HomeMy WebLinkAbout0234.091, '
\
16
April H, un
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alt.o, Calitornia
REVISIONS TO SAJfTA cr !8! count· S MZABOO[JS WASTE HANAGDmfT PLAH
Hembers or the council:
Report in Brief
This report provide.s infonlation ancJ solicits comments from Council
on proposed revisions to' the Santa Clara County Hazardous waste
Management Plan (referred to-as the Plan in this dOCWllent). Most
of the chanqea deal with Siting criteria. The revisions (lIsted in
attachlZlents B, C , D) address the specific items that the califor
nia Department of Health Services {OUS) criticized in their review
and subsequent disapprova.l of the Plan that was ISllbmitted: to DRS by
the county in August 1989.
Leqlslation PA •• ed in 1990 allowed counties to resubmit their plans
once .ore after responding to OKS criticisms. The City must submit
comments on the proposed revisions by April 24 to allow the county
to co.."lsider the ~e.nt& at a bear1f19 on the Plan by the Tanner
Advisory Committee .. The county vill :finalize the revisions, and
submit th .... to cities in the county for their final approval before
resubmitting the Plan to DRS by June 20, 1991.
BaclsqrQUnd
As required by AB 29~8 (Tanner) passed in 1986, santa Clara COu.~ty
prepared a Hazardous Waste Manaqement Plan (Plan) which was
sUbaitted to DHS in Auquat 1989 for approval. Previo~s CMRs have
qiven details about the history of the Plan preparation~ council
reviev of the Draft Plan (CHR:J39:8 dated July 11, 19S8), the Draft
EnvlrolUllental rwpact Report for th. Plan (CMR:377:8 dated JUly U,
1985), changes .ada to the Draft Plan (CKR:4S5:! dated September
15, 19S5)p Planning Co-.i •• ion and Council review and endorBe.ent
of the Plan (CHR:29C:9 dated June 1, 1989 and CKR:304:9 dated June
8), and Council approval of the City share of illlplementation
funding (CKR,122:D dated February I, 1990).
CKR:2J4:91
•
o
Legislatipn allowing a ResubmittAl of Tanner P1ang
In J~nuary 1590, ~~S disapproved the Plan sub~itted by the County
in A1.u:,ust 198i. Since OKS alao d.iaapprovad P!ans submitted :by most
other counties, the legislature passed AB 2595 (Tanner) effective
on September 19 • .1990 which established a procedure for resubDIlttal
of Tanner Plans that had been disapproved by OHS. The bill
specified that DRS providR a detailed description of its reasons
for disapproving the Pl~n at t-~e tJ.e of disappr~val, and allowed
a county to submit a revised Plan to DRS within 270 days o~ th~
bill' &: effective date or the date OKS disapproved the county' a
Plan, Whichever was l.ter~ Before resubmittal, the revised Plan
must be approved by the majority of the cities within the county
vhich contain a aajority of the population in the incorpor.ted arll').&
and the county. Any city fallinq to act upon a county's revised
plan within 90 days &ball be deemed to have approved the Plan. In
acklitioD, the me~sure requires each city vithin , county to
iaplement the Plan within 160 days after receiving written
notification that OKS has approved the Plan.
Purpose of the pan
Tbe purpose of legislation requ.iring approved County hazardous
waste management Plans was to assure that each cou~ty w~~ld approve
enough cOIDIercial hazardous waste mana.gement facility capacity
within its borders to handle all of the hazardous waste qen~rateQ
within that county, and that review ot proposals for loca.ting such
facilities was according to litinq criteria acceptable to the DRS.
If s county does not have an approved Plan, DRS will be abl* to
override local planning agency decisions denyinq applications to
site hazardous wasta management facilities in the county. If the
Plan Is approved, then the only time a rejected applicant could
appeal to DRS would be Wben the local pla.nninq aqency applied the
Plants Siting criteria inappropriately in refusinq to approve a
proposed facility. However, OHS guidelines for acceptable sitinq
criteria to be incorporated into the Plan 'Were difficult to
interpret and were desiqned to assure that the criteria would not
preclude the siting of adequate facilities.
PHS C:-iticip§
In 3anua.ry, 1991, DRS cited five areas in which changes are
necessary for Plan approval. These are 51pelled ~.t in detail in
Attachment A of this ~~nt. Briefly, they are:
(1) FAIR SHARE: DMS took ex~eption to wFair Share-lanquage
in tha Plan specifyinq that counties would agree to aite
com.mercial hazardo\Ois waste facilities only for hiqh
volume wastestreaas generated wi thin the t county. The.se
facilities would accept those types of wastes fro. other
CMR:234:91
p: \CIlr\ tanner
4/11/91
Paqe 2
•
counties, but the remainder of the County's wastestr6ams
could be shipped to other counties havinq appropriate
facilities. Therefore, facilities tor all types of
w.atestre.ama wO\:Ild not be needed in a given county.
However, oriCjinal DRS quiaelInea on preparing county
plans did not aCknoWledge this concept.
12) SrrING CRITERIA: Language defining siting criteria for
commercial hazardous waste facilities was not
satisfactory to DBS. Spdciflcally, DRS ouqgested that
changes ~ _de to the Plan which would lIake the siting
oriteria in the Plan 1 ••• specific and li.it the siting
chapter to .. descriptIon or the sitinq criteria and the
mapping process. DRS requested chanq~8 that would~
CIIR: 234: 91
• Clarity when .. risk assessment would be required;
• ProvIde tighter relatIonship to exilltinq qeneI:"al
plans;
• Clarify slope criteria;
• Allow low volume storage and transfer facilities to
locate in recreational, cultural, or a~sthetic
areas if necelsary to ha~le hazar~ous waste
generated by area residents, visitors, or workersi
• Allow aore
residuals
routes;
flexibility with regard to proximity of
r~posltories to major tr.nsporatlon
• Provide a better definition of earthquake fault
activity and aiting criteria in relation to taults;
• Allow siting faciliti.. in Class
aqricultural lands -if there is
public need-and in mineral araes;
I or Class II
an overridinq
• Better defin. drainage basins supplying: water to
recbarqe areaa, and provide a~itlonel reasons for
the prohibition of locatinq facilities near supply
wells and vell fields;
•
•
Add text to indicate that,
assess .. nt, a buffer zone may
feet;
based on a risk
be les_ than 2,000
Add p~ovi.iona ~cr .pill contalnaent and .onito~lng
and engineering design features tor tacilities
located on unstable soil; and
p: \CIIr\tannar
'/11191
Page 3
•
(l)
(4)
(5)
o
* Clarify what is .eant by Rusable surface waters·,
provide maps of sucb areas. and add provisions for
engineered design features.
DATA ANALYSIS: 'l'he plan data used tor projections and
other data analysIs should be internally consl.tent.
FACnJTY Nl':EDS A1fJ..LYSIS, Data used for the hcility
needs analysis should be internally consistent.
WASTE REDOCTXOH FACTORS: The source of waste reducticn
factors used in the Plan should be identified.
Of these five, only the first two .ho~ld be Of major concern to the
city. The last three deal mainly with internal con.istency and
completeness, and will not have a significant effect on the Planls
i~pact Gn the city.
CQuntyts Expected Responses to [air Share and Siting Criteria
Further explanation of tba County's expected response to the fair
share and siting criteria issues is found belovo
wair .~., With regard to Fair Share. County staff proposes to
add It policy statement that fair ahare language in Chapter 6 is
·only operative in conjunction with interjurisdictional
agreements.· This s;tatellent wall in the Contra costa county Plan
which was approved by DRS.
Tbe Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) bas beer-meetinq for
several .ontha to work out interjurisdicticm&l agreements And gain
DKS approval o~ sucb aqreementa. The ~ai~ sbare concept proposed
by ABAG is reasonable l and will potentially reduce the number of
facilities ~lti.ately needed in santa Clara County and in the Bay
Area. However, since the County is currently a ~ajor exporter of
hazardous waste, and has very :few hazardous waste management
faclli ties at this tille,. santa Clara County will be expected to
site facilities to band Ie. the &ajor portion of its qenerated
wastes. Ultimately, the fair 6ha~e concept ~ill allocate specific
wastes to counties that qenerate the most of that particular type
of va6te. Rowever l pressure to locate facilities in th4! county
will result in pressure for Palo Alto to allow such fAcilities to
locate here becaUSE there ar. major vaste qen~ator. in the City.
8it.illg' criteria r.vi.loll. 04 eftect... The sitinq criteria
revisions have the greatest potential tor impact on the City~ rhe
County'. Tanner staf:! have proposed revisions to the Plan to
address each issue identified by DRS. In making ~~eir reviSions,
Tanner staff intends to rewrite Chapter 8, omitting exclusionary,
inclusiDnary, and conditional cateqori&s from the Plan, and
suqqests that Cities add such criteria when they adopt le;islation
CI!R:234:U
p: ",mr\ tanner
i.
(/11/91
Page 4
•
., , .•.....
•
\
~-.---::.-
iapl .... nting the county Plan in their respective jurisdictions,
This will place a qreater burden on the City when ~valuatinq sitinq
proposals.
staff Assessment of Pt9P9,.d Bey~sion§ to siting exiteria
To belp council evaluate the proposed revisions to alti"9 criteria,
8taff has divided. the revi8Ions into t..'u-ee groups baaed on le-vel of
acce.ptance.. Each siting criterion descriptIon contains (1J the OKS
cri,ticisu of existing lanquage for that specific criterion,
(2) existing Plan language. (3) new language propo .. d by County
etaff, and (4J city staff comments and discussion ..
crltaria are qrouped toqether in Attachments A, B and c.
Attachment A contains proposed revisions to sitifl9 criteria tor
Risk Assessment; Watershed Areas; Recreational. CUltural and
Aesthetic; Proxi.ity to Major Transportation Routes; Pr1me
Agricultural Land; Mineral Resources Areas; and Surface Waters ..
Tbe revisions have little foreseeable impact on Palo Alto and ataff
f inCls th_ acceptable-.
AttaChr~t B contains criteria tor Faults , Supply Wells and Wall
Field., unstable SOils, General Plan Consist~ncy, and Slope. For
these criteria, city etaff has suggested some additional or
replacement .language to either provide clarification or ecldecJ
protections.
Council should note the possible illpacts of the General Plan
Consistency criteria on the City's zoni~ ordinance and
eo.prehensive Plan.. DRS is of the opinion that the l~l land use
authority's General Plan Bust be consistent with the county's
bazar40us waste :aanaq_ •. nt plan. The city's existing zoning
ordinance, which predates the Tanner legislation, prohibits
hazardous materials handlinq except as an ancillary use to a
primary activity, and aa such effectively prohibi'"c.s commercial
hazardous vaste manaqement facilities anywhere in Palo Alto, ~ven
as a conditional use. If the City IS Comprehensive Plan must
conform with the Tanner Plan even thouqh the zoninq ordinance
predated the Tanner legislation, then both the Comprehensive Plan
and tha zoni1l9 ordinance :may have to be changed to be consistent
with the county Plan.
Finally, Attachaent C contains ch~nges In the Bufter Zone
definitions and Risk AssesSlIIent for Public Facilities. '!'he revised
language for l>uffer ~anes appears to allow the possibility of
·r~sidua15 repositories· (i .. e., permanent landfills or long tar.
"torage tacil! ties) in Palo Al to based on the r •• ul ts of a
multi~edia risk assessaent. Existinq language required a minimum
2,OOO-foot buffer zone which ruled out all locations in Palo Alto
except a sliall portion in Stanford Research Park. Howe~er, areas
like Bayshcre Road and East Meadow would probably be still ruled
CHR:234:U
p: \ 1OIlr\ tanner
4/11/91
Paqe S
-"-"--"" --------, , ,
out ~caU.4 or unstable Boil characteristics and proximity to the
Bay that would require design, construction, operation and
aalntenance to provide environmental protection controls in the.
event of rapid geological chanqe. Such controls 1liiY not be
feasible. Another 6r.n. that 1i11qht be considered suitable tor
te.idual. repository woul~ be Stanford Research ~ark, but stanford
University as the landowner would be unlikely to allow such a use.
Because it appears that DftS will not accept the existing language,
staft approves the County'. revised language.
All attachments are based on copies of handouts troD the County'e
Tanner :-;.taff at the Karch 27 meetin<J of the Tanner Advisory
Committee, with City _taft comment. added.
~melina for Comment' ,nd Approval.
The deadline for Palo Alto's comments is April 24. The. Tan. • .,er
CODmlittee will hold II hearinq on that date, make final
recomaendations, and send the consolidated revi5ions to cities tor
Council action. Tbe deadline for Council approval of the final
changes ia June 17, 1991 t &nd DRS .ust receive the revised Plan by
June 20.
RECOMKENDATIONS
Staff recommends to the City C~cil;
1.. Adoption of the Countyl. suqqested revisions to the sitinq
criteria found in Attachment A (Risk Assessment; Watershed
Areaa: ~ecreational, CUltural, and Aesthetic; Proxi.ity to
Major Transportation Routes; Prime Agricultural Land; Kineral
Resource Areas; and surface waters) and Attachment C (Bufter
Zones and Risk Assessment for Public Facilities).
2. Revision of the siting criteria language in Attachme.nt B
(Faults t Supply Wells and Well Fields, Unstable Soils, General
Plan Consistency, and Slope] with the City statf'. suqqested
lanquaqe (or other lanquaqe acceptatlle to the Council) as
provi~ed under the comaents tor each criteria.
~ll~tted.
DORIS KAEZ
Environaental Protection
Coordi tor
0!R:234:91
p:\ClIIr\tanner
'fit::d I! PCd'fy
KENNETH R. SCHREI BER
Director of Planning and
community Environment
-,~-~-------------.
4/11/91
Paqe 6
cc: city of East palo Alto
city at Loa Altos Hilla
city of Loa Altoa
City Of Menlo P .... k
City of Mountain View
COunty of Santa Clara Tanner Stat-f
Planning ca.ai •• ion
Stanfor~ University (Andy Doty. Zero MUrphy)
Barron Park ~.oci.tion
Colleqe Terrace Realdenta Asaociatlon
CIIR:234:91
p'\ClBr\tlUlller
4JU/91
Page '7
•
,<~\
~-.;!
WACtf!OO "
l. Rhk Au.sslOOnt
2. ".t.,..,hO<l Ar.n
l. Recreational, (altu.al >r.d Aesthetic
4. Pr.Xl8ity to ~Ajor Transportation Routes
S. PriMe Ag,..levltur.l l.o~
e. "ine,..a1 A.source Arels
7. Surface Waters
Staff teC~nds the revision, prop~sed by CO.nt1 st.ff for the •• criteria.
. ,
PHS critici •• on Risk A.a.aament:
Clarify ""'en a Rbk bun.ant "'ill be required. current policy
calls tor an &sse .... nt regardless of the type of facility or the
types of ",a.te to be tre.ted or handled. (p. 8-4,7)
RISK ASSESSMENT
Ex!Stfng:
A risk assessment shan be conducted for inclusion in the EIR at the lime a
site-specific proposal fer a hazardous waste facility is submitted to a
local juriscfortion. This assessment should identify health, sarely and
envlronmenta! facton; that may be unique to the site as wen as to the
types of waste to be managed. (Page II -", 7)
Alternatjve :
A multi-med1a risk assessment shall be conducted for inclusion in an EIR
If the local jurisdiction determines lIlat a risk assessment is required. In
making this determination, 1M local Jurisdiction shan consider risks for
comparable Iypes of Industrial operations, studies thaI may be required 0 r
concklctecl by other local, regional, state. O!" feeleral permitting agencies.
and the need to protect pubiie health, safety, and welfare.
ralD Alto Staff Comment on Bigk AIg'Bsmgnt Rfvision:
This revision authorizes Palo Alto (as the local permittinq agency)
to require a aultimedia risk assessment as part of an ErR for Any
hazardous waste facility approval process in palo Alto. Since Palo
Alto Municipal Code Title 17 requires a storage perait tor
hazardous materials above certain thresholds. any hazardous vBate
facUity located in Palo Alto would require a storage perait. The
Fire Chief or Planning Director lIi!.y require an Environmental Impact
Report for any project that is deUled to have potential Significant
environmental impact. Therefore this revision is helpful to Palo
Alto. and support" our existing procedures. Staff supports the
revision.
A·I
•
l _
o
PHS Criticism on WAtershed Aren,;
Request aMitional intoraation and maps from sa.nta Clara valley
water District to identify drainage basins oupplyilKJ water to major
recharge areas.
(p. 8-14,21)
WATERSHED AREAS
Exi$tjng~
Residuals Repositories shall not be located in watershed areas tributary
to any reservoirs as wen as those drainage basins supplying waler to
major recharge areas. (Page 8 • 14J and,
Transfer, treatment or incineration facilities should avoid Iocaling in
watersl\eO areas. unless property engineered containment features.
inspection measures IlJ1d o!/1er environmental protection controls are
provided as necessary. (Page e . 21)
Al1ern'UYI;
Residuals Repositories shall not be located In walershed areas triOutary
to any reservoirs as wen as In those d<ainage basins supplying water to
major recharge areas.
Storage. tra.~sf'lr, treat men! or incineration facilities should avoid
locating in watershed areas tributary to any reservoirs as wen as in 1I10se
drainage basins supplying water to major recharge areas. Facilities
locating in such areas shan have engineered containment features.
Inspection measures and other environmental protection controls as
determined necessary by 1I1e local jurisdiction and permitting authormes.
NOTE: The Santa Clara Vaney Water District win be requested to provide
maps 01 Ihesa watershed areas lor inciusion in the CHWM P.
PAlo Alto COmment on 'atershed Areal;
The alternative language is more protective of drainage bas~n,s
~upplying water to major recharqe area5 1 and i. supported by C1ty
staft The santa Clara Valley water Distlct ~haa a Geoqraphic
lnfo~tlon SystBB (GIS) as part of their Wellhead Protection
Prograa that vill be available as a qeneral reference for
identifYing .uch areas.
1.-2
•
:..-;..,._, ---
pHS eritic;ism on BecNllat<CODal. Cultural. ond Aesthetic;:
Clari:fy that low-volu.ae atoraqe and transfer faeilitle. may be
allowed ir they are necessary to handle hazardous waste qenerated
by visitors, vorkera~ or residents of thase areas. (p. 8-13, 20)
RECREAnONAL, CULTURAL, AND AESTHETIC
ExlMing:
All hazardous waste management facilities shall not be located in areas
having particular cultural, aesthetic, hisrorical, or archaeological
significance as identified in the applicable General Plan or in any Regional
or State Plan. No hazanfous waste facility may be located within a
National, State, RegilN1al, County, or City Pat!<, Monument. National
rec:uation area, Wildrrfe Refuge, or other designatecl open space identified
in one or an of lhese Plans. (Page 8 • 13, 20)
Alternatiye:
Residuals repc!sitories shan not be located in areas having particu lar
cultural, aesthetic, historical, or archaeologieal signifICance 115 identified
in the applicable General Plan or in any Regional or State Plan. low
volume Transfer and Storage Facilities may be anowed within these areas
or within other designated open space iden!ffled in one or an of these
Plans if necessary fD handle hazardous waste generated by visitors,
workers, or residents.
Palo Alto Stoff Cpmment on Recrtotional. CUltural. And Aesthetic:
The existinq language prohibit" sitirn; any !eind ot hazardous waste
management facilities in the ic1er,tified. areas~ However, the
alternative lanquaqe will allow low-voluae transfer and storage
facilities to exist wben the need exists to store or transter
hazardous waste.s that are qenerated within the cSesiqnated area ..
"!'hi. criteria Is .oat applicable to areas such. as torests or
wilderness areas where .inill9, cOlllDercial, tourist services or
other si.lIar activities are allowed Which could generate hazardous·
vaste.. This section i. not likely to bave Ilny impact on Palo Alto,.
lE.ince activities that generate hazardous waste are unlikely in
areas ot Palo Alto that are of recreational, cultural, or aesthetic
liqnitieance, and if such activities did exist, the quantities
qenarated Would be of insufficient quantity to justify l~-ating ..
transfer or storage facility.
A·]
... . -
PHS criticism on FrpxjwSty tp Transportation BQut.B~
AcId lanquaq8-that sottens absolute requirement that residuals.
repositaries -shall be located on .ajor p&ve~ roads-to indicate
that they .ay be locate~ in close proximity or near major roads.
(p. 8-12, 19}
PROXIMITY TO MAJOR TRANSPORTATION ROUTES
ExiSting:
All hazardous waste management facilities shall be located on major
paved roads designed and constructed to aooommodate heavy vehicles,
with good access to divided highways or freeways. All Designated routes
should preclude the transport of hazardous waSls on residential streets
and In areas hoUSing ImmCIbffe populations. (Page 8 -12, 1 9)
Alternatjv.:
To the maximum extent possible, a" hazardous waste management
facilities shall be located In close proxim iIy to major paved roads
designed and construcl8d to aa:ommodat8 heavy vehicles, with good
access 10 cflllided highways or fr8eWllYs. All Designated routes should
preclude the transport of hazardous wa5le on residential streets and in
areas housing Immobile PQpl.!1ations.
Palo Alto Staff Comment on proximity to Transportation Routes:
This revision allows a greater degree of flexibility in locating
approximate sites to!: hazardous W&ste manaqement facilities -in
cloSI;: proxiaity to· rather than ·on-major paved roads designed and
constructed to accomaodate. heavy vehicles. Since the revision
retains the preclusion of hazardous v&ste transport on residential
streets and in area. housing illmlobile populations whil'!! still
allowing tor qreater flexibility in relation to transporta.tion
corridors. this seems to be a reasonable chanqe without foreseeable
negative impact on Palo Alto.
~-4
•
·)t.
pHS Gritiwi'. on primo Agricultural taud:
Add languaqe to indicate that facilities may be located in Class I
or CIa •• rr 80i18 -it there i& an overriding public need~· (p~ e-
12. 20)
PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND
Exl3tlng:
Hazardous waste management facllities shan not be !oc;ated on prime
agricultllral lands whJch are llsed for prime agricultural crop prodootion.
$pecificel1y, no facility may be located in areas designated by the So~
Conservation Service as Class I or Class 2 soils or designated as prime
agricultural land In the apprlCllble Genera! Plan or in any Regional or State
P1aI1. (Page 8 -13, 20)
Alt.T n aliv.:
HazaIdous waste menagement facilities should not be located or. prime
agricultural lands, specifically areas designated by the SoU Conservalion
$ero.ice as Class I or Class 2 soils or designated as prime agricultural
land in the applicable Ganeral Plan or in any Regional or State Plan.
Facilities locating In sue/! areas shall be allowed only If thfi local
juriscflClion makes a fincfing that an overriding public need js served by
allowing the facility 10 be located on the proposed site.
palo Alto staff COzmAnt on Prime AgriculturAl LAnd:
There are rela~ively few undeveloped Ar9aa in Palo Alto that are
classified as agricultural lands. Molt such areas are .ither in
the open apace district in parks I or are protected from develop
.ent under the williUlSC:n Act~ Therefore this revision is unlikely
to have an impact on Palo Alto~
A-5
,---.------~~---.
•
\
/
o o
pHS criticism on Miner.l At ... :
Suqq:est sentence be restructured to clarify intent of criteria.
(po 8-13. 20)
MINERAl. RESOURCE AREAS
Ex1ating:
No hazardOus waste management facility ITIII)I be located in areas
(lOIllaining mineral resource deposita that may be suitable for commercial
development or hold outstanding scientific significance. as identified
under the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 with
classifications of MRZ-2. MRZ-3 or SZ such that the-siting would res1r1ct
or prevent the use or pre_lion of lhe deposit. (Page 8 -13. 20}
MeroatiV': Haurdous waste management facilities shan not be site'
8S to preclude extraction of mineral resource deposits that may be
silitable for commarc;jal development or hold outstanding seientif'
significance. Facilities shall be carefully planned so as not to r
restrict the preservation or use of mineral deposits in are8S i..
under the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 ..
classifications of MRZ-2, MRZ-3 or SZ •
PAle Alto staff Comment on Mineral Resource ArRAS:
This criteria has no applicability in Palo Alto, and is therefore
not of concern.
.'
-.-
pHS exitlcita 9" Surtace Water.:
Clarify the tar. -.urtace water.-and define what 1. seant by
.usable-eurfac. watar. (i.e., for pctable or recreational use).
Provide .vailable m.&,i)S of thaae areas. Add provisions tor
enqineerlnq deaiqn features. (p. 8-16, 231
SURFACE WATERS
ExiJtlng: Residuals repositories should not be located in areas posing a
threat 10 the conlarnination of usable surface water suppnes. Additional
containment measures for facilities may be necessary to minimize any
risks to surface watera. (Page 8 -16)
Transfer, treatment, or incineration facilities should not be Ioeatad in
areas posing a threat to the conlarnination Qf usable surface water
s uppr_. Facillties locating in such areas shaN provide additional
containment measures 10 minimize risk to surface waters. (Page B • 23}
NOTE' The SCVWO will define the term ·usable surface water", provide
available maps of areas containing usable surlece water, and provide
adclltional suggestions for the environmental protection of usable surface
water.
Palo Alto Stlft C9TPent 90 Surface Waters:
~~e 5Ugqested revision merely clarifies that the santa Clara Valley
water District vill provide information to be us~d to determine
·usable surrace water-and adequate environmental protection
measures. Staff supports this revision.
"",'------_._,---,
•
AIDCINNT I
). Faults
2. Supply ~.ll. Ind Well Fjel~s
3. Unstable Soil.
4. Generll Plan Consistency
5. Slope
Staff recooeends ["rther revlsfons to t~. llnguage proposed for these
cr.ftel:,!~.",..,!!l. b County staff. Added language or suggested changes ore Ii~;~ and deletions ore st,.ok ".t.
•
.--------.:
DRS Critigism on [ault.~
Chanqe text from ·potentially active-to ~recently actlve~· (p. B
ll, 19)
FAULTS
Existing:
An h.uardous waste management facilities shan not be located within
200 feel of aft aative or potentiafly active eanhquake fault. SpecifICally,
no faults which have had displacement within Holooena time may pass
within 200 feet of th!!se portions of !he facility where hazardous waste
is stored, transfaned, treated, rncinerated or disposed.
(Page 8 -12, 19j
Alternatly.;
Any portion of a hazardous waste management facility where hazardous
waste is stored, transferred, treated, Incinerated or disposed shall no! be
located within 200 feet of an active or recenlly active (Holooene Per'oOd)
earthquake fault as estabrlShed by the Alquist-Priolo maps of the Slate of
California or identified in the most recently available local maps or
information.
Palo altp starf COmment 00 FAults:
During' the review of the draft Plan" Palo Alto pointed out the
existence of ·stanford Fault.-in the Stanford Research Park area
(CMR,)04'9). These faults are identified on Map 1-1257F [prepared
by the United states Geological Survey (USGS») of San Mateo County
earthqUake fault. which also includes a small portion of Santa
Clara county on which the Stanford faults are shown~ However, the
scale of the map (1:24,000) that shows these faults is difficult to
translate to ill Palo Alto lIIap shovinq streets, since streets in
santa Clara County are not included on the CSGS .ap. The prcposea
lanquage prohibits location of a hazard~us waste management
facility within 200 feet of .n active or recently active earthquake
f~ult aa establi&h~d by the Alquist-Priolo maps of the State of
california or identiried in the most re~nt"ly available local Maps
or Lnror.mation (emphaSis added).
It is possible that studies of damage froll th.. La.... Prieta
earthquake and ~oundwater inve.stigations will result in ill elearer
ii~r:m;~~lc~i:!,{. :~':,.~~~~~~~~~lt~r~~,..~ '~~""",cir·j.""'~"<"= ... :u,.".t'lt.cI.4it~onal' eol'''''1ic inv .... t19.tlQD ,:",.'S'hA~,~E',!"~!:~", .• ,."I!"'"';~<'o~':':·iil~~'::::j'"""".",.~,,,', .• ',. ' .. ",,,.,, .. ;\,,,,.'.J,, '''oj. '.".<"':' ... ,,, . ,.;,.'., ... ",i"" __ , ... :."",, "0"',
B-1
"',
o
pHS exiticism on Supply Wells And Well fi&lds:
Provide acSditional reasons for this criteria. Cp. 8-15 .. 22)
SUPPLY WELLS AND WELL RELOS
ExiSling"
Residuals repositories shan not be located within Ihe cone of depressic,"
craat9d by pumping a weH or wen field for 90 days.
(Page 8 -15) and,
Transfer, trealmant, or incineration facilities should avoid locating
within the cone of depre~n created by pumping a weD or welJ field for
90 days unless an affective hyclrogeolog ical barrie r to vertical flow
exists. (Page 8 -22)
Altern@tiv e :
Residuals reposilories--ok as is.
Storage, transfer, treatment, or incineration facilities should avoid
locating within the cone of depression created by pumping a wen or wen
f181d for 90 days unless an affective hydrogeological barrier to vertical
flow exists.
NOTE: The Santa Clara Vaney Water District (SCVWD) wJ1l be requested 10
provide additional justifICation lor this criteria and to provide any maps
i)r additional information that may assist in clarifying this requirement
The SCVWD will specify whelher the size or shape of the cone of
depression is affected by drought yaar con<frtions.
Palo Alto Staff 'oRIent on Supply Wells 'nd Well fields:
~~:~~~t':~~ .. \i:::iC:nf! ~a;e~;1:,ffl!i~tJ~~!·~m~~~~t
aany wells for investiqation l .onitorinq and cleanup/extraction
purposes that create cones of dl!pression.. Otherwise" this lanquaqe
could be interpreted to preclUde the aiUnq of facilities in
locations containing groundwater cleanup/investiqation wells Which
are otherwise suitable.
S-3
-"c--------~--
PHS eritiei§m on Unstable Soils:
Add provisions tor engineered design teatures and provisions tor
spill containment and .onitorinq for all other facilities. (p. 8-
14, 22)
UNSTABLE SOILS
Exjsting:
Transfer, treatment, or incineration facilities should avoid locating in
areas of potential rapid geolCY,lic change, such as 1ancfsrode, son creep,
earth flow, other mass movement of earth material, subsidence or
Uquefaction. (Page 8 -22)
Altematly.·
Storage, transfer, treatment. or incineration facilities should avoid
locating in areas of potential rapid geologic Change, such as landsrrde, soJl
creep, earth flow, other mass movement of earth malerial, subsidence arr<!
rlquefaction. Faciliti.s locating In such areas shan be designad,
oonstruclad, operalad and maintained 10 provide environmental protection
controls in the avent of rapid Geologic changa.
PlIo A'to Staff Comment on Unst§ble soils:
The revised language adds a.toraqe facilitie.s to the list of
facilities that should not be located on unstable 80118# and Adds
rc.quir8llllents for adequate desir:;rn, const!'Uction# opera.tion., and
maintenance for facilities locatinq In such areas. Because the
Palo Alto area contains larqe areas of unstable soil 1
alldfl .. ts, till) suf
the
and short term rioks of locating such facilities in
soils, and to be able to require extraordinary .itigationa
to prevent disaster it en earthquake, landslide, sUbsidence # or
liquefaction should occur.
8-4
"'-.. ..
.-
o
PHS critici,. on General Plan cpnli,t.ney:
Clari~y how an applicant can aeek approval tor a facility _ite not
currently on the siting .... p Wbich app.oro to .... t all oiting
criteria. (This applies primarily to proposals for a residuals
repository .ince no qeneral are •• are d •• lqnated for the •• t.ypes ot
facilities.) (p 8-5)
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Existing:
In order for the local land use authority to approve the land usa permit, it
must find that tha project is consistent with the permitting juriS<foctions
General Plan and zani ng in effect at the Ii me of apprlCation and with the
County's Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Compnance with the CHWMP
Siting criteria is a necessary condition for project approval. The granting
of a permit represents a discretionary decision reflecting thl! judgement
of the permitting jurisdIction. The appropriate jurisdIction may also
impose rea5OMble, additional requirements as conditIons for approval of
the propos'KI project. (Page 8 -6) .
Alternative:
In order for the local land usa authority to approve the land use permit, it
must find that the project is consistent with the permitting jurisdictions
General Plan and zoning in effect at the time of approcation and with the
County's Hazardous Waste Management Plan (CHWMP). The Siting Map
de,,\loped for the CHWMP denneates general areas that appear to meet the
siting crit'3ria and appear 10 be consistent with the General Plan.
Compnance with the CHWMP siting criteria is a necessary condition for
project approval. Should an approcant desire to site a facility in an area
not currently identified on the Siting Map as an area that appears to meet
the siting criteria for hazardous waste management facilities, the
appficanl may seek a General Plan amendment through the local
jurisdiction. Upon revision to the local General Plan, the subject change
must be incorporated into the Siting Map of the CHWMP. The proposed
change to the CHWMP must first be approved by a majority of !he cities
with a majority of the population within the unincorporated portion of the
county, by the Board of Supervisors, and Ii nany by th e State Department
of Health Sa rvlces.
8-S
"'.'.
,
t
I
t • 'I
"
----... -'-.-~ .. ---'-
Palo Alto staft e9~eDt on General Plan Consistenoy:
The last two sentences of the county's suggested alternative
Illnguaqe are sOllewhat Ulbiquous since it ia implied that the
chanqes would be made to the CHWMP'a Siting Map before the amended
CHWKP waa. approved:. Also, there is a typoqraphical error.
-Unincorporated-should read D~~~,~ ••
City staff 6~9gest~ the following wording: • ... Siting Map ot the
CHWHP. The ~~lt!~ ,1'8,'8e4 cbanqe to the CHWMP must be approved
by a majorftJi," o{'''tll" cities with .. IUljority of the population
vitllin the ,~:~~ portion ot the county ••• "
D!PACT OF THIS CRITERION: TIlere 10 a bade dilemma for-the city in
this criterion description~ Areas desiqnated on the Siting Hap as
suit~ble tor hazardous waste .anag-ement: 'facilities in Palo Alto
would be basee! on criteria in the Plan and. the City'. existing
General (Comprehensive) Plan~ CBS takes the view that a local
aqency'. General (Comprehensive) Plan .ust be consistent wi~~ the
County Hazardous waste Manaqement Plan {CHWMP). The City's existing
Comprehensi¥e Plan haa no specific language addressinq hazardous
materials, but such lanquage will be added during the next revision
ot the comprehensive Plan. however, the Clty'& zoninq ordinance
(Yblch was passed long before the stat8-leqislation requirirl9 a
CBWMP) prohibits hazardous .aterial. handling except as an
ancillary use to the primary activity. Since that necessarily
precludes the siting of • c~ercial hazardous waste IUl~qement
facility as a primary activity anywhere in Palo Alto, some
amendment of both the zoning ordlnanca and the City's Comprehensive
Flan will be necessary for conSistency with the CHWMP.
It is unclear whether DRS has the authority to require the
Comprehensiv!!! Plan (and therefore the zoning ordinance)
consistent with the CHWMP. County staff advises that III leqal
~ay be necessary to resolve this issue.
City'.
to be
ruling
Under the proposed revision of the CHWMP, it appears that tuture
changes 1n the Ceneral Plan which would affect the Sitinq Map would
have to be approved by the aajority of cities with the majority ot
population in incorporated areas and by DRS as an amendment to the
Plan. While this revi810n would hampar a .ite applicant'. ability
to site a facility in are •• not 80 designated on the Siting Map, it
may be that any changes initiated by the lccal jurisdiction Would
be. subject to the saae restriction. To avoid this problem, county
staff suqqested that an ..... nc:blent be included in the ~oning
ordina!iCe requirinq, in approprlatll zone!!, a CondItional Ose Perwit
tor any commercial haz«rdoua va.te .anaqement facility. However I
iRS mentioned above, tbat 'Would require chang inc; the zoning
ordinance.. Therefore t to be consistent with the CHWMP, ataff
recommends that both a zoning ordinance and Comprehenaive Plan
amendlllent be .ade at the the the CI!W!!P is adopted by the city.
8-6
.'
• I •
-,.;.--
o
PHS Criticism on Slope:
Provide aciditional inforaation to. clarify that the 15\ slope
criteria applies to all parts of the county, including clti~s that
have areas with greater than 15' .lope. (p. 8-15, 21)
SLOPE
EXi§tiag,;
All hazardous waste management facilities shall not be located in areas
where slO!l8 exceeds 15%. (Page 8 -14, 21}
A!ternatiye:
NOTE: This siting criteria will require additional information from the
cities. All cities with areas wh i<:h exceed 15% slope shan i!1(/"ocate in
writing that an industrial activities simnar In nature 10 hazardous waste
management facilities are prohibited in these areas.
Palo Alto Staff Cqmment on Slope:
This si~in9 criteria would raquire additional information from the
city. currently, Palo Alto zoning ordinan~es prohibit inductri&l
activities similar in nature to hazardous waste mana~ement
facilities in residential, open space, and commercial zones
reqardless o£ slope, but permit such activities &e ancillary uses
in other zones~ some &reaB of Stanford Research Park where
hazardous waste aana9ement is an ancillary us-a: to the primary
4ctivity may exceed a slope of 15'. However, a site with a total
slope of 15t can have sIte development features that mitigate the
impact of this .l~. These factors may involve ractor& Buch as
the configuration of the building, location of th buildin9 on the
aite, and slope of the drivway versus slope of the entire site.
Staff reco.mends aodification of "the County staft wording to
provide for consideration of factors that reduce the impacts of a
relatively steep slope~ The City yould have to provide a suitable
explanation as to wby such us~s are allowed as anclliary, but not
priDary, uses where the slope exceeda 15t. It is recommended that
the last sentences be .odified to -All cities with areas 'Which
exceed 15' .. lope "hall indicate in Vl"iting that all industrial
activities similar in nature to hazardous "w~~:~e 'lu:S':I189ement
~'~1!i~~!i.~~t;J.~ •..... ~r~i~~k\'~'~:'::~:it:~'ii"jl.~l:'" ..•. ~.!.t.!~I"':":.~!~ s!""O"",,,,,,,",,',;;-i;~!t:,",",:~;[,.JE!(,,.m'i':; . <, ... ,,_>00," ',,: .1':.;.,.!:.,., .. _'-' _____ ,., ... ,. ' .. '. , .. ', ,~ __ -,
&-1
..
i '-
•
I. Auffer l~ne. (PTOxi •• te and l~bjl. Popul.tions)
1. Ris' A'$~s~~~t [Public facilities)
The proposed 1.ng.~ge for ~~ffer lantl could h ••• potentl.l l~~cts Oh
P~10 Alto, H~Y~r. bftauic CHS r,jecttd '~isti.9 Pl.n lan9ulgt t~.t
l •• jd~¢ tho •• l~att$. 'tiff r.cQ~nd$ .4.ptlon af the Count] st.ff'; propc •• d lang.'it.
pHS crittcism on Buffer Zpne,:
Add text to indicate that, baaed on a risk assess»ent, a buffer
.zone .ay be less than 2,000 teet. (p. 8-1S, 22)
BUFFER ZONES
PROXIMATE PClPU.ATlON
Existing:
A minimum 2,000 foot buffer should be !!fovided between residuals
r$pOsitories and an existing residence or any area where residential uses
would be allowed under the apprlC8ble Gen era! Plan. Based on the risk
assessment and analy~is of environmental impacts, a buffer zone of
greater than 2,000 feet may be required In a particular location.
(Page 8 -15) and, -_.
A minimum buffer zooe of 2,000 feet will be required between a transfer,
treatment or illcineration facility and !he nearest permanent residence or
area designated or zoned for residential use, whichever Is closer, unless
it can be demonstrated that a smaner buffer zone provides adequate
protection ~r the pubrlC in the event of an accident (Page 8 -22)
Alternatjy':
A minimum buffer zone of 2,000 feet should be PfDvided between any
hazardous waste management facility and any existing or planned
residsnca, immobile population, or public .facllity. Based on the risk
assessment and analysiS of environmental impacts performed at the time
of the proposal, a buffer zone greater O!' less than 2,000 feet may be
required to protect the !!fesent and Mure pubrlC health, safety, or
welfare.
See attached section of Health and Safety Code relative to buffer zones,
especially Section 25202.5 (c). (1989 Codes)
Guidelines suggest a risk assessment be conducted when permitting all
hazardous waste management facilities. See attached from 'Guidelines
lor the Preparation of HazarlIous Waste Management Plans' (June 30,
1987, Slate Department of Health Services).
HOTE: The Committee may want to combine the siting criteria for
Proximate Population, Immobile Population and Public facilities since
!hay address similar concems and have similar requirements.
Col
•
------_ •• _._-....
EXisting'
-n v
BUFFER ZONES
A minimum 2000 foot buffer zone should be provided betwesn residuals
repositories and facilities housing imrnob~e populations. Based on the
risk assessmenC and analysis of environmental impacts, a buffer zone of
greater than 2000 feet -may be required in a partictJlar location.
(Page 8 -16) -
A minimum buffer zone of 2,000 feet between a storage, transfer,
treatment or Incineration facility and facilities hOllsing immobile
populations will be required, unless it can be demonslnlted that a sinaner
bulfer zone provides adequate protection for the immobile popu latlon in
the event of an aocidenl (Page 8 -23)
Alt.rnatiy'·
See Alternative for SUFFER ZONES, Proximate Population
C-2
•
-,
-.
/' --
j
RISK ASSESSMENTS
PUBUC FACILITIES
Exis tiM "
Potential impacts which could occur due to lIle proximity of a residuals
repositories t:I pubnc facilities shan be determined as part 01 the risk
assessment (Page 8 -t 6, 23}
NOTE: Criteria on page 8 -23 should reler to transfer, storage,
treatment, and ir.c:ineration facilities.
Alternatjye:
See Alternative for BUFFER ZONES, Proximate Population
C-3
•
-_\..._----~-,.-'-.--.. --~--'---.
CPMnnt on Buttar ZODes.; (proxil!!atc end Immobile population' ,
Public Facilltlo§)
city _tatt support. the Tanner etaf! reccmmen4ation to combine the
siting criteria for ProxiBate Population, Immobile Population 6 and
PUblie Pae!litlea.
council should be aware that the existing Plan lanq\.1aqe rejected by
OMS elillinates the possibility ot a resic:luals repository being
located in Palo Alto, aince there are no locations in Palo Alto
meeting the criteria that are more than 2,000 fest trom a
residence .. Existing lanquage also requires a miniJlWll ot 26000 feet
betvean tyanster 6 treat.ent or incineration facilities and
reaidence.s unle •• it can be demonstrated that a slIaller butfer zone
provides adequate protection. This revision could .alte it poliI&ible
to sita tacilities in Palo Alto that were not ollowable under the
current Plan varsion since the revision allows all types or
hazardoUs vaate aanag&Jlllent facilities, including residuals
repoaitories, to be located less than 2,000 teet trom residence.6
immcbile populations, or public facilities .beD • rl.t ........ at
and en'ViroaaeDtal bpact aMl!'a1. .ateraln •• t.h.t. •• bUrr-.r _ODe
of eitber le •• t~.D or .ore tbaa 2000 r •• t 1_ a4.quate. However.
the CEQA review process that is part ot any hazardous material.
permit in Palo Alu. b,elUc:les public bearings anc:l appeals to the
council. coupled with the risk assessment requirement, should be
eIlle to provide ac:lequate public input an<! protection.
Failure to adopt could result in another OKS rejection of the Plan
and allow OBS to deteraine suitable locations for hazardous vaste
manage.ent facilities in Santa Clara county without county or City
power of veto. To avoid auch a rejection6 staft concurs with the
County staff's recommended lanquag.~
c-e
•
\