 25117 and regulations promulgated
thereunder by the Department of Health Services would be accepted at Altamont
from San Francisco; disposal of hazardous wastes, except asbestos as approved
by the State Department of Health Services, is prohibited by the Local
Enforcement Agency Facilities Permit Prohibition l; Regional Water Quality
Control Board approval would be necessary for disposal of sludge or ash. Any
potential danger of explosion due to accumulation of methane gas is mitigated-
by Local Enforcement Agency Facilities Permit Provision 3, methane generation
and accumulation monitoring and control.
To mitigate potential impacts, Oakland Scavenger Company should agree to
prohibit import of hazardous materials to Altamont Landfill (see Exhibit A.1.).
Factor G.1. fire protection. Any possible impact is mitigated by Conditional
Use Permit Condition 10 (fire control program in cooperation with State
Division of Forestry and County Fire Patrol); Local Enforcement Agency
FAcility Permit Specification 9 (water supply for fire suppression).
Factor G.S. traffic hazards and G.7. roadway repairs. The proposed project
has been referred to the Alameda County Public Works Agency for a
determination of impacts to Altamont Pass Road. The project is expected to
have a significant effect on necessary roadway maintenance and need for
Improvements to road structure/alignment.
The projected addition of up to 144 - round trips per day, Monday through
Friday, by San Francisco transfer and tank trucks would cause a significant
impact on traffic congestion on highways and roads in Alameda County during
peak traffic periods.
To mitigate project impacts on traffic congestion and roadway improvements and
maintenance, Oakland Scavenger Company should agree to limit the number of San
Francisco truck trips during peak traffic hours and should .. agree to
compensation for project-related costs associated with roadway improvement and
maintenance (see Exhibit A.2, A.3, A.4, .A.13).
-10-
Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority
Initial Study
Significant Impacts and possible Mitigation Measures
Factor H.S. Solid Waste Disposal. Most Alameda County jurisdictions presently
dispose their solid waste at Altamont Landfill. The proposed project would
consume approximately 19.7% of the total solid waste disposal capacity of
Altamont Sanitary Landfill. This capacity would therefore not be available to
Jurisdictions in Alameda County, in the event that these jurisdictions want to
continue disposal at Altamont after expiration of existing franchise
agreements with OSC (+ year 2000). At present, there is no other permitted
landfill in Alameda County with sufficient capacity to absorb the wastestream
of the Alameda County jurisdictions except on a short term basis.
Importation of significant amounts of solid waste increases the need to. plan
for contingencies related to natural disasters, labor disputes or other
factors.
Municipal solid waste has a limited capacity to absorb wastewater treatment
plant sludge. Importation 'of San Francisco sludge would therefore limit the
availability of Altamont Landfill for disposal of sludge generated in Alameda
County. At present, virtually no Alameda County sludge is disposed at*
Altamont. However, local jurisdictions may want to dispose there in the future.
To mitigate these impacts, San Francisco, in conjunction with Oakland
Scavenger Company, should agree to compensate Alameda County Solid Waste
Management Authority for reduced, landfill capacity, which may require Alameda
County ;jurisdictions to establish new efforts to reduce the wastestream and
add capacity (see Exhibit A.S, A. ,6, A.7, A.13). Decisions regarding uses to
which compensation may be put would be made in the future by Alameda County
Solid Waste Management Authority with appropriate environmental documentation
evaluating projects or programs when proposed. San Francisco, in conjunction
with Oakland Scavenger Company, should also provide a contingency plan in the
event of short—term closure of Altamont landfill or San Francisco transfer
station (see Exhibit A.8)
Oakland Scavenger Company should also agree that disposal of San Francisco
sludge shall be limited to the volume that can be absorbed by San Francisco
solid waste disposed at the landfill, in accord with specification of
regulatory agencies, and that wastewater treatment plant sludge generated in
Alameda County shall have priority over wastewater treatment sludge generated
In any other county and therefore disposal of San Francisco sludge may be
further limited (see Exhibit A.11, A.12).
To mitigate the possible impact of the project on recycling and resource
recovery, Oakland Scavenger Company should ensure that San Francisco agrees to
continue to ensure that the extent of materials recovery and recycling will be
at least equal to that required of entities in Alameda County. Oakland
Scavenger Company should also ensure that San Francisco agrees to pledge, with
the Authority, commitment of information, resources and personnel, as
available, to cooperate with the Authority and vendor to pursue the goal to
establish a cost effective regional waste—to—energy facility for use by San
Francisco and Alameda County. (see Exhibit A.9, A.10)
—11—
i
Y. DETbRHWATION
—1. 1 find that tha proposed project will not have a significant affect on
she environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
L 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
an the environment,there wiU not be a signiticams effect in this case
because the mitigation measures desaibed in Exhibit W attached
have been added to the project by the project sponsor. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
3. 1 find fti the proposed project may have a significant effect on
the environment and an ZINVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required
Signature
ACS CA Secretary
Title
Date
-12-
EXHIBIT A
MITIGATION MEASURES AND/OR OTHER MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT
The undersigned project sponsor(s) hereby acknowledges understanding
and acceptance of and agrees to be bound by
measures and project modifications contained in all t mitigation
Exhibit
Initial Study (see attached sheets). A to this
Signature — Proj Sponsor
Presid n - Oakland Scavenger Co.
October 7, 1985
Date
13
EXHIBIT A
MITIGATION MEASURES AND OTHER MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT
The proposed amendment to the County Solid Waste Management Plan shall include
the following conditions to mitigate impacts identified in this Initial Study:
1. No hazardous waste as defined in Health and Safety Co4e Section 25117 and
regulations promulgated thereunder by the Department of Health Services,
Including changes to the statutory and regulatory definitions during the
period of importation, shall be accepted at Altamont from San Francisco.
2. To minimize potential traffic impacts, tank trucks transporting wastewater
treatment sludge shall be limited to no more than 30 round trips per day
with a limit of 8 tank truck round trips between 7 and 9 a.m. and the same
number between 4 and 6 p.m. on Alameda County roads or highways. These
numbers may be exceeded in the time of emergency as defined in the Alameda
County Solid Waste Management Contingency Plan.
3. To minimize potential traffic impacts, the number of transfer truck round
trips per day shall not exceed the daily transfer truck limit, which shall
be calculated each calendar year by the Authority in the following manner:
Daily transfer truck .limit A x 1.25
D x P
Where: A - annual solid waste tonnage limit for the current year,
as calculated pursuant to Exhibit A, point P.
D - delivery days per year, or 260, whichever is greater.
P - transfer truck payload, in tons, or 25, whichever is
greater.
In addition, there shall be a limit of 15 transfer truck round trips
between 7 and 9 a.m. and the same number between 4 and 6 p.m. on Alameda
County roads or highways.
These numbers may be exceeded in time of emergency as defined in the
Alameda County Solid Waste Management Contingency Plan.
4. Necessary roadway improvements and maintenance to Altamont Pass Road,
resulting from the effects of truck traffic from San Francisco, shall be
made by County of Alameda. The extent and cost of said improvements shall
be determined by the Alameda County Public Works Agency. This coat,
attributable to San Francisco vehicles, shall be paid out of mitigation
fees collected from San Francisco.
5. San Francisco municipal solid waste and wastewater treatment sludge shall
not be accepted at any solid waste facility in Alameda County -other than
Altamont, except as provided in the Alameda County Solid Waste Management
Contingency Plan.
-14-
Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority
Initial Study Exhibit A
Mitigation Measures and Other Modifications to the Project
6. The terms of the plan amendment shall allow no assignment, trade, sale or
any other creation of an interest by San Francisco in its capacity at
Altamont to any other public agency or private party.
7. The annual tonnage limit for municipal solid waste shall mean the upper
limit on the weight of municipal solid waste to be delivered by San
Francisco to Altamont during a given calendar year.
The annual tonnage limit shall be determined by Authority in the following
manner:
a) Each year, San Francisco shall provide Authority with data
giving the weight of municipal solid waste generated in San
Francisco and disposed of through the San Francisco transfer
station for each of the preceding ten (10) calendar years..
b) Authority shall calculate the annual growth rate of the weight
of municipal solid waste for each year of the ten (10) year
period, expressed as a decimal. For example, annual growth rate
of two percent (2%) per year shall be expressed as 0.02.
Authority shall then calculate the average annual increase by
taking the average of said annual growth rates.
c) The resulting average annual increase shall be applied to the
weight of municipal solid waste generated in San Francisco, plus
ten percent (10X), during the immediately preceding year.
This is summarized in the formula:
Annual tonnage limit - (W + 0.10) z (l + A)
where W - weight generated during the immediately preceding
calendar year
A - average annual increase, expressed as a decimal
8. Oakland Scavenger Company and San Francisco shall submit, and have
approved by Authority, contingency plans to be used in the event of
temporary closure of Altamont or the San Francisco transfer station.
9. Policy E-4 of the Plan requires that: "Import or export of solid wastes
beyond that shown in the facilities plan will require an amendment to the
facilities plan. County solid waste requirements for imported solid waste
should be at leapt equal to that required of entities in Alameda county."
San Francisco shall continue to ensure that the extent of materials
recovery and recycling will be in accord with Policy E-4 as it may be
amended from time to time.
-15-
Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority
Initial Study Exhibit A _
Mitigation Measures and Other Modifications to the Project
10. San Francisco and Combustion Engineering, Inc. (CE) have been working to
develop a regional waste-to-energy facility in the Bay Area. Such a
facility would provide an important. energy resource, reduce the depletion
of Bay Area landfills, and effect economies in the ultimate cost of
regional solid waste disposal.
It is in the best interest of San Francisco and Authority to cooperate to
encourage and facilitate CE's assessment of the feasibility of locating
such a regional facility at Altamont, including an equitable comparison of
the Altamont site with other probable candidate sites in the Bay Area.
It is a priority goal of Authority and San Francisco to locate a regional
waste-to-energy facility at Altamont, if cost effective to each and both
parties. Authority and San Francisco pledge commitment of information,
resources, and personnel, as available, to cooperate between each party
and with CE to pursue the .mutually beneficial goal to establish a cost
effective regional waste-to-energy facility for use by San Francisco and
Alameda county at Altamont.
Authority and San Francisco recognize that such regional waste-to-energy
. facility will require an amendment to the County Solid Waste Management
Plan in order to locate a facility in Alameda County. Such Plan Amendment
would be separate and apart from the amendment to permit importation of
municipal solid waste and wastewater treatment sludge for disposal under
the terms of the present proposal.
11. Wastewater treatment sludge shall be defined as "stabilized wastewater
treatment plant sewage sludge containing no more than eighty per cent
(80X) moisture by weight on an annual average basis." For purposes of
Incorporation of wastewater treatment sludge in municipal solid waste,
disposal of San Francisco wastewater treatment sludge shall be limited by
the extent that San Francisco municipal solid waste can absorb it in
accord with specification of regulatory agencies
Wastewater treatment sludge generated in Alameda county shall have
priority over wastewater treatment' sludge generated in any other county;
therefore, disposal of San Francisco wastewater treatment sludge may be
further limited if necessary to allow disposal of Alameda County
wastewater treatment sludge. In the event that Authority exercises its
rights of first priority, and such exercise precludes or may preclude San
Francisco from using the Altamont for the wastewater treatment sludge
tonnage listed herein, the Authority shall give San Francisco notice one
year in advance of such action.
-16-
Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority
Initial Study Exhibit A
Mitigation Measures and Other Modifications to the Project
12. For purpose of incorporation of wastewater treatment sludge in municipal
solid waste, disposal of San Francisco wastewater treatment sludge shall
only be permitted in conjunction with disposal of municipal solid waste
from San Francisco, at a minimum solids-to-liquids ratio of 5:1. At this
time, using the density of 1400 lbs/cubic yard obtained at Altamont for
municipal solid waste, the allowable sludge-to-refuse ratio is 35 gallons
of moisture in sludge per cubic yard of municipal solid waste in place.
This ratio shall be maintained on a day-by-day basis.
13. Prior to approval of the proposed Plan Amendment, San Francisco shall
agree to pay or have payments made to the Alameda County Solid Waste
Management Authority a mitigation fee of 53.50 per ton (plus an inflation
factor) to cover project costs relating to traffic impacts (see no. 4
above), depletion of landfill capacity, and environmental impacts.
Initial payment shall be $2,000,000, with $1,000,000 annually for a period
of six years thereafter. Said $8,000,000 is a credit which shall be
reduced by the $3.50/ton for each ton of waste disposed; when such
reduction equals $8,000,000, the City shall thereafter pay the per ton-
mitigation fee on a monthly basis.
-17-
SF Import Initial Study Distribution List Harry Hecht
D. Edminster 02395 QIC: 50501
10/8/85
John Cribbs State Dept. of Fish & Game Each City/District
Landfill Manager Yountville Veterans Fac. Mgr. in ACSWMA
289 City Hall Yountville, CA 94599
San Francisco, CA 94102
Ron Proto State Div. of Forestry County Administrator
Oakland Scavenger Company 2221 Garden Road San Joaquin County
2601 Peralta Street Monterey, CA 93940 1810 E. Hazelton Avenue
Oakland, CA 94607 Stockton, CA 95205
State Clearinghouse Contra Costa Co. Plan. Dept. Ron Cole
1400 - 10th Street P. 0. Box 951 Depaoli Equipment Company
Sacramento, CA 95814 Martinez, CA 94553-2026 4001 N. Vasco Road
Livermore, CA 94550
Solid Waste Management Board Dick Karn Sam Cristofano
1020 - 9th Street Bissell & Karn, Inc. City of Santa Clara
Sacramento, CA 92507 2551 Merced Street 1500 Warburton Avenue
San Leandro, CA 94577 Santa Clara, CA 95050
Reg. Water Qual. Control Bd. Wendy Cohen Mack. Torrence
1111 Jackson Street Reg. Water Qual. Control Bd. Combustion Engineering
Oakland, CA 94612 3201 "S" Street P. 0. Box 3965
Sacramento, CA 95816 San Francisco, CA 94119
Bay Area Air Quality Mgt. Dist. Mel Hing Audrey Albers
939 Ellis Street CAO Mulford Gardens Improvemen
San Francisco, CA 94109 QIC 20101 2037 Marina Court
San Leandro, CA 94577
Assoc. of Bay Area Governments Fred Scullen Harry and Marie Bailey
P. 0. Box 2050 1120 Chestnut Street 3988 Dyer Road
Oakland, CA 94604 Alameda, CA 94501 Livermore, CA 94550
Alameda County Fire Patrol U.S. Environmental Protec. Kelly Runyon
1617 College Avenue Agency, Region IX Solid Waste Mngmt Program-
Livermore, CA 94550 215 Fremont St. Room 271, City Hall
San Francisco, CA 94105 San Francisco, CA 94102
Dick Pantages Mun J. Mar Robert Vieux
County HCSA Zone 7 .Flood & Water Res. 9989 Altamont Pass Road
QIC 21507 QIC 90801
Livermore. CA 94550
ALAM EDA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544
(415} 881-6401
October 8, 1985
Oakland Tribune
409 - 13th Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Attn: Alice Evans - Legal Advertising
Please publish the attached "NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ALAMEDA COUNTY SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN" once in the Oakland Tribune not later than
Friday, October 11, 1985.
Please furnish an affidavit of publication to the above
address attention Georgia Rubiolo.
If you have any questions about this publication please
call Georgia Rubiolo at 881-6401 .
Very truly yours,
William H. Fraley
Secretary, Sys
WHF:gr
Enclosure
ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 (415) 881-6401
October 8, 1985
Tri-Valley Herald
116 West Winton Avenue
Hayward, CA 94544
Please publish the attached "NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ALAMEDA COUNTY SOLID WASTE
MANAGMENT PLNA" once in the Tri-Valley Herald not later than
Friday, October 11, 1985.
Please furnish an affidavit of publication to the above address
attention Georgia Rubiolo.
If you have any questions please call Georgia Rubiolo at 881-6401.
Very truly yours,
William H. Fraley
Planning Director
WHF:gh
Enclosure
ALAM EDA COUNTY PLAN
399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(415) 881-6401
October 8, 1985
Daily Review
116 West Winton Avenue
Hayward, CA 94544
Please publish the attached "NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ALAMEDA COUNTY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN" once in the Daily Review
not later than Friday, October 11, 1985.
Please furnish an affidavit of publication to the above address
attention Georgia Rubiolo.
If you have any questions please call Georgia Rubiolo at 881-6401.
Very truly yours,
William H. Fraley
Planning Director
WHF:gr
Enclosure
f
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN
AMENDMENT TO ALAMEDA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Alameda County Solid Waste Management
Authority proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act for an amendment to the Alameda County Solid Waste
Management Plan which would include importation of solid waste and sludge from
San Francisco to Altamont Landfill after November 1, 1988. The Negative
Declaration may he reviewed at the Alameda County Planning Department, 399
Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California. Response to the proposed adoption must
he received at the above address prior to November 12, 1985, to be considered
prior to adoption by the Authority.
ALAMEDA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
WILLIAM H. FRALEY, Secretary