HomeMy WebLinkAbout0373.091-
~, "
.. 'C"
,; 1 : •• ,
July Ie, 1991
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alta, Californl.
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL Cf REYISED SANTA CLARA COUNTY
HAZARDOUS WASTE HANA.EMENT PLAN
Member, of the Council:
Report in Brief
This report requests that Council adept I resolution approving the Revised
County Hazardous Waste Manag£ment Plan (CHWMP}. The CHWMP was revised to
address the specific item, that the State Department of Health Service, [DHS)
criticized in their disapproval of the Plan that was SUbmitted by the County
in August 1989. Revfsicns ~erf made t~ incl~de the requirement for cities to
have a ~alardous waste management plan, to reflect the -fair share-policy
regarding inter jurisdictional agreements. to significantly revise the siting
cr1terii, provide additional risk assessment criteria, and to clarify the role
of the lOCil Assessment Committee in the process of deciding when i risk
assessment is needed. Modifications to the CHWMP ire contained in the
attached July 3, 1991 ~emorandum from Santa Clara County. The CHWMP was
distributed f~ the June 23, 1988 Council packet, and a copy is available f~r
review in the City's Planning Oepartment.
The County Board of Super~i$crs has requested each Sa~ti Clara County city to
review and appro~e tne Revised C~ by August 15, 1991. final Board action
on the CHWMP i1 scheduled f~r August 20.
Background
The County prepared 0 C~ and submitted it to DHS in August 1989 for
approval, is required by AS 2948 [Tanner, 1986). DHS disapproved the Plan,
but wos required by AB 2595 (Tanner, 1990) to olIo. the County to resubmit its
revised Plan by June 20, 1991 which incorporates reVisions responding to DHS
criticisms. DHS rejected the Santa Clara Co~nty's original Plan (and the
plans of most counties) because of the inclusion of -fair share-language
providing that the County could not be required to accept facilities with a
capacity to treat more waste than was generated in the County. During the
revision process, Assemblywoman lannir and the County Supervisors~ Association
agreed on compromise -fair share-language. Because of the length of time it
CMR:l73:91
•
. -;,'
-
'.
.-.
t'lQk. tfl reach conStfl.SUS., OHS has a.greed' to allow Santa. (1 ira. County to submit
Its pi,. after the Jun. 20 deadline.
The Bevis1QD process
The schedule for the Pl an resubmittal is attached. Ccuncil rev1ewwad the
proposed siting criteria revisions (CHR:234:91) .t its April 15, 1991 meeting
i.l'~d dire-cted staff to suhmit the a.ttached letter to the (o'Jr'\tj tonta.;;nin9 ttle
Council c~nt5. Cou~ty staff then incorporatEd input frc~ three cities
(Morgan Hi 11, Palo Alto, and Sunny~a1e) and wording from the Tanner Ad .... isory
Committee's April 24 meeting, and submitted the consensus language for the
Comittee's apprQ"I'a1 ~ The Tanr.er Ad\J\sory Conwnitte-e approved thE consensu~
l.ngu.ge at its Hay 24 meeting. On July 2, 1991. the Board of Supervi.ors
approved tne NegatiYe DecTaratior, on the proposed CHWHP revisions. Each city
is req~ested tD approve the revised CHWMP prpvisions by resolution by August
15. 1991. Th~ revised CHWMP must be approved by • majority of the eities with
• majority of t~e population within the incorporated portions of the County,
Assuming enough cities "'ave approved the CHWMP , tne B<:Iard of Superwisors is
seheduled to approved the CHWHP on August 20. 1991. Then the Pl.n will be
subzltted to the State D.part~nt of Health Servites for approval. DHS has
until March 30. 1~92 to approve the Pl.n.
Pla.n Bevjsjtms.
Significant changes wore made to Chapt", I, 6, 8 ar,d Appendix VIII·C. Th.
significant text changes and the July 3, 1991 •• morandu. tr.nsmittlng the
changes are ~ttached tQ this report. thlpt~r 1 no~ inciudes information on SS
471 (Gr •• ne) which requires the City, within ISO days of DHS approv.l of the
CHWHP, to either I~opt a city hazardous waste managem!nt plan, ir.c~rporate t~e
CHWMP into the city's generil plan, or enact an ordinance reQu~rin9 that land
use deci5ions be ~ons~stent with th~ specified portion of the CHWMP. Chapter
6 was revised to include -fair s~are· language. Chapter a includes re~is;ons
to sixteen siting criteria, and App~ndix VIII~C was revised to conform ~ith
changes to the siting criteria.
imuacts of the Revised P1an on the City
S8 1,77, referenced in Chapter 1, a1so InO\l/S cities to enforce more stringent
requirement~ than t~ose in the CHWMP, if ileC~S$~ry, ~to reflect geologic,
biologic, eeonamic, ind other charact~ristic:s whjc~ may be unique to tne
jurisdiet1~n,· i provision that gives the City some power to enforce more
stringent requirements than those in tne CHWMP. The S8 471 provisions set a
deadline for CHy action on a. hazardous ..:aste I"lanagement pla,"~ 'Which ~ill
require Council and staff time and effort. Chapter 6 include. 1angu.ge that
makes the Fair Share language in the Plan operative only in to~junction with
interjurisd1ctiona1 agreements. This (hange has no foreseeable negative
impact on the City.
Chapter B contains changes to sixteen siting criteria is well as language
stiting the objectives of the siting criteria. Four siti~9 criteria in the
00:373:91
~;\aor\ch.rnp,cmr
7/18(91
Page 1
•
•
_J
-
o
reyjsed Plan are mere perm1ssf~e, alTo~ing mare discretior. by the City in
locating facilities relative t~ transportation routes, ~n area~ exceeding 15%
sTope, in a~as of particulir 5ign1f1canct, and on prime agricultural lands.
O~e criteria is more restrictive which re~efines well or well field to ir.clude
-drinking watert irrigation. and remediatf~n and monitoring wells·, Th1s
prDvision adds protection of potential drinKlng ~ater supplies from
contamination, and is beneficial to the City. The deletion of the criteria
entitled ·ProtectJon of Existing Groundwater Qualit1· and its accampa~ying map
entitled -High Prfcrity Protection Areas in Santa Clara County· has no effect,
since the criteria protecting water quality has the same effect.
Be conmen dation$
Staff recommends to the City Council that it adopt the attacned Resolutlon
appro'll'ing changes to the Santil Clara County Hazardous Waste Management PTan
(CHlIMP) •
Respectfully submitted,
. " '::/ / ~~
DORIS HAEZ
'/:;::4d:f Jr/Xid~.
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER )1
Director of Planning and En'i 1 ronmenta.l Protect i ai,
Coordinator Community Environm~nt
~ Assistant C;ty Manager
Attachments~
OIR:373 :91
p:\c.r\chwmp.cmr
Resolution Approving Changes to the Santa Clara County
Ha,ardous Vast. Management Plan (CHWMP)
Letter dated April 22, 1991 from City of Palo Alto Director
of ~lannin9 and Community Environment to Santa Clara
County Department of Phnrling-ar.d Oe\lelopli:ent re:
Caments on proposed Revisions to Santa (1 ara COI,J_ill-'2
Hazardnus Waste Management Plan by City of Palo ATto
llif! letter dated June 5, 1991 from Santa Clara County re:
county Hazard~ Waste Management Plan (CH~
Response to Comments
Proposed Negative Declarat10M for Revisions to the County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan dated S/31/9j
Memorandum from C~unty of Santa Clara dated July 3~ 199),
re; City Appro\lal of Re\lised Cou~ty Haza~dous
Waste Manaqemen~ and revised text for Chapter 8
Revised Sthedule for Tanner Plan Resubmittal
County Hazardous Waste Management Program (Council Members
only)
1/18/91
Page 3
!
[
I.
r
I
• {
-
o
Roll ted CMR" CMR:234:~l, CMR:294:9, CMR:304:9, CMR:45S:8. CMR:377;B,
CMR:339:B
cc; City of fast Falo Alto
City of Lo. Altos Hill.
City of Los Altos
City of Menl. Park
City of Mount.in View
County of Santi Clir. Tanner Staff
Planning CommissIon
StanfOrd UnIversity (Andy ooty, Zer. ~urphy)
Barron Park Associ.tion
College Terrace Resfdents Assgciat10n
CMR:373:~1
p:\car\chwmp.cmr 7/18(l1
Page 4
,
,I
I
I
I
I
I
-
RESOLU'l'rON NO.
RESOLCTION OF THE COUNCIL'-:C"F;;-;T'"'HE CITY OF PALO ALTO
APPROVING CHANGES TO TJiE SANT.... CLARA COUNTY
HAZARDOUS WAS TE MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the State of California authorized. countie.s to
prepare Hazardous Waste Management Plans C-CHWMP's) for Lbe
counties and the cities within ~~em: and
WHEREAS, the County ot Santa Clara and the cities ~i~.in
the county o~ santa Clara developed and approved a CHWMP, which was
forwarded to the state Department of Health Services (-DHSW) tor
approval; and
WHEREAS, DRS did not approve of the County's initial CHWMP;
and
WHEREAS, the Stat-e of
counties to resubmit their Plans,
identiried by DRS: and
California has authorized the
provided they respond to concerns
WHEREAS, the County and the cities within the COll.."Jty
participated in a review of the DRS concerns and have prepared
revisions to the CHWMP that addresses those concerns;
HOWl THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto
does hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The city Council hereby approves the ~evised
CSWKP for resubmittal to DRS.
S~CTION 2. The county Board of Supervisors certified the
Final Env1roruce..ntal Impact Report ,-EIR") for the CHWMP on July 111
19a9 1 prior to approval of the CHWMP. The City Council, as a
responsible a~ency under the California Environmental Quality Act
(-CEQA-}, revlewed and approved the EIR prior to its approval of
the CHWMP. A Negative Declaration ~as prepared for the proposed
revisions to the CHWMP and was approved by the Board of Supervlsors
on July 2, 1991. The City Council has reviewed the Negative
Declaration and finds it adequate ~nder CEQA and on that basis
apprcves the Negative Oe~laration for this project.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES :
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
Clty clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senlar Asst. Clty Attorney
'10115 We-ocr;mJJO
APPROVED:
Mayor
Cl.ty Manager
Dl,rector of Plann~ng and
co~unity Environment
•
•.
-
Department of Environmental
Protection
(US} J29-23H
Apr-il 22, 1991
Isao Kobashi
santa C~ara County
r,O '~':''t lu:~~'
~,r.:-..:~. <';' ... <:"" •••
Department of Planning and Development
Office of Toxies and Solid Waste Management
1735 North First street, suite 275
San Jose, CA 95112
£50 Hamilton Avenue
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto CA 94303
Subject: Comments on proposed Revisions to santa Clara cou~~
Hazardous Waste M-a'nagement Plan py city of Palo Alto
Staff
Dear Mr. Kobashi:
The following comments are sub~itted on behalf of the City of Palo
Alto on the Proposed Revisions to Santa Clara County's Hazardous
Waste Manaqement Plan. The Palo Alto City Council approved the
~ollowing suggestions/comments at their April 15, 19~1 meeting:
1. There are no suggested changes to the alternative language for
the following categories.
RISK ASSESSML~
.WATERSHED AREAS
RECREATIONAL, CULTURAL, AND AESTHETIC
PROXIMITY TO MAJOR TRANSPORTATION ROUTES
PRIME AGRICULTURAL lAND
MINERAL RESOURCE AREAS
2~ Staff recommends further revisions to the language pr-oposed by
County staff for the following criteria~ Added language or
suqqested chanqes are n~~h"'ti! and deletions are st~'tlel( ~ ... ,~ ... -
C:vpSl\HAZHAT\CHWHPREV.LET
.. ..-..........
L
•
I -
IFao Xol'ashi
June 22, 1991
page 2
FAULTS
o
SUPPLY WELLS AND WELL FIELDS
I", , ,
It is recommended that the following change be made:
"storage, transfer, treatment.. or incineration facilities
should avoid locating ~ithin the cone of depression created by
pumping a e£~~a~~~pp~y well or well field ...• •
If not amended as above, the proposed language cou.ld be
intf'lrpreted to prec:ltlde the si-t.ing of facilities in locaeions
containing 9Iound~ater cleanup/investigation veIls.
UNSTABLE SOILS
GENERAL FLAN CONSISTENCY
It is recommended that the ,follovinq wording be added to the
last sentenCE! ••.. The r-esii'1_t'~ng_x:o~'!'eflesea change to the CHWMP
:Dust be Approved by a maJOi'it'y~-of the citie:s. 'With a major-i ty
of the population within the 1nCorpoi-,ated~ portion of the county,.... ....1_'\.,'"".,.,. ~"-,. ,~,-,,<.,
SLOPE
It is recommended that the following change be made to the
last sentence: -All cities with areas which exceed 1St slope
shall indicate in writing that all industrial activities
similar in nature to hazardous waste ~anagement facilities are
prohibi ted in these areas .Wi1:·ess·;ZZfi·lte~-~pecrflc:;~;!"ac€Ors
..rfUqitmheXim~CtTcf1~e'Jrs£te ~is:.,~slop'eX~-''"' ." . .....-,. --" '-'''>...>.M<'_I0..",.-
,",",.""",' _. ,c' _'"'~',,, , ... ~ .... ~"' ____ , __ ,"-_.'-.<." .. , ......... ," ,",""_._." •. ,.",_" ,""O""'~' _"c .• "
C:wp51\HAZMAT\CKWKPREV.LET
L
•
Is&o Kob&shi
June 22, 1991
Page 3
J. The city concurs with County staff 's-suggestion to combine
sitin9 criteria for Proximat:!: Fopulation, Immobile Populaticn ..
and Public Facilities.
Please contact Do~is Maez, Environmental Protection Coordin~tor,
(415-329-2347J oE the Palo Alto staff i~ you have ~~~stions or vish
to discuss any ot the above. Thank YOll for the opportunity to
submit cocments.
Sincerely,
~.~-l, R S:::k.lG,J,",
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and Community Environment
cc: Palo Alto city Clerk
city of East Palo Alto
City of Los Altos Hills
City of Los Altos
city of Menlo Park
City of Mountain View
Planning Commission
stanford University (Andy Doty, Zera Murphy)
Barron Park Association
College Terrace Residents Association
C: "1'51 \HAZHAT"ClIWMPREV. LET
PV
-. -~,.
Q
Countyofsanta Clara
DepamnetY 0( PlaJV1L'1g aoo Developn.en!
Offlce ofTClxks and SoIk:I Wasle Managemenr
1735 NOntl FltSI SlTet.'l, SUire:! 75
San Jose. california 951 1:.1
1"O.'OCS1<4OAj4-4I·J 195
SOlid wa5(e 1408) 44 I -I I 9d -----
June 5,1991
Kenneth R Schreiber
Director ol Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto, Depa>1ment of Envirorunental Protection
250 Hamilton A venue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, California 943(J3
0.
RE: County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (CHWMP) Refponse to
Comments
Thank you for your comments regarding recommended changes to the siting
criteria. !lased on your input and input at the April 24 Tanner Advisory Committee
meeting. the staff made conforming changes to the criteria. Staff reromrnendations
on the items of concern to you are listed on the attached pages. Note that while
your exact recommendation was not always incorporated, the intent was preserved
whenever possible. L" certain cases, the intent of the suggestion was not
incorporated. In these instances, an expla.'1ation is provided. Ii you have any
comments regarding these changes or others, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
~k'~.
Isao Kobashl, Manager
Hazardous Waste Management Program
Enclosures
BoiIlIrd at Supervtaon. M.iI ... -tIaE'l M Honda, ZCJf' t ofgren. Ron: Gon~:dlt"s, Rod Dlndun DI,'v~lle M( I-i.E'nna
COunty Ext:C\lll~: SaJly R. Reed
•
,,"
-
(1) CHANGES TO PROnCT10N FROM SUSPECTED FAtJL TS
Your recommendation to add language regarding the need for additional geologic
investigation and consultation" ith the local planning agency for maps aI>.d
information was lncIuded as part of a new criteria, the protection from suspected
Iaults. The consensus language for the protection from suspected faults criteria is:
"Hazardous wastE' management facilities sited within 3,000 feet of a known or
suspected fault, as established by the Alquist-Priolo maps of the Staie of California or
idnItifk4 in the most nCDltly A"4ila~1e locol ""'ps or information, shall con4uct"
sJlbsurfaa explor"tion to determine that there are no active faults within 200 feet of
the portions of:he facility where treatment, storage, or disposal will be conducted."
U) CHA."IGES TO PRoncnoN OF WELLS AND WELL FlELDS CRITERIA
(formerly SUPPLY WELLS AND WELL FIELDS)
Based on consultation with the Santa Clara Vaney Water DiEmel. it was determined
that non-drinldng water wells can also act as conduits for groundwater
contamination. The definition of wells and well fields in Appendix Vlli-C was
expanded to protect areas in th€ 90 day cone of depressions of drinking water,
irrigation, remediation, and monitoring wells. TIte protection of wells a.nd well
fields criteria still restricts siting of residuals repositories in such Meas, while other
hazardous waste managment i.dli ties rna y be sited provided an effecti ve
hydrogeological barrier to flow exists. The consensus language for the criteria and
definition of protection of wells and well fields is:
"Residuals repositories shaD not be located within the cone of depression created by
pumping a well 0< well field (i"c!,,4e4 lIre 4rinking water, irrig"tion, And
remediation ".4 monitoring wells) for 90 days.
Storage." treatment .. and L'lcineration facilities s'hould not be located wiLiln the cone
of depression crealed by pumping a well or will field (inc/wct.d au 4rinking water.
irrigatio~ lind remeJiatio:n tlnd monitoring wells) for 90 aays, unless an effective
hydrogeological barrier to vertical flow exists.·
Definition:
Tn. distance to areas used for extraction of groundwater used for groundwater
extraction (i1ftlllded flft drinking water, irrigatioll, and remediation lmd mo,dtoring
wells) by high capacity production wells and identified by the presence of several
wells that constitute a well field.
(3) CHANGES TO PROTECllON FROM UNSTABLE SOILS
In response 10 your request 10 add language giving the local jurisidiction discretion
L
,
.. _S-
',If
•
.-
" "
·-,.:·:.· .. ·1 ;:-," J '
" ........ ' ...... J ,".--.'
I -
in the siting of storage, treatment, and incineration facilities i.., areas of unstable
soils, th .. following modification was made to the protection from urutable soUs
aiterla:
'"Storage, treatment, and incineration facilities should not be located in areas of
potential rapid geologic change (such as landslide, soil creep, earth flow, other mass
movement of earth material, subsidence or liquefaction) ... Its. the "ppIi",,,t
tUmonstrtltn ",,4 tM IOell; jldisdiction makes" fin4ing that "" o-.erri4ing public
nee4 is served by allowing the facility to be located on the proposed site, Facilities
k>eating in such areas shall be designed, cor.structed, operated and maintained to
preclude railure as a result of rapid geologic change."
(4) OiANGES TO GENERAL PLAN' CONSISTENCY
Based on your recommendations, we modified the language on page 8-3 regarding
the CHWMP's consistency with the General Plan as follows:
"The CHWMP should be reviewed regularly and siting criteria revised when
appropriate. All resulting changes to the CHWMP or siting criteria must be
.pproved by • majority of the cities with a majority of the population within the
inC01'portJte4 portion of the County in the same manner as required for its initial
adoption. A formal update should be conducted every three years 10 correspond
with the triennial update ol the State Plat. Any amendments shall be subject to the
same public participation processes used to initially evaluate the CHWMP,"
(5) CHANGES TO PROTEcnON FROM UNSTABLE SWPES
In response to your recommendations, the following language was added 10 the
protection from unstable slopes criteria:
"Hazardous waste management facilities should not be located in areas where slope
exceeds 15 percent ,,,uss site-$ptcific factors mitigate the impact of the .it.'. s!ope,
Facilities locating in such areas shall lequire appropriate land use designations,"
(6) COMBINING PROTEcnON OF PROXIMATE POPULA nONS .. IMMOBILE
POPVLA:nONS,AND PUBUC FACILmES
Two of the I:hesI. three criteria, protection of proxlmate populations and protection
of immobile populations, have be<!n combined. The consensus language for the
protection of proximate and immobile populations criteria Is:
• A minimum buffer zone ol 2,000 feet should be provided between the property
boundary of any hazardous waste management facility and ... existi"g or 1'/" .... 4
resi4erra or immobile pop.lRtw .. , Based on the risk assesSll\ent and analysis of
environmental i1npacts, a buffer zone of greater or less than 2,000 feet may be
required 10 protect the present and future public health, safety, and welfare."
L
'~~
~;c
, ;. ·t·'.·: ',;~
(') " CcUt7ty of Santa Clara, California • Advance Planning Office • Emllr.::>nl'ne::ta.1 PlannIng Sect,'on
I'
Proposed Negative Declaration
A notke, pursuar.t to the CaUomia Er,vi(~nmenlal OJautY" Ad. of 1970, as amended (Pubr-c Resources Code
21.000, el sec.) U1at the fol'lowing project when implemen!ed will not have a significanl impact on ltle environment:
Hazardous Waste Managment Plan affects the entire
~I a county Hazardous Waste Management
pursuant to 1984 legislation (AS 2948). State law requires
State Dept. of Health Services to approve local Plans
meet certain prescribed requirements to be approved.
This project involves changes to the Santa Clara Cou~ty Plan
reflect modifications necessary to meet State DHS approval re
quirements. The changes deal primarily with the criteria to be
used to evaluate the suitability of a proposed site as a hazard
ous waste management facility location. (Continued on attached
The purpose or this nofice is to inform you (haT the environmemal P1anni~ Sed~n l'1as recommended
lila! a NegaH .... e Declaration be approved for tru-s projed. Action is sdieduled on this proposed Nega~ve
Dec!a:raUon before the Col.lnly of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors on
July 2, 1991 in the Board of S!.lpervisor's Cha~bers
U the Negaove Dedaratio(1 is approved, Ina decision may be pi'o!esled U~(l filIng an appeal .... ,Ith the
Central Pemit OI'fice . .It should be-noled thaI approl,la: 01 a Negative Declaration does rIO! cor'1sl1llJ1'e:
appro\l310f \he project under consideralTort The dedsion to approve or deny the projeci will be made
separately.
PtJb6c comments regarding :he correc1ness, completeness, or adequacy of this NegalivE DedaraUofl
are irMIed and must be recefvt:d on or before Ihe hearing date Ested above. Such commenls should
bE based' on specifIC environmental concerns. Writ'!en comments should be addressed to: U1e County
01 Santa Clara, Department of Piannlng and Development, Er.vlronmental PlannTng SectTon,
County Government center, 70 VI. HcddlnQ Street, San Jose, CA. 95110, Tel (408} 299-2521. A
file containing adcfrtlonal inlormation 011 this projed may be re ... iewed al the Departme nI 01 Planning
and Devei:Jpment. When requestlng 10 view this fite, please teler 10 the me number appearing: allhe
to;> oIlhis fomL
fornia Dept~ of Health Services
fornia Office of Permit Assistance
within the county.
1
ts. )
,
• \ ',r
-
-< __ :,.r-."
--~ -.-.~--f;-
" .. ,-"".
~:!:'ii;:-r .
1.0
There are five types o! changes to the Plan. Changes have been parapJu-ased here.
The exact wording can be found on the pages in the original Plan that are indicated
aft...-each specific change.
1. Siting criteria that are more pem-Jssive:
a. The original Plan states: Hazardous waste facilities shaH be located on major
paved roads. (plan, pp. 8-12 and 8-19)
Changes to this siting criter'.a would ,lIow a facility to be located, tD the
maximum extent possible, in close proximity 10 major payed ToadS.
b. The original PLln stateS: Hazardous waste facilities shall not be located in a!".as
where slope exceeds 15%. (Plan,. pp. 8-14 and 8-21)
Changed to: Facilities may be allowed if ·site-specific factors mitigate the
impact of the site's slope."
c. The original Plan states: Hazardous waste facilities shaH not be located in areas
having particular cultural~ aesthetic, historical, Or archaeological significance.
(Plan, pp. 8-13 and 8-20)
Changed 10: Low-volume transfer and storage f.cilites may be allowed in
such areas, if necessary to handle hazardous waste generated by visitors,
workers, or residents, thereof. Other types of hazardous waste facilities
would not be permitted.
d The original Plan .tates: Hazardous waste management facilities shall no! be
located on prime agricultunl lands. (Plan, pp. 8-13 and 8-20)
Changed 10: Facilities may be sited on prime agriculturalJands if the 10cal
jurisdiction makes a finding that an overriding public need is served by
allowing ille facility to be located on the proposed site.
2. Siting criteria that are more restrictive:
a. The original PLln states: Facilities shall not be sited within the cone of
depression created by pumping of • well or well field for 90 days. ~"""'ell or well
field" was originally defined as wells. used 10 extract underground drinking
water supplies. (Plan, pp. 8-15 and 8-22; definition in Appendix vm.c)
Changed to: Redefine "well or well field" to include "drinking water,
irrigation, and remediation and monitoring wells."
2
,
_-:::>
-
Q
· 3. Minor language changes:
These minor languag~ chang •• serve to clarify \he ir.tent and r"".uirements of ..
particular siting criteria or provide consistency in language in \he document, but do
not change the criteria.
4. Deletion of a criteria and a map:
The criteria entitled 'Prolection of Existing Groundwater Quality." and its
accompanying map, entitled "High Priority Proteclio" AIeas in Santa Oara
County," have been d.leted. (Plan, pp. 8-15 and 8-21.; and map on p. 8-25)
5. A policy change:
An additiona.! policy W'lS added to the Plan to clarify that the County
Supervisors As.ociation of California (CSAC) "Fair Share" language used in the
Pian is only operative in conjuction with interjurisdictional agreements.
(Pian, p'. &-28)
The original "Fair Share" language (developed jointly by the counties and
CSAO in the County's Plan states that the County reserves the right to deny a land
use permit for a facility proposed to be sited in the county if the volume of waste
proposed to be managed at the facility is greater tllan the volume of waste that has
been identiJied as the shortfall waste management capacity in the county.
Since the original Plan was writfen, thl:? County has signed oil MemorandulI' of
Understa. .. ,ding with the other eight counties within the Bay Area to form the
ABAG RegionaJ Fair Share Allocation Committee. This Committee has been
created to allocate the responsibility for siting the regionally-sized hazardous waste
mana.gement facilities that will. be needed to serve idat..,tifed regional shortfalls i.i1
waste management capacity within the ABAG region. to the year 2000.
The additionol policy language reflects a regional approach to facility siting. The
Memorandum of Understanding states that:
• the County will enter into interjuridictiona! agreements (with the eight other
participating counties within the ABAG region) thaI would allow for the fair
allocation of responsibility for the siting of needed hazardous waste ma.""'gement
facilities;
• and that, having established these agreements, Santa Oara County reserves the
righllo deny • land use permit for a facility proposing to manage a volume of waste
greater than !he identiJied waste management capacity shortfall of the County,
unl ... the Counly has .greed, thrc>ugh an interjuridictional agreement, to accept
responsibility for siting a facility whose volume exceeds the County's shm'lfall.
3
-.,.·-:1-... '-.. ·· ..... , ... ,'
•
-' ..
"". -.
County 01 Santa c's~, CanOTa • AdviJric. piA."'Inlng OffIce • ~ionmentaf Planning 5«llon
-
The EnW"onmental P\anI1ing SecGon or C1e Department 0( Planring and Oev~loprnent ~ reviewed
Ule lnitiaf I1Udy lot U\e pro}ed and, t>aseO upon s.l'bstanlial evidence in \he record, nnds that the
proposed P.-oject: could not have I sJgnlfreani effect on 1he environment. or, aItl;ougtl the
ptOpO~ profed could hav1I a ~ effect on the envitonment, there will net be a. significant
1fTed: In_~ case sl'nce ttl. rni6gation measures have beef'i adc:'ed '" the proI&ct
"
The following specific considerations are numbered to
correspond vith the specific, numbered changes that are
listed in the Project Description of this document:
(con~i:I1ued on the two att.ached ~sheei:.s)
Approve<! by: hao Kobashi
~ s.tgnature
.\ \.
'.
-
o
1. Changes ir, the siting criteria tr .• t have been described in'the Project Description
as more permissive:
a. lvbjOI paved road.
This change would not be expected to result in an increased pote,"tial for a
-negative environm.ental impact because the areas of t.lte county with~ut easy
access by major paved roads would tend to be protmed by other Plan siting
criteria.". sudl as zoning.. slope, soils permeability, watershed areas, and others.
b. Slope exceeding 15%
This change would not be expected to result in an increased potential for a
negative enviIo!'lII't_ental impact because those jurisdictions that allow similar
industrial u..~. in areas where slope exceeds 15%, have experience in prescribing
and evaluating the performance of the engineering co".tainment features,
L'1Spections measures and other enviromental protection controls that would be
required to mitigate any potential impacts.
c Storage and tr.ansfu in a.reilS 01 ruItuzal signifiGlIlce
This change would not be expected to result in an increased potential for a
negative environmental impact because the change would allow a connnerdal
hazardous waste operator to collect and transfer only those wastes that are
already being generated In such an ..... ea. No treatment or disposal of hazardous
wastes would be allowed In these areas,
d. Prime agricultural lands
This cha!1ge would not be expected to result in an Increased potential for a
negative environmental impact because adequate policies and plans exist for
protection of prime agric..utur.l land. Siting. hazardous waste facility in such
an area would require changes in the General Plan of the jurisdiction.
2 The cha.'lge in the siting criteria frlat has been described in the Project
[)escription as more restrictive:
a. Well and well fields
This change would result in protection of a wider range of types of wells and
well fields from potential contamination by a release from a nearby hazardous
Wi.Ste management facility, by expanding the definition of "well" to Include
non...Qrinking-water wells as well as drinking-water wells.
5
L
•
\
"~
\-'
" :\:
. c __ --;
111------------
-
o ,r',
3. TIle minor language dunge. will serve to clarify the intent and r<'quir~ents of
a particular si!ing criteria but will not d"lnge the criteria. These changes:
• 'Will serlle to avoid confusion during the siting process" and
• will nc,.t result in a negative impact on t!l.e environment.
4. -The deletion of the criteria will not result in a negative iripact on the
environment for the following reasons:
"Existing groundwater quality" is a redundant criteria. Grollndwater quality is
already adequately protected by a numbPJ of other siting criteria:
• protection of watershed areas
• proteCtion of major groundwater recharge zones
• proxilI'dty to wells and well fields
• protection of surface 'Yt-ate.rs
• protection of floodplain areas
• protection from permeability of strata ar.d soils
The ,nap entitled "High Priority Protection Anas in Santa Clara County" will be
deleted because it now believed to be an inccmpIete representation of areas L"1. the
county that would be excluded from consideration for the si!ing olfacilitic!s" after
application of several siting criteria intended to protect natural resources.
Additionally, a note has been added be:ow the heading of "\'1ater Quality
Protection" iJ' .• new table entitled "Table 3-1: Hazardous Waste Facility Siting
Criteria" in the revised Plan's Chapter 8, and on the Siting Map's legend, which
reads:
AlI applicants are r"eqllired to obtain written confirmation from the Santa Oara Van(')' Water
Dis.trict stating whether or no! the proposed site is in an area that may adversely impact
'Walter resou~. Based on the 5CVr\fD letter and other ii'lfonnatJon obtained during t1'1e land
use decision-making process, the proposed facility may be d~saIlowE'd, further
bydrogeologkal investigation may be required of the applicant .. or~ if the fad!ity is arlowed.
appropriat~ environmenta1 protection measu."t'S ""ill be requrred.
5. The additional policy limits the County's responsibility to one regionally-sized
facility. Without this policy the County may be subject to si!ing as many types and
sizes of hazaIdous waste facilities as deemed feasible by the private market The
intent of this policy is to provide regional planning gujdance for needed regionally
sized hazardous waste management facilities.
This change would not be expected to result in an increased potential for a negative
environmental impact becau<e any such facility that is proposed would be subject to
the si!ing criteria described in Chapter 8 of the Plan that would ensure that all
facilites are located and constructed so as to pose a minimal impact on the
environmen t.
6
,
::.:..
,
. .-1
count}'o(Santa Clara
oepanmen1 of PIaMIng and oevelopmern
omce DlToxk:s IIIlCI SOlId Waste Mana#;metV
DATE: July 3,1991 .. -~.-J"., '-...
TO: City Councils, City Managers, Planning Directors
FROM:
RE:
Isao Kobashi, Manager
Hazardous Waste Management Program .
City Approval of Re,ised County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
OTY COUNOLAcnON REQUESTED·
On July 2, 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved the Negative Declaration on the
proposed County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (CHWMP) revisions. Each
city i!: "'quested to approve CHWMP revisions by resolution by August 15, 1991. A
sample resolution which your City may wislt to use or modify is enclosed. The
revised CH'wMP must be approved by a majority of the cities with • majority of the
popula.uon within the incorporated pomons of the County. Upon City approval,
the Board of Supervisors is scheduled to approve the CHWMP on AUg".lSt 2D, 1991.
The Plan will then be reprinted and submitted to the State Department of Health
Services (DHS) for approvaJ. At this time, copies of the CHWMP will be forwarded
to Y"'P City. A revised Tanner Plan resubmittal schedule is "nclosed for your
information.
The following three documents ar~ included in this packet:
• CHWMP Revisions: Significant Text Changes (l>y chapter)
• Samplt Resolution
• Revised Schedule fer Tanner Plan Resubmilla!
The CHWMP Revisions: Significant Tat Changes (by chapter) presents all
Significant changes made to the CHWMP <and the page numbers where these
changes can be found in the revised CHV\'MP). Significant changes were made to
Chaplers 1,6,8 and Appendix vm-C.
Chap!er 1 was modified to include information on the Greene ail! (5B 477), which
requires cities to adopt a city hazardous waste management plan O~ incorporate the
CH'.'<"MP into the city's general plan within ISO days of the CHWMP's approval
(batlt are attached).
Chapl .. 6 was revised to reflect tlte "fair share" policy regarding L ... terjurisdictional
Board 01 S4Jpervlsorsl Mk:tvtel M. I'ionda, zoe Lorgren. Ron GonZales. Rod Oni6oo'1. Oi.al1ne McKenr ....
Cocmry EJlecutive: SaDy R. Reed
I
•
. .. ". .
-~--.. ,---
h,-"·-·~-------:--. ---?rotectIon of Proxima'" -arid Immobile PopulatiOnS---
• Prote<:!ion of Fublic Facilities
• Proximity 10 Major ·Transportation Routes
• Prolection from Suspected Faults
• Pro\eCtion from Active or Recently Active Faults
• Protection from Unstable Slopes
• Prorection from Unstable Soils
• Protection of Water Quality and Resources
• Protection of Watershed Areas
• Protection 10 Wells and Well Fields
• Protection of Existing Groundwater Quality
• Protection of Surface ane! Groundwater
• Protection of Recreational, Cultural, and Ast.ietic areas
• Pro\eCtion of Prime Agrirul tural Lands
• Protection of Mineral Resource Areas
• Consistency with the Applicable General Plan
Appendix VIII< was revised to conform with changes to the above siting critieria.
Enclosures
1-
'.
,'-. ;.,~.: L ,':'~ ,C'. if: til
o
CHWMP Revisions: Significant Text Changes (by chapfer)
-. ,.,_. . .~:-.• "_, ,."1.. -:.: . . •
~,foIJowingis a summary ,0{ the significant <:ha.ngeo made 10 Chapters 1,6, and 8
and Appendix Vlll-Col the County Hazardous ~asl!' Management~(CHWMP)
PW-SlWlt 10 nicommendations from the DHS, Ta.-mer Advisory Committee',and,;."
Cities_upon the Plan's resubmittat The page numbers below rei'!I 10 the location of
the revised text in the updated CHWMP (not the April 1989 venion). {'<.,: .c~C' .•
The most recent revisions made at the June. 24, 1991 Tanner Advisory Committee
meeting 10 four of the siting criten.. in Chapter 8 (Protection 01 Water Quality and
Resources, Protection of Surface and Groundwater, Protection of Public Facilities,
and ProtectiOn of Proximate and Immobile Populacons) and 10 the definitions and
significance 01 two criteria in Appendix vm-c (Protection of Surface and
Groundwater and Protection of Wells and Well Fields) are shown in italics,
mAUER]
(from 1'_1-2)
"On the heels of the Tanner Bill came passage of SB 477 in February 1987 (the
Greene Bill), an amendment to Sections 25135.1 and 25137 J of the Health and Safety
Code relati.'>g to hazardous wastes. The Greene Bill requires each d ty. within the
County (onoe the CHWMP is approved) to take one of the following actions within
11'0 days:
o Adopt. dty hazardous waste II! anagement plan
o lnCOl]>O<ate the CHWMP into the dty's general plan
o Enact an ordinance requiring that land use aeasians be consistent with the
speciflcied portion of the CHWMP, thereby imposing a state-mandated local
program
In addition, sa 4-71 allows cities to enforce more stringent requirements than those
outlined in their County's CHWMP, if necessary, to reflect geologic. biologic,
economic., and other characterist:cs which may be wtique to the jurisdiction."
CHAPTERfi
(from p. 6-28)
-rhe Fair Share language contained In this Plan is only operative in conjunction
wilh interjuxisdictional agreements."
.3
'---'
,
•
QIApTER8 , . ( .. ~
In',:luded in these changes are the revisions made 1£ sixteen siring criteria, wj.jch are
located In Table 8-1 of the revised CHWMP. The new .criteria language is indicated
by the word mmensns, while the old criteria language is indicated by the word
~ -J .:~\ ~.~-~':-:._~ •. ,' ~> .. i. ." -:. ~ .-.... ;:.·';t:·~:~·'"" -, .. ,.>~,~~.~, ....
(from p. 8-2) ' ..
'The siting criteria dev~loped by the County to meet the statutory requirements of
AB 2948 meet the following objectives: (I) protection of the rt'sidents of Santa Oara
County; (2) assuran<:e of the structural stat>ility of the facility; (3) protection of water
'iWllity 1U14 resources; (4) protection of air quality; (5) protection of environmentally
sensitive areas; and (6) protection of social and economic goals." .
(from p. 8-3)
'The CHWMP should be reviewed regularly and siling criteria revised when
appropriate. AIl resuliing changes to the CHWMP or siling aiteria must be
approved by a majority of the cities with a majority of the population within the
incorporated portion of the County in the same manner as required for its initial
adoptior~ A formal update should be conducted every three years to correspond
with the triennial update of the State Plan. Any amendments shall be subject to the
same public participation processes used to initially evaluate the CHWMP."
(from p. 8-5)
NegoJUtions Between Commun.ity and Developer
"Section 25199 of the Health and stJety Cod. specifies the I«aI appro\'al process for
the siling of a hazardous waste management facility. One pw-pcse of the permJt
process is to provide an opporr.mity for r.egotiations between the local community
and the facility developer. A t least 90 daY" before apply'.ng for a land use permJt, the
developer must notify the California State Office of PermJt Assistance (OPA) and the
local land use authority of its ir.tention to apply for a permJt (Notice of Intent). 'This
step triggers a public hearing conducted by OPA in the community where the facility
is proposed to inform the public about the project's nature, function and srope.
Once the applicant rue. • Notice of Intent (NOD with OPA, OPA notifies the local
land use jurisdiction. The jurisdiction then has 90 days to appoint a Local
Assessment Committee (LAC) consisting of seven-members (three represenrntives
from the community-at-large.l two representatives of environmental or public
interest groups and two representatives of affected businesses and industries) to
negotiate with the developer on the"conditions for project approval.
The local land use jurisdiction sends t."e applicant Initial Study materials and a rlsk
assessment checlclis~ At the time of application for a local Land Use PermJt, the
L
,
'.
",iI<
~ ... , ~ ".'1iO
<, •• ,
.;., c .-
,~,
-
ifiomp. UJ-.~"," ,; , .. : :.' ~ ... ". T r __ !:.:.
"In ord~ for the ~ land use authority to approve the land use penr~t. it must
find that the project is consistent with the permitting jurisdictions' General Plan
and zoning in eHe<:t' at the lime of appli"ation and with the OiIVMP, The siting
rnapdeveloped for the Plan delineates general areas tr.at appear to meet the siting
aiteri. and appear to be consistent with the General, Plan. Compliance with the
CHWMP siting aiteri .. is a necessary condition for project approval, Should an
appJ,icant desire to site a facility in an area not currently identified on the siting map
as an area that appears !O meet the siting aitena for hazardous waste management
facilities, the applie"'t may seek a General Plan amendment through the local
jur'.sdiction. Upon revision to the local General Plan, the subject change must be
in.."Orporated into the siting map of the CHWMP. The resulting change to the
CHWMP must be approved by a majority of the cities with a majority of the
population within the incorporated portion of the County, by the Board of
Supervisors, and finally by the State Department of Health Services (0115),'
(from p. 8-7)
Environmental Impact Report
'The proponent of a hazardous waste management facility wIll be required to
comply with the California Envirormenta! Quality Act (CEQA) in order to fully
Worm the public and government decision-makers regarding \be environmental
c~nsequen('es of the proiect~ alternatives to the project. LT\d mitigation measures
that may: be required for project approval (note; in general, mitigation measures are
not permitted for residm';s repositories due to the potential risks associated -...1th
these facilities). CEQA complia.'lce is a mandatory condition for project approval
Airer an applicant files a NOl with OPA, \bey must begin preparing an initial study,
whkh must be submitted to the local land use jurisdiction upon filing for a local
Land Use Permit The local jurisdiction v.1U \ben determine whether an
Environmental Impact Report (BOO ;s required,'
,
,-"", '
.-1
-
(from p. 8-8)
~ .' '0'· ....
lUsk~sment , .' ',,,'. ..
,-. ,,_' "-;', I ' . _ ' . " ~ . :
'*Amulti-media risk assessm""t (air, surface water, groundwater; soil, sediment
and bioW~Shan be conducted for "inclusion in an ,ErR if the" 1Oc:al jUiisdiction """ ".'
deielniliiei tfuf,; risk ~t is "required based on local ,staffs anaJysis of the
completed risk assessment ched:list in consultation Wltl\'thi LAC:" The 'applicant"
begins completing the checldisl after filing an NOl wjlh OF A. It must be completed
when the applicant files for .. local L,md Use Permit. The purpose of the ched:lis\ is
to determine a new or expanded facility's potentia.! for release of hazardous
chemicals to the air, surface water, groundwater, soil, serum",,!. and biota (Indllru..,g
estimates 01 the types and quantities of chemicals routinely used and potentially one
time accidentalspills); !he 'probability that .. release would impact humar., animal,
and plant populations Clncluding proximity to vulnerable populations, climatologic
and hydrogeologie factors that would influence transport); and the risks associated
with such an impact. If a risk assessment is deemed necessary, it should consider
L'le potential for accidental (i,e., sudden) and CUIr.u1ative health and environmental
impacts resulting from the proposed facility."
TABLE 8-1
(from p. 8-9)
hotection of hox'.mate and Immobile Populations'
Exj5ting <Protection of Proximate Populations):
A minimum 2,000 foot buffer should be provided between resid uals repositories
and an existing residence or any area where residential uses would be allowed under
the applicable General Pla,l. Base? on the risk assessment and analysis of
environmental impacts, a buffer ZOne of greater than 2,000 feet may be required in a
particular location.
A minimum buffer zone of 2,000 feet ",ill be required between a transfer, treatment
or incineration facility and the nearest pertnan/?"..nt residence or area designated or
zoned for residential use, whichever is doser, unless it can be demonstrated that a
smaller buffer zone provides adequate protection for the put-lic L"\ the event of an
accident
Existing (Protection of Immobile Populations):
A minimum 2,{)OO foot buffer sho\.lld be provided betw..,n residuals repositories
'lnd facilities housing immobile populations. Based on the risk assessment and
analysis of environmental impacts, a buffer ZDne of greater than 2,{)OO reet may be
required in a particular iocation.
A minimum buffer zone of 2 ... 000 feet between a transfer, treatment or incineration
L
,
,.J
.-.~ .
.,
,~,
"
~~ ~~ , ~~;: ~'~'~l~""'"'~l0'" "'11III!I~'rIJt~tf!'l:iIi"lf;l; "I~"-"':~-~"i --'~-' -.
L
facility and facilitieS hOusing immobile populations Will be required, urJess it Can be
dem,mstnted that a smaller buffer zone provid .. adequate protection for the public
in the event 0( an accident. .
Consensus (Protection 0( Immobile and Proximate Populations);
A mb)lmum buffer zone of 2,000 feet should be pr()~.ded!',~~t~, p~rljon!J H !'
htWml<>us WIlSU """"'S-e1<t f4C11ify wher. h4=YllcliswaSu will b. stOTed, tniztd,
or dispoud and an existing or planned residence or immobile population. Based on
the rl!;lc assessment and analysis of envirofl.'TIental impacts, a buffer zone of gre.ter
or less than 2,000 feet may be required to protect the present and future public
health, safety, and welfare.
"Note: The two existing criteria (Protection of Proximate Populations and Protection
of Immobile Populations) have been combined into one criteria (Protection of
Proximate and Immobile Populations).
(from p: 8-9}
Protection of Public Facilities
Existing;
Potential impacts which could OCL'W' due to the proximity of a residuals repositories
to public facilities shall be determined as part 0( the risk assessment.
Consensus:
A minimum buffer zone 0( 2,OCO [eet should be provided befu,"n the portions <4 "
1J.Q.%41'dous waste management !acrlity whtTt hazardous waste will be store~ treated,
or disposed and an existing or planned public facility. Based on the risk assessment
and analysis of environmental impacts, a buffer zone of gre. ter or less than 2,000
reet may be required to protect th~ present ""d future pubuc health, safety, and
welfare,
(~omp.HO)
Proximity to Major Transportation Rootes
Existing:
Hazardous waste management facilities shall be Ioca\ro on major paved roads
desigr.ed and oonstructed to accommodate heavy vehicles, with good access to
divided highways or freeways, All Designated routes should preclude the transport
of hazardous waste on residential streets and in areas housing immobile
populations.
Consensus:
To the maximum exte.'l.t possible, hazardous waste management facilities shall be
located in close proximity to major paved roads designed and constructed to
,01' ' "
.,,""'"
,
( ,
~
-
, .
a.o::onunodate heavy vehides, with good a.....:ess to divid<!d high ways or freeways.
All designated routes should preclude the transport of hazardous waste 0<1 .
residential streets and in areas housing immobile populations.
(from p, 8-10)
":.' !
~ : '
EXistii\&; '~~~:-' . -' -.. ,', : '. ~'. -'. -. _. -. .-: .}~~ "<.: .:
A geologi.:al investigatio!' to de!enrJne the potential for surface displacement along
a suspected rault may be required by the permitting jurisdiction as a ""ndition of
approval, .
Consensus:
Hazardous waste manage:nenl facilities sited within ~.ooo feet of a known or _
suspected fault, as established by the Alquist-Priolo maps of the State of Califomla or
identified In the most recently available IocaI IMps or information. shall conduct a
subsurface exploration to determine that there are no active faults within 200 feet of
the portions of the facility where treatment, storage, or disposal will be conducted.
(from p, 8-10)
holection !rom Active or Recenl1y Active Faults
Existins:
Hazardous waste management facilities shall not be located within 200 [..'<1t of an
active or potentially active earthquake fault Specific:aJJy. no faults which have had
displacement within Holocene time may pass within 200 feet of those portions of
the facility where hazardous waste is stored, transferred. treated, incinerated or
disposed. ,.
Consensus:
The portions of a hazardous waste maragement facility where hazardous waste will
be stored, treated, or disposed of shall not be located within 200 reet of an active or
recently active (}fulocene Period) ea:thquake fault as established by the Alquist
Priolo maps of the State of California or identified in the most recently available
local maps or infomtation.
(from p. 8-11)
hotection from Unstable Slopes
Fxi5f;;in~
H=dous waste management facilities shall not be located in areas where slope
exceeds 15%.
~
L
•
-
Consensus:
Hazardous waste management facilities should not be located in areas where slop<!
e>«eeds 15 per<ent unless site-->pecifk faClOrs mitigate the impact of the site's slope ..
Facilities locating in sud, areas shall require .ppropriate .land use designations. ..,
, .'. ~. > " • l... .. '-~ •
(&om.P' 8--11) .~,:il: 2: .. j_l,~
":.--!~ '-·';::::I~ ;~".~ -::~~':'':''L~ Protection fi:Oiii TJn:b.b1e' Sollia ,-.r:~·?~.i ','" .~i !r.:-£" . i ~:: J; I
.?':.-... -, ... L-~; i,.";. ". "L, .. : ;-·:1; :":'->" -en--."'-! !',,;·:t"!.~" '. ~) i.'::~
ExjstilJlr-'. . . .
Residual. :espcsitories shall not be located in a::eas of pol1!nti.I rapid geologic'
change, such as landslide, soil creep, earth flow, other mass movement of earth
material,. subsider.ce, or liqUefaction.' . .
Transfer, .~~~t, or ~cineration facilities _shouJd .avold loca.ting in areas of ". ~
potential rapid geologic cltange, such as landslide, soil Cte<!I', earth flnw, olber mass
movement of earth material, subsidence or liquefaction. '
Consensus:
R.!siduals respositories shaIl not be located in areas of potential rapid geologic
change (such as landslide, soil creep, earth flow, other mass movement of earth
materW, subsidence, or liquef.ction).
Storage, treatment, and incineration facilities should not be located in areas of
potential rapid geologic change (such as landslide, soil cr""p, earth flow, other mass
Inovemen! of earth ma!eriaJ, subsidence or liquefaction) unless the applicant
demonstrates and the local jurisdiction make. a finding that an overriding public
need-is served by allowing the facility to b<> located on the proposed site. Facilities
locating in 5uch areas shall be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to
preclude failure as a result of rapk! geologic change.
(from p_ 8--11)
rrotection of Water Qualily and Resources
Exjsting:
None
Consensus: _ "
All applicants are required to obtain written confirmation from the Sant. Clara
Valley Water District <SCVWO) stating whether or not the proposed site is in an
area ilia! may adversely impact water quality or resources. Based on the SCVWD
let1er and other information obtained during the land use decision-making prOCPSs,
the proposed facility may b<> disallowed, further hydrogeoiogical investigation maj .
be receuired of the applicant, or, if the facility is allowed, appropriate environmental
,
-', .
L
~. ,,<,~..; ... ,.< , _ ~f'~'-'-' , -, ---, '_ '_"._'_'
protect!on measures wm be r~uired.
UrOm p. 8-12)
Prut«lion of WalersMd Areas
Exj~
Residuals repositories shall not be located in WirerShe<! areas tributary to any .
reservoirs as well as those drairlage basins supplying water to major recharge areas.
Transfer, treatment or incineration facilities should avoid locating in water>hed
areas, unless properly engineered rontainmen! featuIes, lnspectlon measUIes and
other environmental protection controls are pro\~ided as necessary.
COnsensUS:
Residuals repositories shall not be located i.-iwatershed areas tributary to any
reservoirS as well as in those drainage basins supplying water to major recharge
areas.
Storage" treatm~.,.t and indneration facilities should not be located in watershed
areas tributary to any reservoir, as well as in those drair.age basins supplying water
to major recharge at.as. Facilities locating in such areas shall have appropriate
engineered containment features" inspection measures and othe.r environmental
protection controls necessary \0 minimiu any risks to watershed areas.
(from p. 8-12)
Protection of Wells and Wen Fields
Existing: ,
Residuals repositories shall no! be located within the cone of depression created by
pumping 3 well or well field for 90 days.
Transfer, treatment, oc incinera.tion facilities should avoid locating within the cone
of depression created by pumping. well or well field for 90 days unless an effective
hydrogeological barrier to vertical flow exists.
Consensus:
Residuals repositories shall not be located within the cone of depression created oy
pumping. well or well field (included are drinking water, i..-rigation. and
remediation and monitoring wells) for 90 days.
Stor'ge, tfealn'.ent, and incineration facilities should not be located within the cone
of depression cre.ted by pumping a well or well field Gnduded are drinking water,
irrigation, and remediation and monitoring wells) for 90 days, unless an clfe<:tive
hydrogeologiw barrier to vertical flow exists.
{ V
\
• . ,
,---,
..
~ ... ' •.........•... <.':i:,:'-t'"·'
o
(from p. 8-121
Prolection of Existing Groundwaler Quality
F 045tlna:':-;'", :"~"~_'.:;.,::.':: :::.' ',:" ~ j>,~",~<:, c ~'::'.' ~ ~'.' ... ~.~:'-:~
Residuals rep.:;si.tories shiill not be located in .' High Priority Protection 'AIeaai"--.
designated by the 5Cvv.'O's "GrowldWa!er Ma''''gem.n! iri Santa Oara Valley" ' ..
(April 1987). -: :. • ." .' ,
Storage, trea!ment. Al\d mcineration facilities shall not be located in a High Priority
Protection AIea as designated by the SCYWD's "Groundwater M""'gement Lot Santa
Clara Valley" (Apri11987).
Consensus:
This criteria Al\d the accompanying figure (Figure 8-1) hav" been deleted.
(from p. 8-13)
Protection of Surface and Groundwater
""'<""~ ='.-.
Hazardous waste ma."agement facilities should not be located in areas posing a
threat to the contamination of useable surface water .upplies. Additional
containment measures 10l' facilities may be necessary to minimize any risks to
surface water.
ConsensuSi
Hazardous waste management facilities should not be located in areas posing a
threat to the contamination of use,able surface water supplies Dr groundwater.
Facilities locating in sud areas s.hall have appropriate engineered containment
features,_ inspection measures" and other environmental protect:::on controls
n~'eSSary to minimlze any risks to surface or groundwater.
(from p. 8-14)
Protection of Recreational, Cultural, and Aesthetic Areas
Existing:
Hazardous waste management facilities shall not be located in areas having
pa.-ticular cultural, aesthetic, historical, or arc.".aeological significanC<! as identified in
the applicable General Plan or in any Regional or State Plan. No haza:dous waste
facility may be lOcated within a National, State, Regional, County, or City Park,
Monument, National recreation area, Wildlife Refuge, Dr other designated open
space identified in one or all of these Plans. .
, I
•
~ ..
-
Conscnms: ~ .
Residuals repositories .haJJ not be lca.ted in areas having particular culturaL
usthetic, historicaL oc ardIaeological significance as identified in to ... e appil'" ble
General Plan oc in a. .... y Regional 0< State 1'Jan. '" ,__'
Low-yo1ume tnJISfer and storage facilities may be allowed in ~u having, ' .. ,
~ cultural, aesthetic, historical, 0< archaeological significance or ,wit.'Un ' 0.,
otheide.lSnA!2d 'open"sj;acc idelitiI;ed in the'applieable ~aJ l'linOr in my:' ,
RegiOnal or Stio!li PLan;; if ni!cesSarjIO handle r.azaroous waste generated by visitors,
workers, or residents, thereof. Treatme..l\t and incineration facilities shall not be
located within me.e areaS.
(from: p. 8-14)
Proternon of Prime Agricultural Lands
Existing:
Hazardous waste man.g=ent facilities shall not be Io<:.ted on prime agricultural
lands which ar~ used for prime agricultural crop production. Specifically, no facility
may be io<:ated in areas designated by the SOU Conservation Service as Class I or
CJass 2 soils or designated as prime agricultural land in tne applicable General Plan
or i."\ any Fegional or State Plan.
Consensus:
Hazardous waste management facilities should not be located on prime agricultural
lands, specifically areas designated by the Soil Con.servation Service as Clas, I or
Class 2 soils or designated as prime agricultural land in the applicable General Plan
or in~y Regional or State Plan. Facilities locating in such areas shall be allowed
only if the local jurisdiction makes a finding tha t an overriding public need is
served by allowing the facility to lJe located on the proposed site.
(from p. 8-14)
Ploternon of Mineral Resource Areas
Existing:
No hazardous waste management facility may be locate:! in areas containing
mineral resource deposits thaI 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 5Z such that
the siting would restrict or prevent the use or preservation of t.."e deposit.
Consensus:
Hazardous waste management facilities shall not be sited SO as to preclude extraction
of mineral resource deposits that may be suitable for commercial development or
hold outstan<llng scientific significance, Facilities shall be carefully planned so as
I;).
L
,-,
,
'\':
~,
."".'C ,"
, ,
.-J-'
-
•
not 10 prevent or restrict the preservation or ;;;:"0£ ;"meial deposits'iIl an;as '.,,' •
identified under the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 with
classifications 01 MRZ-2, MRZ-3 or sz.
" , .'. , .
. =. '",. .j
Existing:
Residuals repositories shall be located in areas consistent with the County GenPJ.l
Plan and, if the facility is-proposed to be located in any of the cities, the General Plan
of that dty, Urbar.ized areas are not appropriate for siting residuals repositOries,
Residuals repositories will be sited only in those areas which meet all siting criteria,
and are consistent with the applicable General PI .. :" '
Stor~e; treattnent, or incinerati6n f~cilities "shall be 'lOc~ted in ~e~ 'consistent with
the CountY General Plan and, if the facility is proposed to be located in any of the
cities, the Ge."'\era1 Plan of that city_ Specifically, a transfer station, treatment facility
or incinerator shall be located in areas consistent with existing and proposed
industrial areas as designated in the applicable General Plan. Transfer, treatment, or
incineration facilities will be sited only in those areas which meet all siting criteria
and ue coc.sistefit with the applicable General Plan. '
Consensus:
Residuals repositories shall be located only' in areas which meet an the siting criteria
and are consistent with the County General Plan .. "'\d, if the facility is proposed to be
located in any of the cities, the General Plan of that city, These facilities shall not be
located in UIban areas. An applicant I:\.Y seek a General Plan amendment for a site
tllat a.ppears to meet all other siting criteria.
Storage, treatment. and incinerati~n facilities shall be located only in areas which
meet all the siting criteria and are are consistent \IoJ'itit the County GeneraJ Plan and,
if tl,e facility is proposed to be located in any of the ci~es, the General Plan of L'lat
city. These facilities shall be located in areas consistent with existing ,md proposed
industrial areas as designated in the applicable General Plan. An .pplicant may seek
a General Plan amendment for a site that appears to meet aU other siting criteria.
APPENDIX ym.c
To conform with the revisions to the above sixteen criteria in Table 8-1 ...
corresponding charges were made in Appendix VIII-C In addition, the deflnitions
and lor significance of two criteria (Protection 01 Surf.", and Groundwater and
Protection of Wells and Well Fields) were expanded,
,
~ .~~,:
'<II;,;
.-
... J
-
Pro~on of Surface Q,,4 Groundwafer'
DoBnition:
"Surface waters" are nal".u-al and man-made bodies which a=ulate, hold,' or
minster surlare run--off, including lakes, St,:r:~/. r~rvoirs, and. aqu~':l~'. ~-;.".
"Useable suna"" waters N are those which can be used for drirJdng water, .. .
agricultural, and recreational purposes.
·GrOrm4'W~ is th~ water Juld i", infergranular peres, joints, or frac:hlres
tuithbc subsurffJU sell or rode.
Significance:
It is p05s:ibl" that spills and leakage from • hazardous waste management facility
could en!eI sunace wafen:, potentially contaminating useable water supplies.
Gi,m. tire fact that groundwater prollides harf the county'. water supply, and the
relllti-ut.1y close prorimify of major grvuniwlZter pumping zones to indusmQ_l
regicm.s, it may ~ mcessary to implement land Jl.se and mgi1U!ering control
1nea.sut'ts to ensure that groundwater remains protected from haur40us
materi41s activities.
Hazardous wasil! management facilities will be su.bject to the requirements of
OIlS and tire EPA. Storage and treatment facilities using tanks and containers
lire required to htn1t "containment system to ensure that Il!iZks, spills, and
pr~cipitation can be col/ected and held until deueled a.d remolled.
Profectian of Wells and Well Fields
Definition:
The area where a well or group of wells are being used for the extraction of
groundwater fmcluded. are drinking water, irrigation. and remediation and
monitoring wells'.
It.{
L
"",Y;~,~<·
.~:.:::)",::.--:
..... -
p~t-t: k£ XC
CHAPTERS
SIl1NG OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILmES
INTIIODUcnON
Oapter S is a statement of the policies and criteria for siting hazardous waste
management facilities in Santa Clara COurity thIough the ye:u 2000. The main
thrust of Government Code s..ctions 65965.1 and 66780.8 and Chapter 6.5 of the
Div'-sion of tl,e Health and Safety Cooe (AB 2948, "Tanner Bill") is 10 provide for the
siting of off-site hazardous waste management facilities in California. Provisions
for the siting or expansion of on-site facilities are not covered under AB 2948.
A$ disc.J.ssed in Chapter 7, new hazardous waste mana.gement facilities in the
County·and expansions to existirlg fadlities w1'dch require preparation of an .ErR, a
land use permit. and a hazardous waste facility pennit will be required to
implement the County~s Hazardous Waste Management Hlerarchy to the
maximum extent feasilile in the use, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials
and wastes. To minimize the storage~ treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste in
off-site facilities, the hierarchy suggests implementation of three preferred
management practices (m order of priority): source redUction, recycling (on-site and
off.-site), and on-sii:e treatment. However" l.!Se of the hierarchy will not r.ecessa.rily
preclude the need for the siting of off-site hazardous waste management facilities
due to the Counfy's large and varied waste ,tream.
This chapter prcvides criteria for identifying general .reas in the County where
facilities may be sHed pending compliane<> with coru;u-aints specific to the facility_
These candidate are .. were selected by overlaying the siting criteria which could be
mapped with the industrial zone map, and identifying the resulting areas which
appear to meet approriate criteria for the construction of an off-site hazardous waste
managment facility_ More ,tringer.t criteria were applied to the siting of a residuals
\
i
I
i
~
I
I
;.
... ~
,
\ ,
$-.\·c
<',' -.-:', ... -'
l
1
i
rep05itories than fer other facilities. since residuals repositories pore a potentially
greater risk to pubUc and environmental health.
The sifulg criteria developed by the County to meet the statutory requirements of
AB 2948 fall ir.to the following objectives: (I) protection of t.he residents of Santa
Clara County; (2) assurance of the structural stability of :r.e facility; (3) protection of
water resources; (4) protection of air quality; (5) protection of environmentally
sensitive area5j and (6) protection of socia.l and eoonQmic goals.
Siting criteria serve an important functian ir. the ph.nning process and in
evaluating specific facility proposals. While the siting criteria satisfy t.he need for an
emphasio on public and environmental safety, the CO\mty's siting policies ensure
that Countywide facility sifulg needs and obj..:tives are met. These siting criteria
and policies will be used to determine the appropriate facility design and
performance standards required of a proposed hdlity, in addition to determining
the aet:eptabillty of the selected site.
The siting criteria are intended to apply to Countywide sifulg decisions, including
siting decisions in individual cities. They are to be used whenever a land use
decision is required to site and construct a new or expand an exisnng ofE-site
hazardous waste management hanty. The criteria are designed to identify the most . . ~
appropriate locations in regards to public and envirorunental .. fely for needed
hazardous waste management facilities. These criteria will help facility develo~
identify appropriate faa1ity location and understand t."e major issues of community
concern in "any particular area..
~--'. .
. .:·t."" -', (I~ . --.". -... ~. :~~"" , .. ) .....• <,;-'; •• :"-'"'_ --: ,,: .. -; ~ .. ;.r:: "-.. " : ' ... ': ..... "'~'"
Santa Clara County's pnmary gOal in o.,velaping tlus CHWMP is to pro\ect the
0_: ~~;:-" ...... :/",': . r.-'1~ 1: , ;'1. -"", . ,_:. ,";-,', :. _. : ;:,-:,:.",;' "J.' .. ~ ..... , •. -... ,_
health, 'safety, and economkwell-being of both its citizens and the environment.
The eoili;t;. ~~ iti ;';;P;,,,,,oility to.ddress the speclfir. h~d~\lS 'waste
management needs of its own 1>u..inesses and households by encouraging Ioc:al
generators to practice source reduction and on-site treatment and by establiShing a
8-2
L
•
•
.-
I
I
1
I
" ":}.tr .
• _,. ," cO'
-
clear process by which priv.te firms may propose to ,ite appropriate new hazardous
waste management facilities with!:> the County.
The 0!V'lMP should be reviewed regularly and siting crite.ria re.ised when
appropriate. All resulting changes 10 the CHWMP or siting criteria must be
approved by. majority of the cities with • majority of the population within Lie
incorporated portion of the COlmty in the same mannn as required for its irutiai
adoption. A fonnal update should be conducted every three years to correspond
with the triennial update of the St.te Plan. Any amendments shall be subject \0 the
same public participation processes used to initially eValu'te the ClTh'MP.
fACll.I1YSmNG POLICIES
In the siting of future haza:'dous waete managem~nt facilit:i.es~ Santa Clara County
recognizes that t.."1e storaget treatment.. indneration~ and disposal of hazardous waste
is of e~treme ooncern to its residents. The following policies address the land use
implications for siting these facilities in the County. These policies, in addition te
the goals, policies, and objectives outlined in Chapter 2, are supported by the siting
criteria described in this Chapter.
Polic;y 1,
All proposals to site a ~azardoU5 waste management facility shall assure
oompatibility with neighboring land uses and be consistent ".;th the appropria:e
permitting jurisdiction's General Plan, zoning, and the CH'VMP.
Policy 2:
Areas designated for industrial uses by the applicable General Plan may be
appropriate for hazardous waste management facilities if, during the
development review process, it is detenn.i.ned that such a use would be
compatible with existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of the site.
Urbanized areas designated for industrial",;os are not appropriate fer siting
residuals repositories.
Polic;y 3:
As determined by the permitting jurisdiction, all proposals fDr new and
8-3
,
".
I ".
-
expanded hazardous waSle management facilities must provide adequate
mitigation for identified environmental impacts. Engineering alternatives are
not I*.rmitled in the design oi.residuals repositories due to the polentially greater
risk associated V¥ith these facilites to the community and the environment.
Poliey 4;
A risk assessment znay be required for new or e>:panded hazardous waste
management facilities by the local jurisdiction based on the facility applicanrs
response to the risk assessment cheekEst. The risk assessment should identify
health, safety and envirorunental factors that may be unique to the site as well as
te the type of wast. te be managed.
Polic;y S:
AIl proposals for hazardous waste faciUties should be consistent with plans and
policies of regional regulalory agencies (Le. BAAQMD and the RWQCB) that
protect air and water quality.
Polic;y 6:
The representation on the Local Assessment Committee (LAC) will include a
representative from the communir-f adjoining the jurlsdiction in which L'1e
facility is proposed whe..ever the .djoining community may be adversely
affected by the proposal in question.
THE FAOLlTY SITING PROCESS
The siting p,ocess oulined in t.'1is Chapter is a guide for local land use decision;. It
defines the conditions under which it is .ppropnale 10 permit a new or expanded
off-site hazardous waste management facility.
The"locaJ land use authority" referred to in this Chapter is the city council if the
facility is proposed to.be located within a city or the Board of Supervisors if the '.
•••• • <. ".' -. -'.
facility is to be located in an unincorporated are. of Santa Clara County_. The 'off-sUe
,,: .... ,,",1<:-."":"-:-' ..... ~': ' -.. ,-. ' ••.•. '-',.,-.. " .•••... ': .. ",.---
hazardous waste management faolities referred to in this report are listed on·the: >/.'~· ,. 'Ji~'~-'. _~,);.. ,,' , .•. ~., .• '. . ........ .
following page: . .
8-4
L
•
,
-.
. .J
o
o TransFer and Storage Facilities
o Treatment F.eiliUe., including but not limitEd to:
-NeulIalization
-Precipitation
-Filtration
-Evaporation
-Solidification ane! Stabili:i::.aHon
-lncinen tion
-Recycling and Resource Recovery
o Residuals Repositorie.s
Appendix Vlll-A presez>1s a detailed description of the transfer and storage, aCj1!eous
treatment, recycling,. stabilization and solidification .. incineration, and resicuals
repository faOOtes.
The initial design and development of hazardous waste facilities is accomplished by
privafe developers ... who own and operate the facilities. Government's role will
focus on overall planning for these facilities, as well as on the evaluation and the
issua"c<> 0( land use permits for proposed facilities. AB 2946 requires certain
development review procedures to be used by the local land use authority for ,
proposed hazardous waste facilities. The required procedures (negotiations between
community and developer, consistency Mth jurisdictional plans, environmental
assessment, and risk assessmer.t) are desdbcd below.
Negotiations Between Community and Developer
Section 25199 of the Health and Safety Code specifj.,. the local approval process for
the siting of a hazardous waste management facility. One purpose of the permit
pr<>eess is to provide an opportunity for negotiations betv.'een the local community
and the facility deyeJoper. At least 90 days before applyir,g for a land use permit, the
deVeloper must notify the California State Office of Permit Assistance (OP A) and the
local land use authority of its intention to apply for a permit (Notice of Intent). This
step triggers a public hearing conducted by OPA in the community where the facility
8-5
c·· .. ··,""'_·
,
•
,--
I ,
t
l
I
I
is proposed to infonn the public about t..'1e project's nature, f!..1!1ction and scope.
Once the applicant files a Notice of Intent (NO!) vdtJ. OPA, OPA notifies the local
land use jur'.sdiction. The jurisdiction then has 90 days to appoint a Local
Assessment Committe'! (LAC) consisting of seven .. members (three representatives
from the commur.ity-at-large, tv.·o representatives of environmen!a1 or public
interest groups and two representatives of affected businesses and ind!1sfries) to
negotiate with the developer on thE: conditions for projecf approval.
The ]oc.a~ iand use jurisdiction sends th~ applicant Initial Srudy materia1s and a risk
assessment checklist At the time of application for a local Land Use Permit, the
applicant must submit the completed initial study and risk assessment checklist for
review by Ihe local land use agency in ecns"ltatiDn with the LAC. Tne beal staff
will then detennine wnethe.r or not the applicant needs to prepare a ri!;k assessment
and/or an EIR.. If, based on analysis of the completed risk assessment c\",ecklist, local
staff determine that a risk assessment must be completed ... the risk assessment shall
be consistent with the risle: assessm€nt requirements of the appropriate permitting
agendes (e.g., BAAQMD and DHS).
Once the develop<!r has filed a complete application for a land use permlt, OPA '
convenes another rr.eeting in the affected community. At n .. js meeting.. the State
and local permitting 'gencies, the dev<loper, the LAC and the pubEc identify the
issues of cor.cern to th~ agencies and the public. Subsequently, the developer and
the LAC negDtiate the terms of project approval .c"'"plable to bet.'> the commmlity
and the facility developer. If the LAC .nd developer cannot agree, a medi.cor may
be provided by OPA. The LAC advises the city or Cour.ty of the conditions for
project approval agreed upon by th LAC and the developer. While these
conditions are not binding on the loa! decision making process, this advice should
be seriously considered by the locall.nd use authority in its decision on the land use
application. Appendix vm -B provides a complete step-by-step discussion of the
local approval process for siting hazardous waste management facilities.
8-6
L
,
~,
--.:. -.
.. ;. ~,::.~
~:~':. '-:~!
.-
-
Consistency with Jw.isdictional Plans
In order for the local lmd use authority to approve the I:md use permit, it must fInd
that th~ project is ronsistent with the pennitt:ing jurisdictions' ~neral Pla .. i' and
zoning in effect .t \f,e time of application ane with the CHWMP. The siting map
deye!oped for the Plan delinea~es ger..eral areas U,at appear to meet the siting criteria
and appear to be consist"".t with the General Plan. COn'.pliance ,,~th the CHWMP
siting criteria is • necessary condition for project approval. Should "1 applicant
desire to site a !adlity in an area not cunently identified on tl'1e siting map as an area
that appears to meet the siting aiteria for hazardous waste management faciHties,
tr~ applicant may seel< • General Plan amendment through the local jurisdiction.
Upon revision to the local General Plan, the subject change must be incorporated
into the siting map 01 the CHVI'MP. The resulting change to the CHVI'MP must be
. approved by a majority of the cities with a majority of the population ""thin the
incorporated portion of the County, by the Board of SUF,ervisors, and £mally by DHS.
Environmental Impact Report
The proponent of a hazardous waste management facility will be required to comply
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in order to fully inform the
public and government decision-makers regarding the environmenta1
consequences of the project ... alte!'Tlatives to the projt'ct, 3l'td mitigation me2~ures
that may be required for project approval (note: in ge.neraJ~ mitigation measures are
not permitted for residuals repositories due to the potential risks associated v.":lth
these facilities). CEQA compliance is a mandatory condition for project approval.
After an applicant files a NOr Mth OPA, they must begin preparing an initial study,
wr-ich mur.t be submitted to the local land use judsdiction upon filing for a local
Land Use Permit The local jurisdiction ",,·m then determine whether an
environmental Irr.pact Report (ElR) is required.
8-7
."---
-
Risk Assessment
A multi-media risk assessment (air. surface waeer,l groundwater, soil, sediment: and
biota) shall be conducted for incluslon in an EIR if U1e local jurisdktion determines
that a risk assessment is required based on local staff's analysts of the completed risk
assesSIMI\\ checl<lisl in consultatier, wit." \he LAC. The applicant begins completing
\he checklist after filing an NOI with OPA. It must be completed when the applicant
files for a local Land Use Permit. The purpose of \he checklist is to dete=ine a r,ew
or expanded facility's potential for rel~ase of hazardous chemicals to \he air, surf.ce
wafer,l groundwater,l soil, :>ediment, and biota (mclndiIlg estimates of Ute types and
quantities of chemicals routinely used and petentian)" ene-lime accidental spills);
the probability that a release would impact human, animal, and plant populations
(induding prmomity \0 vulner.ble po;>~lation5, climatologic ar,d hydrogeologic
factors that would infl.uen<:e transport); and the risks associated with such an impact.
H a risk assessment is dee:med necessary. it should consider the potential for
atddental (i.e.,I sudden) and cumula.tive health 31ld emrirorunental impacts
resulting from the proposed fadlity.
SmNG MAP AND CRITERIA
Table p...l identifies the siting factors and criteria for residuals repositories and oili£!r
hazardous waste managen".ent facilities. The siting criteria for residuals repositories
are more stringent than for other hazardous waste management facilities because
residuals reposHories may present il greater potential risk fo the community and
environment. Evaluation of the results of individual risk assessments for fadlities
which are not residuals repositories may justify Ihe application of more stringent
criteria for these facilities based on the physical and chemical characteristics of the
specific types of wastes that will be handled as well as the fadJity design.
AB 2948 requires .that counties which include siting criteria in thett plans must also
identify g£neral areas which have not been eliminated after a.pplication oE the siting
8-8
L
1
I
I
I
'-"~
_I
,
1
j
0>
to
-
. -
Table 8-1: Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Criteria
Siting Fador
Prolcctjgn or thf Residents or ShC" Clan OU,ID.ll
Pro4ection of Prodm.ue and Immobile Populatioru
Protcctioo of Public Facilities
Silincr ('rite-ria
A minimum huffer zone or l,OCO feet !hc::J1d be:
provided bel .... , th< property booml"')' of .. y
residuaI! reposilory IUld I!n existing rx pl.annr-.d J"e$j.
clence or immobile ro9U1aIJon. Based on Ihe risk as
sessment and analyst! of el1vironmer.l2.I irnpac~. a
buffer zone of great:tt odeS! thall 2,OCQ feel may tc
rt:quired m protect the present and future pubric
tteall1l. safety, and wei fare.
'" minimum buITe.r zone of 2,000 (U\should 'be p-o
vided between BrlY resid'tta1s repository and e.n e",;is1.
Eng 01 planned pubHc facility. Based on lhe rislc IS+
s.essmWl and ana'ysis of environmental' impacts. I
buffer rone{lf gr.o.aler 'Jt less If,an 2.0J0 feet may be
reqtJired 10 protect the present and futur:-publk
heaWI, safelY. and welfare.
S iung or~duaJ~ reposi!!lries ,...ill ~ire an analy
lis ofloca1'em.ergency response capab:licy -inc!ud
ing fin:. por"e, medk..al. and I'Iat.arOOus material.!
inciderJ. Te,~n.se personnel -10 insure !dequaL<!
protection in !he event of an :Kddenl at the proposro:
fac1tity. It may be nectS.Wy ftt the ftttilh)' Cl'1!""'tl
opel' IOsupptemeot theseClipabllities b)' mahltaining
additional emergency respcMe equipment and/Cl'
personnel orui~. by ImsnciaIly upgrading the local
C$pabiliLie:s eo provide these Ilecdw suvices,. IlIldicr
by providin.s: additional facility dcrign reatures 10
limil Lhe impact of potential accid'1! nls at lIle faci:l ity.
Ston.l~, Treatsnr.nt., and [acl,nualknl Facilitlts
Am mimllm buffer zone ol2,COOteet sbouJd be provided
bet ween !:!'Ie proper:)' bouMa:y d any 5tOI'ftge, treatment,.
or incinetatiOD facility aM an existin& IX ptanncd rat-
6ence or immooik ~utaUor .. Ba5ed 00 '!he risk uses!
men! and anaJys!.s cof environmental impacts. • tKlfTer
zooe o!g:realCl' or less 1hiU12,(XX) fed may be required to
protect Lhe pn;:smL am ruture: pulJ.Ec ~th. saI'tty. 1m!
welfare.
A minimum burret zone of 2,00) feet should be ~
vLded be~'eeD In)' stCl"8&e. treaament, or incincmioa
fae i1 ity andan existing or 'plarlOcd public !.acili1y. Based
cntherls1assessmer.t:mdar.al-pisof~taJim
p3CLS, I huff!"J'" zooe ofgreato--Ql'"less thM2.000 rectmay
be required to y.otecl \he present and future public
heatt11, safelY. and weU'are.
Siting of storage. trWment, and incineration facilities
wiD require an analysis of Ior.al emergmcy RSpCNe
c<JpaNlity -ioctllOl!1g rlJ'e, ponce, medieaJ, and hazard..
ou:; materials inciderot I"'...spon:se personnel -to iruurc.
1de<ilJ.3.le protb:tion in the e,rent of an accident It the
pn::.p:>sed facililY. II tTlay henec.essary ftt the facility de.
veloper LO ~lIpplement these capabilities by Jru!Jintainin&
additional emergency respon3e equipment and/or pc'~
sonnet Oflsit.e. by financiaIl, upgrading the HxaI capa
bilities to provide lhese needed se.rvkes, and/or by
providing addltional facility design fWllf't.5lO limit the
impact of potential accidents at the factti1y.
,"'.;0' •
•
i ,
I
!
l
•
•
--
,j, " .. ;'
::;'tf!~ ..
Table 8-1: lIaz:.rdous Waste Facility Siting Criteria
(continued)
smog Factor Siting Criteria
Prt1'rrOon 01 tbe Rcsldrnll! or Son fa Clara Cglln !y
As~\lnDt'J g( lb' $IPK hr!"a' StabUit, s>( Ihl Farm"
P'!'otec:lion (10m Suspecled F.IUTLS
Pto\etlioo from Ae(jve Of R~Lly .'-clive FiW1lS
CcQDIj"Utd)
To the m;uim1Jm e"te~l ~3Sible. residuals Kpoc;itQ
rie.!! shan be located in cio.sc proximity 10 majer
paved roods desi~ 8Mtc1'\SlruCted' \0 acc'()!'!",mo-
date henvy \lellieks, witl'J good ICC~ to di"'ided
highways. or freew,,"),!. An desirnaleG rooles should
preclud'e l,he t:rarlsporto(haurdotlsW'.dS1C em residen
tial SU«-Il :"I'ld in lIta5 hoosil'ig immobile J:Opllla
l1::ms.
Residuals r"..po~iLOries sited wlLhin 3,000 f~! of a
knowo or suspected rault" &! eSlabli!:hed by Ole
Alqt.:i!l-Priolo map-.!! of the Stile of Ca.!ifomia ry
identined in !he most recently O!ovaltabJe txal maps
{)r inforrmllion, sf!:il.i1 ~onduct a subsurface e~plor.:t
tion lodcletTT1 ine that there ~ no ac-u\'c foultswl tl'Iin
200 reel of (he poniOTlS of !he fa6fity wl1ere tre.at
men!., S'':.u5':. at' disposal will be c:ondOCled.
The porlions ot a residuaJ! repository ""here b .. wd
ous wa!lle ,"'ill be stcred, tteal.cd. ordlsposed of ~"an
not bt Toc lilted within 200 retl oran active or recenlJ.l'
ac Live (Holocene Period) earthqual:e rault, as CSIBb
fished tl.l" Lhe Alquist-PrioTo m~ps of l~e S!:J!e oi
carl rorflL::J or idenLifie.:1 in the most roccntly aV:l!!able
local m:lp~ OllnfofTTI3tiOn..
p, ~ idu;lh repositories lhan not be l,xate!1 in areas
below.a dam or levee: lO'UClUre: that wculd be inuD
oated by the now otwater created if me dam ;)rlevee
structure we're to fJ it.
Stongl!, Tl'tatmtnt, 'rod Inci1\tntion Fadlllfcs
To !he rna;;. imum e). tent possible, stonge. trt3tment.~nd
incir.eralion racilities shaD be Icxated in clost pro~imiry
to m-ajorpe· .... ..d roa6! 6e.signed and :tlnsU'Utttd lOaecom
modale heavy vehicle,. ,.,iiI}( SClOd ac.::.eSSlDcfj"jded high
"iV3)1 (X" freew:lyl. An ~esignated TOOtes sbou1d preclude
the tral'l5pon ofhazudous \\'3Ste on. residential streets aDd
in r-as bousinS immobile populations.
Stol'1lge, tre:a~en!.,.: ,Id incirterntion. rocllities:siltdwi1hin
3,OCO rectof a knowD or $U5pected faut .. as escabTlshedby
the Al'ltllsl-Priolo maps of:.he SUIte oICal'ifomiaor.iden
tified in the most r~na'y available local maps or
inrormation. shan conduct. subsurface ~xpforation 10
determine dlat there are no /K'u .... e f.sullS .... llhio 200 reetor
!he portior15 of l11e facilily where treatment, 5tol'3ge., or
dilpoS81 wiD be condocted.
The porlions of • stornge. treatmen[,. or incinera:!ion
facililY I./here hazard'om waste will be stored, treated. ex'
alSposed d .sh.lI'! not be located wtl1lill 200 rut or an
acuvc CI' recendy IIC'tive (Holocene Period) e&rt!lquake
Cauit, as est.abrisW by the Alquist-Priolo m~s of the
Stale o( California or identified in lhe most recentiy
,a,,'ai13bte local maps (Y infonnaLio1l.
Strnge, trea~nt. aild incineration facilities sh!XI~d DOl
be Tocated in ar~s. below .. dam or level: SlJ'UCtute lhat
would be mU:l'rdr!t~ by the now or WOller if ~ dam or
lc.v~ stru:; ture were 00 fail. FaciTi Lies locaun, in sue"
~ maH be designlU.1, CCnSl::nlt:led, operated, and main-
L _________________________________________ ta_;ne..:d_lO...:p_,ec:..'~od~,~r3illlte due '10 rue" an event.
'L
-
o
o
1
I
I
'4 ra
I
Table 8·1: Hazardous Wasle Facilily Siting Criteria
Silin, Faefor
(continued) Siting Criteria
R~id[la1s Repo:dlorles
AMprann 01' the Stow"!"" SfJbilitr orJbc F,I'\01, {ronli.ruwfi
Proteaion From floodplaIn Aru$ Resi cl'ua!.s repositories shan not be located in areas
subject 10 rrJU1)d'..ation by 1ioOOs having I iOO-year
return period a by IlMh flood'ing Of major surge3
!rom s:tonnl, river noodin.s Of rainfan (as idenLifie~
on Fodenll Flood Insuranc. !<ar" Maps).
ProleCtioo From Unstable Slcpe.s
PIotec1lon From UnsLable Soib
PmfertjoD rfw.'U BtWuTff$
Residual's repositories shout.! nO! be located' in areas
Q..'here slope cJtceeds 15 percent unless slle-q>eCific
foctor.; micg.a!e [be impact Q!lhe Jilt's slope. Facjjj·
ties k>carlng in svc:!l acU3 sbaJl rtt;uire appropri.uc.
land LLc;e destgnauOO!.
ResiduaI..~ ~pr.sjlorie$ shan no< belocated in areas.oC
po~ntial rapid geologic t:har1gt (soch as lands!i de,
son creep, earth flow .<lthet m.as! movcrnerlto( earth
m3lerial, rubsicJeno:e or liqooatuoll).
Siorage, tretii1nent. and in:::: ineraticD facilities sboold not
be kcated in a.-eas subjecltD inuncJatioo 'byfioods h&vinr
a lOO-year retwn pericd or t;y flash nocxfa:n.s or maj::r
surge! from storms, river floodin, or rainfan (as ideod
fled Oil Federal Flood InsuranC'.e.Ra1¢ Maps). Facl'frues
loc.atillg in SUC'h areas shall bedcsigtled, constnJeted,.op
ernted, and maintained' 10 preclude faiJure due 10 such an
event
Storage. treatment.. 8nd incinc.....uoo facilities sItouJd not
be located in an::as where slope exceeds 15 percent wdess
site·specific [aclM: :rr.il.igale LJ;e tmpactof(he she's slope.
FadU ties locating in sucb areas shall:eq!Jire ~
land' use designations..
S wrage, treatment. and irdnenUioll faciJir.ies shou1d not
be Ioca~d in areas oC potential rapid geologic change
(s..JCh I:!I landstide, soil oeep. earth Dow. odIer mass
movement ofear.h DWerial, subsideneeorIiqge!"a;:don)
unle.s.s the appHc8lIl demonstrales and the locaIjuri5dic
ticn m:*es a rmtfmg tha1 an overriding pu'bflC rJeed is
served by anrlwing the !acitit} to be kx::a:tt.d on £he
~ silt. Factl1ti¢$ locating in socb &feU shan be
~igned. COi'lSO ucLed. operated and rnallltained 50 pre
clude Ca.alwe as a teSlJlt 0(' n~d geologic cha. .. ,ge.
AD .app1lcanl:$ are ~uimf to obtAin written CQ!1fumation from theSarlLa Om Vaney Water District (SC\,'-WD) stating 'PIhelher or not the PfIJPOSt.d .site is in all area
thal may adversely impact wara resources.. Based on !he SCVWD lClLer and cxher infonnatioo ot:Llined d'tuing 1M land 1.JSe dectslo'1.-making~, die proposod
l~ir:y may be disallowed, fw1ha hydrogeoTogv....a] ulVesLig2:tion 'l1 ay be WluiR-.d of the: 3Wfx;ant. or, if [he (aci [j Ly is anowed, appropriate enviroo..-nental protection
measures wiII be required..
"....-.
•
-------.. -----------~ -.-----.---~
I I",
-I.:. , '" I
-
Table 8·1: Hazardous Wasle Facility Siting Criteria
(continued)
SUing (,dot SjHn~ Crilerja
rrOI .... 'inp at WitH RWUlrtfS fron tjntlcd)
~UOl'l 01 Watershed Areas
Ptole(1ion orMajor Gr-oond'water R edwge Zone.s
ProJ.imity 10 wens and Wen F~ldt
Protection from PermetlbiTiry of Stra l3 and Soils
Fesi~ual5 Rtposllorits
R~idlJalS repositories shall nofbe localed in w3ter
shed area.~ tritlUlMy 10 an)' re~rvoirs as well as those
drainage basins lupplyiI11 'W:!let to major' nx:hargc L=_
Residuil)S reposilories .sh311 not 'be loc:!I~d in arens
Imown ~o be, Of suspeclef2 or, supplying principal
recharge to J major aqLlifer.
Resid'll:]Ts rrpos!tories sh:!l'! r:<X be foc:'ited wilhin the
concof depIt:ssioncrute.d by pllmping a wen or wen
fle1d (includtd ere drink.ing water. lr"rigauon... and n:.
memalion and monitoring wens) (I)[' 90 days.
Reslduals I'1:p<:I3i,orits sf".<!l1 not be located ill arc.a.s
"'iLh" natura! underlying stralurn 'JIr'ilh penneabiTily
greater L"an I J: ]()..1 em/sec. CCR. TiLfe 23, Seclian
2510 (b) and (c) allows the Siale Water ResOUrt~
CO:'l:ra1 Boar.Ilo considel .l1em .. tive appl"O.!Cfles to
L~ 10-7 em/sec permeabnilyrequircrnen t{orresi du
eJ,S teposilorics.
Stor.ag!', Tn.Ellmenl, and lndntHilUOa F.dliUes
Siorage, tre<!trr1ef'll, and lm:iflera~on facilities s'flou1<fn<K
be kx:ated in wa!ers11ed artAj In''butary 10 any ~oirs
as ~'tll as those drainll!i:C basinJ SllppJymg water-to major
T~hargeareas, Faeili tif:slocalin,g in sl)Charc:as.sha11 have
appropriale engineered coownmcnt futures. inspection
measures, aM w..er en IIironmetltal protection eontrots
ne;:e.>sary [0 min imi.ze any risks to watershed at"...I:S,
Scornge. treatment., and Locineralion f(!Ci!iLies .shoold not
be located in areas 'k noWI] to 'be, Of' su.spe-;tc:d of, suPpt1~
ing principal redwge to • majO( Iquifer. Facifitid
'DC2ting in sucb areas shall have appropriate engineered
C OJ" t.<Unmeru fea~l.l:re1, inspeclion measures and olheref'l-o
vironrnel'ltal protection conLrOJs ~ (0 mrnimlze
any rid:.s 10 recharge areas.
SWQge.. trc.a lmenl,. and inciflemtion facilities should ilot
be located wllhi[J lhe cent of dep~OfI c:mttcd by
fllmpmg I. wen or weQ ftotld (included are drinking
wattr, irrigation, and remediation and mooilorinz wens)
ror90da:i~ unless ill'\ errt(:.ti'f~ b)ldrogeolcgical bamer to
ve:nkal flow e"ists..
Slorngc, tre3tmer1!, am:! incjn~rn1lon facilities slloufd' not
be loca led on hig hi}' permeable soils oc.sedi ment. Fao;ru·
,feslc.:::aLiflg in such areas shan have appropriate e.n~
necre.d contain merU featun:s. ins:poclion meas>JrtS, and
other en",ironmet1ta1 protection OO('l.lrott prolli'kd in 1IC&
conl'ance wi lh l1Ie requirements of the Stale Water R.e.
!;ClHCe! Con1.rol Board.
J .. ,'
,~-' ,,-,,' .,-,
•
•
. '
Table 8-1: Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Cdteri.
Siting fadM
Prottdjnn ", Wa1rr B sure,., (ro"!i,, II ed)
~oo or SurfllCt WaletS
PrPirdi:'m of Ajr QuaDh
Protectioo or Air Quality ill Non·AlWll ment Areas
~oo or Air QuaItty in P'reventioo of S~gr.lfi.caru.
Delorior.I!i"" (PSD) AJ<as
PrnltdjgD 01' En vi[onmcntgDI SfDSUiyr AnlS
Protection [.'Om Airfort Safdy Zones
(continued)
Siting Criteria
~esit!ua1s rt:~j~Diies slloujd notbclocali:d in a.-eas
posrng a threat to the cOl'lta:minaLion of aseabk sur_
face water supplies. Facili tie! locating in soch aIUS
St'UD ha .... e approprlaLe er:gineered conlainrnenl fea
tures, tnspectioc mea5Ul"e~. 8:I1d OOterer.vironmenlat
protectio[J controb necessary to minirnLze any risks
10 surface waler.
Residuah reposilOrie5 should DOt be prttluded (rom
Ioca:.ing in noo-allainmctlt areas unless the risk as
sessment shows lhal errttssions "til s\gniflCMtly
cootribute to norl-altainmenl of star.dards, that such
emissions cannot be mitigated. and IfI3l the emis·
sions from soch 'adlil.ies are significan!1y gre,a1.e1
than th~ as.sociat~ with ~ 1:'.lnSpoJr\{1fhazarOOus
"'a:5\e OLiI oflhe.area.
ResidU2Js repos.ilOrics shan demoostrate '.hat air
em Issionsc.an be adequately mirigared in order ItO be
estabr15hed in PSD Ill"e3S.
Residuals n:~i!ories shan 001 be located..,.. i Lhill an
Mel desis;nat~-d by !:he Uniled States Depanrnent of
Defense Of !he Santa Clara CoorllY Airp.)n Land Use
Commissio,'l 3..~ ha'o'ing the greateSl po~nti~ fa'
aircrart acddent:s, gcneraUy derLru:d as the area
immeaJ..1u=l)'" surrounding a pobHc oc miliLary air
port., inc'm:l'ing C'le immediale apprcr.-.:n :md taXc-off
paths..
Storage, 1realJT'oer1t,.and incineration fatUities should DOl
be located inareas posing' threat to lhe<:ontamination ol
useable sur.au walei' suppfie!. Facilities locatina in
sue'll &rea! shaD have appropriale engineered contain
ment f~atures, inspection meastL."'C:S, and Olber eovImn·
rr.cntal proteCtion cootrob: necessary 10 minimize. any
risks to surface water.
Swrage., tmllmenl, and ir.cinenltion facilities should not
be precluckd from locating in oon-auainmeru areas un
kssthe risk ~~t wowsthatetnimons win signiu
umLly CDntnoute 10 non-attainment of standards. that
S1.J(:h emissioos cannOl be: mitigated. and thallf>c emis
sions from such facililies are signUtcanUy greater than
those ~o;oci8ted .nth tflt transporl of hazardous waste
oL1i or Ihe area
SICrage, trtatsneilt,. ud mcines'aOOn racilities "ball dem.
onstraLc: thai airemiS.'liort!l can beadequatcly mlti~jn
order 10 be ~tabIis'hed in?SD a:reat.
Storage, treatment. &.rIdindDer3.uonI.acititiesshattnotbe
locakd wiihill an area dt:signatM by the United States
Departme!l.t of Defense or the Santa Qua Coonty Air·
port Land U~ Commission as havrn,: the grea1estpolen
tiaJ for ain:ra!t accidents., generaiJy defined a.s the area
immedLaLe.Ty SUrTOlU1dillg II public ()l" milituy airport. ir!~
eluding thI! L.."TImedi ate approach and take-olf paths.
~rilj".I!!.I.I"."------·-~·---:-:-'" ",~,--'----.
~~;\t:f
-",."
.;.' l
-
A ",;,J
-
•
Table 8-1: Hazardous Waste Fadlity Siting Criteria
(continued)
SUing fador ~i1jng Critt[13
Resk!uab Rrp~itori~
Prot" UOD gl E!I tiroD rot" fany Srnsiltyc A rcn 5 (cQn tin II rdl
Protcc:tiOfl olRecrearionsl. CallUral. and Al!sl1lClk
A1w
Proteclion of Prime Agricultural Lamk
Protection or Mineral Resource Areas
Re.sldllJ.ls repcsiloriCJ ShOll'! no!. be locaU'.:d in atC.!lS
llaving panic ulM"c-ultl.!rai,aesilietlc:, 'histDrical, orar
(h:.eologic.al signinc3nce as identined in the appli
cable Gern:rnl P11ln or in any Regional or Stlll: Plan..
RC!idll:!ls ~f'C'Si torks shooldnOi bclocated on prime
agricult'.JraJ bnds • .specIfically ar('~s de-signale.d by
Lhe Sot1 Conservation Service IS Class 1 or Class 2
wi!.s or designatoo IS pr;me 2gricuknru land in the
apprlCable General Plan or in any Regiorl:ll Of SLaLe
P!a..'l. Facilities TOC<Iung in such. area..! .shan be a1·
IO\\'W only if !he local j\Jri!idktian mal:::es a finding
that an overriding PllbriC need is SCT'IIed by allowing
the laciliilY 10 be ;ocDled in the proposed ~ite.
Residuals repositories sh..!.n nO( be sited so as \.0
preclude C::I: !r:lCtion of mrnerilJ rewu rt~ de pm:ilS If:.lt
lr,lY toe sui I..1ble ror commercial d'e\le'fopmcfJ( or hold
oULSwndi"g sciet1lHic signific<1!\Ce. Fadlities snall
be carerurly plJ.n/1c.d so &!i IiOI lO prevent or ~Slricl
ilie pres::.rvation or \lse of mineral' deposlu in MUS
jdentified onder the Calirornia Surf.xe MIning anc1
Recbmauon Ad of 1975 with cT.:l.~ifiC<1Li{!ns ot'
MRZ-2. :MRZ-3, or SZ ..
Slongr,l'[t'3tmenl, and Indr.trali01l Fr:dlitle:s
Lo .. ··volume trartsfer aoo stDl"a8e focilities may be aJ~
lowed in areas havrng p;lftk:u'ar cultural.. aesO:etic:, hi$-.
tOOc&!.OI trC'harologio:a1 signirJ.cance or wltfliD other
designated open space ide:llified in the applicabre Ge:I.
era! Plan C6 in any R.egiorW oc-Slale Plan, it neu.s2JY. 10
hMldle 'P\a.urdOIlS W3..~le lel')enued by visitors. workers.
or re~id"enLS, [hertel. Tre.atment and inc:inmuioo facift
t~s shat! nO!. be locatC'd ",il.hin rnese arta!.
SIOt'llgc, tre.alt1\CJll, and incirreralioa facitities .should not
be loca! ed <m prime agrktlllUr!! ll ... "tdS, .specincaJ11 areas
desig naled by theSoil Con.se.t'.'ltion Service as Class 1 or
Clafl '2 5Ol1s or de.1lgnaled .as prime. agrieuTtwalland ill
the applicabl'e Gentral Plan or in any Regional or Stale.
Plan.. Facilities l'1C.aLLng in:rudt arw shan be ,nowed
only lf the Ioc.aI jmisidktion makes I findinC lhat 11'1
overriding ,pIlbfic: Iieed is served by aJloWlnl1hc: racn iity
10 be kx::aled on the proposed ~te...
SIOr;1ge, tre2ln1enl, and ind~li()l'l rocilitief.shall no! be
siu:d so as 10 il~clude eJlt.ractior. 0( mineral. resource
c1'eposi~ thai may be !uitable {or commen:l31 develop
ment or l10ld olll.$tancfing scienLirlC sisnifiC'arce. Flclli.
ties s'han be UI1!fun), pia!1nt;d !O IS not l!) prt'loOCll1 or
restrict \he ,rtservation Of use or mintnll depos1u in
areas ide" lified under the Callromil Slrla=t Mining and
ReclamaLion Act or 1915 ",,'itll elassirlC.llions orMRZ-l,
MRZ-3, or SZ.
--{-;~
'''-;
•
;;.~
'.:-;"~:"-.,..
--.-;-;'
,-
---------------------------~
Table 8·1: Hazardous Wasle Facilily Siting Criteria
(continued)
Siring Faclor Siiing Crileria
PmIrc1lon o[Enkonmenlan, Stn:5jtfyr Areas /'c;Qntjnutd)
~on of Critic-a) Habiul1S
Prgh:ctjqn gI SnrjoI and EcrJnomir Gp@ls
Consist~ncy willi the Goals and Por»eies cf the
County HazaIdous Waste Manage.nlent Plan
(CIlWMl')
Consistency with the App!icable Cc:rn:nd P"1an
R~idual:i reposilDries shall noc:be 10000led in \Io'"!:tland Storag.e, trealma'lt,.and iDCinennioo facititie! shaD ootbe.
atea1 as deflr:ed by !he U.s. Fish and Wildfire Sen· locJted ill .. 'elland ~ as defined by lite U.s. F.,b and
ice_ Wi Id'hre 5ervic.e.
R~i ~uaIJ repositor~s shan 1'101. be: \ocaled .. ,!th in
c ri lkal habitats of en1lngere.d spec~5. as deli ned
or 6esignated lo"l !he applicable Centra' P1a1'l 0( in
8!1Y Re6:iot1al Of SlJle Plan.
Residuals repositories shan be consisteIlt "'ilb the
Goals and porkies or lhiJ CHWMP. specificatTy,
cJesigned and .sized primarily to meet the 00"'..d! of
hatardow waste ger;~r.Hors located in Sanla C1ar;a
CO(Jllty, or to ~ the County's broader commit·
menlS under any Int-erjuris::f;ctiona! ag-reemen1S.
R~~d'u91.s reposilJries s.'han be locau onl)' in art'-as
lIohicll ~el an die siting ctitieria ard art consistent
llIirn the: Cour. lY ~!1eral Plan and, if Ihe Ea.::ility 1s
prorosed to be Iocaled in any of the ciue s. the
Genc:ralP1an of ihal cily, These facllhks.sha!l noI be
IOCI1Ied' in urban are.IS. An appr"ant may Sl!ek •
General. Piar!, amendment rO[ i s;i\e ~M appun 10
mec.l: ai! o\her siLi!1g C . .'itr.na.
SlOf'3ge, \,IUtmeTit. lind incir.eratlon f2'Cilitiet shan not
be located .... ithin cntlcal ha'bitalS of endangered
spe!:)c-s, u 6efir,cd or desigfl3tM ill the awr~lc
Genctal.Ptan or in any Regional" or S Late Plan..
S lorage, trtal1ntrl:" e.nd' incineration fac.ilities shan be
coruista'lt ..... ith the: Goals and PtJlkk:s or tIIis CfIWMP.
specifically, dWgned and sized 10 meet me omh of
Il.az.srdoos Wa5U! generators '!ocala! in Santa ClaraCounty,
or 10 meet the Coun.'Y's broradcrcommiunmu under any
Lrlftrjw..sd":lCtiooal agreements.
St()r.)ge., tr".,.atm-enL. !l1ld inciJ'Uaticn facilities sha:J1 be
Ioca!ed only inareas whkh rnetla!] the shins en tieria and
~~ consistent witl1 lht COlmlY C'..eneral Plan and, if the
facility is proposed' 10 be located in 8l"Iy o(!he cities, the
~~ral Plan 01 thatcity. These facilities shaD be 10catcd
rn areas cons!slent wii1'. existing and proposed iradt.lsIrW
areas as de~igna\td in the apptical>le General Ptan.. An
applicant may sect .. GeDeraI P1an amendment frx .. 5i~
-rJ...at appears 10 meet all O\her $~!lnl aittria. L-__________________________________________________ ~
~'J .. i ... ____ ..,_"I _O>U'~'_--,-----,
-
~ '-"
criteria. Before siting a facility in one of these <and!date 'S.reas~ however, further
study would be: required to determine wbether that specific site would be an
appropriate location for the proposed type and size of facllity. The facility siting map
included in this reper: shows ge.neral areas for potentially siting hazard0US waste
management fadlities in Santa Dan: COu..T1~y. The map was developed by
overlaying those siting criteria for which maps '-"'ere avatlable on an ir:.dustriaI
zoning map for each of the jurisdictions and identlfying areas where these
constraints exist. Hgures S.1 through 8-4 (dam and levee failure inundation ,ueas;
earthquake faults; areas of liquefaction; a."1d areas of 15 percent or greater slope) are
some of the overlay maps used to deveiop the siting map.
The siting map identm€s genera! areas l"lhich are consistent with fhe CH'YV?v1P's
goals and policies~ but does not identify specific facility site locations. General ~eas
for residuals repositories were not identified en the facility siting map due to the
a't>sence of areas having a soil permeability of less than 1(}-7 centimeters per second
(em/sec). However, this does not predude the possibility that such an ~rea may exist
within the County.
The siting map is in"":ended to assi:50t both a facility developer and the ger.era1 public
to plan for the actua1 siting process, but in no ..... ,ray substitutes for the extensive
s{te-syecifk effort req\Ji:red for any faolity deyelop~enL The developer wi}} have to
evaluate each criterion at a site-spKific !evel '1:0 assess the potential impacts of a
proposed facility on the F'.lbtk heal&. and safety and on the environment.
The map is provided for information purposes only. It is subject to revision as new
information becomes available. It will not be formally adopted as part of, and is not
subject to, the GeneraJ Plan Amendment Process. The map does not vest any rights.
an AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE MORE STRINGENT Srnl'. C; CRITERIA
As an additional protection. AB 2948 contai:lS language showing tha~ significant
8-16
L
.
~~.
··",i
'4 ....
:. '':.. :
.,-", .
">
i ,,~.;", .-'-_'
,.~l~: .IJ~,\·· , -:~;'l~'"' "". ' ,
~'~,'~:
'L_ ............
Five Miles
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
~:'~~'~;;'~2!f~" '
'.
.
"
--.,"-. . "
ARI!AHUBl'ECr TO DAM
FAn..URE F1..OOO[NO
AR:F.A3 SUBJECF TO
SALT\VATa. FLOODI7iO
-.--.
ex> .
Ave Mires
\
\
\
\ .
\' \\
\\ \'
\\ \\ \\ ,\
\ \ \ \ .. \ , ','\ \ , ,'t \'
101 '" \ '. ~ \ .. " .... \ " \
.... ....... ..... .... ....... ~ ........ ....... .... " \ " \ " .. " ,~ ..
'\
\
\
\
\
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
-"
- - -EARTHQUAKE FAUt TS
, >'
Five Wles
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
. -
......
• . ,
AREAS SUBIECT
TO LIQUEF ACIlON'
\
-
'~' ," :", ,", . .',
, ":' ! "" ';"" 'i';;:'" , ','~ -.' ,'c: '.'
l":l f ,;,,,'" " 'L~I-.'.:':(l~'~l.~;o/i ;,' 't
;<,1'-~1 " '\ ;'\ .:I/J .... tJj. i '., 'it'.' ,,' ~ 'j
! ~. ,'I' J ... ,LiZ," " " '.1'1 ~~ "~"ll' ,>1f:,,/\ )",,\~11( ~~:,A~:l, "i "1 ~t.'I'.j'f'V"f'f$'·"\'l"'t'!~"",I", 1:1 I " iI." f'<~ 'n} t.'';O\ ~
", .,;;,,'
i
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
.)".j~"~.,,, ":i.":'t':~\"'%,~\, J. • 'kzt '" FP'~i ; 'I !
I'
w
9
~ ...
~
"'w 0",
"0 ~~ <0
FIGI.E 11-4. AREAS OF 15% (OR MtlE) SLOPE
IN SAN'l"A CLARA COUNTY
,,:.'i.~,' '~, . ~~\.~;"6:t::-"f!~!:~~; ~d-)F..'.'\Jo ""'.r ,.f:.t'~r.7r;;,._\?:,..r;')! -' rJ.I-!.r:_l/.ff-c., ~':'r'.r::~~~(I,-pf:r~~~:;/:";-{:~~%.:~: ~r l7' ,.I ;r.~,,". r',..r .... ,·rJ '-.... r;.o< '''-r-'~ ... ,,,. .~ ·-1
: _'.'I':tl:,r~' -: ;ir",.J'.f 'i-~((~-':{I":r'-. ;-'~"'W""~~'r"~'_r i,,1"-:r~, (I(f-~,-·.It;,' ',-W,,.!;"~'~.:r'.f~-:r .r'';r-;.F(·, :-,~ X t-· ... ·.~· r"r".I"_"'A"$I"~ .... ,,-.-~.e .r;·-.rr '. . .... ,r-.I,...~r;.,.r ,.. "',~f~WJg#%~~~/:f:~~J ",..~ .• _" ~-t 'T"Ij:':.,.I. (L"f'."· .. I··~· f-'_i "'".. •.
. .' ~!i;f ~~;(.~f:~"" j·;X,::::/:Ji:;t~?i~'i£;1;(J~;;:py:f
__ ,':_"'!',<' . ".-,;.r:"'c.,'":,.-;,.r,<,, •• ,,JjJe'/:"."r f",~.j, c'"" ': ~, }t~g~&~uJt::;:~lrt'fdf:~'~ft~ttw,'>" r;;-.'t~/r :;'--:'1:. ,;:-.-,:../' .. .-T(', ';:'l'rrr ~!' ;/; :;[/,,,: " ... ~d ,~:'.I r-"",,~~ • .r.t r7~ . L ~
.... ~ :':,,:;r .',.'.-. ~.~:--;.,:=-~ .~~l,-~,,. .. (~;:, :d./I ; .'.(1;:'( __ ·:tr/~; ,: .. .-.. : .. ~ ~ -. .-~
; ,,-,~ !::':"'.~.--' r"l' r~1 ,.,-J-, < ~f i";. ... r .. ;r.!,-'r .(r:.,~,("-;":'-. ~ r .;.-' ;.y~, .... ,,..,t.-,,,. -'~'.-,'r.f"··'-· '-'t'r,(,.-,·r,,!..r/:".. /,,;1'(;1'.' ;2~i~%~ffSF/:-:i;f,.~J.i~~~)c~:!j)i{;~.:"
p' ~.r,.._ .. I,l f'r .. -r~;"I'. ,"r_T fr.I',:;f' ·(,>l'r -,r'r,',,·,1 '{r:.i;~ ·.:r;'r',,/{:';", ",;f rf',.fJ/(';: . (:;I~/r5f~,..,.-:~:-f" ~~'1'"''-;..t; ,::.':;;(~<~':': _~f '~~-'rS;:~,LJs.F:"'·:'~;:.~'; ~!:-.~ rl':.r"-r,~"'r~ '~'i':'r' ;., .... -.... ,~~.f. .,'t',''':, I~;'
• ~r{ /1 r' .-.rIr"' ,r,../,-': .,,' f;,:,!: r r .f'-:r"rf' -t"'r "' .. ~ ~ .. ;r:."_~ ;"-"'{"'/~t '~r-';-~·f; /f>-'~ ,"(';!;J. ~V,¢'{! ~ftjf!ffi§1~?"4Yjg
--,:(;,1 _ ~
8 -20
-'>
I ~
Ii:
~ ~
Z
~ o o
~ o
~
~
UJ·
--
'.'" , ~' cl .... -r ," -,
'"l
.J
~)}.i!::""-
"'rev,]:"
" I
10011 authority ex;sts to reject applications fer hazardous wa.<te facilities on the sites
designated on the Eadlity siting map. Health and Safety section 25135.7(d) states:
"This section does not limit the authority of any city to attach appropriate conditions
to the issuance of any land ~ approval for hazardous waste facility in order to
protect the pub:Jc health, safety or welfare, a."d does not limit the authority of a city
to establish more strillgent planning requirements or siting criteria than those
specified in the county hazardous waste management plan."
CONCLUSION
'Ibrough its adoption of the Hazardous Waste Management Hierarchy, the Ccw-.ly
strongly supports the reduction in hazardous waste generation at the source of
lI'.a.nufacture or chemical processes as the most desirable option to manage
ltazardous waste. It is recogttized that the implementation of the Hierarchy may
result in significant cP.anges roth in the way hazardous wastes are generated and in
the way they are managed. Consistent with the objective of AS 2948, that safe,
effective ... and economic facilities which pcolel't publk health and the environment
are available when needed, the siting criteria for this CH1NMP shal! be used as
standards for siting hazardous waste management facilities that are needed to serve
the hazardous waste management needs in Santa Clara County.
8-21
I
, ,
·._,"::' -:
~:-' ::':~:-"
--'.,.--,:G~~~l;r:lllfl' •. "i1.I!Ii!!!I!!IJPP~<--..
. countyofsantaClara
Departrnel1t of Plann.L."lg and Developmeru
Office oIToxk~ and send waste Managemeru
I r.J5 NOrt."1. FIrS! SlTeet, Sulre 275
San ~. QI:rfonua 9S I ! 2
To:<k:S (-406)-4-4 I-I I gs
Sdid Wa-<;1~ (oiOBi 441·! 198
May 10, 1991
_____ --'B:1JABllv_L
Revised Schedul~ for Tanner Plan Resubm illal'
January 1991
Feb 28, 1991
MarlApr1991
May 10, 1991
May 22, 1991
May 3D, 1991
June 3D, 1991
July 2, 1991
Aug 1'5, 1991
Aug 20, 1991
Sep 3D, 1991
State Dept of Health Services identifies necessary
changes for Plan appioval.
Tanner Committee discuss'lon on OHS concerns reo
current Hazardous Waste Management Plan,
Public meetings on proposed clJanges.
City and public comments sent 10 County,
Tanner Committee recommendations for Plan
revisions sent to Board of Supervisors,
Proposed Negative Declaration sent to State
Clearinghouse and Notice of Preparation publish~d
in paper. Begin 30 day public review period,
End 30 day pUblic review period
Board of Supervisors approve Negative Oeclaralion,
and revis"lOs to Plan, Nole: Cities cannol take
formal action on Plan revisions until Board action
on Neg, Dec,
City Council action on proposed revisions to Plan,
Board of Supervisors approve revised Plan,
Revised Plan printed and submitted to DHS,
, The schedule has been revised to refiect CEQA requiremenls,
Board 0( Supervf:8on;: 'Mlchael M. Honda, ZOt': LofBren, Ron. GonzaFes. Rod DmOOf'1. D~ MCKNlnil
COI.Jnty i&xeanlve: san,)' R Reed
-
ex --,~
-,
'.