Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-1991 City Council staff reportA SAR9 T 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE . SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson DATE: November 19, 1991 Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor onia TO: Mayor, City Council Members FrancisStutzman FROM: Environmental Program Manager SUBJECT: County Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment to provide for the Importation of Treated Auto Shredder Waste. BACKGROUND: Shortly after annexation of the Guadalupe Landfill into the City of San Jose, completed on July 2, 1990, the City's Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) discovered, as a result of correspondence from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, that Guadalupe was disposing of treated auto shredder waste (TASW) from the Levin Metals Corporation (LMC) facility in the Port of Redwood City (San Mateo County). Because the point of generation of this waste was outside of Santa Clara County, the LEA directed Guadalupe to cease accepting LMC's TASW. Importation of out -of- county waste constitutes a Solid Waste Facilities Permit violation for failure to be in compliance with the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP), 1989 Revision, and it places the receiving Landfill out of compliance with the CoSWMP. LMC petitioned the San Jose City Council for approval to continue disposal of TASW at the Guadalupe Landfill. On November 27, 1990, the City Council granted approval of the request for one year. The City Manager was instructed by the City Council to initiate the process to amend the CoSWMP to allow importation of TASW from the LMC facility in Redwood City. The extension granted by the San Jose City Council was justified specifically to allow LMC time to either find an alternate site for disposal of this waste, or for Guadalupe Landfill to seek an amendment to the CoSWMP, May 1989 Revision, for authorization of out -of- county waste importation. It further stated that without the CoSWMP amendment LMC's waste could not be accepted by Guadalupe Landfill by December 1, 1991. On August 23, 1991, the City of San Jose requested that the County initiate the CoSWMP amendment process as set forth in Title 7.3, Government Code, Chapter 2, Article 2 to allow the importation of LMC TASW from its point of generation in San Mateo County. Printed on recycled paper. • • Page 2 Subsequently, on September 13, 1991, LMC and Guadalupe Landfill filed an application which includes the information required by Policy 14 of the CoSWMP 1989 Revision. The parties have provided the following required information regarding their request to import out -of- county wastes: The TASW is generated at the LMC Metals shredding facility in the Port of Redwood City. Approximately 25% of the material that is shipped to the plant originates in auto bodies, white goods, and loose tin. LMC generates 160 tons of TASW per day, of which 40 tons(25%) is currently being disposed of at Guadalupe Landfill. The proposed disposal facility is the Guadalupe Landfill, and initially, LMC is proposing importation and disposal of 40 tons per day, six days per week. This amounts to annual importation and disposal of 12,480 tons, or 17,000 cubic yards of compacted fill material. LMC has requested that the amount of waste imported and disposed in Santa Clara County be allowed to increase or decrease based on the documented tonnages of material shipped from Santa Clara County to the plant for processing. TASW consists of road dirt that adheres to car bodies, plastic and cloth from upholstery, foam rubber from seats, glass, fiberglass insulation, ground up nonferrous metals, and small pieces of ferrous metals that are too small to be extracted from the shredded material. These materials are stabilized by the addition of a polysilicate blend and a cementitious material. The constituents of this treatment process add little volume, are nonhazardous, and are used in other commercial applications. According to State Department of Health Services (DHS) standards, the treated waste is a nonhazardous material that can be landfilled in a Class III landfill. Before the waste is shipped for disposal, laboratory analyses are conducted on the generated wastes to confirm compliance with designated waste limits. Results of the analysis are submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as part of the Guadalupe Landfill quarterly self- monitoring Report. Some of the results are also submitted to the Department of Health Services on a memorandum reports, dated September 30, 1991, the Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) received a staff report on the City of San Jose's request for an amendment to the CoSWMP, a draft of the text for the proposed amendment and a recommendation from staff which stated that the importation of TASW will have a minor negative impact on the long -term Landfill capacity in Santa Clara County. County staff evaluation stated: "County staff believes that the importation of TASW will have a minor negative impact on long -term landfill capacity in Santa Clara County. The imported waste amounts approximately 0.7% of the 0 6 Page 3 countywide waste stream and approximately 6% of the Guadalupe Landfill waste stream." "If local disposal becomes a requirement for the continued processing of these recyclable materials which originate in Santa Clara County, then the impact of not accepting these residual wastes could result in a greater negative impact on local landfill capacity." "Since the waste proposed for disposal consists solely of residual wastes which are the direct result of the recycling of materials which originate in Santa Clara County, staff believes that San Mateo County recycling policies are not relevant to the issue." "Staff believes that acceptance of this waste is in the best interests of Santa Clara County, and therefore recommends that the Solid Waste Committee support the proposed amendment." The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting was on October 9, 1991. The recommendation was included in the agenda of October 30, 1991. The TAC discussed the proposed amendment and voted to recommend approval to the Solid Waste Committee on October 9, 1991. No dissenting votes were cast on the motion, but there were four abstentions from the West Valley Cities. TAC voted to recommend approval contingent upon the amendment receiving a negative declaration of environmental impact during the initial study. If the environmental review results in a determination that an environmental impact report is needed, TAC would expect to perform additional review of the project. Subsequent to the recommendation by the TAC to the Solid Waste Committee, staff sent two letters to Supervisor Dianne McKenna, Chair of the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Committee, expressing the City's objection to the proposed amendment to the CoSWMP, to allow for the importation of TASW. The West Valley Cities also sent a similar letter. The letters are attached. In spite of our objections, the Solid Waste Committee voted unanimously to approve the circulation of the proposed amendment. According to the current CoSWMP, this amendment must now be approved by the majority of the cities in the County in this County with a majority of the population before an amendment can be incorporated into the CoSWPM. The initial study has been completed and the proposed Negative Declaration is undergoing the 30 day review period. On December 10, 1991, the Board of Supervisors will consider the adequacy of the initial study supporting the negative declaration and the approval of the amendment. 0 0 ANALYSIS: Page 4 Staff has presented objections to the Solid Waste Committee. The proposed amendment which would allow disposal of 40 tons per day at the Guadalupe Landfill will undermine the City's existing recycling and the major expansion start on April 1, 1992. Saratoga net disposal tonnage after recycling is in place, is estimated at 80 tons per day average. This proposal takes 500 of the city's daily capacity requirement away. Staff is concerned that the public education and information efforts provided thus far and the support residents have demonstrated for recycling will be undermined by the perception that the Landfill capacity being saved is now being used by imported waste from other jurisdictions. The staff also finds that the initial study is not adequate for the following reasons: 1. The short term impact on disposal capacity for Santa Clara County jurisdictions has not been addressed. 2. The increase in the removal rate of a resource, such as capacity of a landfill. 3. Increase in truck traffic and its related air quality, noise, traffic congestion, and energy consumption to return these waste to Santa Clara County at a rate of 40 tons each day. RECOMMENDATION• That the City Council authorizes staff to send a letter to the Board of Supervisors expressing these objections and specifically, recommending that they find the initial study incomplete in that it does not address the impact on the landfill capacity resource and specifically on the utilization of capacity that the City is so aggressively trying to conserve to have available in the future. ATTACHMENTS: o Proposed CoSWMP Amendment o Proposed Negative Declaration / Initial Study o October 30, 1991 Letter to Supervisor McKenna from City Manager o October 30, 1991 Letter to Supervisor McKenna from Solid Waste Program Manager. PREPARED BY' Isabel S. Gloeg , P.E. Environmental Programs Manager 1991 AMENDMENT TO THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN TO PROVIDE FOR IMPORTATION AND DISPOSAL OF NONHAZARDOUS RESIDUAL SOLID WASTE, GENERATED BY LMC METALS OF REDWOOD CITY AND RESULTING FROM RECYCLING OF WASTES GENERATED IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY The Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan 1989 Revision, Chapter V: Disposal and Facilities, Future Considerations Section is amended to add the following: IMPORTATION OF OUT -OF- COUNTY WASTE LMC Metals of Redwood City (San Mateo County) is granted approval to import nonhazardous solid waste for disposal at Guadalupe Landfill in San Jose (initially estimated at 12,480 tons per year), so long as the following requirements are met: • Imported waste is the unrecyclable residual which results from the recycling of white goods, automobile bodies, loose tin, and similar recyclable materials; • Tonnage imported into Santa Clara County does not exceed the tonnage of residual waste which results from the recycling of materials which originate in Santa Clara County; • Imported waste is nonhazardous; • Guadalupe Landfill maintains current operating permits which provide for acceptance of the imported material; • LMC Metals and Guadalupe Landfill provide updated information, as listed in Policy 14 of the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan, 1989 Revision, to the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Program on an annual basis. Information shall be provided more frequently if requested by the County. jAW SA : �O October 28, 1991 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Supervisor Dianne McKenna Chair, County Solid Waste Committee County of Santa Clara 70 West Hedding Street, 10th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman Dear Supervisor McKenna: Re: Proposed CoSWMP Amendment: Importation of Auto Shredder Waste On behalf of the Cities of Campbell, Monte Sereno and Saratoga and the Town of Los Gatos, this letter is to express our objection to the proposed CoSWMP Amendment on the importation of treated auto shredder waste (TASW) which is slated for disposal at Guadalupe Landfill. We would also like to offer some altenatives for consideration to the proposed action. Our objections relate to the proposed disposal of about 12,480 tons per year of TASW, which represents approximately 6 per cent of Guadalupe's waste stream. We are very concerned that this importation of waste will undermine the recycling and waste reduction services provided by the West Valley jurisdictions to extend the life of Guadalupe Landfill, the contracted disposal site. These recycling services include residential curbside collection, which was initiated in February 1990, as well as multi- unit dwelling recycling and commercial cardboard and glass collection, which were implemented in October 1991.. Depending on how the issues are portrayed by the media and officials from the various cities and County, the public perception of this decision may be similar to the one posed in June 1990 when the San Jose City Council denied a proposed agreement from Contra Costa County to import wastes to Kirby Canyon and /or Newby Island Landfills. Moreover, transporting this waste back to one landfill in Santa Clara County does not seem like the most environmentally sound approach to dealing with the waste and we urge that some other method of disposal be investigated. We offer two alternatives. The first would require a proportional distribution of the TASW generated in Santa Clara County to each of the other County landfills. The second would assume disposal at a San Mateo facility since the autos will be salvaged and the TASW generated by a Redwood City metals processor. In the latter case, the' increased disposal costs would need to be reflected in the costs of the auto towing and recycling services, and would ultimately be paid by the jurisdictions responsible for producing the waste. Printed on recycled paper. 0 Members, County Solid Waste Committee Page 2 We hope you agree that these issues warrant further discussion. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, U141, Vera Dahle West Valley Cities Solid Waste Program Manager cc: B. Winkler, Councilmember, City of Monte Sereno and Member, County Solid Waste.Committee R. Falkner, Community Services Director, Los Gatos I. Gloege, Environmental Program Manager, Saratoga R. Pierce, Chief Administrative Officer, Monte Sereno M. Quinney, Environmental and Land Development Manager, Campbell D. Barlow, Administrator, Division of Environmental Enforcement, City of San Jose M. Rands, County Solid Waste Program Manager TASWLtr � o � low CITY of SARATOGA n690 17 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 o (408) 867.3438 o COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger October 30, 19 91 Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman Supervisor Dianne McKenna Chair, Santa Clara County Solid Waste Committee County of Santa Clara 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, CA 95110 Re: Proposed Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment: Importation of Auto Shredder Waste Dear Supervisor McKenna: The purpose of this letter is to express the City of_Saratoga's objection to a proposed amendment to the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan which would allow for the importation of treated auto shredder waste to be disposed at Guadalupe Landfill. The proposed amendment would allow 12,480 tons per year of the shredder waste, generated by a processor in Redwood City in San Mateo County, during the processing of salvaged automobiles to be disposed of at the Guadalupe Landfill. This waste represents about six percent of the waste stream at the Guadalupe Landfill, and we are concerned that this importation will undermine the existing recycling programs and the effectiveness of the yard waste recycling service that will start on April 1,1992. Presently the City offers citywide residential and multi - family recycling and commercial cardboard and glass recycling. We are concerned that the public information and education provided thusfar, and the support the residents have demonstrated for recycling will be undermined by the perception that the landfill capacity being saved is now being used by imported wastes from other jurisdictions. Furthermore, hauling this waste back to a landfill located in an area sensitive to truck traffic all the way from Redwood City does not seem to be a sound environmental approach. We urge you to consider all the impacts of this proposed amendment to the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management. Further the Committee should identify and investigate alternative ways to dispose of the auto shredder waste generated within Santa Clara County. Printed on recycled paper. 0 Two possible alternatives are: 1. To dispose of San Mateo County waste at a San Mateo County facility and to include in the cost of disposal the overall service costs to the jurisdiction responsible for originating the waste. 2. To dispose of Santa Clara County waste in Santa Clara County, but distribute the waste propor- tionally among all the County landfills in a proportion that reflects the jurisdiction responsible for originating the waste. No one landfill should have its capacity unequally impacted by this type of waste. Based on the above, we trust that this issue be adequately addressed at the October 30, 1991, Solid Waste Committee. Thank you. Sincerely, Harr R. Peacock City Manager HRP /mc c.c. Barbara Winckler, Member of Council, City of Monte Sereno Printed on recycled paper. County Of Santa Clara, Call9nia * Advance Planning ffice Ott► 1111ronmental Plannln Section 9 9 Proposed Negative Declaration A notice, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code 21,000, et sec.) that the following project when implemented will not have a significant impact on the environment: 1 -19 N/A 10/22/91 The City of San Jose has requested an amendment to the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan, 1989 revision, to allow importation of LMC Metal's treated auto shredder waste. This waste is composed of the unrecyclable residue remaining after the recyclables are removed from automobiles. The waste from automobiles will be taken from Santa Clara County to the LMC facility in San Mateo County for processing. LMC is proposing to return the treated waste to a Santa Clara County landfill. The current Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management PLan (CoSWMP) specifies that out -of- county wastes can be accepted for disposal only if spec fically authorized by an amendment to the CoSWMP. This proposed amendment will authorize such importation. The purpose of this notice is to inform you that the Environmental Planning Section has recommended that a Negative Declaration be approved for this project. Action is scheduled on this proposed Negative Declaration before the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors on December 10. 1991 in County Gov't Cntr..Bd of Supervisors Chambers If the Negative Declaration is approved, the decision may be protested upon filing an appeal with the Central Permit Office. It should be noted that approval of a Negative Declaration does not constitute approval of the project under consideration. The decision to approve or deny the project will be made separately. Public comments regarding the correctness, completeness, or adequacy of this Negative Declaration are invited and must be received on or before the hearing date listed above. Such comments should be based on specific environmental concerns. Written comments should be addressed to the County of Santa Clara, Department of Planning and Development, Environmental Planning Section, County Government Center, 70 W. Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110, Tel (408) 299 -2521. A file containing additional information on this project may be reviewed at the Department of Planning and Development. When requesting to view this file, please refer to the file number appearing at the top of this form. t. of Health Services of San Jose ornia Integrated Waste Management Board County of Santa Clara, CalitSia s Advance Planning Office * E *nmental Planning Section The Environmental Planning Section of the Department of Planning and Development has reviewed the initial study for the project and, based upon substantial evidence in the record, finds that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, or, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case since the mitigation measures have been added to the project. 1. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the provisions of the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP). 2. Importation of treated waste from the LMC facility will not result in expansion of the landfill site. 3. Transportation of the treated waste will generate one to two truck trips per day, which will not significantly impact traffic. 4. Under the CoSWMP amendment, the amount of imported waste would remain proportional to the amount of waste originating in Santa Clara County, and would not constitute a new or significant waste source. The volume of waste would be equal to 0.7% of the county's waste stream. 5. The waste is handled and continually monitored according to DHS regulations to prevent disposal of hazardous wastes at a Class III landfill. Prepare! by: Jaunell Waldo, Planner III Approved by: Robert Sturdivant, Chief Planning Officer T� dath f-Z dat 11 -9 -90 � INITIAL STUDY S Environmental Evaluation Checklist for Santa Clara County a V161 File Number: APN(s): Not applicable 500' Map #: NA Zoning: Not applicable Gen. Plan Designation:_ Not applicable USA (if any): - Not applicable -- , Project Type:- County Solid Wa(;tp Managpmpnt Plan AmpnHmp t Applicant's Name & Address: City of San Jose Department of Neighborhood Preservation, Office of the Director; 801 N. First / 'TeQAone: (403) 277 -5566 Project Location (address or description): Please see attached report Project Descriptlon: Please see attached report Environmental Setting: Please see attached report ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ❑ LAND USE / GENERAL PLAN ❑ GEOLOGIC ❑ RESOURCES/ PARKS ® SEWAGE/ WATER QUALITY ❑ DRAINAGE/ FLOODING ❑ FLORA AND FAUNA ❑ TRANSPORTATION ❑ HOUSING ® SAFETY/ HEALTH ❑ AIR OUALITY ❑ NOISE ❑ AESTHETIC [:]ENERGY ❑ HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLUGI- CAL ❑ PUBLIC SERVICES & UTILI- TIES ❑ MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE IMPAW YES WILL T HE PROJECT: Not Slgnifl- signifi- Cumu- SOURCES NO Slgnlfl- cant cant. lative *Questions relating to the California Department of cant Unless No ap- Fish & Game 'de minimus impact finding" for the mitiga- parent Certificate of Fee Exemption are listed in italics. ted Mltlga- tlon A. LAND USE / GENERAL PLAN 1. Require a change from the land use designated in the ® ® C-1 C= p 6a,10a General Plan? 2. Involve a change of zoning? 7,9a 3. Require a change from adopted specific plans or C= ® p p C= 6a,7,1 Oa community.goals? 4. Be in an area with special policies or of critical concern? a. San Martin &/or South. County � C� 6a,b,10a 6a,10a,13,14 b. Los Gatos/Lexington or Guadalupe Watershed 6a,10a c. East Foothills ® ® C� C� C= p 6a,7,10a d. New Almaden Historical Area ® I� L� 15 ,16 6a, ,15 e. Stanford =3 6 f. San Jose 5. Result in any substantial changes in the present land 1'2'3'12b use, either on or off the project site? f� 2 4 6. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? 7. Conflict with established recreational, educational, C= p 2,4 religious or scientific uses in the area? B. GEOLOGIC 1. Be located in an area designated as having a poten- ® p p p p 9b,10c,1la, 12a'17'18 tial for major geological hazard? 0 2. Be located on, or adjacent to a known earthquake 9c,10c,11 a fault? 3. Be located in a Geologic Study Zone? ® 0 C1 9c,11 a 4. Be located in an area of soil instability (subsidence, ® 0 L= C= p 9c,12a,12d,20, landslide, shrink/swell potential, soil creep or severe 21 erosion)? 5. Cause substantial erosion or siltation? ® C= [= 0 1'2'3 6. Cause substantial disruption, displacement, compac- 1'2'3 tion or over - covering of soil either on -site or off -site? 7. Cause substantial change in topography or in a 1, 2,3,11 c ground surface relief feature? 8. Involve construction of a building, road or septic system on a slope of: 1® 0 0 � 17-1 1,3,10j,11c a. 30% or greater ?. • ® C= C7 C=1 C= 1,3,10j,11c b. 20% to 30 %? ® 0 C= 0 U 1,3,10j,11 c c. 10% to 20 %9 C. RESOURCES/ PARKS 1. Increase the removal rate or result in the removal of a ® D C= C= r--1 1,2,3,19 natural resource for QQmme .ial purposes (including rock, sand, gravel, oil, trees, minerals or top soil)? ' IMP Y EY WILL THE PROJECT: Not Slgnifl- Signlfl- Gumu- NO SOURCES 'Questions relating to the California Department of Slgnifl- cant cant lative Fish & Game "de minimus impact finding" for the cant unless Mltlga- No ap- parent Cert ficate of Fee Exemption are listed in italics. ted Mltlga- tlon 2. Result in substantial depletion of any non- renewable ® Q Q Q 0 2,3 natural resource? 3. Convert 10 or more acres of prime agricultural land Q Q Q Q 2,20,21 (Class I to II) to non - agricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity of nearby prime land? 4. Involve lands protected by the Williamson Act (agri- ® Q Q Q Q 119a cultural preserve) or an Open Space Easement? 5. Substantially affect any existing agricultural uses? 2 6. Be on, within, or near. a public or private park, wildlife reserve, or trail (includes those proposed for future)? 2,9d,1 Oh 7. Result in loss of open space rated as high priority for acquisition. ® O Q D D 38 D. SEWAGE / WATER QUALITY 1. Result in a septic field being constructed on soil with ® Q Q Q Q 12d,20,21,22 severe septic drainfield limitations? 2. Result in a septic field being located within 50 feet of a drainage swale; 100 feet of any well, water course ® Q Q Q Q 1,2,3,4 or water body or 200 feet of the high water mark of a reservoir? 3. Result in a septic field being located in an area where a high water table extends close to the natural land ® Q Q D D 10e,11b20,21,24 surface? 4. Result in extensions of a sewer trunk line with capac- ® Q Q Q Q 3 ity to serve new development? 5. Degrade surface or ground water quality or public Q Q ® Q Q 1, 3,11 b,21 water supply? 6. Be located in an area of special water quality concern ® Q Q p Q 4,1 Oa, 13,23 (e.g., Los Gatos or Guadalupe Watershed)? 7. Result in use of well water previously contaminated by nitrates, mercury, asbestos, etc. existing in the ® Q Q Q Q 10e,23 groundwater supply? E. DRAINAGE / FLOODING 1. Interfere substantially with ground water recharge? ® Q Q Q Q 3,10e,11b 2. Substantially change the direction, rate of flow or quantity of ground waters, either through direct ® Q Q Q 1,3 additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? 3. Change absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the ® Q Q Q Q 3,28 rate and amount of surface runoff? 4. Involve a natural drainage channel or streambed or water course such as to after the location, course, or ® 1,3,11 c,28 flow of its waters? 5. Be located within a floodway or floodplain area? ® Q Q Q Q 9c,12c • IMP rT YW WILL THE PROJECT: Not Signifl- Signifl- cumu. NO SOURCES 'Questions relating to the Califomia Department of Slgnifl- cant cant `anL tatty° Fish & Game "de minimus impact finding" for the MtU s- 9 parent Pa Certificate of Fee Exemption are listed in italics. tod MMga- tion F. FLORA AND FAUNA 1. Affect fish, wildlife, reptiles, or plant life, by [a] change in diversity or numbers or [b] introduction of new f® D D D I= 1,2,3,4,10b, species or [c] restrictions to migration or movement or 11 d,e (d7 reducing habitat? 2. Affect or cause changes to existing habitat, food source, nesting place, breeding place for a rare or ® p p p p 10b,11 d,e endangered plant or animal species? 3. Involve a unique biological area, such as a fresh ® p p p f= 1,2,3,10b,11d, water marsh or salt water tide land? 4. Involve construction within 150 feet of a watercourse ® p C>I C] D 2,3,12b,39 or riparian area ? 5. Involve cutting of unique or heritage trees or a large ® p p p p 1,2,3,25 number of trees over 12" in diameter? G. TRANSPORTATION 1. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the 4,6a,26,27,26, street system? (Exceed LOS level V in vicinity-GP 29,44 policy G8.3.) 2. Increase traffic hazards to pedestrians, bicyclists and M 3,4 vehicles? 3. Obstruct access to nearby uses or fail to provide for 3,12e future street right of way? 4. Cause increases in demand for existing on or off- ® p p p p 1,3,30 street parking because of inadequate project parking? H. HOUSING 1. Reduce the supply of low - income housing or displace ® p p p D 3,4 people or businesses? 2. Affect the type or cost of housing in the area? fll® L7 D D 0 2,3,4 3. Create a demand for additional housing? ® p p p p 3 t. SAFETY / HEALTH 1. Involve the application, use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, including pesticides, herbicides, p C] ® D G7 1,3,4,5 toxic substances, or radioactive materials? 2 Involve risk of explosion or release of hazardous 1,3,4,5 substances? 3. If yes to #2, be within.1/4 mile of a school [public 40 notice] 4. Be located within 200' of a 230KV or above electrical M p 17-1 2,4 transmission line 5. Create any health hazard? ® 0 0 0 1,3,4,5 6. Be located in an ALUC Safety Zone? ® p p p p 31 IMP T YES WILL THE PROJECT: Not Signifi- Slgnlfl- c umu- NO SOURCES 'Questions relating to the California Department of Slgnlfl' cant cant lative Fish & Game "de minimus impact finding" for the cant Unless No ap- Certificate of Fee Exemption are listed in italics. Mltlga- ted parent Mltlga„ tion 7. Be located in an area of extreme fire hazard? ® p p p p 10g 8. In the case of cul-de -sacs over 800 ft. in length, require secondary access which will be difficult to O C D 1,3,4,32,33 obtain? 9. Employ technology which could adversely aff ect ® D C, 1= C7 1,3,5 safety in case of a breakdown? 10. Proposed site plan result in a safety hazard (i.e., 3 parking layout, access, closed community, etc.)? 11. Provide breeding grounds for vectors? ® D 0 O D 1,3,5 J. AIR QUALITY t. Violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality ® p p p p 5,34 violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 2. Create objectionable odors? 1® G7 C= D 0 1,3,5 K NOISE 1. Increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas during and/or after construction? ® 0 0 G7 1,3,5,6a 2. Generate unusually high noise or vibration levels at �7( certain times? 1,3,5 3. Be subject to an unusually high noise level? ® 0 j_7 D D 2,4 4. Be located.in an ALUC noise zone? ® p © p p 31 L AESTHETIC 1. tf subject to ASA, be generally in non- compliance with Guidelines for Architecture and Site Approval? ® I� 0 = 0 35,36 2. Create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ® 0 0 0 2,3,37 3. Visually intrude into an area having natural scenic qualities? ® i� 2,3,4,37 4. Be adjacent to a designated Scenic Highway or within a Scenic Corridor? ® �' 7,10f,37 5. Obstruct scenic views from existing residential areas, 6. public lands, public water body or roads? Be located on or near a ridgeline visible from the 2,3 valley floor? 2,10f,11 c,37 7- Adversely affect the architectural appearance of an established neighborhood? ® 0 0 G7 0 2,3 8. Generate new light or glare? 1,3 M. ENERGY 1. Use fuel, water or energy in large quantities or in a wasteful manner? ®. r� O 1,3,5 IMP YIM ' WILL THE PROJECT: INO Not 5lgnifl- signifl- cumu- SOURCES 'Questions relating to the California Department of signifl- cant Unless cant. No ap- Iativo Fish & Game "de minimus impact finding" for the cant Mitiga- parent Certificate of Fee Exemption are listed in italics. ted Mitlga- tion 2. Involve the removal of vegetation capable of providing summer shade to a building? fib 0 1= 0 2,3 3. Significantly affect solar access to adjacent property? 11111110 C= 2,3 N. HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICAL 1. Be located in an area of potential archaeological or paleontological resources? D 10d,42 2. Disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archaeological site or a property of historic or cultural significance to a community or ethnic or social group; fly C1 f= D C= 3,10d,10i,41, or a paleontological site except as a part of a scien- 42,43 tifc study? 3. Be located in a Historic District (e.g., New Almaden ® p p L7 = 7,10a Historic Area)? 4. Be within 500' of a historic landmark? ® p p p Q 10i,43 O. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Produce significant amounts of solid waste or fitter? ® p C> >= C= 1,3,5 IN1. 2. Induce substantial growth or concentration of popula- tion? (Growth inducing ?) 1,3,5 3. Employ equipment which could interf ere with existing communications or broadcast systems? ® D C] L= D 1,3,5 4. Cause substantial impact or increase in the need for a. Fire Protection ® 0 1,3,5 b. Police Protection ® 1= Ct G7 CI 1,3,5 5. Cause substantial impact or increase in the need for a. School facilities 1,3,5 f b. Parks or recreation facilities ® 0 1,3,5 c. Maintenance of public facilities 1,3,5 ,mod. Other government services 1,3,5 6. Cause substantial impact or increase in the need for a. Electricity ® D C] CI t= 1,3,5 b. Natural gas ® C= C] 1= 1= 1,3,5 ° c. Water ® C= C7 D D 1,3,5 �d. Sewage disposal 1,3,5 fie. Storm water runoff ® f= 0 0 1,3,5 7. Generate any demands that create the need for or cause a public facility or utility to approach, reach or exceed its capacity (i.e., sewer line, sewage plant, 1,3,4,5 street, etc.)? WILL THE PROJECT: P. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE NO I YES a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop El 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 examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long- term environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time, while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Have environmental impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. <' >:::: ION: FENVIRON11r1ENTAL EVALUATION Discuss on attached shbet(s)'al1 "yes",answers and'any'rio ansvrers'ft at are :potentially controversial or require cfanficativn (tvtttst be TYPED) Describe arty potential impacts sand: discusspossible mrtidat�oris For source, re #erto attached "lndial Study Source VsY When a source used that rs not.Itsted:on.thd'form or-an incfrvidual DETERMINATION SELECT ONE On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be recommended. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures are included as part of the proposed project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE RECOMMENDED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVI- RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is recommended x/ /771 signature date PRINT' NAME AND TITLE: T yt ofz P�r,�so.t/ SR Aso a-4T -E TNoi4S /TElD Asoc/.4TES 7 ONiTIAL STUDY SOURCE LIS* 1. Environmental Information Form 2. Field Inspection 3. Project Plans 4. Planner's Knowledge of Area 5. Experience With Other Project of This Size and Nature 6a. County General.Plan '6b. The South County Joint Area Plan 7. County Zoning Regulations (Ordinance) 8. Second Amendment to Agreement [with San Jose] for Allocation of Tax Increment Funds 9. MAPS (various scalps) a. County Zoning (500' or 1,000') b. ABAG "On Shaky Ground"- Santa Clara County Map Set (2 miles) c. Barclay's Santa Clara County Locaide Street Attas (2631 1 d. County Regional Parks, Trails and Scenic High ways Map (10,000') 10. 5000' or one mile Scale MAPS a. County General Plan Land Use b. Natural Habitat Areas c. Relative Seismic Stability d. Archaeological Resources e. Water Resources & Water Problems f. Viewshed and Scenic Roads g. Fire Hazard h. Parks and Public Open Space t. Heritage Resources [Key found in: Historic Re sources Map Key - computerized list accompany ing map] j. Slope Constraint 11. 2000' Scale MAPS a. State of California, Special Studies Zones [Revised Official Map] b. Water Problem/Resource c. USGS Topo Quad (7 1/2 minutes) d. Dept. of Fish & Game, Natural Diversity Data Base Map Overlays & Textual Reports e. Natural Resources [Key to map found in: Natural Resource Sensitivity Areas - Locality Data, Har- vey & Stanley Associates- Contact County staff] 12. 1000' Scale MAPS / Air Photos a. Geologic Hazards b. Color Air Photos (MPSi) C. Santa Clara Valley Water District - Maps of Flood Control Facilities'& Limits of 1% Flooding d. Soils Overlay Alr Photos e. 'Future Width Line" map set 13. County Lexington Basin Ordinance Relating to Sewage Disposal 14. Los Gatos Hillsides Specific Area Plan 15. Stamford University Master Use Permit and Environ- mental Impact Report [EIR] 16. Stanford Protocol and Land Use Policy Agreement 17. County Geologist 18. Site Specific Geologic Report 19. State Department of Mines and Geology, Special Report #146 20. USDA, SCS, "Soils of Santa Clara County" 21. USDA, SCS, "Soil Survey of Easter Santa Clara County" 22. County Environmental Health / Septic Tank Sewage Disposal System - Bulletin "A" 23. San Martin Water Quality Study 24. County Environmental Health Department Tests and Reports 25. County Heritage Trees Inventory 26. Official County Road Book 27. County Transportation Agency 28. County Standards and Policies Manual (Vol. I - Land Development) 29. Public Works Departments of Individual Cities 30. County Off- street Parking Standards 31. ALUC Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Airports 32. County Fire Marshal 33. California Department of Forestry 34. BAAQMD Annual Summary of Contaminant Excesses & BAAQMD, . "Air Quality & Urban Development - Guidellnes for Assessing Impacts of Projects & Plans" 35. Architectural and Site Approval Committee Secretary 36. County Guidelines for Architecture and Site Approval 37. County Development Guidelines for Design Review 38. Open Space Preservation, Report of the Preservation 2020 Task Force, April 1987 [Chapter IV] 39. Riparian Inventory of Santa Clara County, Greenbelt Coalition, November 1988. 40. Section 21151.4 of Califomia Public Resources Code. 41. Site Specific Archaeological Reconnaissance Report 42. State Archaeological Clearinghouse, Sonoma State University 43. Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory 44. Transportation Research Board, "Highway Capac- tty Manual", Special Report 209,19M 8 'Items listed in bold are the most important sources and should be referred to during the first review of the project, when they are available. The planner should refer to the other sources for a particular environmental factor if the former indicate a potential environmental impact. ver.7 /17/91 GUADALUPE LANDFILL COSWMP AMENDMENT IMPORTATION OF AUTO SHREDDER WASTE INITIAL STUDY Project Location. The source of the treated auto shredder waste is the LMC Metals shredding facility in the Port of Redwood City, San Mateo County, California. The disposal site is the Guadalupe Landfill, located on Guadalupe Mines Road in the City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Project Description. The City of San Jose Department of Neighborhood Preservation has requested an amendment to the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan, 1989 Revision, to allow the importation of LMC Metal's treated auto shredder waste (TASW) from San Mateo County for disposal at the Guadalupe Landfill. The waste is from automobiles brought to the plant from Santa Clara County. The proposed text of the amendment is as follows: 1991 AMENDMENT TO THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN TO PROVIDE FOR IMPORTATION AND DISPOSAL OF NONHAZARDOUS RESIDUAL SOLID WASTE, GENERATED BY LMC METALS OF REDWOOD CITY AND RESULTING FROM RECYCLING OF WASTES GENERATED IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY The Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan 1989 Revision, Chapter V: Disposal and Facilities, Future Considerations Section is amended to add the following: IMPORTATION OF OUT -OF- COUNTY WASTE LMC Metals of Redwood City (San Mateo County) is granted approval to import nonhazardous solid waste for disposal at Guadalupe Landfill in San Jose (initially estimated at 12,480 tons per year), so long as the following requirements are met: o Imported waste is the unrecyclable residual which results from the recycling of white goods, automobile bodies, loose tin, and similar recyclable materials; o Tonnage imported into Santa Clara County does not exceed the tonnage of residual waste which results from the recycling of materials which originate in Santa Clara County; o Imported waste is nonhazardous; o Guadalupe Landfill maintains current operating permits which provide for acceptance of the imported material; o LMC Metals and Guadalupe Landfill provide updated information, as listed in Policy 14 of the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan, 1989 Revision, to the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Program on an annual basis. Information shall be provided more frequently if requested by the County. 0. - .The TASW is the non - recyclable residue remaining after all of the recyclable materials have been claimed from a shredded automobile. It consists of road dirt that adheres to car bodies, plastic and cloth from upholstery, foam rubber from seats, glass, fiberglass insulation, ground up nonferrous metals, and small pieces of ferrous metals that are too small to be extracted from the shredded material. The TASW is generated at the LMC Metals shredding facility in the Port of Redwood City. Approximately 25% of the material that is shipped to the plant originates in Santa Clara County. Santa Clara County materials processed at the facility consist of auto bodies, white goods, and loose tin.. LMC generates 160 tons of TASW per day, of which 40 tons (25 %) is currently being disposed of at Guadalupe Landfill. This 40 tons requires one to two truck trips.per day, which occur during normal landfill operating hours (8:00.., am to 4 :45 pm). Initially, LMC is proposing importation and disposal of 40 tons per day, six days per week. This amounts to annual importation and disposal of 12,480 tons, or 17,000 cubic yards of compacted fill material. LMC has requested that the amount of waste imported and disposed in Santa Clara County be allowed to increase or decrease based on the documented tonnages of material shipped from Santa Clara County to the plant for processing. In either event, acceptance of the waste at the landfill must remain within allowed daily and annual tonnages. The small amount of waste currently proposed will not require an expansion of the landfill, nor change the rate of fill or site life. Because the waste delivered to the landfill is proportional to waste originally generated in Santa Clara County, the project does not necessarily represent an increase in service area beyond County boundaries. The shredder residue is stabilized by the addition of a polysilicated blend and a cementitious material. The constituents of the treatment process add little volume, and are nonhazardous. The California Department of Health Services has determined LMC's TASW does not pose a hazard to human health and safety, livestock or wildlife, and has classified it as a nonhazardous waste (Letter from DHS to LMC dated 5/31/89). The TASW is continually tested for content of hazardous materials, and is not disposed of until its status as a hazardous or nonhazardous waste is determined. The sampling and analysis is done according to DHS protocol. Each day LMC Metals collects a representative one -pound sample of the TASW every half -hour during normal operations. These samples are combined, and two one -pound samples are taken from the pile at the end of the day. The daily samples are consolidated each week and submitted to a State certified hazardous waste testing laboratory for analysis. The protocol used is intended to eliminate potential bias in selecting samples to be tested. Pending receipt of the laboratory analysis, the waste is kept completely separate from the next week's batch. When laboratory results confirm that the TASW is within designated waste limits, the material is shipped with accompanying documentation to a landfill for disposal. No waste is shipped October 11, 1991 GUADALUPE LANDFILL TASW COSWMP AMENDMENT -- INITIAL STUDY Page 3 for disposal without demonstrated conformance with the designated waste discharge limits. The Regional Water Quality Control Board,.San Francisco Bay Region, requires that a modified Waste Extraction Test (WET) be performed on the waste twice a week. The tests are conducted using fresh leachate from the landfills where the waste is to be disposed (rather than acid at pH of 5) to determine if the TASW is suitable for codisposal with garbage. The RWQCB requires the Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal Company to include the results of the analysis of the TASW in the quarterly Self- monitoring Report for the landfill, and to demonstrate.compliance with RWQCB requirements related to waste accepted at the landfill. Also, as required by DHS, a Total Concentration Leaching Procedure test is conducted every six months using citric acid. The TASW does not require special handling at the landfill and is disposed as ordinary refuse. Environmental Setting. The Guadalupe disposal site is a Class III landfill located in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains, on the west side of the City of San Jose. The landfill serves contractors from the City of San Jose, portions of Santa Clara County, and the West Valley cities of Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, and Campbell. Access to the site is via'Camden Avenue to Guadalupe Mines Road to a private two -lane paved road. Adjacent land uses include open space, industrial park and residential development. The landfill, which originally opened about 1929, operates under permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board ( #90 -139, 10/90), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Santa Clara County, and the California Waste Management Board ( #43 -AA -001, 6/79) The landfill was the subject of environmental review in environmental impact reports certified in 1976 and 1989. The LMC Metals Corporation operates a metals shredder at the Port of Redwood City to allow economical shipment of scrap metal to market. The shredder facility is approximately 40 miles from Guadalupe Landfill. The haul route is along primary thoroughfares: US 101, Highway 85, Interstate 280, and Highway 17 to Camden Avenue. LMC also ships shredder waste to other landfills in the San Francisco Bay area. The Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan, 1989 Revision, was developed to meet California Government Code requirements. Although the plan revision was completed prior to the adoption of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), the implementation program specified by the plan revision is substantially consistent with the purposes of the new law, namely to shift the focus from landfill capacity to alternatives to landfill disposal. The Guadalupe disposal site is identified in the CoSWMP. The Santa Clara County CoSWMP establishes a procedure for the review of requests for importation of nonhazardous solid wastes generated outside of the October 11, 1991 C] • GUADALUPE LANDFILL TASW COSWMP AMENDMENT -- INITIAL STUDY Page 4 county. The CoSWMP specifies that out -of- county wastes can be accepted for disposal only if specifically authorized by an amendment to the CoSWMP. Solid waste facilities located within the county may not accept solid waste generated outside the county that is not described in the CoSWMP. Acceptance of unauthorized waste would put the facility in nonconformance with the plan. A proposal for importation must be authorized by the jurisdiction where the disposal site is located. The proposal is submitted by the jurisdiction to the County Solid Waste Program staff for review. County staff then draft an amendment to the CoSWMP outlining the request, and circulate the amendment with appropriate CEQA documentation for approval. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: Discussion of Checklist Answers A. Land Use /General Plan 1. Will the project require a change from the land use designated in the General Plan? The acceptance of imported TASW at Guadalupe landfill does not require a change in land use designation. The disposal site is identified as a solid waste facility in the City of San Jose General Plan and the Santa Clara County General Plan (1988 Revision of Land Use Map). 2. Will the project involve a change of zoning? The disposal site zoning allows acceptance of solid waste such as TASW. 3. Will the project require a change from adopted specific plans or community goals? Importation of TASW from LMC Metals in San Mateo County to the Guadalupe Disposal site requires an amendment to the Santa Clara county Solid Waste Management Plan, as noted under Project Description and Environmental Setting, above. 4. Will the project be in an area with special policies or of critical concern? The Guadalupe Watershed and the Quicksilver /Almaden Historic District are two special districts located in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains near the landfill. The Guadalupe Disposal site is located outside of these special districts, and the importation of TASW to the site would not affect these districts. S. Will the project result in any substantial changes in the p -esent land use, either on or off the project site? 6. Will the project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? October 11, 1991 GUADALUPE LANDFILL TASW COSWMP AMENDMENT -- INITIAL STUDY Page 5 7. Will the project conflict with established recreational, educational, religious or scientific uses in the area? Response to 5., 6., and 7.: Importation of TASW to the landfill does not require a land use change or expansion of the landfill site. The project would not disrupt the physical arrangement of an established community or conflict with established uses in the area. B. Geologic 1. Will the project be located in an area designated as having a potential for major geological hazard? 2. Will the project be located on, or adjacent to a known earthquake fault? 3. Will the project be located in a Geologic Study Zone? 4. Will the project be located in an area of soil instability (subsidence, landslide, shrink /swell potential, soil creep or severe erosion)? 5. Will the project cause substantial erosion or siltation? 6. Will the project cause substantial disruption, displacement, compaction or over- covering of soil either on site or off site? 7. Will the project. cause substantial change in topography or in a ground surface relief feature? 8. Will the project involve construction of a building, road or septic system on a slope of 30% or greater, 20% to 30% or 10% to 20% ?• Response to 1. - 8.: Importation of TASW to the Guadalupe disposal site does not require an expansion of the landfill, and would not pose a geologic impact. > C. Resources /Parks Will the project: 1. Increase the removal rate or result in the removal of a natural resource for commercial purposes (including rock, sand., gravel, oil, trees, minerals or top soil)? 2. Result in substantial depletion of any non - renewable natural resource? 3. Will the project convert 10 or more acres of prime agricultural land (Class I to II) to non - agricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity of nearby prime land? 4. Involve lands protected by the Williamson Act (agricultural preserve) or an Open Space Element? 5. Substantially affect any existing agricultural uses? 6. Be'on, within, or near a public or private park, wildlife reserve, or trail (includes those proposed for future)? 7. Result in -loss of open space rated as high priority for acquisition? Response to 1. - 7.: The project does not require the removal of natural resources or depletion of a non - renewable resource. The TASW is the unrecyclable residue remaining after the recyclables are removed from an automobile. The recycling of automobiles reduces the need to extract natural October 11, 1991 0 . GUADALUPE LANDFILL TASW COS1.7MP AMENDMENT -- INITIAL STUDY Page 6 resources. Importation of the TASW to the Guadalupe landfill does not require a landfill expansion and would not result in loss of agricultural lands or open space. D. Sewage /Water Quality Will the project: 1. Result in a septic field drainfield limitations? 2. Result in a septic field 100 feet of any well, water mark of a reservoir? 3. Result in a.septic field extends close to the natural being constructed on soil with sever septic being located within 50 feet of a drainage Swale; :ourse or water body or 200 feet of the high water being located in an area where a high water table land surface? Response to 1. - 3.: Septic is not proposed as part of the project. 4. Will the project result in extensions of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development? Sewer line extension is not proposed as part of the project. 5. Wi.11 the project degrade surface or ground water quality or public water supply? The project is to allow treated auto shredder waste to be imported from LMC Metals in Redwood City to the Guadalupe disposal site. If untreated auto shredder waste were accepted at the landfill impacts to water quality would potentially occur. As noted in Project Description, the treated auto shredder waste has been designated as non - hazardous by the State Department of Health Services. Also, the waste is handled and continually monitored according to DHS regulations to prevent disposal of hazardous wastes at a Class III landfill (please see the Project Description). The handling and regulation measures included in the project reduce potential adverse impacts to water quality to non - significant. 6. Will the project be located in an area of special water quality concern (e.g., Los Gatos or Guadalupe Watershed)? The disposal site is located outside of the Guadalupe Watershed special district. 7. Will the project- result in use of well water previously contaminated by nitrates, mercury, asbestos, etc. existing in the groundwater supply? Such well water use is not proposed for the project. October 11, 1991 6 0 0 GUADALUPE LANDFILL TASW COSWMP AMENDMENT -- INITIAL STUDY Page 7 E. Drainage /Flooding 1. Will the project interfere substantially with ground water recharge? 2. Will the project substantially change the direction, rate of flow or quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? 3. Will the project change absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? 4. Will the project involve a natural drainage channel or stream bed or water course such as cc alter the location, course, or flow of its waters? 5. Will the project be located within a floodway or floodplain area? Response to 1. - 5.: Importation of TASW to the Guadalupe landfill does not require construction which would affect groundwater recharge, absorption rates, or ground or surface water flows. The landfill is not located in a floodway or floodplain. F. Flora and Fauna Will the project: 1. affect fish, wildlife, reptiles, or plant life, by [a] change in diversity ox numbers or [b] introduccion of new species or [c] restrictions to migration or movement or [d] reducing habitat? 2. affect or cause changes to existing habitat, food source, nesting place, breeding place for a rare or endangered plant or animal species? 3. involve a unique biological area such as a fresh water marsh or salt water tide land? 4, involve construction within 150 feet of a watercourse or riparian area? 5. involve cucting of unique or heritage trees or a large number of trees over 12" in diameter? Response to 1. - 5.: Importation of TASW to the Guadalupe landfill does not require new construction or landfill expansion, and would not impact biological resources. G. Transportation O Will the project: 1. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? (Exceed LOS level 'D, in vicinity -GP policy G8.3) 2. Increase traffic hazards co pedestrians, bicyclists and "vehicles? 3. Obstruct access co nearby uses or fail to provide for future street right of way? 4. Cause increases in demand for existing on or off - street parking because of inadequate project parking? October 11, 1991 i • GUADALUPE LANDFILL TASW COSWMP AMENDMENT -- INITIAL STUDY Page 8 Response to 1. - 4.: Importation of TASW requires one to two truck trips per day from Redwood City to the Guadalupe disposal site, and would not significantly affect traffic conditions. H. Housing Will the project: 1. Reduce the supply of low- income housing or displace people or businesses? 2. Affect the type or cost of housing in the area? 3. Create a demand for additional housing? Response to 1. - 3.: Importation of TASW to the Guadalupe disposal site would have no bearing on housing supply or demand. I. Safety /Health Will the project: 1. Involve the application, use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, including pesticides, herbicides, toxic substances, or radioactive materials? 2. Involve risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances? 3. Be within 1/4 mile of a school [public notice]? 4. Be located within 200 feet of a 230 kilovolt or above electrical transmission line? 5. Create any health hazard? 6. Be located in an ALUC Safety Zone? 7. Be located in an area of extreme fire hazard? 8. Have cul -de -sacs over 800 feet in length, or require secondary access which will be difficult to obtain? 9. Employ technology which could adversely affect safety in case of a breakdown? 10. Will the proposed site plan result in a safety hazard (i.e., parking layout, access, closed community, etc.)? 11. Will the project provide breeding grounds for vectors? Response to 1., 2., and 5.: Auto shredder waste potentially contains ° hazardous substances, and is managed according to Department'of Health Services and Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, as explained under Project Description. The waste is treated, and tested prior to disposal at the landfill, and only waste which is within designated limits and is defined by the Department of Health Services as a non - hazardous material is allowed to be-shipped to the landfill. The treatment and handling methods included in the project mitigate potentially significant impacts to public health and safety to non - significant. TASW is not an explosive material. Response to 3.,,4., and 6. - 11.: The project does not require new construction and would not affect schools, transmission lines, airports, or October 11, 1991 GUADALUPE LANDFILL TASW COSWMP AMENDMENT -- INITIAL STUDY Page 9 fire safety. It is disposed of as a regular hon- hazardous waste at the landfill and does not require special handling or technologies after it has been imported. TASW does not include food material and would not provide breeding grounds for vectors. J. Air Quality Will the project: 1. Violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 2. Create objectionable odors? Response to 1. - 2.: Importation of TASW to the Guadalupe landfill would involve 1 to 2 truck trips per day. These truck trips currently occur within the air basin, and no additional impacts to ambient air quality would occur. TASW does not contain putrescible materials and is not a significant source of odor. K. Noise Will the project: 1. Increase substantially the.ambient noise levels for adjoining areas during and /or after construction? 2. Generate unusually high noise or vibration levels at certain times? 3. Be subject to an unusually high noise level? 4. Be located in an ALUC noise zone? a Response to,l. - 4.: Importation of TASW will not create a significant noise impact. Traffic - related noise would not increase along Guadalupe Mines Road as a result of the project; the 1 to 2 truck trips per day represent a minor portion of refuse traffic and would occur during normal operating hours. L. Aesthetic 1. If subject to ASA, will the project be generally in non - compliance with Guidelines for Architecture and Site Approval? 2. Will the project create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 3. Will the project visually intrude into an area having natural scenic qualities? 4. Will the project be adjacent to a designated Scenic Highway or within a Scenic Corridor? 5. Will the project obstruct scenic views from existing residential areas, public lands, public water body or roads? 6. Will the project be located on or near a ridgeline visible from the valley floor? October 11, 1991 GUADALUPE LANDFILL TASW COSWMP AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY Page 10 7. Will the project adversely affect the architectural appearance of an established neighborhood? 8. Will the project generate new light or glare? Response to 1. - 8.: Importation of TASW to the Guadalupe landfill does not require a landfill expansion and would not change the visual impacts of the landfill. M. Energy Will the project: 1. Use fuel, water or energy in large quantities or in a wasteful manner? 2. Involve the removal of vegetation capable of providing summer shade to a building? 3. Significantly affect solar access to adjacent property? Response to 1. - 3.: Importation of TASW from LMC Metals in Redwood City to the Guadalupe disposal site requires 80 to 160 miles of truck travel daily (1 to 2 trips at 80 miles per round trip), and would not result in the use of large quantities of fuel, water or energy. The project does not require new construction which would remove vegetation or restrict solar access. N. Historical / Archaeological Will the project: 1. Be located in an area of potential archaeological or paleontological resources? 2. Disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archaeological site or a property of historic or cultural significance to a community or ethnic or social group; or a paleontological site except as part of a scientific study? 3. Be located in a Historic District (e.g., New Almaden Historic Area)? 4. Be within,500 feet of a historic landmark? Response to 1. - 4.: Importation of TASW to the Guadalupe disposal site does not require a landfill expansion or new construction which would affect historical or archaeological resources. The disposal site is not located in a historic district. 0. Public Services and Utilities 1. Will the project produce significant amounts of solid waste or litter? Under t':e CoSWMP amendment the amount of imported TASW would remain proportional to the amount of waste originating in Santa Clara County, so that the project does not represent a new or significant waste source. The proposed disposal amount would constitute approximately five percent of the October 11, 1991 GUADALUPE LANDFILL TASW COSWMP AMENDMENT -- INITIAL STUDY Page 11 Guadalupe landfill waste stream or less than 0.7 percent of the entire county waste stream. Will the project: 2. Induce substantial growth or concentration of population? (Growth inducing ?) 3. Employ equipment which could interfere with existing communications or broadcast systems? 4. Cause substantial impact or increase in the need for fire protection or police protection? 5. Cause substantial impact or increase in the need for school facilities, parks or recreation facilities, maintenance of public facilities, or other government services? 6. Cause substantial impact or increase in the need for electricity, natural gas, water, sewage disposal, or storm water runoff? 7. Generate any demands that create the need for or cause a public facility or utility to approach, reach or exceed its capacity (i.e., sewer line, sewage plant, street, etc.)? Response to 2. - 7.: Importation of TASW to the Guadalupe disposal site does not represent an extension of services, nor would it affect the site life of the landfill. The project does not require new construction. The CoSwmp amendment would not affect growth, communication systems, or the need for public services, P. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. Will the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause 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 examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The project does not require new construction which would directly affect these resources. The treatment and handling of TASW and the regulations imposed by DHS and RWQCB included as part of the project would prevent significant impact to water quality which may in turn affect the quality of the environment. 2. Will the project have the potential to achieve short -term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of Cline, while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) The TASW is the unrecyclable residue from a recycling process. The recycling process reduces the need for landfill capacity, and may be considered of long -term environmental benefit. The alternative is to accept October 11, 1991 0 • GUADALUPE LANDFILL TASW COSWMP AMENDMENT -- INITIAL STUDY Page 12 unrecycled automobiles originating in Santa Clara County or locate a shredder in the County. The LMC shredder is located at the Port of Redwood City so that scrap metal can be shipped economically. The automobiles are brought to Redwood City from various automobile dismantlers and landfills in Santa Clara County; it is assumed that there is a need to haul the waste this distance either because of availability of the shredder or for economic reasons. Acceptance of unrecycled automobiles as waste at the landfill would be contrary to the CoSWMP goals of reducing the need for landfill capacity. 3. Will the project have environmental impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( „Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,. and the effects of probable future projects). The project would not significantly affect landfill capacity in Santa Clara County, and does not present environmental impacts which would be cumulatively significant. 4. Will the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The treatment, handling and regulation of auto shredder waste included in the project prevents substantial adverse effects on human beings. References California Department of Health Services. May 31, 1989. Letter from James T. Allen, Ph.D., Chief Alternative Technology Section Toxic Substances Control Division to Robert Lewon, President, LMC Metals regarding Treated Auto Shredder Waste Classification. ° California Regional Water Quality Control Board. July 17, 1989. Letter from Steven R. Ritchie, Executive Officer to Mr. Jim Zanardi, Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal Company regarding Treated Auto Shredder Waste. City of San Jose Office of Environmental Management. November 8, 1990. Memorandum from Michelle Yesney, Director to the Environment Committee regarding a Request by LMC Corporation to Continue Disposing of Out -of- County Waste at Guadalupe Landfill. Item 5 at Environment Committee meeting of November 14, 1990. City of San Jose. September 1988. Guadalupe Disposal Site Expansion Draft Environmental.Impact Report. PDC 87 -12 -100. LMC Metals. Undated. Sampling anc Testing Protocol Treated Auto Shredder. Waste. October 11, 1991 r GUADALUPE LANDFILL TASW COSWMP AMENDMENT -- INITIAL STUDY Page 13 Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development, Advance Planning. February 1988. Land Use Element, updated map. Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development Office of Toxics and Solid Waste Management. September 30, 1991. Memorandum from Michael Perry, Management Analyst to the Technical Advisory Committee regarding the Proposed CoSWMP Amendment: Importation of Auto Shredder Waste. Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development, Office of Toxics and Solid Waste Management, Solid Waste Program. May 1990. Solid Waste Management'Plan for Santa Clara County 1989 Plan Revision. October 11, 1991