Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.01 Solid Waste Mgmt Plan O to - 7o CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 28, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT Alameda County Waste Management Plan: Negative Declaration/Approval of Final Draft Plan EXHIBITS ATTACHED 1) Memorandum dated August 14, 1987 regarding Final Draft County Solid Waste Management Plan from Ken Mercer, President of Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority 2) Negative Declaration for Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan Revision 3) Resolution approving the Negative Declaration 4) Resolution approving the Final Draft Solid Waste Management Plan dated July 29, 1987 5) Draft Plan was distributed under separate cover by the Authority RECOMMENDATION Conduct a public hearing and adopt the resolution approving the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and the Resolution approving the Final Draft of the Solid Waste Management Plan dated July 29, 1987. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Funding for the planned preparation, maintenance and administration is provided by an assessment on the Solid Waste Facility operators. DESCRIPTION The California Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972, requires each County to adopt a County Solid Waste Management Plan. The law has been amended since adoption and also includes provisions for updating the adopted plans on a periodic basis. Solid Waste Management Plan In 1976, a Joint Powers Agreement was developed and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors designated the Solid Waste Management Authority as responsible entity for preparing and maintaining the plan required by state law. Through the years, the Authority has developed various plans which address short-term facilities, medium and long-term facilities and a comprehensive plan. In April of 1986, the firm of Black and Veatch was hired by the Authority to revise the comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. A Preliminary Draft Plan was circulated in April of 1987. Based on comments and discussions of the Draft Plan, a Final Draft has now been prepared for consideration by the various agencies in Alameda County. The Final Draft is dated July 29, 1987, and it has been adopted by the Solid Waste Management Authority. State law requires that within 90 days following the adoption by the Authority, cities must review the Plan and either approve or disapprove. The failure of an entity to act within the period is deemed to be Plan approval, however, the Plan must be approved by a majority of the cities in the County containing a majority of the population. Given the current make-up of agencies within Alameda County, the Solid Waste Management Authority has also requested the review and approval by the County Board of Supervisors and three special districts which are currently members of the Authority. Provided that the Plan is adopted by the cities, it is then required to be submitted to the California Waste Management Board for their approval. In the August 14, 1987 Memorandum from the President of Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority is a summary of the provisions contained in the Final Draft Plan. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: Bill Fraley, Alameda County Planning Department ITEM N0. -Page 2 Features of Final Draft Plan Chapter 2 of the Final Draft Plan provides new policies which support large scale waste energy plant; recovery of 75% of the County waste by materials; energy recovery by the year 2005; 50 year continuous landfill capacity; minimal landfill disposal of hazardous wastes; and priority to handling Alameda County water treatment and waste water treatment plant sludge. The Draft Plan also includes new policies on importing solid waste from outside of the County. This includes standards which will be imposed to handle, process, and transport the imported wastes. Conditions will be imposed for resource recovery in the exporting jurisdiction, and a requirement that Alameda County have a 50 year continuous landfill capacity. If the last condition cannot be met, fees will be imposed to mitigate the impact on the landfill capacity. The proposed plan amends the facilities program by incorporating prior Plan Amendments which were approved by the Authority regarding the import of San Francisco Waste to Altamont Landfill; expansion of Vasco Road landfill; San Francisco import to Altamont Landfill following 1988; and disposal of Berkeley Waste at the Vasco Road landfill. The proposed facilities program includes a new resource recovery plan with expanded recycling and deletion of previously identified waste to . energy plants in favor of a central facility, possibly at the Altamont Landfill . Also included is new landfill capacity, however, it is not site specific at this time. The summary of the Plan includes a discussion of the current County landfills and* their expected closure date. The plan requires that all facility proposals will undergo an environmental review when the specific project proposal is put forth. The new plan also includes a new chapter on economics which describes the current costs of solid waste management alternatives . Hazardous Waste Element In 1986, the State approved AB 2948 which requires the County to prepare a Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The Final Draft Solid Waste Management Plan has included an "interim" Hazardous Waste Element. The County is proceeding with the development of a final hazardous waste plan and Mayor Jeffery has been appointed by the Mayors ' Conference to serve on an Advisory Committee preparing the Plan. The proposed Element included in the Solid Waste Plan encourages the pursuit of minimizing hazardous waste generation, treatment of hazardous waste, and minimal landfill disposal. The Plan also calls for development of a household hazardous waste program. Adoption The proposed plan has undergone a great deal of review by the Solid Waste Management Authority of which Councilmember Snyder is a member. The Alameda County Staff have also indicated that they will be in attendance at the meeting to conduct a presentation on the proposed plan. Additional questions may be directed to these representatives at the meeting. Environmental Documents Due to the requirement for each community to adopt the Solid Waste Management Plan, the County of Alameda has indicated that Environmental Impacts will need to be assessed by each community considering the proposed plan. The Planning Department has reviewed the Negative Declaration which was adopted by the Alameda County Solid Waste Authority and have prepared a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for consideration by the Dublin City Council . The recommendation is that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance based on the City prepared initial study and* any comments which may be received at the Public Hearing. Recommendation Staff would recommend that the City Council conduct a Public Hearing, receive the Staff and County presentations, obtain input from the public, deliberate, and adopt the Resolution approving the Negative Declaration and the Resolution approving the final draft of the Solid Waste Management Plan dated July 29, 1987 . ALAMEDA C(OJNTY soon WASTE 1101AGEMENT AUTHORiTY 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 (415) 670-5400 L: 171937 DATE: August 14, 1987 TO: Chairman and Board Members, Alameda County Board of Supervisors Mayors and Councilmembers, Cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland) Piedmont, Pleasanton, Sari Leandro, and Union City Chairmen and Board Members, Castro Valley Sanitary District, Oro Loma Sanitary District, and Dublin-San Ramon Services District FROM: Kenneth Mercer, Preside of the Alameda County Solid Waste Manage- ment Authority V ow-w" SUBJECT: FINAL DRAFT COUNTY SOLID LASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Enclosed is the Final Draft County Solid Waste Management. Plan prepared by Black & Veatch, consultants. The Plan and CEQA Negative Declaration were approved by the full Authority on July 29. Changes to the Final Draft Plan made by the Authority at the July 29 meeting are included in an Addendum enclosed with the Plan. After approval by the Authority, state law provides 90 days for the cities to review the plan and either approve or disapprove. Failure to act within that period is deemed to be plan approval. The plan must be approved by a majority of the cities in the county containing a majority of the incorporated popula- tion, using State 'Department of Finance population figures (enclosed). As a practical matter, we believe that the plan must be adopted unanimously or nearly unanimously. As a courtesy, the plan is also submitted for review and approval to the County Board of Supervisors and the three special districts that are members of the Authority. The special districts are not included in the state formula. The Board of Supervisors have designated the Authority to be responsible for preparation of the plan. In the past, the Board of Supervisors and district boards have reviewed and approved the plan. After adoption by the cities, the plan is submitted to the California Waste Management Board for its approval. We have enclosed a summary of the major features of the Final Draft, focussing on differences between the current plan adopted in 1982 and the proposed Draft. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Bill Fraley or Betty Croly at the County Planning Department at 670-5400. Authority staff will be available to attend council and board meetings to 'respond to questions on the plan. Please call Bill Fraley, Secretary to the Authority, if you would like a staff member to attend your meeting. 0166d POPULATION RESEARCH UNIT DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE ' SUMMARY REPORT STATE OF CALIFORNIA ALAMEDA CONTROLLED COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR 1-1-87 PAGE i DATE PRINTED 05/01/87 ------ POPULATION ----------- --------------------- MOUSING UNITS ---------------------- POP. PER MOUSE- MOBILE GROUP 5 OR MOBILE OCCU- >Z HOUSE- CITY TOTAL MOLDS HOMES QUARTERS TOTAL SINGLE 2 TO 4 MORE HOMES PIED VACANT MOLD ALAMEDA 70283 Goose 94 3297 29397 13678 5242 10424 Be 29011 1.31 2.309 --------------------- 6 149- ---- e 0 ; -------- ------ _------------ ------ ------ - --------------------------------- ALBANY 1611 27 4036 776 2316 0 6932 2.74 2. 162 - --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- McRKELCV -I O_ 06764 36 11101 4ee?0 20279 10167 16347 37 45462 2.99 2. f0- OU-LIN---------------------21477----1-9J1--------0-----264j--------d0a-------4491--------------------------------------------------- S�- 1484 0 5709 5.29 3.317 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- lMERYVILLE 4633 4631 e 2 3254 456 461 2309 G 2726 16.:6 1.69 rREMONT-------------------16710----5---------1-14-----1957-------65417----- ----- - - --------------------------------- ---- - ------ _ _ _ ---,9167------566----14077-----627-----54133-_---� ---2_672 HAYMARD-- ----------- -- -101146----99617-_---3152_-_--1499_--__-- _ _ __ __ _ _ __ 38928 23312 2588 11180 1648 38223 1.el 2.607 MORE 54422 54251 19435-----15562 LIVER----------------------------------- -----666------171------ -----087-----2450-----458-----18628---3.12---2.861 � -----K 3-024 37--9-------ee------155-------11 14 - -------------------------------------------- --- ----------------------------- ---- 6 10189 422 986 17 11386 2.14 3.332 --- - OAKLAND 356217 547170 319 9047 154085 75261 27881 50757 186 146859 4.69 2.364 -----------------------------------_--_--_-------_-------------------------------------__------------------------------------ PIEDMONT 10330 10330 0 0 3871 3753 73 45 0 3769 2.63 2.741 �IEASANTON --;63�p----;6247------531----------------------------------------------------- -------------- y ----------------------------------------- 99 15880 12761 745 2031 343 15212 4.21 3.040 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SAN LEANDRO 68252 65925 1211 327 29709 19229 2410 7314 756 28816 3.01 2.288 j UNION CITY 49859 49498 1351 391 15113 10816 1325 2449 723 14879 1.55 3.327 TOTAL INCORPORATED 109-397 1087479 -7de 3071- 4J667- 262774 54676 124189 5057 421984 3.39 .2.531 UNINCORPORATED 115673 113742 963 1931 46119 34086 3145 8158 752 45147 2.11 . 2.519 TOTAL COUNTY 1214070 1181421 9729 32649 482797 286842 57821 132325 5809 467031 3.27 2.530 t r....r.+...+.i+wW.,•.a,marrma�.. ... .._ _. .. .. ... ..............__scaa.w.nw:wua:rk+:wt.ux�sca :,.,�"TM a�.n;ru:d'8JYt74�•Ty"+':Ji"..�.`::3= .gyy.6.'?,i,1 FINAL DRAFT REVISED ALAMEDA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN PLAN BACKGROUND The California Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972, as amended, requires each county to adopt a county solid waste management plan and to review and revise that plan, as appropriate, at least every three years. Under the law, the county board of supervisors prepares the plan, which must be approved by the cities and by the California Waste Management Board (CWMB). Under the 1976 Joint Powers Agreement, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors designated the Solid Waste Management Authority to be responsible for preparing and maintaining the plan in this county. Alameda County adopted a Policy Plan in 1976, a Short-Term Facilities Plan in 1977 and a Medium- and Long-Term Facilities Plan in 1978. These documents made up the first Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan. In 1982, the three plans were revised and consolidated into the current County Plan. Since 1982, the Authority has amended the Facilities Program within the County Plan but has not changed basic Plan policies or updated material in the Plan. Under the Authority JPA, changes to the Facilities Program may be made by the Authority Board; member agencies must adopt any changes to basic plan policies. In late 1985, the Authority prepared a Plan Review Report which was accepted by the CWMB. The report identified areas in the County Plan which needed to be updated or revised. The report was the basis for subsequent plan work. The firm of Black & Veatch was retained in April, 1986 to prepare the Revised Plan under direction of the Authority's Plan Review Committee. In April, 1987 a Preliminary Draft Plan was transmitted to concerned parties including member agencies of the Authority. Comments were received and evaluated by the Plan Review Committee and the consultant was directed to prepare a Final Draft. On July 29, 1987 the Authority certified the Negative Declaration and approved the Final Draft Plan. It directed that the Final Draft be transmitted to the member agencies for approval. PLAN SUMMARY Figure III-1, showing the location of existing solid waste facilities in Alameda County and Figure III-2, showing the implementation schedule for proposed new facilities, are attached. Major features of the Final Draft Plan are as follows: In Chapter II, the draft Plan provides new policies to support a large-scale waste-to-energy plant, recovery of 75% of county waste by materials/ energy recovery by the year 2005, 50-year continuous landfill capacity, minimal land- fill disposal of hazardous wastes, and priority to handling Alameda County water treatment and wastewater treatment plant sludge. .� ••.• ., ... .w.+.au.nr+..aca.w,vua'crsia.+.:mwc.u..w:wasa+uu�.mw�waca..u'.oarua}swMe:ucruswauca�:.rum.'saix.rvusG✓.u'::ww::..rtu>.w.:•a c. The draft Plan includes new policies on importing solid waste from outside. the County including standards .,to handle, process and transport imported waste; conditions for resource recovery in the exporting jurisdiction; and a require- ment that Alameda County have a 50-year continuous permitted landfill capacity or that fees be provided to mitigate the impact on landfill capacity. The proposed Plan amends the Facilities Program in Chapter III by incorporating five plan amendments approved by the Authority since adoption of the 1981 Plan: Import of San Francisco Waste to Altamont Landfill, 1983-88 (Resolution #40, 1982); Expansion of Vasco Road Landfill (Resolution #65, 1984); San Francisco Import to Altamont Landfill, Post-1988 (Resolution #78, 1985); Disposal of Berkeley Waste at Vasco Road Landfill, February-July, 1986 (Resolution #80, 1986); and Disposal of Berkeley Waste at Vasco Road Landfill, Post-July, 1986 (Resolution 487, 1986). Proposed changes to the Facilities Program include a new resource recovery plan with expanded recycling; new landfill capacity (not site specific at this time) and deletion of Berkeley, Pleasanton and Davis Street waste-to-energy plants in favor of a central facility, possibly at Altamont Landfill. . The Tri-Cities waste-to-energy plant, proposed in the 1981 Plan, is replaced by a proposed. materials recovery program to reduce the wastestream going to landfill. Envi- ronmental review will be conducted for each proposal when it is put forth as a specific project proposal. The draft Plan includes a new chapter on Economics which describes current costs of solid waste management alternatives. The draft Plan includes an "interim" Hazardous Waste Element until a County Hazardous Waste Management Plan is adopted pursuant to the Tanner Bill AB 2948 (1986). The proposed Element encourages pursuit of minimizing hazardous waste generation, treatment of hazardous waste, and minimal landfill disposal. The Plan calls for development of a household hazardous waste program. In addition, this Plan revision includes an update of background data on the status of existing and proposed solid waste facilities, waste quantities and characteristics, population, plan administration and enforcement. 7/30/87 0170d ALBANY LEGEND: •BERKELEY � BERKELEY TRANSFER LANDFILL STATION 230 TPD _w PRINCIPAL TRANSPORTATION ROUTE "0 • WASTE GENERATION i E • AREA Sr-OAKLAND SAY BRIDGE EDMONT TRANSFER STATION .e PI VASCO ROAD • LANDFILL 1052 TOO / 1 9 P OAKLAND �: SF • gpry LEDDRO ITAMONT ROAD AlAMEOA RESERVOIR Ott LANDFILL 3934 TPD \ OAllt �y►Ea OAKLA LEiNOR� �uyxE CHABOT µ PLEASANTON g ' INTERNATgwL • V ,�\ TRANSFER IRPORT cnsiRO wLLEr • STATION 158TPD'o 8A PLUS PLUS 30 C Y/Da > L YwARD PLEASANTON LIVERMORE STRICT ' DAVIS STREET Cr • i TRANSFER STRICT STATION 2120 TPD r f F M M SAN MATED eR1DGE TURK ISLAND LANDFILL : 567 TPD LAKE OEL VALLE CLOSED(6/861 V • N �Qi CITY ell-IRVOIR �. ANTONIO `gs�fF N A • FREMONT I DURHAM ROAD DUMBARTON 04 NEWNM LANDFILL 722 TPD BRIDGE ■ I SCALE W MISS ,1 0 / ALAMEOA COUNTY ' SANTA CLARA COUNTY - NOTE: ALL WASTE QUANTITIES ARE BASED ON THE WASTE OUANT171E5 HANDLED(?D.y.P.r w...)IN 1983 AS REPORTED BY THE FACILITY OPERATORS. LOCATION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES FOR LONG TERM MEDIUM-TERM HORT-TER O A O a O N A r 10 0 1. 0 a O N A .0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O p a a O a O O O O O O O O O O FACILITY / PROGRAM o a o 0 0 o a o p a o o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c �' �- N N N N N N N N N I I N N N LOCAL OOVtRNM[NTAL AOENCIES CONTINUE PROVIOINO COLLECTIOM SERVICES COLLECTION ------ CONOU IT ESOURCE RECOVERY PLAN RECYCLING IMPLEMENT NEW METHODS TO INCREASE RECYCLING IMPLEMENT RESOURCE RECOVERY PLAN � IIIIIIIIIIII CONTINUE O►E ATION-MAUL TO VASCO ROAD LANDFILL 1 BERKELEY TRANSFER STATION CONTINUE OPERATION- HAUL TO ALTAMONT LANOFILL tO DAVIS STREET TRANSFER STATION I PLEASANTON TRANSFER STATION CONTINUE OPERATION-MAUL TO VASCO ROAD LARGE SCALE RESOURCE RECOVERY cZ7PLAMNMQ.D1sIW MO CONSTRUCTION (WASTE-TO-ENERGY)FACILITY I 1 OPERATIO ■MO SAM FRANCISCO IMPORT-© RESOLUTION NO.40 AND ALTAMONT LANDFILL SEOIM GAIN FRANCISCO IM►OR�f-IQ RESOLUTION MO.70 CON INUE OPERATION PROBABLE CLOSURE DATE 2010 CONTNUE OPE IATION 6 PROBABLE CLOSURE DATE 1012 t DURHAM ROAD LANDFILL I CONTINUOIIS-OPMATIOM O I MOBABLt CLOSUIIE DATE 1005 VASCO ROAD LANDFILL I I I CONDUCT INITIAL SUIIV NEW LANDFILL -"1 ,ELE CT FINAL IT 9E(S) ►ROVIDt A 80 YEAR CONTINUOUS CAPACITY CAPACITY OSTAIN APPROVAL I CONSTRUCT A D BtO1N O►[RATION M M[EDlO - REVIEW SLUDOt IN STUDIEtI I I I I SLUDGE MANAGEMENT IM IMPLEMENT 011 ASSIST IN PLEMEMTRIG SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN 0[#LOP OLUOGE MANAGEMENT PLAN ( - D!T[IIRMINE AUTHORITY-S ROLl,IN ILUDOS MANAGEMENT HAZARDOUS WASTE I I I I I I I I I EVIIOP COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MAMA---77 ►LAN 1O PURSUANT TO ACOWMA RESOLUTIONS NO. 454, MARCH 24. 1801; O PURSUANT TO ACSIVMA RESOLUTION NO.74.DECEMBER 10. 1999 FACILITIES / PROGRAM STATUS RESOLUTION NO.00,JANUARY 11. 1000.RESOLUTION NO. 07.JUN[ 4. 19" ® PURSUANT TO ACW MA RESOLUTION 00.SE.MAY 10. 1961 AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE O! PURSUANT TO ACOWMA RESOLUTION NO.S SEPTEMBER), 1970 O PURSUANT TO ACOWMA RESOLUTION NO.S9.MAY 2O. 1984 © PURSUANT TO ACOWMA RESOLUTION NO.40. FEBRUARY 14. 1981 FIGURE F4 3 TABLE II[-2. COUNTY LANDFILLS 1985 Maximum Quantity Landfill State Permitted Remaining c Expected Landfill Owner/Operator Waste Sources Received Area Classification Quantity Capacity Closure Date tons/daya acres tons/days million tons Altamont Oakland Scavenger Dublin, Davis Street 3.934 7l0 III 11.150d 69.5 2016a Landfill Company Transfer Station, San Francisco Vasco Road Ralph Properties/ Berkeley Transfer 1,052 222 ILI 1,581f 11.7 2009 Landfill DePaoli Equipment Station. Livermore. Pleasanton Transfer Station H H Durham Road Oakland Scavenger Fremont, Newark. 722 258 III No maximum 9.9 2012 v Landfill Company Union City II (Portion of site) sBased on seven days per week. bState Water Resources Control Board classification. cApproximate remaining capacity as of the end of 1985. dSourcet LEA Facilities Permit. eBased on a Woodward-Clyde study dated December 17, 1985. The year 2016 reflects importation of 15 million tons of municipal solid waste and 130,000 tons per year.of wastewater treatment plant sludge from San Francisco beginning November 1. 1988. (Source., LEA Facilities Permit. Maximum permitted quantity for 1987. See permit for subsequent years. Rpt89v7 TABLE III-1. TRANSFER STATIONS 1985 Quantity Site Transfer Recd Acre- Capability Transfer Station Owner/Operator Waste Sources TPD-7c age TPD-7 Davis Street Oakland Scavenger Company Albany, Emeryville, 2,120 53 4,600 Piedmont, Oakland, Alameda, San Leandro, Oro Loma, Castro Valley, Hayward Berkeley City of Berkeley Berkeley 230 4 560 Pleasanton Pleasanton Garbage Service Pleasanton 158d 7 700 H _ H aThe Alameda County Department of Environmental Health is the permitting and regulatory agency. bThe City of Berkeley Division of Environmental Health is the permitting and regulatory agency. Taste quantities are as reported by the facilities operators. TPD-7 is tons per day on a seven-day-per-week basis. dIn addition, an average of 30 cubic yards/day of construction/demolition waste is received but is not processed through the transfer station. SOURCE: Black b Veatch and Authority Staff Rpt89v5 ALAMEDA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NUMBER 107 AT MEETING HELD JULY 29, 1987 Moved by Mr. Cortez Seconded by Mr. Morrison ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS REVISED ALAMEDA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN JULY 29, 1987 WHEREAS California Government Code, Section 66780 et seq., requires each county to adopt a solid waste management plan to protect the environment and provide for safe, sanitary and economical disposal of solid waste; and WHEREAS a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for Solid Waste Management, executed September 2, 1976 and amended March 23, 1977, created the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority (Authority) with responsibility to prepare state-mandated solid waste management plans for this county; and WHEREAS a proposed revised Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan was prepared and transmitted to all concerned parties on April 29, 1987; and WHEREAS an Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration for the pro- posed Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 87042818) were prepared in accord with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State and local EIR guidelines and conveyed to all concerned parties on April 29, 1987; and WHEREAS a noticed public hearing was held May 27, June 24, and July 29, 1987 to consider said proposed Plan and Negative Declaration, at which time all interested parties were heard; NOW THEREFORE: BE IT RESOLVED THAT this Authority has prepared an Initial Study and Pro- posed Negative Declaration and has received and considered comments thereon. This Authority finds, based on the Initial Study and comments received, that there is no substantial evidence of signficant effects on the environment and that adoption of the Negative Declaration is in full compliance with CEQA; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a Negative Declaration has been prepared in accord with CEQA and State and local Guidelines, and that this Authority has considered and hereby approves and adopts said Negative Declaration for the subject Plan. ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: . .. f'AxC'.xu .,,iaS! aaw¢r�;Y1.�LIk:Ytlp7:1i�;i"�' �'W'S�la^ur°ir�ii��5-'��.�..°A.+M'NSiI•RL�t,�'jw'� AilrF77f7t`F _ ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Campbell (2), Ganong, Snyder, Fertig, Morrison, Sweeney, Wieskamp, Cortez, Foulkes, Mercer, Jardin, Westgard, Martin, Sanford, Duncan - 16 NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. EXCUSED: None. ABSENT: Camicia, Skinner, Riles (3) - 5 WILLIAM H. FRALEY -, SECRETARY ALAMEDA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 0171d w:SaiCira.$3:iN.:a�t:iiwuysiyr•a;�ir..ia.Sd...4aw'+:1'ati..fiA.1;ti3Ra;.kS.e:,,...Iu..fLA..;.$kaY:.�h.tiv,:.!-.. .. .i... .x ..-^n-c...y e t;,..a..aH'.'4rr.�e.w4;:.k.�rt.Lcii3:'1c1�.K..,,k:+aT.ifis.'G-„1'?�;ifslfl.'ts.arni.C...«.roY.,:d..r2h:.�Ur.'dL.«ru df .f .„s..xkr;: NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan Revision (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ) LOCATION: The Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan is a countywide plan covering all the cities in the County and the unincorporated areas through a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement. PROPONENT: Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority (ACSWMA) DESCRIPTION: The revision of the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan involves amendments to the Policies Chapter and the Facilities Chapter, the inclusion of a new chapter on Economics, the inclusion of an "interim” Hazardous Waste Management Plan (pursuant to the Tanner Bill AB 2948) , and includes an update of background data within the Plan. The Plan revisions and CEQA Negative Declaration were approved by the full ACSWMA at their July 29th meeting. After approval by the Authority, State law provides 90 days to member cities involved in the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement to review the Plan and either approve or disapprove the Plan. Failure to act within that period will be deemed to be Plan approval. The Plan must be approved by a majority of the cities. After adoption by the cities, the Plan is submitted to the California Waste Management Board for its approval. FINDINGS: The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. INITIAL STUDY: The Project Initial Study is available for review at the City Offices and indicates the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. PREPARATION: This Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance was prepared by the City of Dublin Planning Staff, (415) 829-4916. SIGNATURE: DATE: Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director ,....^;.`:+..r+.� ".:�v-.,i.�iw�.r,.v :. ur. ^ d. r.++.:u«.. .G...,.1.::t ... ,+.. 3:S:e1�.sS.toSih�.......... ....«.. •i .t;.y.,. .o.....='.a,L .wa _..e. .,...•v...w.u.. ...x..._ .,. r...... .•..r+c.a..e,.Nlv.u4r:t�i.r n.K,.... ...n+r.s.. ... ..c,.0 .,. . CITY OF VU6LN PA No. /Y��t- 6WN7`1'101& - ENVIRC3NMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM 1 (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et se,.) Based on the project information submitted in Section 1 General Data, the Planning Staff will use Section 3, Initial Study, to determine whether a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report is required. SECTION 3. INITIAL STUDY - - - to be completed by the PLANNING STAFF Name of Project or Applicant:�l.9�►� A G��ry � � �� / T ' r� i �Sl A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - Descrip+ion of project site before the project, including information on: topography; soil stability; plants and animals; historical, cultural, a.no scenic aspects; existing structures; and use of structures ��lvyZ�Tlss ffS/ jD Ow0y ,fit/�!�/ T�/���'1/ T G/fi'✓X1771 11 /f Nth—lrl/�D�" !/SITS l� �l • Description of surrounding properties, including information on: plants and animals; historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; type and intensity of land use; and scale or development. B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - Factual explanations of all answers except "no" are re- . quired on attached sheets. OCMPONENIT IMPACTS SCAM OF IMPACT NO QMLI= YES UIIQ\1OGN Ab a1 I� 1H ol� lolo 1.0 WATER t Will construction of the project alter the hydro- logic 1.1 Hydrologic Balance P I balance? 1.2 Ground Water Will the project affect the quality or quantity of X ground water supplies? 1.J' Depth to Water Tablo Will the rote of water withdrawal change the depth I or gradient of the water table? 1.4 Drainage and Channel Form Will construction impede the natural drainage pattern or cause alteration of stream channel Form? 1.5 Sedimentation Will construction in an area result in major sediment influx into adjacent water bodies? 1.6 Flooding Will there be risk of loss of life or property due �( to flooding? A-5 ,...•..:.:.iw-i:._.. ,,�: - .,.-_:.,... u,..11,iv:..:...,.ww::.cL.�G...,u....z,::.+.:,L�:."a.� rL�Y....,d. .:..a+. .ul;,r...s;,;a..•.n.3<r.::sw+:1..:id.�i tae. .... n. . .. .... ..•, .. OONIPOI�3VT 'DTACTS SCALE OF IMPACT NO QOM YES UNKNOWN NO 11010 1.7 Water Quality Does drinking water supply foil to meet state and federal standards? Will sewage be inale-1•iotoly accommodated and treated? x Will receiving waters fnil to men?Iocnl, stn•e and federal standards? Will ground water suffer contamination by s,rrfu:e seeps;s, intrusion of solt or polluted water from )4 adjacent water bodies or from another i:own-r.inatcd ( ( 1 o lifer? 2.0 AIR —_— 2.1 Air Pollution Will there be generation and dispersion of p•sllutants by project related activities or in proxir.itr r.;t!:e project which will creed state n:nisi::o a.,- )4 quality standards? 2.2 Wind Alteration Will structure and terroin•impedc prescilirg wins flow causing channeling along certain rorri:rs or )4 obstruction of wind movements? 3.0 EARTH _ 3.1 Slope Stability Are there potential dangers related to:I*--failures? 3.2 Foundation Support Will there be risk to life or property ic-a-j:e of 7L excessive deformation of materials? 3.3 Consolidation Will there be risk to life or property heca-ite of X excessive consolidotion or foundoti•sr mntr•ials? 3.4 Subsidence Is there risk of major ground subsidemce emriciateel with the project? 3.5 Seismic Activity Is there risk of damage or loss reviltina Frees earth- qualcc activity? 3.6 Liquefaction Will the project cause or be rixposed to liqu_.ract:on of soils in slcpes or under foundations? 3.7 Erodibility Will there be substantial loss of soil e.-:n!o crn- x struction practices? 3.8 Permeability Will the permeability of soils ossoc,'at:r!wish the project present adverse conditions relative tc de- X velopment of wells? 3.9 Unique Features Will any unique geological features to domojed or destroyed by project activities? X 3.10 Mineral Resources Are there geologic deposits of potentinl r. -rercinl c value close to the protect? Y� 4.0 PLANTS AND ANIMALS 4.1 Plant and Animal Species Are there rare or endangered species present? Are there species pre_nt which are pa•tic?larly susceptible to impact from human activity. Is there vegetation present, the!as;of whi,+will deny food or habitat to important wildlife soccies? Are there nuisance:necies of plant or animals for which conditions will be improved by&e project? 4.2 Vegetotive Community Types Are there any unusual populations of pinnts thot may be of scientific interest? Are there vegetative community tyres v,hich are particularly su:ceplible to impact frr:m Hunan ectivity? Are there major trees or major vcgetntio-1 that will be cj:•ecxly nffer.tc•f by the•,project? _ Are their v_3,2:arivr.Community tyn^s r*­!nt. tl•e hs of which v:ill deny fevrl or habits&to v--ni•rar.:v iNliie.. species, or to a:u!,stentiol numb.^- ern: 4.3 Diversity Is there subston:inl diversity in the n^:•:m!r•nm. rinity ( 1 as reflected in the number and type•sf p!nnt .r nrurnl species p•esent or the thrcn-dimensinrr,l nrr^n.r)rm-�n: of plant species present? A-6 ..:. v-..: x..w....rr:+�r,..:lNUw:.tu..t. ..i..i::.Iry vu lW Z....•t.r.iw....t.x..L,r4.]M.i..:waeiuMet..'seF'�C.,Yx....}.<..�i...rh::::........we,...uawaw<:: ...:�.."..FVGU....w+6}.,vFa.�.....�w0.Jwn. �....a.ul ..V..r.,u':. n�.tv.+..... .t.. . �.'4...... COMPONENT IMPACTS SCALE Or IMeACr NO QUALIFIED YES UNKNagN NO o { io � o 5.0 FACILITIES AND SERVICES I I 5.1 Educational Facilities Will projected enrollments adversely affect the ex- { fisting or proposed Facilities in terms of spacing for { { all activities, Including classrooms, recreational X { { areas,and staffing needs? Will the project impact the pvp;Vteacher ratio so K { as to impede the learning process? ( { I Is the school located such that it presents a hardship for o portion of the enrollment in terms of travel time, x { { distance, or safety hazards? 5.2 Commercial Facilities Will there be an inadequate supply of and access to { commercial facilities for the project? { 5.3 Liquid Waste Disposal Are provisions for sewooe capacity inadequate For I { { the needs of the project without exceeding quality X ( I standards? • Will the project be exposed to nuisances and odors I { associated with wastewater treatment plants? 5.4 Solid Waste Disposal Is there inadequate provision For disposal of solid I { { wastes generated by ilia project? 5.5 Water Supply Is there inadequate quantity or quality of water I { supply to meet the needs of the project? K 5.6 Storm Water Drainage Will storm water drainoge be inadequate to prevent I I { downstream flooding and to meet Federal State end )C I I { local standards? 5.7 Police Will the project's additional population, facilities, I or other features generate an increase in police service K { I or create a police hazard? t 5.8 Fire Will the project's additional population, facilities, or other Features generate an increase in fire services )< { { { or create afire hazard? ( ( { 5.9 Recreation Will the project have inadequate facilities to meet K the recreational needs of the residents? { 5.10 Cultural Facilities Will cultural facilities be unavailable to the project residents{ K I { 6.0 TRANSPORTATION { I { 6.1 Tronsportation Focilities Are the traffic demands on adjacent roads currently ( I at or above capacity? If not, will the traffic gen- crated by the project cause the adjacent roods to K I ( { reach or exceed capacity? I I { Are the other transportation facilities which serve the project Inadequate to accommodate the project's K travel demands? 6.2'Circvlotion Conflicts Will design of tha project or conditions in the surround- Ic iing ores increase accidents due to circulation conflicts", { 6.3 Rood Safety and Design Will project residents and users be exposed to increased accident risks dun to roadway and street design or lack K I { of traffir.controls? I { I 7.0 HEALTH • 1 1 I ' 7.1 Odors. Will the project be exposed to or generate any intense x { ( { odors? i7.2 Gowding and Density Will the residents and users be exposed to crowding or K high density in their physical living environment? 7.3 Nuisances Will the project be exposed to or generate factors that K I I may be considered as nuisances? { 7.4 Structural Safety Will design and proposed construction techniques Fail K to meet state and local building codes? 8.0 NOISE 8.1 Noise levels Will the project be exposed to er generate adverse I I I noise levels? { ( I 8.2 Vibrations Will the project be exposed to vibrations nnnoying to humans? fK I I I • � 1 1 1 I . .,..r. ...?r .:x...:..,.z...u�..��...aw. •.__t,.•a.y.��r..n.:.a�.:-..:.c t.sn_._zn.hw.,�.�,: -. u��4•� 3 COMPONENT IMPACT'S SCALE OF IMPACT NO QUALIFIED YES UNI41aa►v NO I I to al,�o�t, (aIH 0 1A �O I o � IQI04 9.0 COMMUNITY CHARACTER 9.1 Community Organization . Will the project disrupt on existing s•t of organizations or groups within Ilse community? 9.2 Homogeneity and Diversity Will the project change the character of the community in terns of distribution or concentration x of income, ethnic, housing', or age group? 1 9.3 Community Stability and Will the project be exposed to or generate on Physical Conditions area of poor stability onJ phtrsical conditions? K 1 10.0 VISUAL QUALITY 10.1 Views Will residents of the surrounding area be adversely 7C ( 1 affected by views of or from the project? ( ( 1 ;j Will the project residents be adversely affected by views of or from the surrounding area? 10.2 Shadows Will the project be exposed to or generate excessive • shadows? 1C 11.0 HISTORIC AND CULTLFRAL RESOI. CES I 1 • 11.1 Historic and Cultural Will that project involve the destruction or alter- K I 1 Resources otion of a historic resources? 1 Will the project result in isolot;on of o historic resource from its surrounding environment? I I 1 Will the project introduce physical, visual,audible or Wrssospheric elements thnt ore not in character with k o historic resource or its setting? I 1 ��. 11.2 Archaeological Sites Will the project involve the destruction or alteration and Structures of on archocologicolresnurce? Will the project result in is31ation of on archaeological x I ( 1 resource? Wili the project introduce physical, visual, audible I ( I or atmospheric elements that are not in character with K on archaeological resource or its setting? 1 ( I t 12.0 E NER GY 12.1 Energy Requirements Are there potential problems w;th the supply of 1C 1 I energy required for the project? Will the energy requirements exceed the capacity ( I I Of the service utility company? >L Will there be a net increase in energy used for the K I I 1 project compared to the no project alternative? 12.2 Conservotion Measures Does the project planning and d^sign inii to include I I 1 ovailob!c energy conservntion measure;? k I 13.0 LAND USE 1 13.1 Site Hazards Do conditions of the site, proposed site development, or surrounding area create potentially hazardous situ- 1 ations? ( I I 13.2 Physical Threat, W;11 the project or the surrounding area create a feeling of insecurity and physical threat among the residents K 1• 1 1 and users? I ( 1 I I I 13.3 Sanitary Landfill Wil! the project be exposed to sfruefurnl damage, noise, air, or virface and round water pollution r 1 qr other nuisrsnan;oss:scioted with a sanitary landfill? 13.4 Waterways Will tlss project affect an existing wcter-ay through filling, dredging, draining, culverting, waste dis- charges, loss of visual quality or other land use practices? 1 1 I • I 1 I ' I 1 1 I 1 1 I • A-8 COb T ACTS SC. OF IMPACT • NO QUALIFIED YES UM40WL NO z i I o ollof � Other Environmental Components. I • i i • C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE QUALIF NO 140 -YES MMWN (�) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish cr wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant X or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history cr prehistory? (2) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- x term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (3) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulateively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect o` the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) (4) Does the project.have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? A-9 11FJi"+�T•L":•^��Ld'G45:kar"1.9�i:rf7L^a�i:P'Litt:�,+.v5ti:.tk:.:_a:.+ia..+:r.i.Ku�'rxt.:;+a�.r:ve. °GSCwc"" -::Jeu!i arw_a;xwwwr a.evcWa+e+euuu:aw:rww"aenue:rxd:wswar-.uuawsxx�a'u:.unxvi•.+.m D. MITIGATION MEASURES"- Discussion of the ways to mitiga•e tie significant effects identified, if any: �rr✓�' GL✓��E°,O E. DETERMINATION - On the basis of this initial evaluation: (� The City of VUblih finds that there will not be any significant effect. The par- ticular characteristics of this project and the. mitigation :measures incorporated into the design of the project provid,: the tactual basis for the finding. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION! IS REQUIRED.' Q The City of PLIHin finds that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. AN E VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 15 REQUIRED" Signature and date: Name and title: �tJ� **NOTE: Where a project is revised in response to an Initial Study so than poi a.nn ial adverse effects are mitigated to a point where no significaint environmental effects would occur, a revised Initial Study will be prepared and a Negative Declaration will be required i-wead of an EIR. RESOLUTION NO. - 87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ?' -' ' OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR REVISIONS TO THE ALAMEDA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN INVOLVING AMENDMENTS TO THE POLICIES AND FACILITIES CHAPTERS OF THE PLAN, THE INCLUSION OF A NEW CHAPTER ON ECONOMICS, THE INCLUSION OF AN "INTERIM" HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT, AND THE INCLUSION OF AN UPDATE OF BACKGROUND DATA WITHIN THE PLAN WHEREAS, California Government Code, Section 66780 et seq. , requires each county to adopt a solid waste management plan to protect the environment and provide for safe, sanitary and economical disposal of solid waste; and WHEREAS, a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for Solid Waste Management, executed September 2, 1976, and amended March 23, 1977, created the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority (Authority) with responsibility to prepare state-mandated solid waste management plans for this county; and WHEREAS, a proposed revised Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan was prepared and transmitted to all concerned parties on April 29, 1987; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the proposed Plan revisions (State Clearinghouse No. 87042818) were prepared by the Alameda County Planning Staff in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State and local EIR guidelines and conveyed to all concerned parties on April 29, 1987; and WHEREAS, a noticed public hearing was held May 27, June 24, and July 29, 1987, to consider said proposed Plan revisions and Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, at which time all interested parties were supplied an opportunity to provide public testimony; and WHEREAS, the Authority did review and consider the Initial Study, the proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and comments received on same, and adopted Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority Resolution No. 107 at their July 29, 1987, meeting finding that, based on the Initial Study and comments received, there is no substantial evidence of significant effects on the environment and that the adoption of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance is in full compliance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Authority further found that the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance had been prepared in accord with CEQA and State and local guidelines; and WHEREAS, as provided by State law, member cities in the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement have 90 days to review the Plan revisions and either approve or disapprove the Plan Revisions (failure to act in that period constituting Plan revision approval) ; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was conducted by the City of Dublin Planning Department finding that the project, as proposed, would not have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, a Proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has also been prepared for this project; and WHEREAS, public notice of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance was given in all respects as required by State Law; and WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider the Negative Declaration of Environmental Signficance at a public hearing on September 28, 1987; and f esi«.`i1'3L:ec�.u!.�`i'�"'.`rwwrb�:'r�.�`yl(��ak3��$li!'!f. ':iL$:.':re�dtN7°.r�i3hJSTf;4u.«'id�vi'S°,., DiSPr3r:3k'LYnYeAtL.::4GTk+2xAiu3YL+%:Y»':«viii'.;G}�uti,rJA77Ji6L"4L4«r�.'rl?i�T1:JG�dt'+JY,6S+s+'"lS,a7"Gisi$;ifCdS"•G'dlwlYt.�YXGI:a�w:traTfUCkitit#+"r.IE:.+ri;Ra3LY6'd.ePi+�'..i i,l•;: WHEREAS; the City Council found that, based"on".the-City prepared Initial Study and comments received at the public'hearing; 'there is no substantial evidence of significant effects on the environment related to adoption of the proposed Plan revisions-.and that the 'adoption' of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance is in full compliance with CEQA; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council finds as follows: 1. That the Project (revisions to the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan approved by the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority on July 29, 1987) will not have a significant effect on the environment; 2. That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and local environmental laws and guideline regulations; and 3. That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance is complete and adequate. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council hereby approves the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the project. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of September, 1987. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -2- RESOLUTION NO. - 87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ************************** APPROVING THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DATED JULY 29, 1987 WHEREAS, California State Law requires that a County prepare a Solid Waste Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority has prepared a Final Draft dated July 29, 1987; and WHEREAS, the Final Draft Plan has been adopted by the Waste Management Authority; and WHEREAS, State Law provides 90 days for the cities to review and either approve or disapprove the Plan following action by the Authority; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin has reviewed and discussed the proposed plan at a public meeting on September 28, 1987. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve the Final Draft Solid Waste Management Plan for Alameda County, California dated July 29, 1987. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager shall notify the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority of the City Council action approving the Plan. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of September, 1987 . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ALAMEDA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NUMBER 108 AT MEETING HELD JULY 29, 1987 Moved by Mr. Snyder Seconded by Ms. Wieskamp REVISED ALAMEDA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN JULY 29, 1987 WHEREAS California Government Code, Section 66780 et seq., requires each county to adopt a solid waste management plan to protect the environment and provide for safe, sanitary and economical disposal of solid waste; and WHEREAS a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for Solid Waste Management was executed on September 2, 1976, and amended March 23, 1977, to create the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority (Authority) with responsibility to prepare state-mandated solid waste management plans for this county; and WHEREAS the adopted 1976 Solid Waste Management Plan (Policies Plan), 1977 Solid Waste Facilities Plan (Short Term), and 1978 Medium and Long Term Solid Waste Facilities Plan comprised the first solid waste management plan for Alameda County; and WHEREAS a revised Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan was adopted on October 28, 1981, and periodically amended through June 4, 1986; and WHEREAS the California Government Code requires that county solid waste management plans be reviewed and revised, if appropriate, at least every three years; and WHEREAS pursuant to the California Government Code, this Authority sub- mitted a Plan Review Report to the California Waste Management Board (CWMB), which approved the Report on March 21, 1986 and directed Alameda County to proceed with Plan revision; and WHEREAS a proposed revised Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan was prepared and transmitted to all concerned parties on April 29, 1987; and WHEREAS an Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration for the pro- posed Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 87042818) were prepared in accord with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State and local EIR guidelines and transmitted to all concerned parties on April 29, 1987; and WHEREAS a duly noticed public hearing was held on May 27, June 24, and July 29, 1987 to consider said proposed Plan and proposed Negative Declaration, at which time all interested parties were heard; and WHEREAS this Authority considered the Negative Declaration adopted by Resolution Number 107, July 29, 1987 and comments thereon, in conjunction with this proposed Plan; NOW THEREFORE: v BE IT RESOLVED THAT this Authority does approve the proposed Final Draft Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan; and directs that the Plan be trans- mitted to member agencies for adoption pursuant to the California Government Code; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT upon adoption of the Plan by the requisite number of member agencies of this Authority, as provided under the California Government Code, and additional member agencies as may act within 90 days of transmittal of the proposed Plan, this Authority does direct that the Plan be conveyed to the CWMB for approval pursuant to the California Government Code. ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Campbell (2), Ganong, Snyder, Fertig, Morrison, Sweeney, Wieskamp, Cortez, Foulkes, Mercer, Jardin, Westgard, Martin, Sanford, Duncan - 16 NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. EXCUSED: None. ABSENT: Camicia, Skinner, Riles (3) - 5 WILLIAM H. FRALEY - SECRETARY ALAMEDA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 0171d ...Y".'..t:15+°�G:suLLU.rd'u"u,�:1:Jr::(aWu`:.rv.Mti:.r'i�^'•'s'.�AL4,:?!kSi7uu�li wc'b.wms �..�14kSiiii;uG.fiE47' iMrViYtSrS'i45�f.iiHlliCil�1�Y§L�iiii6Lti6S:�+tlxtiC�iX:`Sib"ej71 w :ix�o^neg,taw�F,;.^,,,�;jy;}w ?..y1y:���" iSGY::a S FILING DATE ENDORSED FILED ,btice of a te, JUL 3 01987 (sad a.�if._'..� . of SW " 3D. RENE C. DAVIDSON, County Clerk '�Cl= Al--" Rv Yvette L.Johnson, Depurf 1221 Fallon street u, 94612 filir� piasusnt to ant Owe faction 21151) -�-W g ate* sn1-Irlsaearch Alameda Cc_Solid Waste Mangs+p.,ent- Authority Sacramento, CA 95814 349 Rl mh„r c r c r r n o r I Hayward_ cA 94544 I hc*t TW& Alameda county Solid Waste management Plan RP �i ion fits C24finvahmm M (it aAnitted Lt ): R 704?R 1 R _Wi�lliamH. Fraley (415) 670-5400 bojeCt lAcatica: Alameda cnunty (plan is countywide- in scor)al �P�aCt � —B�ujc;r�n of Plan policies and facilities/Programs Incorporates _previous plan amendments and updates technical background data 21i.s is to advise that the above-described ton T.,1 approved Rom _v 29. 1987 The thor.it Ibusby nskss tb follawrig detasmiastiaas "ad an tba project: 1• Ma project will bvs a aiwji� eftact on tb swi:aument, and an 8t►►lra�eatal impact hvort rss prepared for this project pntsusit to the provisims of CEQA s>4 the &ate and Cowry Elk QUACliaas and the 10"WWspauible Aency esrtifiss mat the itlim=tien captained is the FIX was Mvukvd and oonsids:ed, prux to the final decuum baig tendered. 2. x_ Me project will not ban a aim4t;ranr eftact on the QnVraM=, am a 1bative laclaratieu ties prepared, considered aad appcwed for this project pwaswaot to ibs proviaiQw of 044, prior to the final oscuum baiAg andased. A copy of the MR or IipUw Dsclaratim nay be aa=aad at the fella % locations: Alameda county Planning nPnartmPnt t 3. !ti ti ._ tipn aa eesasia+as were e;rde. of project approval. 4:_ ♦statament of Q"erridirg was swede for ibis per. t. D&W 1b;14G July 30- 1987 d l 0M • ENDORSED FILED r NEGATIVE DECLARATION JUL 3 01987 ALAMEDA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (Lead-Agency) RENE C. UAYIUJUN, l;ounty Clerk av Yvette L.Johnson, Depub, 1. Project Name: Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan Revision 2. Description, Location, and Assessor's Parcel Number: Revision of Plan policies and facilities/programs. Incorporates previous plan amendments ` and updates technical background data. Plan is countywide in scope 3. Persons or Entity Undertaking Project: Alameda Co. Solid Waste Management Authority 4. Responsible Agencies: CWMB, ABAG, State DOHS, Alameda County cities 5. Finding: Based on the attached Initial Study, the Alameda County Solid Waste .Management Authority (decision-making body) has found that: X The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 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 point where no significant effects would occur. This Negative Declaration commits the Project Proponent to adopt the mitigation measures identified in the attached Initial Study. 6. Date of Public Notice of Declarati ril 24 1987 7. End of Review Period: July 29 1987 f Signature Secretary Title July 30, 1987 Date ISSUANCE OF THIS NEGATIVE DECLARATION DOES NOT IMPLY APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT 0139d