Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8325-8349C' RESOLUTION NO. 8349(1994 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SUPPORTING THE CENTRAL COAST SALMON ENHANCEMENT'S VOLUNTEER CREEK CLEAN -UP ON SEPTEMBER 17, 1994 WHEREAS, creeks provide water to animals, habitat for plants, fish, birds and other animals, and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo considers the creeks within and around the community a valuable natural resource, one that should not be marred by trash, and WHEREAS, creeks, when properly maintained add to the City's scenic quality and add value to individual properties, and WHEREAS, the City has an interest in maintaining local creeks in a clean manner to protect against potential flooding, and WHEREAS, the City must spend monies to maintain local creeks, and thus volunteer projects which perform maintenance are an asset to the City, and WHEREAS, such volunteer events not only improve the quality of an area but also provide community participation and education, and WHEREAS, the Central Coast Salmon Enhancement, Inc. , creek clean -up project would remove trash from San Luis Obispo creeks, and WHEREAS, the City role as a co- sponsor would be to allow: (1) creek clean-up volunteers to utilize the City's creek maintenance easements, and (2) CCSE to use the City's name to advertise the creek clean -up event. R -8349 � 1 Resolution No. 83.49 (1994 Series) Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby agree to co- sponsor the Central Coast Salmon Enhancement's creek clean -up day scheduled for September 17, 1994. Onmotionof Vice Mayor Settle and on the following roll call vote: secondedby Council Member Rappa , AYES: Vice Mayor Settle, Council Members Rappa, Roalman, and Mayor Pinard NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Romero the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of September, 1994. ,�! i I I F.A na r ATTEST: APPROVED: ��/��. M ��7 n\\� �� ti -� RESOLUTION NO. 8348 (1994 Series) City of sAn Uuis owe'#po aESOlution of appreciation Expressing the City's appreciation and gratitude to Professor Bany Floyd for his service and dedication to the City and its citizens; and WHEREAS, Barry Floyd donated his skill and time toward development of a computerized information kiosk for the benefit of the public, both residents and visitors alike; and WHEREAS, Barry Floyd was instrumental in the successful joint project with the City of San Luis Obispo and California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, the kiosk will provide_ valuable information to the public in various locations within our community; and WHEREAS, the kiosk will provide opportunities for future students to develop management skills and computer expertise; and WHEREAS, the services of Professor Barry Floyd are sincerely appreciated by the City of San Luis Obispo; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this City Council wishes to express its gratitude and appreciation to Barry Floyd for his dedicated service he has performed for the City of San Luis Obispo and its citizens. On motion of Council Member Roalman, seconded by Council Member Rappa and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Roalman, Rappa, Vice Mayor Settle, and Mayor Pinard . NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Romero the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of September, 1994. STED BY: V U R Cladwel4 City Clerk Mayor Peg Pinard 152$4 city of Wis Series) Resolution of APPReciAtion Expressing the City's appreciation and gratitude to Jennifer Hamiter for her service and dedication to the City and its citizens; and WHEREAS, Jennifer Hamiter donated her skill and time toward development of a computerized information kiosk for the benefit of the public, both residents and visitors alike; and WHEREAS, Jennifer Hamiter was instrumental in the successful joint project with the City of San Luis Obispo and California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, the kiosk will provide valuable information to the public in various locations within our community; and WHEREAS, the kiosk will provide opportunities for future students to develop management skills and computer expertise; and WHEREAS, the services. of Jennifer Hamiter are sincerely appreciated by the City of San Luis Obispo; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this City Council wishes to express its gratitude and appreciation to Jennifer Hamiter for her dedicated service she has performed for the City of San Luis Obispo and its citizens. On motion of Council Member Roalman, seconded by Council Member Rappa and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Roalman, Rappa, Vice Mayor Settle, and Mayor Pinard NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Romero the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of September, 1994. ATTESTED Blx 9 Q Diane R Gladwell, City Clerk Mayor Peg Pinard 152 a NO. ocity of saiuis sispo Resotution of AppReciAtion Expressing the City's appreciation and gratitude to Melanie Hapai for her service and dedication to the City and its citizens; and WHEREAS, Melanie Hapai donated her skill and time toward development of a computerized information kiosk for the benefit of the public, both residents and visitors alike; and WHEREAS, Melanie Hapai was instrumental in the successful joint project with the City of San Luis Obispo and California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, the kiosk will.provide valuable information to the public in various locations within our community; and WHEREAS, the kiosk will provide opportunities for future students to develop management skills and computer expertise; and WHEREAS, the services of Melanie Hapai are sincerely appreciated by the City of San Luis Obispo; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this City Council wishes to express its gratitude and appreciation to Melanie Hapai for her dedicated service she has performed for the City of San Luis Obispo and its citizens. On motion of Council Member Roalman, seconded by Council Member Rappa and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Roalman, Rappa, Vice Mayor Settle, and Mayor Pinard NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Romero the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of September, 1994. ATTESTED BY: Diane R Gladwelt, City Clerk Mayor Peg Pinard 182E RESOLUTION NO. 8345 (1994 Series) city of sAn Uui s owpo Resotution of APPRCCIAtion Expressing the City's appreciation and gratitude to Tod Johnson for his service and dedication to the City and its citizens; and WHEREAS, Tod Johnson donated his skill and time toward development of a computerized information kiosk for the benefit of the public, both residents and visitors alike; and WHEREAS, Tod Johnson was instrumental in the successful joint project with the City of San Luis Obispo and California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, the kiosk will provide valuable information to the public in various locations within our community; and WHEREAS, the kiosk will provide opportunities for future students to develop management skills and computer expertise; and WHEREAS, the services of Tod Johnson are sincerely appreciated by the City of San Luis Obispo; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this City Council wishes to express its gratitude and appreciation to Tod Johnson for his dedicated service he has performed for the City of San Luis Obispo and its citizens. On motion of Council Member Roalman, seconded by Council Member Rappa and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Roalman, Rappa, Vice Mayor Settle, and Mayor Pinard NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Romero the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of September, 1994. ilt TIESTED BY: Diane R Gladwell, City Clerk Mayor Peg Pinard 152-U J RESOLUTION NO. 8344 (1994 Series) CILy Of Shcl LUIS OBISpO Resotution of AppizeciAtion Expressing the City's appreciation and gratitude to Ty Lee for his service and dedication to the City and its citizens; and WHEREAS, Ty Lee donated his skill and time toward development of a computerized in_ formation kiosk for the benefit of the public, both residents and visitors alike; and WHEREAS, Ty Lee was instrumental in the successful joint project with the City of San Luis Obispo and California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, the kiosk will provide valuable information to the public in various locations within our community; and WHEREAS, the kiosk will provide opportunities for future students to develop management skills and computer expertise; and WHEREAS, the services of Ty Lee are sincerely appreciated by the City of San Luis Obispo; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this City Council wishes to express its gratitude and appreciation to Ty Lee for his dedicated service he has performed for the City of San Luis Obispo and its citizens. On motion of Council Member Roalman, seconded by Council Member Rappa and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Roalman, Rappa, Vice Mayor Settle, and Mayor Pinard NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Romero the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of September, 1994. 'ATTESTED BY: V V Diane R GladweI4 City Clerk Mayor Peg P&Uud 15244 RESOLUTION NO. 8343 (1994 Series) city of san Us owpo Resotution of AppReciAtion Expressing the City's appreciation and gratitude to Linda Liu for her service and dedication to the City and its citizens; and WHEREAS, Linda Liu donated her skill and time toward development of a computerized information kiosk for the benefit of the public, both residents and visitors alike; and WHEREAS, Linda Liu was instrumental in the successful joint project with the City of San Luis Obispo and California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, the kiosk will provide valuable information to the public in various locations within our community; and WHEREAS, the kiosk will provide opportunities for future students to develop management skills and computer expertise; and WHEREAS, the services of Linda Liu are sincerely appreciated by the City of San Luis Obispo; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this City Council wishes to express its gratitude and appreciation to Linda Liu for her dedicated service she has performed for the City of San Luis Obispo and its citizens. On motion of Council Member Roalman, seconded by Council Member Rappa and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Roalman, Rappa, Vice Mayor Settle, and Mayor Pinard NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Romero the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of September, 1994. ATTESTED Bh(: U Diane R Gladweg City Clerk I§WMayor Peg Pinard V% ,52,U RESOLUTION NO. 8342 (1994 Series) City Of San WIS OBISp0 resolution of AppizeciAtion Expressing the City's appreciation and gratitude to Elba Moreno for her service and dedication to the City and its citizens, and WHEREAS, Elba Moreno donated her skill and time toward development of a computerized information kiosk for the benefit of the public, both residents and visitors alike; and : WHEREAS, Elba Moreno was instrumental in the successful joint project with the City of San Luis Obispo and California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, the kiosk will provide valuable information to the public in various locations within our community; and WHEREAS, the kiosk will provide opportunities for future students to develop management skills and computer expertise; and WHEREAS, the services of Elba Moreno are sincerely appreciated by the City-of San Luis Obispo; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this City Council wishes to express its gratitude and appreciation to Elba Moreno for her dedicated service she has performed for the City of San Luis Obispo and its citizens. On motion of Council. Member Roalman, seconded by Council Member Rappa and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Roalman, Rappa, Vice Mayor Settle, and Mayor Pinard NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Romero the foregoing Resolution was passed and:adopted this 6th day of September, 1994. I 'ATTESTED BY: V v Diane R Gladwell, City Clerk 131WMayor Peg Pinadd 152 city oRESOLUTION leis Series) resolution of APPRCaAtion Expressing the City 's appreciation and gratitude to Kurt Ottaway for his service and dedication to the City and its citizens; and WHEREAS, Kurt Ottaway donated his skill and time toward . development of a computerized information kiosk for the benefit of the public; both residents and visitors alike; and WHEREAS, Kurt Ottaway Was instrumental in the successful joint project with the City of San.Luis Obispo and California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, the kiosk will provide valuable information to the public in various locations within our community; and WHEREAS, the kiosk will provide opportunities for future students to develop management skills and computer expertise; and WHEREAS, the services of Kurt Ottaway are sincerely appreciated by the City of San Luis Obispo; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this City Council wishes to express its gratitude and appreciation to Kurt Ottaway for his dedicated service he has performed for the City of San Luis Obispo and its citizens. On motion of Council Member Roalman, seconded by Council Member Rappa and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Roalman, Rappa, Vice Mayor Settle, and Mayor Pinard NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Romero the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of September, 1994. ATTESTED BYy V Diane R GladweI4 City Clerk VWMqyor Peg Pinard ,u� RESOLUTION NO. 8340 (1994 Series) city of sAn tuis owpo Resotution of APPReClAtIon Expressing the City's appreciation and gratitude to Ida Star for her service and dedication to the City and its citizens and WHEREAS, Ida Star donated her skill and time toward development of a computerized information kiosk for the benefit of the public; both residents and visitors alike; and WHEREAS, Ida Star was instrumental in the successful joint project with the City of San Luis Obispo and California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, the kiosk will provide valuable information to the public in various locations within our community; and WHEREAS, the kiosk will provide opportunities for future students to develop management skills and computer expertise; and WHEREAS, the services of Ida Star are sincerely appreciated by the City of San Luis Obispo; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this City Council wishes to express its gratitude and appreciation to Ida Star for her dedicated service she has performed for the City of San Luis Obispo and its citizens. On motion of Council Member Roalman; seconded by Council Member Rappa and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Roalman, Rappa, Vice Mayor Settle, and Mayor Pinard NOES: None ABSENT. Council Member Romero the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of September, 1994. low r ATTESTED Diane R Gladwel4 City Clerk Mayor Peg Pinard ,5281 city RESOLUTION f sari leis o's�spo Resotution of APPRCcution Expressing the City's appreciation and gratitude to Bob Gladwell for his service and dedication to the City and its citizens; and WHEREAS, Bob Gladwell donated his skill and time toward development of a computerized information kiosk for the benefit of the public, both residents and visitors alike; and WHEREAS, Bob Gladwell was instrumental in the successful joint project with the City of San Luis Obispo and California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, the kiosk will provide valuable information to the public in various locations within our community; and WHEREAS, the kiosk will provide opportunities for future students to develop management skills and computer expertise; and WHEREAS, the services of Bob Gladwell are sincerely appreciated by the City bf San Luis Obispo; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this City Council wishes to express its gratitude and appreciation to Bob Gladwell for his dedicated service he has performed for the City of San Luis Obispo and its citizens. On motion of Council Member Roalman, seconded by Council Member Rappa and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Roalman, Rappa, Vice Mayor Settle, and Mayor Pinard NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Romero the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of September, 1994. ATTESTED B)V. v Diane R Gladwell, City Clerk IIWWMayor Peg Pinard 15244 • C RESOLUTION NO.8338(1994 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO ANTHONY R. ROMERO FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERMITTING TAXICAB SERVICE IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WHEREAS, Anthony R. Romero (dba Yellow Cab of San Luis Obispo) desires to provide taxicab service in the City of San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, Anthony R. Romero filed an application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity with the City Clerk's Office, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 5.20.030; and WHEREAS, the public convenience and necessity require the granting of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby grants a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Anthony R. Romero (dba Yellow Cab of San Luis Obispo) for the purpose of permitting taxicab service in the City of San Luis Obispo pursuant to and contingent upon compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 5.20 and authorizes the City Clerk to issue a taxicab permit for each taxicab now complying with Municipal Code Chapter 5.20 within the City. On motion of Council Member Roalman , seconded by Council Member P ppa and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Roalman, Rappa, and Vice Mayor Settle NOES: Mayor Pinard ABSENT: Council Member Romero 1 R -8338 Resolution No. 8338 (1984 Series) the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of September , 1994. ATTEST: GVY CLEkK Dia.� R. Gladwell A ...r. TY or/ PEG .V MAYOR 2 . • i U* c ,P. CA\ RESOLUTION NO. 8337 (1994. Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF /THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MAKING A FINDING THAT A SINGLE TAXICAB OPERATOR IS NECESSARY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo desires to provide for a sustainable, continuing and uninterrupted taxi service for it's citizens, and WHEREAS, a single taxi operator has in the past provided such a service, and WHEREAS, the City does not now have taxi.service. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby finds that a single taxicab operator can best provide for the desired sustainable, continuing and uninterrupted taxi service as provided for in Municipal Code Chapter 1001. On motion of Vice Mayor Settle , seconded by Council Member Roalmap and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Vice Mayor Settle, Council Member.:Roalmani and Mayor Pinard NOES: Council Member Rappa ABSENT: Council Member Romero the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 6th September r 1994. PEG PINAJFD, MAYOR ATTEST: . day of R -8337 ' XJ �1fJ �� � � � � �� � \��� ����� �. , � , �. . RESOLUTION NO. 8336 (1994 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT BETWEEN LYNN BLOCK, BIA ADMINISTRATOR, FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 1994 AND JULY 1, 1995 BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: That the contract of employment between the City of San Luis Obispo and Lynn Block as BIA Administrator for the period July 1, 1994 through July 1, 1995 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof, has been reviewed and is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same. On Motion of Vice Mayor Settle and on the following roll call vote: seconded by Council Member Rappa AYES: Vice Mayor Settle, Council Members Rappa, Roalman,,and Mayor Pinard NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Romero the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of Sept. , 1994, Peg Pinard, 16fiyor , - . • V. approved as to f ` T- / ` R -8336 V Y Xamt THIS CONTRACT is entered into this 30th day of August, 1994, by the and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, State of California (hereinafter referred to as "City "), and LYNN BLOCK, a contract employee (hereinafter referred to as "Employee "). WITNESSES: WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has a need to hire an employee for a special project which continuZd funding or need for the project is too uncertain to create a regular classification and WHEREAS, Employee is qualified to perform such service for City; and WHEREAS, the service to be contracted for are BIA Administrator. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do mutually agree as follows: 1. Employment. City hereby engages Employee and Employee hereby agrees to perform for City the services hereinafter set forth for the compensation hereinafter set forth for the compensation hereinafter set forth, all pursuant to terms and conditions herein. 2. Scope of Services. Pursuant to this Contract, Employee shall provide to City the following services: Administrator for Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Association (BIA); specific duties and responsibilities to be established and modified from time to time by the BIA Advisory Board. Employee shall perform said services under the direct supervision of BIA Advisory Board. 3. Employment Status. Employee shall be a full time employee. Membership in the City PERS retirement program shall be in accordance with PERS requirements with the Employee's share to be paid by Employee. Employee shall accrue holiday and sick leave benefits consistent with other positions in the City as determined by the D 0 Personnel Director. Employee shall accrue 8 hours of vacation per month over the term of this Agreement which shall be taken in a manner consistent with other City employees. Employee shall be granted up to 40 hours per year of administrative leave in lieu of overtime compensation, in recognition of the fact that the employee is exempt from overtime compensation consideration and that the employee's schedule may require work beyond 40 hours per week. The only other paid benefits are workers' compensation insurance and unemployment insurance. Employee shall be eligible for reimbursement for mileage at a rate of $0.27.5 per mile for use of her private vehicle for official business but not including any mileage attributable to normal commuting by Employee to and from her office. Employee understands and agrees that her term of employment is governed only by this Contract, that no right of tenure is created hereby, and that she does not hold a position in any department or office of the City. 4. Warranty of Employee. Employee warrants that she is properly certified and licensed under the laws and regulations of the State of California to provide the services herein agreed to. 5. Compensation. City shall pay to Employee as compensation in full for all services performed by Employee pursuant to the Contract, the sum of $3,000 per month ($36,000 per year), said compensation to be paid in accordance with normal City procedures. 6. Term of Contract. This Contract shall commence on July 1, 1994 through July 1, 1995, unless terminated earlier as provided herein. The City Administrative Officer may terminate the contract without the need for action, approval or ratification by the City Council. 7. Termination of Contract for Convenience. Either party may terminate this contract at any time by giving to the other party fifteen (15) days written notice of such termination, specifying the effective date / i V l \� of such termination. Employee shall be paid for all work satisfactorily completed prior to the effective date of such termination. Employee agrees that the notice provisions of this paragraph shall limit the liability of the City in the event that a termination action taken by City pursuant to paragraph 8 is subsequently found to be improper. 8. Termination of Contract for Cause. If Employee fails to perform her duties to the satisfaction of the City, or if employee fails to fulfill in a timely and professional manner the obligations under this Contract, or if Employee shall violate any terms of provisions of this Contract, or if Employee has a physical or mental incapacity that precludes Employee from performing the duties, or if Employee fails to exercise good behavior in either during or outside of working hours which is of such a nature that it causes discredit to the City or impairs her ability to perform these contract duties, then the City shall have the right to terminate this Contract effective immediately upon the City's giving written notice thereof to Employee. Employee shall be paid for all work satisfactorily completed prior to the effective date of such termination. 9. Entire Agreement and Modification. This Contract constitutes the entire understanding of the parties hereto. This Contract supersedes all previous contracts, agreements, negotiations or understandings, whether written or oral, between the parties. Employee shall be entitled to no other benefits than those specified herein, and Employee acknowledges that no representations, inducements or promises not contained in this Contract have been made to Employee to enter into this Contract. No changes, amendments, or alterations hereto shall be effective unless in writing and signed by both parties. Employee specifically acknowledges that in entering into and executing this Contract, Employee relies solely upon the provisions contained in this Contract and no other. 10. Non- Assignment Contract, This Contract is intended to secure the individual services of the Employee shall not assign, transfer, delegate, or sublet this Contract or. any interest therein without the prior written consent of City, and any such assignment, transfer, delegate or sublet C' this Contract or any interest without the prior written consent of City, and any such assignments, transfer, delegation, or sublet without the City's prior written consent shall be considered null and void. 11. Covenant. This contract has been executed and delivered in the State of California and the validity, enforceability, and interpretation of any of the clauses of this Contract shall be determined and governed by the laws of the Sate of California. All duties and obligations of the parties created hereunder are performable in the City of San Luis Obispo, and such City shall be that venue for any action, or proceeding that may be brought, or arise out of, in connection with or by. reason of the Contract. 12. Nondiscrimination, There shall be no discrimination against any person employed pursuant to this contract in any manner forbidden by law. 13. Conflicts of Interest. The Employee shall not participate in any decision related to this Contract which affects her personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership, of association in which she is directly or indirectly interested. 14. Copyright. Any reports, maps, documents or other materials produced in whole or part under this Contract shall be the property of the City and shall not be subject to an application for copyright by or on behalf of Employee, without prior written approval of the City. 15. Outside Emglovment. Conduct. and Behavior. a. Employee may engage in outside activities such as part-time teaching, consulting, or in other similar activities unrelated to City business only with express prior approval of the City Administrative Officer. b. Employee shall comply with all local and state requirements regarding conflict -of- interest and shall avoid personal involvement in situations which are inconsistent or incompatible with the position of BIA Administrator or give rise to the appearance of impropriety. C' 16. Enforceability. If terms, covenants, condition or provision of this agreement held by court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions herein shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Employee have executed this Contract on the day and year first hereinabove set forth. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ATTEST: Wne R. GlAdwe City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: i n I ern � � j 3AI RESOLUTION NO. 8335 (1994 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING BIA RULES AND REGULATIONS.FOR THURSDAY NIGHT ACTIVITIES BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Resolution 8282 (1994 Series) is hereby rescinded. SECTION 2. That the BIA Rules and Regulations for Thursday.Night Activities, attached hereto marked exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, have been reviewed and are accepted. Recommended changes shall be made from time to time by the BIA Board of Directors for subsequent Council approval. On motion of Vi re Mayor .;et-t1 and seconded by Council Member Rappa and on the following role call vote: AYES: Vice Mayor Settle, Council Member Rappa, Roalman, and Mayor Pinard NOES: None. ABSENT: Council Member Romero the foregoing resolution was adopted this 6th day of September, 1994. It'll - m-A- APPROVED: Ir Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney R -8335 �� 00 T >'Ow CC 4 b N O N ❑p cC Q rA vi Gn U S "U 'J OA :O y >•C. �cd ' py , 0 cr �C U Cd N E O❑ O 'O cd T : e[G y .Gv cc O m Q � o T a N . > a T C6 h 3 � �.5'c � o y � 2 U� cC '� .� tu p .v a CL, 3 d O a 'O a G1. ++ T U •ter, vi .... w C� o aoctsy3 v y >'y �30 �L�¢ aoC) E- E- mom ry�3° ° � L rA V q � U U O •� c Q% N � U 0 W h d'b N w O � ❑ y C% y y eb toQ.0 cz -00 3��C . 'd MMo...., v N o''°y° 3 o E o o a 00 v `wJ l7 u E 00 Cd I w o.s� �C `cd� to .� c^NN,�, bpa to U .-U. y p N aCj w > .co o� o c .> V c g y, ..� H 3 c s> al r4 cdEo c to . 14 (° u .2 r c t;o a 3 0. uc-CC 0 / O .0 V ti c = cz O �+ yw Tp� 3 c�i ts In. O w c- C YCU N N U?? O w •b C II 'd O Ci7 v O O d N U N C cC •c N U G U A U N C,L ^' 0 C U 3 � u tu a a a o" °�' oo a E° rA a°i c� TG oa�npaZt Q� °°�?o dory QQn ^ ...1 N L Ol d•(/f H •Y ti C4 y r.+ • cC aa�uo �C s .S ca =so Q¢z awi QU cc N ai� ar'' E �' p m❑ ? r 0.0 ow T� oo a�w co °' :-� Z: o D ° o W �� o O .0 ai ~ Cd OC. > �'L7 :`.' ° N C V N O b o 3 0 a c3 °� c a o 0 0 °' i ``� n o,� T� Or h e ° �'��o Cam d�3 °-°-- 000p�~ yo Lo �o�m�� oc `y'cg�3aai•°� o�ayc�Sa° O 0 0 °onm o.O c .0 0 K 0 cu o 00 — m W `" � S u, E o °o o . „ ? �� E y N .8 a .o " w y m r O y v o°�oA cn 0. •� O r °; E r ca �� �o op Cam, W ° ya. o �Y cd.S S do i s p 8 ►- y a� o r. 0 3 �� b� °�° UD a icy d) v° _°? •~ c > aQ ° , ... ►-i W cd C !}U cC 3 ca O O� r•-i C C M.,t'i co C o .}•..� m °A•v ti > 4Ti chi 'VJ p aF-i w 1��1 U o..,Co vc Q 7'�bcno ~ Gn 0 "ac '� c�� yc0�3 �'cya°� °°s4.. ° iQco >o�' E�'�c �oco >, •� cLcoy a o ° �, Sa .ccv, iu. ~S Sco U " C W..�' a cd cC.'c�' c v, !� U ..., �'� :� �+ «+ c. C S ° a� aci W.0 �s �.°~ Ci on 0 ° i �.° i ai ° -0 .0 � 0 0 3 �'3 ow y �w�CO °tea e�S>, ° >v Q n�aci CO U c a� •~ w V .. N U &-. Q.. 0 w N � W c cn C 'y ... w �.tu y� o, 0.-� L r- .2 a) `e�'� W '.7 asp"" fn U' N o•^. vi '� C'� w H cUi c� �.,, C,� O ca,a,Dp�cSa� � (�.>.US c ��� aO ..o 0 t Ua z c'E o ri Q 3 EvNi ~[i� o C4W i 8 U c° a Ao a 0 7 > y b h Cd to) � W N ~••� w � Q vyi 'y � bA y .n rC O p c0 ' cts y .0 -?. co Cd E C. u" .G; •� v C C ��.' .^ U cu U ai C4 b U TQ � U C •^. O w. •� S O� vi O� U w h h� y S ;> o m a� ox•~ 3 -0 o b-' Cc 4 y •~ E pO E c cl �= h o °o°�o c > �'� uUQ m 0 3 o Sw y U O v> > C cz ca 3� •- v� a�w ° ca o 3 >, 4 c � .c S y o c c tea. w v Z -00 cap o W3 'A U oC4Sy� �- �•c 3 �•�a�Qy ��o °'y v a� N cC.A C. C O C .~ p C p N C"' C' in .D .D eyG a b H oFa� S o a�i�~c aSi��w o cn E¢" a O C o M o Cwb =51= E.0 o �� SQb id S 2 o 0 ° o v� a�i y °�' S Sw o ° c 1 Paz a; p >❑,.�•�w 3 C f/1 .0 OD 7 y N .0 U .cd 'C3 U '� O cd >,•fl N Nr. c cq i+Q a� cv .-, � � w �' � aUi vai ALL 64 �naoyo W'Ccca°° ����a� a>, _S° Q SA a° Opp,F c m U, P CS �, co cu E ca O `? U O � w U 7 cl ) � > > Ca T a Zy G. ccd .-r � 'l7 OLI 'C 0 Cd won =c r .... > CC C II >. > Cd a L,c � ono �•y� 3? o = m C C r- C� r �, A4 Cd c .d.0 h a a� o Uw, ..•> a m Kati ;u °o av ooh °p °� �m cG Q - ~c'� °> '° ° CW 'a C r . y t/ pp o� ° ° . h `� ac r �h A.a aoi ° to (U a° ° E > NP,� a ° a� a� ; a c E a r ° b 0 0 �b r� Q c� ��;��°ocu °Lo- ^> °o°o°' E'�3° °o.s �_� 6..., OG CC p •L7 U p i.. [d r.+ ca 'O -- •� a y i y O T N b i.. Q' a) a .� U .r ca b0 n U GooO°o' o��aio.u. �,cnw °y M= "M co ���° 3 �w°cL ° ° C'° v� o Cwo y c p �'ai UQ yr ca "' y o �"ov O °oc-av _aE� a0 =�ebsE Uo n.> a� O m a) CIO ram U m A m canv� � �w.�U. W E 3. GT:.SU ° C7 c a � ° a o �o Ca L C V � R C 0 ° T ° � �.• m O a s a;a o o4y a 4 N w � E . � 'n O � C ca � p � vi •3 ?� ccC c °•cn .. stn n. aU c ca O o E �•E �, Fy Q E E a r0 E Cd E U y UO C Q a) °C a C N cu ,� Q U O w C aJ cu c o cd ono> ° ° 0 �� o. cT� �� °aEo�~> EF UV� > a3 ° _ �'•O ca '� — C a _ Q a� a�i ° .E Qn.r Q =.c CZ � a �a u c o € .P ca co 4. C'n y 3 E o. > pc Z = > M m. z aa) ° T o 0 on 4.) .5•E >, oU �W h �Q o aW a� ° 0 E"s �'c 'ac U°�a0�° Uc°� n T° . ° a20. c°'i °p oo � � � �a E" °..�r� ° ca c o a �ce a o C - �� c , 4. °w yw E o �� r� �•� d a a �� A &a) o > 0 Q fir~ ° > Z o cz 1. �ca.� aC �o ��.a �a �-�a c �:° cc A) '�, E° .� c n .� h o 3 0 to O 3 b o T • � .J p O W 4. ca h C DO �. a .0 U U �p a) U ca C d] U� b y a) On a) p U C GN °a y O c o a � a cl H U U A � EEo Wa�'c°� Gr: °�c�i C��. .v QGro CClca� -3E vi QEa�a w W� w O O U O. a•rJ y U 'o OJ r- > O I., R • a) cz ., C � y U b w U U y.0 U d .0 O O • O .b 3 ti ar.+ C10 a a) G cd N h ev cd C4 U •C4 ° U >O cd U P N a Qo o �¢ o� v ° U cd h 0. E 'v •o �, c � a ° U Ca L' C cd 6 C `4 pp. y Or 0 r- o O ca cJ Q.'ra• .w c� 4cw �y V cu Y 0 to Q on cn CO "yU7 C4 CC3 a U _. O U d U C d 'y Imo.• = I.U., y �.YUC �i O N N co C fa' h bAN �pU N � � C Y U��' w T •t7 •� 0.1 Cd .., C U rn .U.1 b C E T N El Yn U Y .� � O r. .Cd .O U cd cd -0 3 Eo W c C'm 7 ocucd Od 0 :a Z OA crs O 04 'bA ply RS C �°n� �3cd '� ° -�0 W Zoe W�0r p a H�� °C C, '_; cz CG'S O > C cn 0 W> W E _ 0' u cc U >1 YCIO on ca Y O U T cC. U U •.+ .O ;.,1104 N I�.rl «j u cd N w O a) •b c3.. O ,p w d U y d C C4 60 m , c0 cd. cl C, U y0 03 Y» cd ° 3 " v) O .. '� a) .., mUOd =3:16 c a moo co 0 CM cz � dc10 °: O C c2 �.�b ° a) y .r7 4 C C cc 1=. Cl) 3 dl- C "° C >% 00 0 d 0. 0 fl• aT •0 , O O L y •U co � C cz 0 U cc Y O o b a ��b 3 �� Q cu a -CUV� O cdC Gq n (A ca a cam 3 LS °c A > �. °. Gzl cz Lri.0 U a b ° w a 0 ii c 0 d N p 7 _T C O cd aU+ o� �o �U 3y cO •mob a� d UCd .D C c >i Ld d4 c � b C � cd ^' U v cd RS y �MD •� c N O Cd x � _ o rn � C U cd � n, �d ao a� O C C O G cd U Q. d cd L W � p h o c� Mo p c^ cu•� Y h 0 > ° b G ° O 0 0 o °� o� O. U aJ M EO W w F W 0 b C cd Qn ccl U .'C•1 t8 E U ... Ea3 (D CIO) Aa T cd C •p a) C � 'O U C O Y h Qn > O O 0 U d (D •�•, � '•' 0y .L' aj 0 0 Y C C; Y cd fY..l cC L O C 0 00 a� 0 0 ••.. n' E EH�''•• au ��1 E cz 0Qc o 0 0 0 U o In ° b Q E °'� QPp 4 d ° w w O O U O. a•rJ y U 'o OJ r- > O I., R • a) cz ., C � y U b w U U y.0 U d .0 O O • O .b 3 ti ar.+ C10 a a) G cd N h ev cd C4 U •C4 ° U >O cd U P N a Qo o �¢ o� v ° U cd h 0. E 'v •o �, c � a ° U Ca L' C cd 6 C `4 pp. y Or 0 r- o O ca cJ Q.'ra• .w c� 4cw �y V cu Y 0 to Q on cn CO "yU7 C4 CC3 a U _. O U d U C d 'y Imo.• = I.U., y �.YUC �i O N N co C fa' h bAN �pU N � � C Y U��' w T •t7 •� 0.1 Cd .., C U rn .U.1 b C E T N El Yn U Y .� � O r. .Cd .O U cd cd -0 3 Eo W c C'm 7 ocucd Od 0 :a Z OA crs O 04 'bA ply RS C �°n� �3cd '� ° -�0 W Zoe W�0r p a H�� °C C, '_; cz CG'S O > C cn 0 W> W E _ 0' u cc U >1 YCIO on ca Y O U T cC. U U •.+ .O ;.,1104 N I�.rl «j u cd N w O a) •b c3.. O ,p w d U y d C C4 60 m , c0 cd. cl C, U y0 03 Y» cd ° 3 " v) O .. '� a) .., mUOd =3:16 c a moo co 0 CM cz � dc10 °: O C c2 �.�b ° a) y .r7 4 C C cc 1=. Cl) 3 dl- C "° C >% 00 0 d 0. 0 fl• aT •0 , O O L y •U co � C cz 0 U cc Y O o b a ��b 3 �� Q cu a -CUV� O cdC Gq n (A ca a cam 3 LS °c A > �. °. Gzl cz Lri.0 U a b ° w a 0 ii c 0 d N p 7 _T C O cd aU+ o� �o �U 3y cO •mob a� d UCd .D C c >i Ld d4 c � b C � cd ^' U v cd RS y �MD •� c N O Cd x � _ o rn � C U cd � n, �d ao a� O C C O G cd U Q. d cd L W � p h o c� Mo p c^ cu•� Y h 0 > ° b G ° O 0 0 o °� o� O. U aJ M EO W w F W 0 0 cc Gn Op .O U U O'y .0-0 '� U C � �xrp m (. y 0 OU"L' .Cc U O N cd w U L U Q U a m U c Oo cn cl U C O O E w Cl) 0 b C U u F�1 Q O Q O C4 fL 0 ca � y y 0 L• L L L .O U O O' L'C•3 cdU � 4N �C E 3E y U cZ n .•r . b 'd y O. 0 0 U�b L'° >, >UC >cd a Q.n. U..J..0 m p cd J, E Q. �+ A ..0 co •p U w., y USN UO _ .,Z: (D a�oo >`�E.8 r ca W�cYO�Uco ova ca.cn n 4 S � o a a.Cd c Z Ew.�U+ n,� N c.UO. U U O a U 7 O y,U OCAN O OA U 1Ur d A R C, cn cd 10 QEaca3�'$3'a � � c w Gn od w> y L .y, W E O E 2 'r O > U •� U °: -s Qb U � o�U 7 U o a= Q Q C (UO L cdo '' U Uw c L C y 0 y wy V 'b cd O � O �w bw U O y .. .. _ V 0 ai U U U cczEU U �z C.1 F � a o c CCS c O D,. cc �•y•o y,UO�.p. wD, cz y O y U > 0 0 C O U �.[ �.= Li-4 U� a> oQ OLn c •r; 'o s cc O "C cd U y U > U U Cd c ° cd 4 L 3 CO > A' = d 0o iQ >["Q id U �w �oU Cd CN ,Y y a o Z o c wi c U cqs •Q '� � Q Cd N U cc c O y . N > xop� . y U � .a ^" h rl cd•,•,, 'd L14 >..ai h G y i wll oc �•�uy =�.� co �y = >C4 a Cd � � � W C, =cdp >30Cd z .:� w Oil. t�• � �i, y � U .O¢ V A.�U�'O.a •R GO .y.. U O h 4u x'.. L. a0 C c 0 c =4� Cd C CA UD U O •y h y y al C U o >> QO xEz�.� t vVim� U O b U y ca w U E 0 ". L r- COl y U O U � N OAS �y y ayi�F.cco C W Cd cm Uo =� C6 6. o 3 cd H° U y y u vs CUZ y E ca E y C � h > C) r n •c 0. 'W7-' L C C cc cu �- 0 3 SWA y 0& H id O Ln ~ O y A cis � =�-, ° n w $ ca n. Cd aZG o °'QQ y o. z L > U L c��UQ m > cd wa U CM U (D U Ao Mb fA co) v W E a0 C c 0 c =4� Cd C CA co O. C U o >> xEz�.� t to cu L4 `4 Uw C? O b U y ca w U E 0 ". 0 a�wr- 1 W 1.�y3� W Uo =� 0m0 Li L . .O UC)m O O u vs YA y y E ca E y C � h h � a � > cu as � U (� 60 00 00 00 -0.0.0 bo � 00000 CA C6 ~ Cd : L y X30 �L 0 L C O w U , E 7a N w 1.. C cu o G b co z Ya� CL O O C. U Cw �� p 0 C, 1 cd cz co .� .. C. 2-� .� U Y O i< y a U CW..C„ U ���G U3 cd V cd _ CL C U O.�b �• 7 w) rC� cO >>, CZ cC- .,� YNN E T� m o tow) E •� > \J VJ CA •�% L) N vUi cd U U :ccn, �. M V C CgAV�1 U � yp G Watern 0 .0 M *>y u W1 C � Co Uw ro o Vl � U � y w C1 y � Q) p N C � ti Oq O •cny I C cC v S Q 3S _ o N b U O O 00 O y fj c. 1� a� r" V ww aC�Ci L 0 w O z w SU a Y Z m o0 0 co CUOZ cm Y O N mo a w _ �' U U W U O i�. C Cc C Q U ¢ Y >°`z C =3 w a Qu°,Sw�U Y Y ' V .✓ to U O Y D U U � U A 0 � a w O •~ O d U U .0 ca .� y h •O c a. 0. .°0 U Q) 0 V cn Q) U Nto cu "L" .YU-. U IV A5 C �� td Y U U "Y "°' p O w w w ca 0 3�a S Q as v A C " H >> 0 O O to •�. C CC h y �.� o❑ c Y c v os lua y cu ^= CA .CU ca. a o3� •� � � O OV C U w 3 v r�r Q'V a�w �^ cn Y +> •Y y 3�0= °'3 C o!5> O m =Q co o _ T3 00 ca ° cis o Y O V1 Y YO 0 > U "' U .G V d OI a a� w 003 O C U U ca cd U d •� d "= rA E b"A Lv ca 'Q y Lv Y 0 cu C> aU> o > w° o o f _� ay o oa.C7 c e > to U a o Y V Y .y. uj U r& ca >1 ca Y QJ " o c 0 0 ?Z U VI a cczUG P7_n.ytooCU cn p. w .ed w 1.. C cu o G b co z Ya� CL O O C. U Cw �� p 0 C, 1 cd cz co .� .. C. 2-� .� U Y O i< y a U CW..C„ U ���G U3 cd V cd _ CL C U O.�b �• 7 w) rC� cO >>, CZ cC- .,� YNN E T� m o tow) E •� > \J VJ CA •�% L) N vUi cd U U :ccn, �. M V C CgAV�1 U � yp G Watern 0 .0 M *>y u W1 C � Co Uw ro o Vl � U � y w C1 y � Q) p N C � ti Oq O •cny I C cC v S Q 3S _ o N b U O O 00 O y fj c. h " U co po � � W 0-0 GL L. > 7 OC U Qa F A y yyT a a Y tQ� cC cC Y w cCD r+ v r\ v CCs � � p`�'pw oo•� ALL y C Tp N� r Y y y .7� >a�• "C >3 .a p E O. y U .D > U p y b O U.0 O a) C N tL. > YC d .00 " C o U C y v cl .0 >> (u G.Cn U.m Q U O N O ~O� U= ".. UC". 0 Y i•'r r•�+'�y "1 y fA cd O ,C p, 0 Q) a N ..7 .1CLQ�i��a'W- aa(UMa40 Gib r" V aC�Ci L 0 w O z Cd ^c, CUOZ cm V buzz Q O h m ' C y WO y CUQ U cC cC U •� cn` Ate. 0.' U .U.0 E W W O Qu°,Sw�U h " U co po � � W 0-0 GL L. > 7 OC U Qa F A y yyT a a Y tQ� cC cC Y w cCD r+ v r\ v CCs � � p`�'pw oo•� ALL y C Tp N� r Y y y .7� >a�• "C >3 .a p E O. y U .D > U p y b O U.0 O a) C N tL. > YC d .00 " C o U C y v cl .0 >> (u G.Cn U.m Q U O N O ~O� U= ".. UC". 0 Y i•'r r•�+'�y "1 y fA cd O ,C p, 0 Q) a N ..7 .1CLQ�i��a'W- aa(UMa40 Gib r" V 3 a �/•Z �Y b Dew 3 rdo y cu ^= Y V !•q c'd .nq p r�r Q'V h C W o N a Cl) '0 '"" >4 CO.G C) a A ^� �� C" o aQ� VI a cu U U YO O O a0a zo z T �C4 r�•H 3 'y •� 3 � O •p n. Q � ,D cC y � C O v� oa r U cz � y r � C �w E ,� Q Cd c : y y 4 4A W aCdi F U .X op ^. y Q � = w cu Eo •� O y a a) C7 � N � a CU o lzEcc b a �Ey a:� s CZ o y bCTa, 3 � 0 U �w y U > 0 3 a� o •3 a� ¢ :? co ,neon U CU > y o�� o �w y 0 d) c z E w h «j 2-0 a y > OS., C p U O O CU C•;'o•n N y N > Za>icrn y C w c Q', O C Ta oOU cC > OU a) C b y E od G40 b� > _ c0 N y Oyxi Ll W; E �o CO a. ppry LIZ w b G7 a�c a) z CI co d ad oc Q sa a� D NlV A341 S NIVA341S T � N U O O to .>' V•a •ad w U a) •� U �. O �y-+ to U U (D U A y E p r- E N O C cO 4) y co U Z aJ C4 A h C y O u Cl cc cCao ° ' Q o w � 3 030 > `O U C O o OOA N T OUA wv� U �}T, C Q[ N `C6 > cC W Wum °° 0 0 C 0 3tn Cd° N O ai O . •.• yU.. b n" U CM. U 'O E O C ... y A w ° W O CC y V7 a> .... ca aA :D > O cC �" V y , CIO 'p O U °> ,a •� C a'd C bQ .. n ❑ ca O y do ca ob E �" o �y ca > wa pO cu �v s ° ��° a-;a� o Cl. o i .d,, C � n, �b H 'U '�• Rio G.43 O .� O vi U ,•C O •• 0o uW W�EU o 3� C ao >.,� �� 0 30 E coy co u Cc 0 00 0 U �" U E � . ° O � o Qn 'A co r- L a y N o �y e � y .� V O � 0 ra A " V N p"0 N`i Y iri w V U - � E >, > N �rl � CQ o =rti S 4 � 0.0 W C. C4 °p E'��5 O b Y w CU cd cd h .., N ., cd w3w cd c,..oC cu N w w > N O LN O O E p d O. C «C,3 h ceN N h y . � .�> B = � �O b � TD ❑ p w C h Op O C w h= 4 > � N n h� y cd w H 3 M [ p 4,'� U V V en N.. C.o Q,> Cb.� Uw y E 3 o v C a 'moo cr3 o 0 as � "GL Gcw v C"J a. x wok R aF H o.�b aow cu &n C4 b w y w y O N a L. tV. ' C'. U O C O 7 h y C t,.., C O r p U ri 0 0 .-y �_ 0 cc .0 .� .0 C � 0 C Q 0l C- > C amy•, '0 ' p G. C V> O U C U N U .� b O U CU Y ca O U �y3 > ~oe sa uy y n Cd p y -0 cu yE 3 c� yap, y 2 D ¢ aE ° ca ° Qo �" z �Vco a�^ oaG °° �C> E o cones30 al 0 ..... C V E as O y Cc U as •w ¢ W tCN- cd 'O❑ O C U � Cd V U '" O (Hil 'Q' O O O y .j j C cc: 4w., (U cd m p N O > .cd w CLw •U a i aoi �w o aw 75 °._ '"w �E1u, �E �E aoU J oE o p°—•.0 °' co) pv;r�ti o n � o Cd W v ° �acoo m �a p � r4 ON > . -L. r4 ' y o w > b cd C cyd ED ..� O NN •p"C. O W ��be`�❑ d w o� E P.�.7 . m c� � � 3 w � W y C,E C4 " O � °d c -w U w to 4, > ^ D„ � o°b � °L n CL t, o � " - coop O a O .d �O o O U .' 0 0 -0 0 o > � y C a� a � o cts cu cu �'� , >� � �'� 3 E�..0 C6 (D ti U C. >. wU dUU ° W E� a) 0. 000 y y 3 C C O 0 C,� cz p , o._ W C Wiz¢ Ob q O� >; cyiQ o Cd 0 ° d o ° nb y�+;� i Ponca � > 0 To c M yC. = Cvo W yo n °.�•° O .°•� 'T '�.� O.Ow� y.C) v y d° �F� c 0. cyNC p 0 cdn-•' VO,t cd _�.,� a) � LL T r- •O'yyC Sao Qp) a�ti0a -'4 0 ° Eoy� E ... Ea,��� ° >oE 0 W [ ya bn t a> 5 p0 =a� vcd - n2y_w c �'> x °sa 1. y `dA y 0 0 � 5'r. _ �O� y vyi =o >9y'� ynVC ��y> M y .O .Y.. bn y £' cd y r: 4) > y y y a� 0 3b °: o C)= �' °d w.o o� .r o °y yOa�> °�0 o yyU &» U UU T;aU� o 0 +' m °oync Q� H'o0"n ¢��ccV� H�� Q.xo°a Zcno a �w�i.E �, �'y8p °yoga ..t a w P-; 7:1 ac ed 04 � E o�UU a Z 0 0.0 a Q R CC's U o C y p w .. U C U y w C a a i v o O O y '� CO cu cz o y Q "1 0 �a w cd O w'« 3 3 icy y,yU only .o O c 3 ^.n p � y. p aJ aj �. 3> w ❑o� _ � ° :3 0 yam' (L) v F >..m .. 6. �F to cow MF o ca r o o > C"_ t o �>, c C o y, °- rte" C yC 0 W 7 a0 �'oo:C V 0Ca o c.4C �c fs+ Cj U 3 0�So .00 O WL23O �a aS oas 'o y O '� .o w c� GO EM4 GOO .a (D � °: E�� °c a, �a.Q �° 3 E >,� P;s �co�a r °p moo° Crab ��� o° �l �' ° o E.4 o C4,z R w� ¢ o .� y y r: a on' > o y p o y y •- ° ...r c n U Cd O 0, 3 c a U to 0 3 -0 w o � °4 c mow° C7� c V u Y �p L C7 �Z O} 0 ^ ' V/ '1 W 1 LL F- CL LU U awp C � M Q CL >-�O CL CC r X02 CL LL LU U (C%j LL } LL. Lu O J d Q m w 2 Q Y o Y U V!r JC m N CZ 0 Cf) a> T Q Y Z 2 H � y cu o Un ,O o 0 o o LO o Lr) r T ^01 (\l LO T r N Ln T T (\I (1) m m a) a) a) a) (1) m a) N N S o Y cu N La ca ca ca ca c>s ca ca of a3 ca CL a a a a a a a a a a a ,o e c U U to w > q;t rn G >, r to y O ' > G tv .UO E�`� 0R zlz z— a v� E ^; m m m m m m m m m m m co ca CIS ca ca a3 ca M RS ca Ca as a a a a a a a a a a a a W T W \-! CO r M 00 M OD m a) m a) (D a) a) (1) (1) a) (1) a) cz as ca (a ca C13 La as La ca ca ca a a a a a a a a a a a a N 1� N 1� N r- N r r r (V N r r (\I n T T a) a) a) a) (1) a) m (1) a) (1) (1) a) m m m m m m m m m m m m 0 as ca CO as ca ca ca ca ca ca ca CL a a a a a a a a a a C/ r co T CD r y r ♦♦// y r r r //II11 y T T T ••//11 y r CD (D a) a) (1) a) a) m (1) a) m ^r ^,, W m m m m m m m m m m m m cz ca CIS CIS <a Ca CO 'cz ca ca CO ca CL a a a a a a a a .a a a C7 �Z O} 0 ^ ' V/ '1 W 1 LL F- CL LU U awp C � M Q CL >-�O CL CC r X02 CL LL LU U (C%j LL } LL. Lu O J d Q m w 2 Q Y o Y U V!r JC m N CZ 0 Cf) a> T Q Y Z 2 H cu c ,O 00 G y C6 E� S o Y cu O U U x ¢ b GJ ea. CL) x� �- y W O M G U 'J C C C y 0 h ,o e c U U to w > G >, r to y O ' > G tv .UO E�`� 0R zlz z— a v� E ^; N 7J aH a C7 �Z O} 0 ^ ' V/ '1 W 1 LL F- CL LU U awp C � M Q CL >-�O CL CC r X02 CL LL LU U (C%j LL } LL. Lu O J d Q m w 2 Q Y o Y U V!r JC m N CZ 0 Cf) a> T Q Y Z 2 H RESOLUTION NO. 8334 (1994 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REVOKING THE APPROVAL OF CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE FOR CAL COAST CHARTER INC.(RESOLUTION NO. 5810 DATED OCTOBER 15, 1985 WHEREAS, Cal Coast Charter Inc. previously had, applied for a Certificate of Convenience with which to provide taxicab service in the City of San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, the Certificate of Convenience was approved by Resolution No. 5810; and WHEREAS, Cal Coast Charter Inc.was purchased by Laidlaw Transit Inc; and WHEREAS, Laidlaw Transit Inc. gave on May 2, 1994 thirty day notice to cease providing taxicab service; and WHEREAS, taxicab service provided by Laidlaw Transit Inc. has not been provided for more then thirty days, WHEREAS, Municipal Code 5.20.130 provides revocation if service is abandoned for thirty days, and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby Rescinds Resolution 5810, dated October 15, 1985 thereby revoking the approved Certificate of Convenience for Cal Coast Charter Inc. / Laidlaw Transit Inc (dba Yellow Cab of San Luis Obispo). vote: On motion of Romero, seconded by Kappa__, and on the following roll call R -8334 AYES: Council Members Romero, Rappa, Roalman, Settle, and Mayor Hnard NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 30th day of August, 1994. MAYO EG PINARD ATTEST: APPROVED: �� � �.> �J ��� i t�.�'l� �� :��. �s , �\,�_ ��: 'N� � l ',� RESOLUTION NO. 8333 (1994 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PROCLAIMING THE TERMINATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY WHEREAS, a local emergency existed in the City of San Luis Obispo in accordance with the Resolution No. 8321 (1994 Series) by the City Council on the 16th day of. August, 1994, as a result of conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property caused by fire; and WHEREAS, the situation resulting from said conditions of extreme peril is now deemed to be within the control of the normal protective services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of and within said City of San Luis Obispo; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of of San Luis Obispo as follows: It is hereby prolaimed that the local emergency is hereby terminated. Upon motion of Vice Mayor Settle , seconded by Council Member Romero , and on the following roll call vote: Ayes:, Vice Mayor Settle, Council Members Romero, Rappa, Roalman and Mayor Pinard Noes: None Absent: None the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 23rd day of August, 1994, in the City of San Luis Obispo. , ATTEST: Peg Pi rd, Mayor Vane R. Gla ell, City Clerk U2FOVED AS %Q O. a= iii. ���- - Attorney �'• R -8333 \�� U" ����ti� 0 RESOLUTION NO. 8332 (1994 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS, ADOPTING A REVISED LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, AND APPROVING A GUIDE TO ZONING CONSISTENCY The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo resolves as follows: 1. Record of Proceedings The City Council has reviewed and considered the Planning Commission recommendation, the staff recommendation, correspondence, and public testimony concerning . the revised Land Use Element. Council also has received the Planning Commission recommendation, the staff recommendation, and background material for the Circulation Element update. The Council has reviewed and considered the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), EIR Supplement, and comments and responses on them. These environmental documents covered both the Land Use Element update and the Circulation Element update. These items are on file in the office of the City Clerk. The City Council conducted eleven public hearings during April through July 1994 concerning the Land Use Element update. The minutes of those hearings indicate Council members' votes on particular components of the revised element which may differ from the vote on this Resolution. 2. Public and Agency Review Drafts of the revised Land Use Element have been widely available for review and comment by interested agencies and individuals. Copies have been provided to the San Luis Obispo City - County Library and the Cal Poly Library. Copies have been provided to agencies whose jurisdiction is related to planning within the area, including the County of San Luis Obispo, the County Airport Land Use Commission, the Local Agency Formation Commission, the Council of Governments, and California Polytechnic State University. 3. Certification of Environmental Impact Report A draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 92101006) and an EIR Supplement have been prepared and circulated for public and agency comment, and responses to substantial environmental issues have been prepared, all pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") and the State and City CEQA Guidelines. R -8332 Resolution No. 8332 Page 2 The final EIR consists of the following parts: A. The draft Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR "), January 1993; B. Comments and responses. for the draft EIR, as presented to the Planning Commission May 5, 1993, including evaluation of an alternative corresponding with build -out of the previously adopted Land Use Element; C. The draft Environmental Impact Report Supplement ( "Supplement "), September 1993, concerning certain land use alternatives; D. Comments and responses for the draft EIR Supplement, as presented to the Planning Commission December 1, 1993. Council hereby finds that it was not necessary to recirculate the draft EIR with the alternative of building out the adopted Land Use Element, because the impacts of that alternative were of the same in kind, and within the range of severity, of impacts associated with other alternatives evaluated in the draft EIR, as demonstrated in the response to comments. Council has considered how changes to the Land Use Element proposed during the hearings may affect the environment, and has determined that further environmental review is not needed because the adopted element corresponds with the project and alternatives evaluated in the draft EIR and Supplement. Council finds that the final EIR addresses all potential environmental impacts in sufficient detail. Mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance will be implemented, or overriding considerations exist which justify approval of the project despite potentially significant impacts, as fully set forth in.Part 4 below. Council hereby certifies the final EIR. A copy of this Resolution, indicating the approved mitigation and monitoring program, shall be published as part of the final EIR. 4. Status of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation and Monitoring, and Overriding Considerations Council hereby determines that the status of impacts is as follows, for the Land Use Element. Council finds that certain standard. mitigations, mainly in the form of adopted City policies and standards, and the requirements of other agencies, will not be changed by adoption of the revised Land Use Element, and will remain in effect to help reduce impacts resulting from development consistent with the Land Use Element. These standard mitigations have been summarized under the discussion of "regulatory environment" within the EIR. c:� o Resolution No. 8332 Page 3 The draft EIR, Supplement, and comments and responses covered the Land Use Element update and the Circulation Element update. The Circulation Element update is to be adopted by separate Council action. When the revised Circulation Element is adopted, Council will make additional determinations concerning that element. Any changes to the Circulation Element, which would result in potentially significant impacts not adequately addressed in the EIR hereby being certified, will require supplemental environmental review. Likewise, any changes to the Circulation Element which would reduce the effectiveness of mitigation for circulation- related impacts will require further determination by the City Council when that element is adopted. A. Not significant with project as proposed; no special monitoring of mitigation measures required or proposed: (1) Street character; (2) Park land availability; (3) Wildland fire hazard; (4) Electrical power service; (5) Natural gas service; B. Not significant with mitigation as recommended by the draft EIR or EIR Supplement: Note: Monitoring of approved mitigation measures will be provided through the annual report on implementation of the General Plan, in addition to any other reports noted below. (1) Pedestrian obstruction by sound walls Mitigation summary: Policy 2.2.12.H modified. Monitoring: City will avoid noise walls in major expansion areas, and review plans for sound walls in other developments. (2) Land use at Vachell Lane extension: Circulation Element issue (extension recommended to be eliminated). (3) Land use at South Street extension: Circulation Element issue (Planning Commission recommends extension be eliminated; Public Works Department recommends that it be included; see item D.9 below). Resolution No. 8332 Page 4 (4) Transit service not adequate for expansion areas Mitigation summary: City will adopt, update, and implement Long Range Transit Plan. Monitoring: City will consider transit plan when preparing specific plans for expansion areas. (5) Fire protection service demands and response time Mitigation summary: City will make more efficient use of existing resources than assumed in EIR, hire additional personnel as needed, collect impact fees for new facilities, add /relocate fire station if needed, obtain County airport fire station (or reciprocal response agreement). Monitoring: City will consider progress on mitigations before adopting budgets and specific plans. (6) Police protection service demands Mitigation summary: City will hire additional personnel as needed, collect impact fees for new facilities, add substation if warranted. Monitoring: City will consider progress on mitigations before adopting budgets and specific plans.. (7) General City governmental service demands (excluding utilities) Mitigation summary: City will improve productivity, and hire additional personnel as needed. Monitoring: City will review service levels before adopting budgets and specific plans. (8) School facilities adequacy Mitigation summary: School District will use "Measure A" bond funds and impact fees, and specific plans for expansion areas will provide for dedication of school sites. Monitoring: City and School District will consider progress on mitigations before adopting specific plans and budgets. O` O Resolution No. 8332 Page 5 (9) Wastewater (sewage) collection and treatment demands Mitigation summary: City will expand treatment capacity, funded by impact fees; collection system will be expanded, with developer installation, impact fees, or special assessments. Monitoring: City will consider progress on mitigations before adopting specific plans and development approvals. (10) Construction noise Mitigation summary: City will limit construction hours, require equipment maintenance and operation limits, and portable noise barriers. Monitoring: City will establish or revise standard contract provisions for its own projects and conditions of approval for other projects. (11) Traffic noise levels - existing and new streets Mitigation summary: City will reduce traffic speeds through limits or physical features, and require developments to attenuate noise through setbacks, berms, or walls. Monitoring: City will conduct project -level environmental assessments and check development plans. (12) Stationary (commercial, industrial) noise sources [See also C(3) below] Mitigation summary: City will require developments to attenuate noise through site arrangement and setbacks, walls, limits on hours of operations or loading /delivery. Monitoring: City will conduct project -level environmental assessments and check development plans. (13) Indoor noise levels from airport operations Mitigation summary:. City will require developments to attenuate noise as provided in Noise Element design standards. Monitoring: City will conduct project -level environmental assessments and check development plans. C 0 Resolution No. 8332 (14) Construction air pollution Page 6 Mitigation summary: City and Air Pollution Control District (APCD) will require developments to control dust and combustion emissions. Monitoring: City will conduct project -level environmental assessments, check development plans, inspect work in progress. (15) Santa Rosa park carbon monoxide (CO) concentration Mitigation summary: City will relocate existing play equipment closer to parking area when it needs to be replaced. Monitoring: City will request APCD to measure CO at proposed play equipment location to verify acceptability before relocating. (16) Construction water quality impacts, and (17) Oil /grease in urban runoff Mitigation summary: Regional Water Quality Control Board will administer permits for projects disturbing more than five acres; City will require buffer along waterways in expansion areas. Monitoring: No separate monitoring required. (18) Flooding in expansion areas Mitigation summary: City will establish adequate creek setbacks in expansion areas. Monitoring: Adequate setbacks will be determined in specific plans. (19) Biological resources (excluding Sacramento Drive extension) Mitigation summary: City will implement (1) "biological resource protection program" for proposed development sites, (2) riparian and wetland mitigation, (3) sensitive flora taxa preservation, (4) coastal sage scrub restoration and limited fire hazard fuel modification, and (5) revised landscaping guidelines to include native plants and exclude invasive nonnative plants. Monitoring: City will conduct CEQA project review and implement Open Space Element; include tally of habitat types and amounts lost or restored in annual report on General Plan. G Q Resolution No. 8332 Page 7 (20) Aesthetics: noise walls, street facades, street & parking landscaping Mitigation summary: City will revise architectural review guidelines for public and private projects, - concerning noise walls, landscaping, and entry presentation; specific plans will establish setbacks in expansion areas. Monitoring: General plan annual reports and Community Development Department two -year work programs. (21) High voltage power lines field exposure Mitigation summary: City will establish program for notification of owners within 250 feet of power transmission line, and assure that specific plans for Margarita and Orcutt areas show school site separation in accordance with State - standards. Monitoring: General plan annual reports and environmental determinations for expansion area specific plans. (22) Growth inducement of road extensions in open space areas Mitigation summary: General: policy 1.7 and 1.8 modified; Specific: some road extensions proposed to be eliminated. Monitoring: Project -level environmental review. (23) Human health hazards - evacuation routes Mitigation summary: County annual review and update of emergency response plan will include evacuation points and routes as development occurs in southern part of City. Monitoring: Environmental review and plan approval for specific plans: Airport, Margarita, Orcutt. (24) Seismic and other geological hazard `exposure - warehouse store merchandise in area of high ground .shaking. Mitigation summary: Assessment of shelf and merchandise stability and restraint system recommendations at time of building permit. Monitoring: City plan check. Resolution No. 8332 Page 8 C. Not significant with mitigation revised from that recommended by draft EIR or Supplement; revised mitigation measures are found to address the same concerns to the same level as recommended, but in a manner more consistent with other City policies: (1) Water usage in San Luis Obispo area Mitigation summary: Development of additional water supplies; no net increase in water use from new development until adequate supplemental supply is available (safe yield basis for planning); water conservation programs. Monitoring: Annual water operations plan, quarterly and annual water allocation /offset report; project -level environmental review. (2) Land use - airport safety and outdoor noise exposure Mitigation summary: Changes reflected in adopted Land Use Element Map; City will include protection in Airport Area, Margarita Area specific plans. Monitoring: Specific plan environmental review; project -level environmental review, in case Airport Area Land Use Plan changes. (3) Noise exposure - commercial & industrial development Mitigation summary: City will revise Zoning Regulations and Architectural Review Guidelines, with reference to Noise Element design standards. Monitoring: City will conduct project -level environmental assessments and check development plans. (4) Water quality & flooding - natural drainage Mitigation summary: Policy modified to reflect Open Space Element. Monitoring: Project -level environmental review. (5) Water quality & flooding - porous paving Mitigation summary: Modified policy (6.4.7) added to Land Use Element. Monitoring: Project -level environmental review. o Resolution No. 8332 Page 9 (6) Cultural, archaeological resources Mitigation summary: Modified policy (6.6.4) added to Land Use Element. Monitoring: Project -level environmental review. (7) Aesthetics - scenic corridor standards Mitigation summary: Adequately addressed by modified Land Use Element policies (1.7.5, 1,.9.4, 6.0.3, 6.2.5) Monitoring: Project -level environmental review. (8) Aesthetics - downtown building heights Mitigation summary: Policy of draft Land Use Element retained. Monitoring: Project -level environmental review. (9) Human health hazards - hazardous material routes Mitigation summary: Modified policy (2.2.12.7) added to Land Use Element. Monitoring: Project -level environmental review. (10) Utilities & resources - landfill capacity Mitigation summary: Modified policy 1.15 added to Land Use Element. Monitoring: Project -level environmental review. (11) Pedestrian safety Mitigation summary: Draft Circulation Element policies revised to address concern. Monitoring: City will review development projects, design its own facilities in conformance, and consider policies during preparation of capital budget. (12) Traffic - Highway 227 high occupancy vehicle lane Mitigation summary: City will advocate that lanes added to regional highways be for high occupancy vehicles. Monitoring: City will participate in Regional Transportation Plan updates. (13) Land use conflicts Mitigation summary: Changes to Land Use Element map to minimize adjacency of residential and nonresidential uses in the Airport Area. Monitoring: General plan annual reports and environmental determinations for expansion area specific plans. Resolution No. 8332 Page 10 D. Significant, adverse impacts, despite proposed mitigation, for which findings of overriding considerations are hereby made (numbered items below). Throughout these findings, reference is made to "a reasonable share of anticipated regional growth." The determination of a reasonable share is based on the following facts. Determination of a reasonable share follows consideration of sometimes conflicting State policies and mandates, including protection of air quality and open space (including prime agricultural land), responding to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, and following the intent of the California Environmental Quality Act. - Additional population and economic activity can have adverse environmental impacts wherever they occur. Generally, those impacts are less severe if the growth is within or adjacent to an existing urban area, compared to growth in rural areas. State and County populations are projected to increase between one percent and two percent annually for the next thirty years, based on recent trends. The City alone cannot change those trends. The City's planned residential and nonresidential growth rates -- slightly more than one percent -- are at the low end of the range projected for the State and the County. The City's share of projected State and County growth is determined to be reasonable because the increase is not significantly higher or lower than the State or County increases. Growth rates which are higher or lower than planned by the City could attract to San Luis Obispo, or deflect from it, adverse environmental impacts associated with growth. (1) Prime agricultural land conversion to urban use Overriding consideration: Accommodating a reasonable share of anticipated regional growth within the urban reserve line, contiguous to existing development, while preserving land outside the urban reserve line. (2) Street widening land -use impact: Higuera Street, High to Marsh Overriding consideration: Accommodating projected traffic levels (due to reasonable share of anticipated regional growth), at acceptable level of service, and providing a bike lane connection. O C Resolution No. 8332 Page 11 (3) Street widening land -use impact: Santa Rosa Street, Olive to Foothill Overriding consideration: Accommodating projected traffic levels (due to reasonable share of anticipated regional growth) at acceptable levels of service. (4) Statewide (cumulative) water usage increase Overriding consideration: Accommodating a. reasonable share of anticipated regional growth within the urban reserve line. (5) Aesthetics - change from rural to urban character Overriding consideration: Accommodating a reasonable share of anticipated regional growth within the urban reserve line. (6) Traffic unacceptable levels of service at certain major intersections and along most arterial streets Overriding consideration: Accommodating projected traffic levels (due to reasonable share of anticipated regional growth), while avoiding significant land -use and aesthetic impacts that would follow from adding or widening roadways and changing intersections, and the City's inability to substantially change people's individual travel choices. (7) Biological and aesthetic impacts in riparian area - Sacramento Drive extension Overriding consideration: Providing alternate traffic route (reduced arterial roadway congestion) and emergency access in a location where riparian impacts can largely be mitigated through on -site, in -kind enhancement of degraded riparian area. Note: Council previously approved road extension in concept when acting on development plan for adjacent business park. (8) Population, employment, and housing - number of workers likely to increase more than number of residents, resulting in additional commuting, with secondary impacts to energy consumption, air pollution, and traffic levels of service. Resolution No. 8332 Page 12. Overriding consideration: Maintaining San Luis Obispo's fiscal health and hub role, and avoiding further expansion of residential development into open space areas. (9) Land use impacts at South Street extension Overriding consideration: Providing emergency access to the Johnson Avenue area if the main fire station is located at Broad and South Streets and the Laurel Lane station is closed. 5. Internal Consistency Council hereby determines that the revised Land Use Element and the proposed revision of the Circulation Element are consistent with all elements of the General Plan. 6. Conformance with State Law and Guidelines Council hereby determines that the revised Land Use Element conforms with requirements of the California Government Code and the advisory General Plan Guidelines of the State Office of Planning and Research. 7. Regional Housing Opportunities Council hereby finds that the revised Land Use Element does not contain a policy or program limiting the number of dwellings which may be constructed on an annual basis. However, by phasing the development of residential expansion areas in conformity with growth management goals, the revised Land Use Element may operate to limit the number of housing units which may be constructed within a period of years. In fulfilling the intent of California Government Code Section 65302.8, Council hereby makes the following findings: A. Regional Housing Needs. The City has determined that approximately 5,300 additional dwellings can be accommodated by the land use designations and allowed densities contained within the Land Use Element, and that the intended growth rate will allow this capacity to be used within about twenty -five years. The City has further determined that the "Regional Housing Needs Assessment" assignment for San Luis Obispo of 5,128 dwellings by July 1, 1999, was based on inaccurate data and is neither appropriate nor achievable within the identified time frame. C� O Resolution No. 8332 Page 13 The rate of population growth on which regional housing need allocations were based is not likely to be achieved, because of San Luis Obispo County's recessionary economic conditions from 1991 through 1994, State population projections, and resource constraints. Through its General Plan, the City intends to manage residential and commercial growth so that new development occurs in an orderly manner and can be adequately served by utilities and public services like police, fire, schools, parks and recreation, and general government for the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. Modification of the Housing Element and Land Use Element policies to accommodate State- mandated growth targets would represent a fundamental policy shift, since both the previous and revised Land Use Elements encourage gradual development outward from the City center. Accommodating the City's assigned share of regional housing need by 1999 would exhaust the land and water resources designated in the General Plan to meet the City's residential needs over the next 25 years. B. City Actions to Expand Housing Opportunities. The City is undertaking programs and activities to expand housing opportunities for all income groups and for those working within the City, as specified in the draft Housing Element scheduled for adoption September 6, 1994. Further, the revised Land Use Element contains policies and programs which will expand housing opportunities for all income groups and for those working within the City, through provision of sites for additional multifamily housing within identified expansion areas and through density bonuses linked to transfer of development credits. C. Public Health Safety, and Welfare. Adoption of the revised Land Use Element will promote the public health, safety, and welfare by: (1) Strengthening the City's long -term fiscal health so that the City can provide adequate levels of service; (2) Assuring that adequate resources and services needed for new development will be made available concurrent with that development; (3) Protecting the natural environment and air quality to the extent possible within a region where population increase is expected; (4) Maintaining or enhancing the relatively high level of services enjoyed by City residents; C C Resolution No. 8332 Page 14 (5) Assimilating new residents at a pace which preserves the community's social fabric, safety, and established neighborhoods; (6) Promoting residents' opportunities for direct participation in City government and their sense of community. D. Limited Local Resources. There are limited fiscal and environmental resources available to the City which can be devoted to meeting demands of additional residential development. Programs to remove or mitigate these constraints are discussed in the Housing Element and the Water and Wastewater Management Element. However, several constraints to housing production remain which cannot feasibly be overcome within the time frame of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. These are: (1) Availability of Water. The City's growth projections assume that adequate resources and public services are available. Housing growth beyond the relatively small number of dwellings which can be built through the water offset (retrofit) program depends on successful City efforts to secure additional water supplies. (2) Public Facilities and Services. Schools, police and fire services, parks, and general City administration are currently considered marginally adequate to meet current needs, according to the EIR. To meet the City's assigned share of regional housing need would require 15 additional fire fighting personnel, 19 sworn police officers, and approximately 88 other full -time City staff; would generate demand for an additional 76 acres of neighborhood and district parks; and require additional faculty and classroom space to accommodate 2,364 students, assuming services are maintained at current levels. The capital costs of meeting these public services needs under the plan would exceed the City's and school district's financial resources, and result in significant financial hardship and public safety impacts. (3) Environmental Impacts. According to the EIR, significant adverse impacts to circulation, agricultural land, and aesthetics are likely to result from accommodating the proposed residential growth. Although growth impacts cannot be entirely mitigated, the 25 -year planning time frame allows development of additional mitigations or adjustments to the planned development capacity if proposed mitigations prove to be inadequate. Accommodating an equivalent amount of residential growth within the compressed time frame of the Regional Housing Needs. Assessment would Resolution No. 8332 Page 15 result in significant adverse impacts and threaten public health and safety due to inadequate public facilities and services. (4) Local Conditions Affecting Land Use. Unique physical characteristics, including steep topography, the need to preserve prime agricultural lands within and adjacent to the City, and the unique visual qualities of the City's volcanic morros and open spaces have guided the City's land use and planning policies. 8. Repeal of Previous Element The 1977 General Plan Urban Land Use and Growth Management Element, as amended, is hereby repealed, on the effective date of the revised Land Use Element. 9. Adoption of Revised Element The revised Land Use Element, consisting of a text and maps dated August 1994, on file in the City Clerk's Office, is hereby adopted. 10. Publication and Availability The Community Development Director shall cause the newly adopted element to be published and provided to City officials, concerned agencies, and public libraries, and to be made available to the public at a cost not to exceed the cost of reproduction. 11. Effective Date The newly adopted element shall be effective on the thirtieth day after passage of this Resolution. 12. Zoning Consistency The Council intends, within a reasonable time of adopting the revised Land Use Element, to make the Zoning Regulations and the official zone map consistent with the revised element. Because some names of land use districts are being added or changed, Council hereby approves the following as a guide to zoning consistency, pending a comprehensive revision of the Zoning Regulations and official zone map. Resolution No. 8332 Land Use District Open Space Interim Open Space C� Consistent Zones Conservation /Open Space (C /OS) Conservation /Open Space (C /OS) Page 16 Recreation Conservation /Open Space (C /OS), Public Facility (PF), or either of the following zones limited by a Special Considerations (S), Planned Development (PD), or Specific Plan (SP) overlay zone: Service Commercial (C -S) or Manufacturing (M) Park Conservation /Open Space (C /OS) or Public Facility (PF) Rural Residential No equivalent City zone (Country "Residential - Rural ") Suburban Residential No equivalent City zone (County "Residential - Suburban") Low Density Residential Low Density Residential (R -1) Medium Density Res- idential Medium Density Residential (R -2)] Medium High Density Res- idential Medium -High Density Residential (R -3) High Density Residential High Density Residential (R -4) Residential Neighborhood Conservation /Open Space (C /OS), or any of the following zones combined with the Specific Plan (SP) zone: PF, R -1, R -2, R -3, R -4, or Neighborhood Commercial (C -N) Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial (C -N) Tourist Commercial Tourist Commercial (C -T) General Retail Retail Commercial (C -R) or Central Commercial (C -C) Office Office (0) Services and Manufacturing Service Commercial (C -S) or Manufacturing (M) Business Park Any of the following zones combined with Planned Development (PD) or Specific Plan (SP): O, C -S, or M. Public Public Facility (PF) i J Resolution No. 8332 Page 17 On motion of Settle , seconded by Roalman , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Vice Mayor Settle, Council Members Roalman, Rappa, and Mayor Pinard NOES: Council Member Romero ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 23rd day of August , 1994. Mayor Pe6l Pinard ATTEST: C. § Clerk Diane . Gladwell APPROVED: V/ LUE- ADP'r.RES C RESOLUTION NO. 8331 (1994 Series) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING THE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT Whereas, the San Luis Obispo City Council is committed to providing City residents with methods for reducing the volumes of household hazardous wastes, and for the safe collection, recycling and disposal of household hazardous wastes; and Whereas, the San Luis Obispo City Council is further committed to providing the public with education and information about alternatives to hazardous products and about reusing, recycling and safe disposal of household hazardous wastes; and Whereas, the San Luis Obispo City Council intends to work with other jurisdictions to provide cost effective and productive regional programs for the safe collection, recycling and disposal of household hazardous wastes; and Whereas, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 mandates adoption and implementation of a Household Hazardous Waste Element. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby adopt the June 1994 Household Hazardous Waste Element as produced by the Solid Waste Task Force and approved by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, attached hereto as Exhibit "A ", and incorporated herein. Upon motion of Council Member Roalman seconded by Council Member Romero and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council ?Members Roalman, Romero, Rappa, Vice Mayor Settle, and Mayor Pinard NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 16 day of August, 1994 R -8331 �i RESOLUTION NO. 8331 (1994 Series) Page 2 ATTEST: CittTlerk Di ne R Gladwell APPROVED: lAd: � " " W—, C Mayor Peg inard 1, ol C RESOLUTION NO.8330(1994 Series) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING THE NONDISPOSAL FACILITY ELEMENT Whereas, the State of California mandates preparation of a Nondisposal Facility Element; and Whereas, the City of San Luis Obispo is committed to developing plans, programs and documents in compliance with State law. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby adopt the June 1994 Nondisposal Facility Element as produced by the Solid Waste Task Force and approved by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, attached hereto as Exhibit "A ", and incorporated herein. Upon motion of Council Member Roalman and on the following roll call vote: seconded by Council Member Romero AYES:,CQaticil Members Roalman, Romero, Rappa, Vice Mayor Settle and Mayor Pinard NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 16 day of August , 1994 — L?'e' 2"1" -.�' Mayor, PcjPinard ATTEST: C Clerk Diane . Gladwell APPROVED: , offl/12 S. voz R -8330 N ay C-Xlel ci 0 c RESOLUTION NO.8329(1994 Series) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING THE SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT Whereas; the San Luis Obispo City Council is committed to providing City residents and businesses with methods for reducing, reusing, recycling and composting discarded materials; and Whereas, the San Luis Obispo City Council is dedicated to providing programs that are safe, efficient, cost effective and environmentally sound; and Whereas, the San Luis Obispo City Council recognizes that proper collection and processing of community generated resources provides opportunities for long term local economic benefit; and Whereas, it is a priority for the San Luis Obispo City Council to develop programs and facilities that strengthen local economic opportunities for City residents; and, Whereas, the San Luis Obispo City Council intends to work with other jurisdictions to provide cost effective and productive regional programs and facilities; and Whereas, the California Integrated. Waste Management Act of 1989 mandates adoption and implementation of a Source Reduction and Recycling Element and the reduction of landfilled waste by 25% by 1995 and 50% by 2000. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby adopt the June 1994 Source Reduction and Recycling Element as produced by the Solid Waste Task Force and approved by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, attached hereto as Exhibit "A ", and incorporated herein. Upon motion Of Council Member Roalman and on the following roll call vote: seconded by Council Member Romero AYES: Council Members Roalman, Romero, Rappa, Vice Mayor Settle, and Mayor Pinard NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 16 day of August , 1994 C RESOLUTION NO. 8329 (1994 Series) Page 2 ATTEST: P` Jerk DiAne R.tXladwell APPROVED: i M ,., v,. /I`r. eta.• C- a �ia _ < L e PICO Notice of DeterminpIlion To: X Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 -Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk County of _ Appendix H From: (Public Agency) City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Dept., 955 Morro Street San Luis Obispo,CA (Address) 93401 Subject: Fling of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Source Reduction and Recycling Element Household Hazardous Waste Element Project Title San Luis Obispo Council State Clearinghouse Number (If submitted to Clearinghouse) Lead Agency Contact Person _City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo Project Location (include county) 805 -781 -4662 Area Code/Telephone/Extension Project Description: State mandated Source Reduction and Recycling Element addressing source reduction, recycl composting, special wastes, landfill capacity and public eduction programs. State mandat Household Hazardous Waste Element addressing programs for the safe collection, recycling and disposal of household hazardous wastes and source reduction, and public education programs regarding these materials. This is to advise that the City Council of San. Luis Obispo has approved the above described project on ❑ Lead Agency Responsible Agency August. 16, 1994 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project (Date) 1: The project [ ❑will gwill not] have a significant effect on the environment 2. E3 An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ❑ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures [©were []were not] made a condition of the approval of the project 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [[]was [ jwas not] adopted for this project 5. Findings [2were [3were not] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 6. The LLCity ppof San Luis Obispo considered the EIR as prepared and certified by the This is to cerSu y thaut e FnI w °t}ti comment ana responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at San Luis Obispo City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Signature Peg P Date received for filing at OPR: Revised October 1989 8/17/94 Mayor Title C .0 RESOLUTION NO. 8328 (1994 Series) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING THE SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT AND THE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Whereas, the San Luis Obispo City Council has developed the State mandated Source Reduction and Recycling Element and the Household Hazardous Waste Element; and Whereas, adoption of the Source Reduction and Recycling Element and the Household Hazardous Waste Element is a discretionary action subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and Whereas, the City of San Luis Obispo is a responsible agencypursuant to CEQA in relation to the above described projects; and Whereas, the San Luis Obispo City Council has considered the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Source Reduction and Recycling Element and the Household Hazardous Waste Element as prepared pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and certified by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the San Luis Obispo City Council does hereby make the following findings regarding the above described Final Environmental Impact Report, attached hereto as Exhibit "A ", and as certified by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments on April 6, 1994: 1. The project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impacts. 2. The mitigation measures are adequate to reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance as certified by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. 3. Prior to final approval of projects and facilities within the City of San Luis Obispo, site specific environmental impacts will need to be addressed in accordance with CEQA. Upon motion of Council Member Roalman seconded by Council Member_ Romero and on the following roll call vote: AYES:Council Members Roalman, Romero, Rappa, Vice Mayor Settle, and Mayor Pinard NOES: None ABSENT: None:. n 0770 RESOLUTION NO. 8328 (1994 Series) Page 2 the foregoing resolution was adopted this 16 day of August' , 1994 ATTEST: It Clerk Diane Gladt ell APPROVED: Iii. m J FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENTS i AND HOUSEHOLD .HAZARDOUS WASTE El VIENT i i i I i VOLUME V P FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, AND THE INCORPORATED CITIES OF: ARROYO GRANDE, ATASCADERO, GROVER BEACH, MORRO BAY, PASO ROBLES, PISMO BEACH, and SAN LUIS OBISPO MARCH, 1994 I' ; U' : ; qD FOR THE SAN LUIS OBISPO • 1. yl OF ,• /ERNM1 _.fit•. FUCic MCMI ,ND (WEM, INC MOWN, VENCE & ASSOCIATES State Clearinghouse Number 91051044 This document was prepared by: Fugro-Mclelland (West), Inc 2140 Eastman Avenue Ventura, California 93003 and 1 4 4 M Brown, Vence & Associates 120 Montgomery Street, Suite 680 i San Francisco, California 94104 i 0 0 0 SAN LUIS OBWO COUNCZ OF GOVEHNMENTS President . ...........6 ................... VicePresident ......................... ... . San Luis Obispo County, District 1 ................ San Luis Obispo County, District 2 ...... I. ..... . San Luis Obispo County, District 3 ........... . . San Luis Obispo County, District 4 ... 6 .......... _ San Luis Obispo County, District 5 :... _ ..... .. . City of Arroyo Grande 1 City of Atascadero .... .......... ........... . City of Grover Beach .......................... City of Morro Bay . ........... ............... . City of Paso Robles ........................... City of Pismo Beach .......................... City of San Luis Obispo ............ . ...... . 1 STAFF Ruth Bradmett, SupwmorX st<ict4 Chris Iversen, Mayor, PasoRobles Supervisor BarryOvA Chairman Supervisor Laurence Laurent Supervisor Evelyn Delany Supervisor Ruth Brackett Supervisor David Blakely ' Bernard Burke, Councilman Robert Nimmo, Mayor Fred Munroe, Mayor William Yates, Mayor. Chris Iversen, Mayor Dick Morrow, Councilman Bill Roalman, Councilman Executive Director ............................. Ronald. De Carli. Solid Waste Program Manager ......... ...... Steve Devencenzi, 1 Secretary .. ......... .................... Joyce Latta 1 0 SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE (5VOTF) MARCH 1994. Chair ............................. . Harry Ovitt Vice Chair Kurt Kapp& City of Arroyo Grande ......................... Cityof Atascadero ...... ................... . City of Grover Beach ...... ................. . City of Morro Bay ..... _ .................... . City of Paso Robles .......... ................. . City of Pismo Beach .......................... City of San Luis Obispo ................. _ County of San Luis Obispo Waste Haulers Member ......... . Recyclers Member ......... ............. . Environmental Member ..... .. .............. . Public Member .......................... Bernard Burke Henry Engen Peter Keith Sue Mullen John McCarthy John Brown Bill, Roalman Harry Ovitt Tom Martin Kurt . Kupper Henry Hammer Bill Walther SOLID WASTE TEamcAL ADVISORY COMmrTTm MffAC) MARCH 1994 Chair .............. . Vice Chair ............. City of Arroyo Grande .. ........... ..... . City of Atascadero ........ .... • .... . City of Graver Beach .. . City of Morro Bay .... .................... . City of Paso Robles ....................... City of Pismo Beach City of San Luis Obispo ....... ................. County of San Luis Obispo Administration _ ... . ................ . Engineering .............................. Planning................................ Environmental. Health ... ........... . Cambria Community Services Dist ................ Cayucos Sanitary District ................ .... . LosOsos . ........a ...................... Nipomo Community Services Dist ................ Templeton Community Services Dist .............. CalPoly ................................ Waste Haulers ... ......................... Bob Nicholson Cyndi Butterfield Doreen Liberto -Blanck Kelly Heffernan Bob Nicholson .Michael Upton John McCarthy fun AshcraAil Cyndi Butterfield. Wayne Hall Mazy Whitflesey Warren Hoag John Scholtes Dave Andres Terry Schubert Don Asquith Ryder'Ray Richard Dolling Dave Ragsdale Dan Royster 4 t 4 4 4 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS.. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......... • ... • • 1 -1 1.1 Background for Solid Waste Planning ....... ............ 1 -1 1 1.2 Purpose of and Objectives of the EIR ........... 1 -1 1.3 Scope of the EIR ......... .......... ...... 1 -2 1.4 Organization of the EIR. .... ... 1-4 L5 Responsible Agencies .... .. ... ...... 1-4 1 2.0 SUI%E%4RY .. ... • • . • :.. 2 -1 2.1 Project Summary ................ ..... 2 -1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................. 3 71 3.1 Project Location ............. .......... 3 -1 3.2 Project Objectives . ,...... ...... ... .... 3 -1 3.3 Project Characteristics .... .... 3.1 3.3.1 Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) 1 Components ... .... .... .............. 3 -1 3.3.2 Household Hazardous Waste Element (HINVE) Components .................. .......... 3.5. 3.4 Source Reduction and Recycling Element and Household 1 Hazardous Waste Element Programs ... _ .. 3-5 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .. .. ........ 4-1 4.1 Regional Characteristics ............................. 4-1 1 4.1.1 Regional Access ............. . . ..... ........... ... _ 4-1 4.1.2 Topography ....... . ... ... 1' 4--1 ' 4.1.3 Climate ................ ............. 4-1 4.1.4 Scenic Resources ... .... ........ .. 4.1 1 4.1.5 Biologic Resources ................... 4-2 4.1.6 Cultural. Resources ........... ..... ... 4-2 4.1.7 Geology ................. .............. 4 -3 � 9335BWP3 1 o TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) t 4.2 Existing Solid Waste Source Reduction and Recycling Programs ............ ................ 4 -3 4.2.1 Education and Public Inform_ ation Programs ............ 4-3 4.2:2 Source Reduction ... ..... ............... _ 4-3 4.2.3 Recycling ............................. 4-3 4:2.4 Composting .............................. 4-4 4.2.5 Special Waste ........................_..... 4-4 4.2.6 Disposal Facility Capacity .... .. ...... .. 4-4 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IldPACT ANALYSIS ......... ........ 5.1 -1 5.1 SRRE Source Reduction Component . . ................... . 5.1 -1 5.5.1 Rate Structare Modification, Quantity-Based End -Use Fees 5.1 -1 f 5.2 SRRE Recycling Component ......... ...... 5.2 -1 5.2.1 Drop -off and Buy -back Recycling Centers ..:......... 5.2 -1 .5.2.2 Materials Recovery Facility Program .......... 5.2-4 5.23 Salvaging at the Landfill .:.................... 5.2 -20 5.3 SRRE Composting Component ....................... 5.3 -1 5.3.1 Yard Waste and Source Separated Organic Composting .. .. ..... ........... 5.3 -1 5.4 SRRE Special Waste Component ....................... 5`.4 -1 5.4.1 Construction and Demolition Debris .... ... .... 5.4 -1 5.4.2 Tires ............. - .. .. ...... 5.4-4 5.4.3 White -Goods ................... ....... 5.4 -7 5.5 SRRE Disposal Capacity Component ..... ......... 5.5 -1 5.5.1 Expansion of the Cold Canyon Landfill .......... 5.5 -1 5.6 HHWE Collection and Recycling Components ............... 5.6-1 5.6.1 Permenant HHW Collection Facility ................. 5.6-1 i 5.6.2 Temporary HHW Collection Events :............ .. 5.6-14 5.6.3 HHW Collection at Vendor Locations ............ 5.6-19 9335BWP3 n 1 1 i 1 93kBWP.I � n TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................. 7.0 GROWTH - INDUCEMENT IMPACTS ..... ........ ........ . 8.0 ALTERNATIVES ... .. ... 8.1 No Project . .... .. ....... ... .......... I . . 8.2 Regional Versus Local Project Service Areas ............. . 8.3 Urban Versus Rural Project Site Location .................. 9.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED ... ............ . 9.1 References . ..................... .. .. .. . 91 Persons Contacted ....... Appendix A - Initial Study and Notice of Preparation _Mailing List Appendix B — Response to Comments LIST OF FIGURES 3.1 -1 Project Regional Location .......... .... ... 3.1 -2 The County of San Luis Obispo .. ...... ... ...... LIST OF TABLES' RM 6-1 7 -1 8 -1 8-1 8 -2 8-4 9 -1 9 -1 9-1 3 -2 3-3 3.4-.1 Programs Selected for the Source Reduction and Recycling Element .. ... ............ 1 ..... 3-6 3:4 -2 Programs Selected for the household A_ azardous Waste Element .... .. .............. 3 -7 3:4-3 Source Reduction. and Recycling Element Programs Evaluated in this EIR ... ............. ......... 3 -9 3.4-4 Household hazardous Waste Element Programs Evaluated in this EIR .................... .:. 3 -11 M . 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 BACKGROUND FOR SOLID WASTE PLANNING Under the 1972 Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act (Nejedly- Z'Berg- Dills), each county in the state of California was required to prepare a comprehensive and coordinated County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP). These plans were required 1 to guide the county's efforts to effectively manage and plan for the storage, collection, transportation, processing, reuse, conversion or disposal of solid waste in .a safe, sanitary, aesthetically acceptable, environmentally sound and economic manner. All new or expanded solid waste management facilities were required to be consistent with the local CoSWMP. San 1 Luis Obispo County adopted their CoSWMP in 1977 and revised the CoSWMP in 1986. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), and accompanying amendments, repealed the requirements of the 1972 legislation and instead requires the preparation of a Countywide and/or Regional Integrated Waste Management Plan 1 (CoiWMP). The new legislation requires each city and county to prepare, adopt, and implement a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), and Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE). These elements identify how the jurisdiction will manage household hazardous waste and divert, through source reduction, recycling, and composting, 25 percent of its solid waste from landfill or incinerator disposal by 1995, and 50 percent by the year 2000. The SRRE and 1 HHWE will become part of the CoIWMP and must be comprised of several components including: waste chardcterization, source reduction, recycling, composting, special waste, implementation programs, education, funding and the integration of the individual components. A Nondisposal Facility Element and Regional Siting Element must also be provided. San Luis Obispo County will be required to complete its CoIWMP by 1995. 1 In October 1990, the California Legislature approved Assembly Bill 2296 as an emergency measure to resolve a conflict between the requirements of AB 939 and the former CoSWMP requirements. AB 2296 states that new or expanded solid waste management facilities considered in the CoSWMP can be approved by the.local jurisdiction, and projects not in the 1 CoSWMP must be approved by the majority of the cities along with a majority of the population unless the project will recover more than 15 percant of the waste material brought to the site This requirement will remain in effect until the.CoIWMFis approved by the Waste Management Board. 1.2 PURPOSE OF AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EIR This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) serves as an informational document for decision - makers and the public and assesses potentially significant, adverse impacts of implementing the Source Reduction and Recycling Elements and Household Hazardous Waste Elements. 1 -1 B 1.0 Introduction The adoption -of the SRRE and HHWE is a discretionary action by a Public agency and is therefore considered a °project° under CEQA and must meet CEQA requirements. An initial study for the proposed project was prepared (Appendix A) and determined that the proposed SRRE and HHWE could result in potentially significant adverse environmental effects; therefore, an EIR was prepared. Waste management programs recommended by the SRRE and HHWE that were identified by the Initial Study as having the potential to result in significant environmental impacts were evaluated in this EIR.. In accordance with Section 15121 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of an environmental impact report (EIR) is to serve as an informational document that: "...will in the public agency decision - makers and the public generally of the significant environmental 'e,,19`ects of a project, identify ways to nunim= the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project... " This document has been prepared as a Program EIR. As stated in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions (in this case the adoption of the SRRE and HHWE and the subsequent enactment of implementing programs) that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: 1. Geographically; 2 As a logical part in the chain of contemplated actions; 3. In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or Other general criteria to .govern the conduct of a continuing program; 'or 4 4. As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or 4 regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. The implementation of.programs recommended by the SRRE and HHWE must be evaluated to determine whether additional environmental review is required. If a proposed program may have environmental effects not examined in the Program MR, a new Initial Study would be conducted and an EIR or Negative Declaration prepared. If the Lead Agency finds that pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, no new environmental review would be necessary. 4 1.3 SCOPE OF THE EIR The purpose of this Program.EIR is to address potentially significant environmental issues identified in the initial study (Appendix A) and to recommend technically feasible 1 -2 B 1 cl 1.0 Introduction mitigation measures, where applicable, that will reduce or eliminate these impacts. Issue area addressed in this EIR include; Land Use Geology Air Quality Water Resources Noise Risk of Upset Human Health Aesthetics Biological Resources Cultural Resources Transportation Public Services The level of detail contained throughout-this EIR is.consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which recognizes that the required level of detail in a Program EIR is less than for a specific development project. Section 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines states: Me degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the Ent (a) An EIR on a construction project will.necessarily be more detailed in the specific effects of the project than will be an .EIR on the adoption of a local General Plan or comprehensive zoning ordinance because the effects of the construction can be predicted with greater accuracy. (b) An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local General Plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow. The environmental impact analysis contained in this Program EIR identifies potential impacts that are likely to occur as a result of implementing the recommended waste reduction and diversion programs. This type of analysis is appropriate at this time because project-specific design or location is not available for review and is not required to be contained in the SRRE or BHWE. Additional environmental review for recommended programs may be required when site-specific information becomes available. 1-3 • 1.0 Introduction 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR Section 1.0 (Introduction) of this EIR provides background information regarding the preparation and use of this Program EIR. Other EIR sections are described below. Section 2.0 Summary - Contains a project synopsis and summarizes the F33L Section 3.0 Project Description - Describes the proposed project including each of the required components and each recommended program. Section 4.0 Environmental Setting - Describes the regional area and existing waste reduction programs presently occurring in San Luis Obispo County. Section 5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis - Contains an evaluation of potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of programs recommended by the SRRE and HEiWE. Environmental analysis is provided for each project identified by the Initial Study as having the potential to result in significant environmental effects. This section provides general project setting information, identifies potential impacts and feasible mitigation measures. Section 6.0 Cumulative Impacts - Discusses cumulative, impacts associated with the SRRE and HHWE programs. Section 7.0 Growth Inducing Impacts - 'Discusses growth inducing impacts associated with the SRRE and HHWE programs. Section.8.0 Alternatives = This section of the EIR has been prepared in accordance with Section 15126 (d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, and includes evaluation of the: (1) No project Alternative, (2) Regional versus Local service areas; and (3) Urban versus Rural project site location. In addition, the EIR identifies the "environmentally superior" alternative. 1.5 RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES A Lead Agency is the agency that has the principal. responsibility for carrying out or approving a project and preparing CEQA documents. The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) is the lead agency for this project; and has the primary responsibility for the CEQA review process. The State CEQA Guidelines define responsible agencies as: "A public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a project, for which a Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration." For purposes of CEQA, the term "responsible 1-4 In 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 IN 9MMW X 4 1.0 Introduction agency" includes all public agencies other than the lead agency which have discretionary approval power over the proposed project. Responsible agencies identified for this EIR include P :the following: I 0 9MSMP-E The County of San lAds Obispo and the Incorporated Cities within San Leis Obispo County. Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grovd Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach and San Luis Obispo, are all incorporated cities within San Luis Obispo County. These cities and the County of San Luis Obispo must adopt a SRRE and HHWE pertaining to their jurisdiction. Therefore, they are considered a Responsible Agency for the proposed projecL California Integrated Wage Management Board (CIVirAM). Anyone proposing to operate a solid waste facility or transfer processing station (e.g., recycling center and recovery facility) , must obtain a Solid Waste Facilities Permit. This permit is issued by the local enforcement agency with concurrence of the CIWMB.- In San Luis Obispo County, the designated CIWM[B Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) .is the San Luis Obispo County Environmental Health Division. The solid waste facilities permit program regulates waste handling and disposal activities that may threaten the environment. A *ect may be rejected prol by the board if It poses a hazard to public health, will result in environmental impacts -or is inconsistent with the local general plan. The ClWN[B is considered aResponsible Agency for the proposed project. 1-6 2A SUADURY P 2.1 PROJECT SUND4ARY The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), along with 4ts amendments, require each city and county throughout California to prepare, adopt, and implement a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), and Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE). These elements identify how the jurisdiction will manage household hazardous waste and divert, through source reduction, recycling, and composting, 25 percent of its solid waste from landfill or incinerator disposal by 1993, and 50 percent by the year 2000. The SRRE and HHWE will became part of the Countywide or Regional integrated Waste Management Plan (CoIWMP).and must be comprised of several components including: waste characterization, source reduction, recycling, composting, special waste, implementation programs; education, funding, and the integration of the individual components. A Countywide or Regional Siting Element must also be provided. ' The SRRE and HHWE describe a number of programs for each required component. Specific waste management programs have been proposed for each incorporated city and the unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County. An Initial Study prepared for the SRRE and HHWE contained in Appendix A determined that not all of the recommended programs would have the potential. to result in significant environmental impacts. The Education and Public Information, Funding components, and most of the Source Reduction Component of the SRRE focus on avoiding the creation of waste, rather than managing it after it has been generated. These components concentrate on programs which implement reusing and repairing products, purchasing and using materials that can be recycled, eliminating unnecessary packaging, choosing nontoxic alternatives, and educating the public. None of the projects mentioned above would involve construction or operations which would have adverse impacts to geological, biological, cultural, or social resources. No new utilities would be required and the projects would not produce impacts such as light and glare or noise. Because these specific components would involve reducing the volume at the wastestream and would not involve the processing or creation of products, these components are not expected to result in significant environmental impacts. The proposed Recycling Component programs (collection centers and recovery operations), Composting Component programs (yard and source separated organics), and Special Waste Component programs (white goods, asphalt/concrete/sheetrock, and tire programs) of the SRRE focus on the reuse and recycling of materials instead of the alternative of landfilling them. These components require programs which implement projects and potentially new structures such as recovery facilities, drop off centers, buy back centers and composting facilities. These projects were determined by the Initial Study as having the potential to result in significant environmental impacts. 2 -1 9335BWP.L • 2.0 Summary 1 Programs recommended by the HHWE to minimize the improper disposal of hazardous waste also have the potential to result in significant impacts. Several hazardous waste 1 collection alternatives have been evaluated in this EIR. New structures associated with recommended recycling and composting programs could be subject to a variety of geologic impacts. A proposed expansion of the Cold Canyon Landfill would also be affected by geologic processes. These potential impacts could be reduced 1 to less than significant levels through project site selection procedures to avoid hazardous locations and appropriate design and construction techniques. Accumulations of solid and hazardous waste resulting from recycling, composting, collection and disposal activities have the potential to result in significant water quality impacts. 1 Impacts may result from direct releases of fluids or the generation of landfill leachate. Waste management programs such as composting operations, may require extensive volumes of water, and may have the potential to result in significant water supply impact.: Water quality impacts can be minimized by proper storage of collected materials, minimizing water contact with recovered or residual materials and implementing drainage/leachate control and monitoring systems. The implementation of additional waste management programs may result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled for transporting waste, sending recovered material to market and shipping residual wastes to a disposal site. Programs such as curbside collection will 4 increase vehicle miles traveled to collect waste from households. An increase in vehicle miles traveled will result in increased emissions of criteria pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen and ozone. Other potential sources of air pollution from waste management programs include air emissions of reactive organic gases, and possibly air -borne toxic substances resulting from programs that collect and consolidate hazardous wastes. Composting operations have the potential to result in significant odor - related air quality impacts. An expansion of the Cold Canyon Landfill and construction operations for new recycling facilities will result in increased emissions of particulate matter.. The implementation of measures to control criteria and reactive gas emissions, such as scheduling project - related truck trips to avoid peak traffic hours and the purchase of emission offsets can reduce identified impacts to a less than significant level. Dust control measures, such as site watering, would be capable of reducing short-term construction and long -term operation impacts to a less than significant level. If new structures are located in areas with, or adjacent to, significant biologic resources, significant impacts may result. Impacts may occur from direct habitat removal and degradation of nearby habitat from light, dust, noise and increased human activity. To mitigate impacts to oak trees and oak woodland habitat at the Cold Canyon Landfill, a replacement program is required as part of the conditions of approval for the expansion project. Proposed waste reduction and recycling operations, such as composting and large buy- back centers may utilize machinery and vehicles that generate significant noise levels. Increased 2 -2 9335BW I. 2.0 Summary traffic levels in a project vicinity can also result in noise impacts. Noise would be most likely to result in significant impacts if the project were located in or near residential arras. Limiting construction and project operating hours, using noise attenuation devices and construction techniques, increased project setbacks and conducting noise generating processes within enclosed structures would reduce potential noise impacts. . Waste processing and storage can result in aesthetic impacts if operations are visible from surrounding properties. Views of recovered material and residual waste storage and potential litter impacts can result in aesthetic impacts. The use of visual screens, such as walls; fences and landscaping, conducting waste processing and storage activities within enclosed structures, and implementing litter control programs will minimize potential visual impacts. Waste management projects proposed by the SRRE and HHWE have the potential to result in nuisance impacts such as noise, dust, odors, traffic, pest and vectors. A project such as a permanent household hazardous waste collection facility may also result in significant land use conflicts resulting from accumulations of hazardous waste and potential releases of toxic substances. Conflicts with surrounding land uses can typically be reduced by implementing measures to minimize identified environmental impacts (i.e., traffic, noise, air quality, etc.). Other measures, such as increased project setbacks from surrounding uses may also be required. Accumulations of large quantities of solid and household hazardous wastes have the potential to result in significant accident and safety impacts. A.release of hazardous waste, fire or explosion could result in significant impacts to site employees, patrons and surrounding uses. Upset conditions at a composting facility could result in the generation of significant odor impacts and pathogens in the compost material. Salvaging of white goods has the potential to release ozone damaging chlorofluorocarbons ( CFCs) and cancer causing polychlorinated byphenyls (PCBs) into the environment. Facility employees would be most likely to be exposed to potential safety impacts, including noise, elevated dust levels, hazardous or infectious waste and heavy machinery. Most potential health and safety impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level by implementing federal, state and local regulations regarding the collection, storage, transportation and disposal of solid and hazardous waste and occupational safety requirements. For projects like a permanent household hazardous waste collection facility, a small safety buffer area from surrounding uses may be necessary to minimize impacts resulting from a catastrophic accident. Potential transportation impacts resulting from proposed SRRE and IERWE programs would result from increases in traffic levels in the project vicinity. Traffic commonly associated with waste management projects results from hauling waste and recovered materials, employees and facility patrons or visitors. 'Access to new facilities from existing roadways also has the potential to result in traffic safety impacts. The most effective method of minimizing potential traffic impacts would be to schedule truck trips and employee shifts to avoid peak traffic hours at roadways and intersections that operate at unacceptable levels of service. Roadway 2 -3 93ssawrs. 2.0 Summary a improvements, such as `turn and accelmation/deceleration lanes, may be required to mitigate traffic safety impacts. The public service most :likely to be affected by new solid and hazardous waste management ,projects would be fire prevention/suppression services. Storage of waste materials can result in the accumulation of large quantities .of flammable material that may emit toxic smoke and fumes. Implementation of the prevention and control measures, such as conformance to the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and local regulations and the provision of adequate fire flows, on -site fire suppression equipment and access. would reduce potential fire safety impacts. New construction or ground disturbing, activities has the potential to damage or remove archaeologic resources. If a project site has the potential to contain cultural artifacts, a preliminary investigation should be conducted prior to ground disturbing activities. If necessary a site mitigation plan to preserve or recover the artifacts can be implemented. 2-4 9333BW.L 4 J 4 4 4 C� G. 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 0 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION San Luis Obispo County is located in the western portion of Central California, north of Santa Barbara County, south of Monterey County, west of Kern County, and southwest of Kings County. San Luis Obispo County's physical boundaries include the Pacific Ocean to the west, the Temblor Mountain Range to the east, the Santa MarWCuyama River to the south, and the Tierra- Redonda Mountain and Las Padres National Forest to the north. Figure 3.1 -1 shows the regional location of San Luis Obispo County in California and Figure 3.1 -2 shows the boundaries of San Luis Obispo County. 3.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objective of the SRRE and HHWE is to meet legislative requirement to divert through source reduction, recycling, and composting 25 percent of the solid waste generated within the County and incorporated cities from being disposed at a landfill or incinerated by 1995 and 50 Percent by the year 2000. 3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The.Califomia Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires all cities and counties to prepare, adopt, and implement s Source Reduction and Recycling Element and Household Hazardous Waste Element. The SRRE is required under AB 939 to address the following components: Source Reduction, Recycling, Composting, Special Waste, Education and Public Information, Funding, and Disposal Facility Capacity. The HHWE is required to address Collection, Educational Programs, and Finding. 3.3.1 Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) Components Source Reduction Component. The Source Reduction Component focuses on avoiding the creation of waste, rather than managing it after it has been generated. Source Reduction programs include the modification of waste disposal rate structures, economic incentives, and regulatory programs designed to reduce the generation of waste at the source. Recycling Component. The Recycling Component considers the collection and recovery of solid waste materials for subsequent processing and reuse. Projects involved in this component include programs for the collection of recyclable materials that have been separated by the public along with the development of various facilities designed to recover recyclable materials from the wastestream. Programs included:in the Recycling Component are recycling. centers, collection activities, and material recovery activities. 3 -1 OWSWA PROJECT REGIONAL LOCATION .1- I 1 1 0 0 1 GO Z M O U co Q Z Y FA 2 D O U } W H Z' O 0a z0 ON V W Z H N O3.0 Project Description. t Composting Component., The Composting Component considers the processing of yardwaste and woodwaste, municipal solid waste and possibly sewage sludge. These activities could involve . the development of new structures for long -term composting operations. Composting could be conducted by using windrow, in- vessel aerobic, anaerobic, or aerated static piles composting technologies. Windrow composting involves building elongated piles of compost material, periodically turning the piles, and controlling moisture and temperature levels. In- vessel aerobic composting involves the same processes as windrow composting, but takes place in enclosed containers rather than piles. Anaerobic composting involves using an in- vessel system or operations resembling windrow or static piles sealed in plastic to exclude air. In addition to compost, anaerobic composting produces biogas, a mixture of methane and carbon dioxide, which can be used to generate electricity or sold as natural gas. Aerated static piles is similar to the windrow method of composting with aeration provided artificially to the piles. Special Waste Component. The Special Waste Component examines certain wastes that require special handling and disposal. Special waste is defined by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) as "any hazardous waste listed in Section 66740 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), or any waste that has been classified as a special l waste pursuant to Section 66744 of Title 22 of the CCR, or which has been granted a variance for the purpose of storage, transportation, treatment, or disposal by the Department of Health Services, pursuant to Section 66310 of Title 22 of the CCR ". The San Luis Obispo County Special Waste Component proposes certain programs and studies to manage special waste materials such as tires, asphalt, concrete and sheetrock.. Education and Public Information Component. The Education and Public Information Component programs are designed to enhance public participation. in source reduction and recycling activities. Public participation would be enhanced through literature and training programs to produce higher participation rates for both existing and new programs. The San Luis Obispo County Education and Public Information Component programs are directed towards residents, businesses, industry, government agencies and schools. Funding Component. The Funding Component includes the use of funding mechanisms such as bonds, special taxes, and license fees to acquire funds for solid waste i recovery facilities and for the development and implementation of the source reduction and recycling educational and training programs. Disposal Capacity Component. This component provides information on existing and projected solid waste disposal capacity to ensure that adequate landfill capacity is allocated for disposing of the solid waste that cannot be diverted through source reduction and recycling activities. 3-4 A O3.0 Project. Description 3.3.2 Household Hazardous Waste Element ,(HHWE) Components Collection/Recycling Component. The Household Hazardous Waste Collection P . Component focuses on periodic and permanent collection activities to collect and temporarily store household hazardous waste until it can be disposed of or recycled elsewhere. This component includes programs such as waste exchange programs, periodic collection events, permanent collection facilities, mobile collection and collection at vendor locations. Education Component. The Household Hazardous Waste Education Programs focus on encouraging the use of alternative products, proper HHW disposal, reducing HHW that enters the solid waste stream and ensuring proper HHW management. Funding Component. The Household Hazardous Waste Funding Component includes mechanisms used to fund HHW programs. 3.4 SOURCE REDUCTION AND. RECYCLING ELEMMIff AND HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT PROGRAM The SRRE and HHWE describe a number of programs for each required Component. Specific waste management programs have been proposed for San Luis Obispo County and each incorporated city. These recommended programs are described in Tables 3.4-1 and 3.4-2. As discussed in Section 1.3 (Scope of the EIR), and in the Initial Study (contained in Appendix A), not all of the selected programs were found to have the potential to result in environmental impacts. The Education and Public Information and Funding components and the majority of the Source Reduction component of the SRRE focus on avoiding the creation of waste, rather than managing it after it has been generated. These components concentrate on programs which implement reusing and repairing products, purchasing and using materials that can be recycled, diminating unnecessary packaging, choosing nontoxic alternatives, educating the public and changing funding mechanisms. None of the projects mentioned above would involve construction or operations which would have adverse impacts to geological, biological, cultural, or social resources. No new utilities would be required and projects would not produce impacts such as light and glare or noise. Because these specific components would involve reducing the volume at the wastestream and would not involve the processing or creation of products, these components are not expected to result in significant environmental impacts. The proposed Recycling Component program (collection centers and recovery operations), Composting Component programs (yard and source separated organics), and Special Waste Component programs (white goods, asphalt/concrete/sheetrock, and tire programs) of the SRRE focus on the reuse and recycling of materials instead of the alterative, of landfilling them. These components would implement projects and potentially new structures such as recovery facilities, drop off centers, buy back centers, and composting facilities. 3 -5 • O3.0 Project Description Table 3.4-1. Pro&amc Selected for the Source Reduction and Rmys-link Element Soft= Reduction a Local Government Programs o Technical As 6mnee,.Education, end Promotion • Regulatory Programs • Economic Incentives • Rate 'Structure Modification Recycling • DropofflBuy -back Centers • Single-family Curbside Recycling a Mi ld -unit, Mobile Home, and Group Quarter Recycling • Commercial Recycling • Office Paper Recycling 0 Salvaging at the Landfill a Materials Recovery Facility • Local Govemment Program to Procure Recycled: Products Composting 0 Yard Debris Composting e Source Separated Organics Composting Special Waste • Tire Retreading • Physical Reuse of Tires e Asphalt, Concrete,. and Shectrock Recycling e Crumb Rubber for rues Ji Tire Derived Fuel • Tire Shredding at Landfill • White Goods Recycling Education and Public • Source Reduction - information Programs • Recycling e Composting • Special Events e Special Waste a Monitoring/Evaluation e Source Reduction • Local Government Programs. - Disposal Facility • Expansion of the Cold Canyon Landfill Capacity • gxpansion ofthe Chicago Grade Landfill e .Maintain existing operations at the Paso Robles landfill Funding is Quantity -based End -user Foxe • Loans, Grants and Loan Guarantees . • Deposits, Refunds, and Rebates • Business License Fees 3 -6 4 a 1 e e 4 b 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 gn5cwPF 3.0 Project Description Table 3.42. Programs Selected for the Household hazardous Waste Element HHW Collection 0 Periodic HHW Collection Events • Permanent HHW Collection Facility • Mobile HHW Collection Facility or satellite processing facility • HHW Collection at Vendor Locations • Waste Exchange programs conducted at a permanent HHW Collection facility. HHW Education • HHW Educational and Management programs I Funding I • Funding mechanisms for HHW programs I 3 -7 ® 3.0 Project Description The Initial Study prepared for the Source Reduction Component, did not identify environmental impacts associated with Rate Structure Modification program. However, this program has been analyzed for aesthetic, human health and risk of upset impacts in this E1R. The Educational and Funding Components of the HHWE were found to not have the potential to result in significant environmental impacts. These components involve programs for the avoidance and proper management of HHW waste and do not implement processing and collection programs or alter disposal fees for HHW. The Collection and Recycling Component of the HHWE was found. to have the potential for environmental impacts from proposed project operations and construction activities. The programs that have been proposed by the SRRE and HHWE that were determined by the Initial. Study to have the potential to result in significant environmental impacts have been evaluated in this EiR and are summarized in Tables 3.4 -3 and 3.4-4. 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 -8 3.0 Project Description Table 3.4-3. Source Reduction and Recycling Element Programs Evaluated in this EIR CeoriponeaR ref Characteristic , 40amwt�l Source Reduction Rate Structure Review the existing rate structure of all the Aesthetics, safely Modification haulers who serve unincorporated area. ( Quantity -based End- Participate in rate structure analysis being user Fees) performed by the seven incorporated areas. no Rate Structure Modification could include the charging of variable rates for solid waste disposal. Recycling Drop- off/Buy-back Drop-off centers receive material donations by Noise, aesthetics, land Centers the public- They typically accept materials use including glass, aluminum, wrap metal, plastics and other materials. Buy-bark centers purchase recyclable goods directly from the public and commercial businesses and am generally mom labor intensive than drop-off centers. Materials Recovery An area when municipal wade is dumped and Geology, air, water, Facility mixed waste is sorted for recyclable materials. biology, noise, land use, risk of upset/ human health, tran- sportation, aesthetics, cultural resources, public services Salvaging Recovering materials, such as metals, white Risk of upset/human goods, and other marketable materials at a health landfill. Composting Yard Debris The focus of yard waste composting would be on Geology, air, water, Component Composting diverting yard and clean wood debris. However, biology, noise, other material such as grape pumice, sawdust and aesthetics, land use, manure will be accepted at the compost facility. risk of upadbuman The collection of composting materials will health, transportation, include self- hauled clean loads and curbside public services, collection, depending upon public and business cultural resources source separation. The compost products would be used in public works projects, agriculture, and landscaping, as well as by home gardeners. Source Separated This process includes the use of food debris, Geology, air, water, Organics agricultural materials, unrecycled paper, biology, noise, municipal sewage sludge and septage and a small aesthetics, land use, amount of other organic materials. The materials risk of upset/human would be source separated to eliminate non- health, transportation, compostables and mixed to produce a public services, homogeneous mass (preprocessing). Composting cultural resources activities would utilize various combinations of in- vessel, static pile, and windrow systems, both aerobic and anaerobic (composting), and curing, separation and grinding processes to product the finished product (post-composting). (Continued) 3-9 9135CWP.G 0 Table 3.43. (Continued) J 3.0 Project Description Special Wastes Scrap Metal Recovery The recovery of scrap metal from disposed white Air, risk of upset/ Component I goods. human health, noise Asphalt, Concrete, The recycling of materials fiom construction sites Noise, air and Shed Rock or old roadways or sidewallm. Tire Retreading/ Using a mold -cured and procured process to Public services, Physical Reuse of retread tires. The physical reuse of tires. human health, risk of Tires ups Crumb Rubber from Scrap rubber is broken into small particles by Public services, Tires mechanical or cryogenic cnibrittlemeM. human health, risk of Tuv-Derived Fuel Whole tires are shredded into small chips for use Public services, as a fuel supplement in pulp, paper, lumber, human health, risk of cement, and other heavy indw tries. upset, air quality Disposal Facility Landfill Expansion Physical expansion of the Cold Canyon and Geology, air, water, Capacity Chicago Grade Landfills. biology, noise, land use, risk of upset/ human health, trans- portation, cultural resources, aesthetics 3 -10 4 4 4 4 4 4 in 1 7 1 .G 4 P O 3.0 Project Description 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Table 3.4-4. Household Hazardous Waste Element Promms Evaluated in this EIR HHW Collection permanent HHW A permanent collection center would collect and Geology, air quality, Collection Facility temporarily scare hazardous materials. The water resources, collection center would recycle small amounts of biology, noise, land paint and other products by having a designated use, risk of upset/ area for public waste exchange. human health, trans- portation, public services, aeathetice, cultural resources Temporary HHW A temporary collection center set up for a short Air quality, land use, Collection Events period of time for residents to bring unused risk of upset/human hazardous materials and accumulated hazardous health, transportation, wastes. noise HHW Collection at Vendors of paint, batteries, and other products Air quality, risk of Vendor Locations that eventually become HHW can collect and upsct/human health store HHW for later pickup by a licensed hauler. 3 -11 SMSDWPA C� C 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING . 4.1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS 4.1.1 Regional Access - San Luis Obispo County is located north of Santa Barbara County, south of Monterey County, west of Kern County and southwest of Kings County. Regional access is provided from Santa Barbara County and Monterey County by U.S. Highway 101, from Kern County regional access is obtained from Highway 58, and from Kings County regional access is provided by Highway 41. 1 4.1.2 Topography San Luis Obispo County occupies a central position in the southern Coastal Range complex. The County is defined by five mountain ranges which,form five principal drainage 1 basins aligned on a predominantly northwest to southeast axis. The ranges include the Santa Lucia, Temblor, Caliente, La Panzer and San Luis Mountains. The higher peaks, many of which exceed 3000 feet, are located in the Santa Lucia and Caliente Ranges. The rolling and mountainous terrain of San Luis Obispo County places approximately 1 60 percent of the County into the slope range of 30 percent or more, 23 percent of the area contains 9 -30 percent slopes and 17 percent of the region can be considered gentle slopes to level land of 1 -9 percent slopes. 4.1.3 Climate 1 San Luis Obispo County has two basic climatic patterns: the coastal zone, with its wet ocean exposure, and the drier and warmer interior zone, protected from the ocean influence by the Santa Lucia and La Panza Ranges. Summer weather includes dry conditions in both zones, with frequent fogs in the coastal areas. The interior areas experience a much greater range 1 between the high and low temperatures. Winters are characteristically wet in both zones, with the amount of precipitation varying considerably. The north coastal area receives the greatest average amount of rain, with 50 inches falling along the crest of the Santa Lucia Range, and the southern coastal area averages between 12 and 16 inches annually. Towards the interior valleys, the amount of precipitation falls away rapidly from 17 inches at Paso Robles to 8 inches in the Carrizo Plains. . 41.4 Scenic Resources The County of San Luis Obispo contains 87 miles of coastline which consists of scenic beaches, dunes, and resources. The County also contains five central mountain ranges which provide for a variety of coastal plains and valleys. The ocean ..provides opportunities for 4-1 9-UMWPI 4.0 Environmental Setting recreational and commercial pursuits, while the mountain ranges provide for recreational activities as well as scenic backdrops for the coastal plains and valleys. 4 There are several designated scenic resources located within San Luis Obispo County. These designated areas range from scenic corridors, including land visible from designated scenic highways and roads, as well as area of scenic backdrops. Designated scenic area of San Luis Obispo include hillsides and ridges which rise above urban areas and major highways, and scenic vistas accessible to the general public, which provide a sweeping view of the countryside and coastline. San Luis Obispo places a high value on scenic resources and has established plans and policies contained in the San Luis Obispo Conservation Element which provides for the protection of these resources. 4.1.5 Biologic Resources 4 The County of San Luis Obispo contains four major vegetation communities; grassland, wooded grassland, chaparral, and native woodland. Approximately one half of the County contains grassland or wooded grassland, and the other half is made up of a combination of chaparral or coastal scrub with a small percentage of native woodland. The County's regional location and its diverse topography provides for a variety of wildlife. The mountain areas contain shelter deer, bobcats, coyotes, mountain lions, and numerous other species; while the bays and estuaries contain an abundance of marine species. The County's local streams aid in the migration of fish such as steelhead trout and the permanent and seasonal marshes provide waterfowl nesting, feeding, and wintering areas. 4.1.6 Cultural Resources The San Luis Obispo County area contains an extensive, well documented cultural heritage: Excavations in Diablo Canyon have established that people of the early Oak Grove culture remained on the coast from at least 8000 BC to perhaps 3500 BC. The Oak Grove . Culture were dislocated by people of a later hunting culture, who were then displaced by the Chumash Culture around 10 AD. In addition to the Chumash culture, the Salinans and Yokut 4 Indians resided in the regional area. The remains of these cultures can be found throughout the county and are considered to be of great historical value. The County also contains a number of unique architectural structures. The architectural styles date from the crude shelters of the "Spanish Old World ", the sun -dried adobe 4 structures built between 1772 and 1850 of the "Early Californian" period, the wood structures of the "Pioneer" period of 1850 to 1880, the wood structures containing ornate detail of the "New England" style homes in 1880 -1910, as well as the turn of the century stucco "Spanish or California Bungalow ". These types of historic structures contribute to the architectural. diversity of San Luis Obispo County. The San Luis Obispo County Environmental Plan contains 4 goals to protect designated historical monuments. 42 9MMWPI 4 .0 Environmental Setting 4.1.7 Geology 1 Seismic Hazards. The San Luis Obispo County contains two major faults; the San Andreas and the Nacimiento. The San Andreas Fault is the most active of the two and is expected to be the source of a magnitude 8.0 -8:5 earthquake in the near future. There is not enough data on the Nadmiento Fault to determine the potential for future ground rupture. Other I major faults in the area include the Rinconada Fault, which.is seismically active, and the Hosgri Fault, which is considered seismically active. Structures and improvements lying directly astride the fault zones could be subject to severe damage. Bay muds, ,crushed rocks in fault zones, landslide debris, and other unconsolidated sediments are among the rock types highly vulnerable to severe shaking. The presence of groundwater near the surface of these unconsolidated 1 materials also tends to intensify shaking. Saturated sandy . soils may also be subject to liquefaction impacts. 4.2 EXISTING SOLID WASTE SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING PROGRAMS . 1 This section describes source reduction and recycling programs that existed prior to the start of the preparaton of the SRRFs/HHWEs in 1991. 4.2.1 Education and Public Information Programs 1 Solid. waste public information and education programs for San Luis Obispo, Grover Beach, Morro Bay and portions of the unincorporated area are provided through a franchise agreement by SLOCO Recycles, a division of San Luis Garbage. RAALCO Recycling provides these services for Pismo Beach and Arroyo Grande. The public information and educational 1 methods used by SLOCO and RAALCO include newspaper ads, television commercials, and radio to inform and enlighten the public on source reduction.and recycling techniques.. Presently there are no local programs in place for incorporating source reduction and recycling information into school curriculum; however, some school instructors individually use materials for educating students on recycling based on national or statewide programs. 4.2.2 Source Reduction San Luis Obispo County communities currently reduces some wastes at the source such as diapers, food waste, and yard debris. These materials are diverted through activities such as cloth diaper services and backyard composting activities. San Luis Obispo currently has no commercial composting programs. 4.2.3 Recycling There are a number of recycling programs in San Luis Obispo County including drop - off centers, buy -back centers, telephone book recycling, curbside recycling, Christmas tree recycling, and office paper recycling. Recycling activities also occur at the landfills including 4 -3 9335AWPI 0 4.0 Environmental Setting, limited salvaging, diversion of clean brush and wood loads, and white good recovery. In addition to these programs, there are a number of commercial/industrial recycling programs such as cardboard recycling, and bar and restaurant glass recycling. 4.2.4 Composting Currently there are no composting programs in. San Luis Obispo County, aside from small scale residential backyard composting activities. 6 4.2.5 Special Waste Currently there are no recycling activities for asbestos, ash, shredder waste, and industrial sludge. However, there are programs .for construction and demolition debris, sewage sludge, tires, and white goods. Construction and Demolition Debris — A portion of San Luis Obispo County construction and demolition debris (asphalt and concrete) is recycled by using it for clean fill during construction activities. Sewage Sludge — A portion of the various communities' sewage sludge is recycled by drying and reuse it for fertilizer and soil amendments. Tyres — Most tire recycling activities occur through tire dealerships. White Goods — A portion of white goods are repaired and reused or are salvaged for recovery of white goods at the Cold Canyon Landfill. 4.2.6 Disposal Facility Capacity Within the incorporated cities of San Luis Obispo and unincorporated areas there are seven permitted solid waste landfills including: Camp Sad Luis Obispo Landfill, Camp Roberts Landfill, Santa Fe Landfill, Chicago Grade Landfill, Cold Canyon Landfill, California Valley 4 Landfill, and the Paso Robles Landfill. Of the seven landfills, three are private facilities including: The Camp Roberts Landfill, owned by the U.S. Army, the Camp San Luis Obispo Landfill, owned by the California Military Department, and the Santa Fe landfill, owned by Santa Fe Energy Resources. The remaining landfills, Chicago Grade Landfill, Cold Canyon Landfill, California Valley Landfill, and the Paso Robles Landfill serve the incorporated and 4 unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo. The Chicago Grade ZandfLU — Serves the city. of Atascadero, along with the unincorporated communities of Templeton, Santa Margarita; and Creston: 7 4-4 MMAwrl ' 40 Environmental Suing. The Cold Canyon Landl U - Serves the cities of San Luis. Obispo, Pismo Beach, ' Grover Beach, Arroyo Grande, and Morro Bay, along with the unincorporated communities of Nipomo, Oceano, Avila Beach, Cambria, Cayucos, Los Osos, and San Simeon. The Ca fomia Valley LandjUf — Serves the unincorporated communities of California Valley; Simmler, and Carrizo Plains. 1 The Paso Robles Landfill — Serves the city of Paso Robles and the unincorporated communities of San Miguel, Shandon, Heritage Ranch and Oak Shores. In addition to the solid waste disposal within San Luis Obispo, approximately 20 tons 1 per day of solid waste is transported to the Santa Maria Landfill in, Santa.Barbara County. 1 1 1 0 4-5 ' 9MAWPI I O 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS . 5.1 SRRE SOURCE REDUCTION COMPONENT 5.1.1 Rate Structure Modification, Quantity -Based End -Use= Fees The Rate Structure Modification program would change refuse collection rates for residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Costs associated with waste collection would be restructured based on either weight or volume, rather than a :flat fee. The method of implementing these fees would be through variable can rates. A variable can rate charges parties receiving refuse collection services by the number of containers set out. A standard rate is charges for the first container and for each additional container an additional fee is required at either alower, similar, or higher.rate. 5.1.1.1 Aesthetics a. Setting. The implementation of variable solid waste collection rates may have secondary environmental effects including the potential for illegal dumping. The potential for these impacts to occur due to a change in rate structure is difficult to predict; however, it is possible that if fees for solid waste disposal are increased substantially, the occurrence of illegal dumping could also increase. b. Impact Analysis. San Luis Obispo County contains a diverse topography including many isolated mountainous and creek areas which may be subject to illegal dumping activities. Illegal dumping can also occur in urban area such as vacant lots and alleys. Aesthetic impacts from improper disposal of solid waste results from the visual impact of accumulations of solid waste as well as blowing papers and other light material. Illegal disposal of solid waste, particularly large bulky items, may be difficult to clean up and can result in long -term visual impacts. Illegal dumping could occur in any area within San Luis Obispo County including agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial area as well as remote, mountainous areas.. The amount of illegal dumping that may occur.in excess of existing conditions would determine the significance of potential visual impacts. If illegal dumping were to increase substantially, potential aesthetic.impacts would have the potential to occur. Areas that would likely be most sensitive to visual impacts from illegal dumping would be rural or open -space areas with high scenic values. With appropriate, mitigation measures including increasing penalties and enforcement activities for illegal dumping and phasing the implementation of increased collection fees, the potential for illegal dumping would be reduced with a correspond - ing reduction in the potential for aesthetic impacts. 933ZWPX 5.1 -1 5.1 SRRE So-urce Reduction Component c. Midigation Measures 1. In conjunction with project implementation, a program to discourage illegal disposal of solid waste should be initiated. The program should include measures such as posting signs near areas of previous illegal dumping activity, increased enforcement and investigation of reported illegal dumping, public education programs, and increased penalties for illegal disposers. Funding for these programs should be included in the SRRE Funding Component. 2. Increased collection fees or other rate increases needed to fund solid waste programs or facilities should be implemented in a phased manner to minimize potential economic hardship that may be incentive to dispose of waste by illegal dumping. 3. Establish criteria for determining if revised refuse collection rates have the potential to result in an economic hardship.. If a household or commercial use meet the criteria and/or can demonstrate that other source reduc- tion/recycling activities are being implemented, increased fees could be modified or waived. 5.1.1.2 Risk of Upset/Human health a. Setting. Rate structure modifications for solid waste disposal may increase illegal disposal of solid waste, which could result in the dispersion of solid waste in remote and urban areas. Illegal dumping may have the potential to result in impacts to environmental and human health. b. Impact Analysis. Potential impacts associated with illegal dumping of solid waste include contamination of soil and water resources. Illegally dumped waste could contain hazardous substances such as, motor oil and other household hazardous wastes and could result in adverse soil and water quality impacts. Accumulations of illegally disposed solid waste may attract pests (birds) and vectors (rats and mosquitos) that could result in a significant health impact. Collections of organic materials, such as yard wastes or papers, may also increase fire hazards. Illegal dumping may result in exposure of children, pets, and wildlife to hazards such as sharps, infectious, . and hazardous wastes. Significant health impacts could result if waste materials were ingested. c. Mitigation Measures 1. Implementation of mitigation measures contained in Section 5.1.1.1 (c) would reduce the potential for illegal dumping to occur, thereby reducing potential health and safety impacts to a less than significant level. 5.1 -2 9335DWPX �I 5.2 SRRE RECYCLING COMPONENT 5.2.1 Drop -off and Buy -back Recycling Centers Drop -off centers receive materials donated by the public and are typically the least expensive recycling alternative. They can accept one .material (newspaper being the most common) or a full range of materials including newspapers, corrugated cartons, high -grade waste papers, glass, aluminum, tin, bi -metal cans, scrap metal, and other materials, depending on the availability of local markets. Buy -back centers purchase recyclables directly from the public and from commercial businesses. AB 2020 Certified Redemption Centers are classified as buy -back centers. The buy- back system provides an economic ' incentive to the public and can recover significant portions of the waste stream that may not otherwise be recycled. Buy -back centers often target aluminum cans because of their high sales value and insulting profit margin. Newspaper, glass, corrugated cartons, plastics, aluminum, tin, bi -metal cans, scrap metal, and high -grade paper are other materials often purchased at buy -back centers. Buy =back centers would be staffed during operating hours. Weighing, processing, marketing, management, and bookkeeping operations require full-time employees, with the number of employees proportional to the tonnage of recyclables. Buy -back centers are more labor- and equipment - intensive than drop -off programs and may require magnetic separators and flatteners/blowers for cans as well as glass crushers, balers for paper and corrugated cartons, forklifts, computer pay -out systems, and trucking capabilities. The environmental analysis provided in the following sections evaluates potential environmental impacts that may result from the implementation of drop -off and buy -back programs. Mitigation measures that are provided are intended to reduce identified impacts to a less than significant level. 5.2.1.1 Noise a. Setting. Drop -off and buy -back recycling centers may include operations that have the potential to result in significant noise levels. These may include dropping glass or other materials into large metal bins, operating balers or compactors to prepare collected material for shipment to market, and blowers to move aluminum cans. Traffic delivering recyclable material, and on -site vehicles (i.e., forklifts and trucks hauling collected material to market) may also result in significant increases in ambient noise levels. b. Impact Analysis. Small neighborhood drop -off centers would likely consist of several bins and perhaps a small shed to store collected material. It is likely that the volume of collected material would be relatively small and that no material preparation (i.e., compacting or baling) for shipment to market would be necessary. Use of the center by the public would likely consist of one or several persons at a time; therefore, traffic and operation noise would 5.2 -1 9335DWP.B 5.2 bxRE Recycling Component be limited, but may have the potential to result in nuisance impacts if a collection center were to be located adjacent to a residential area. If a neighborhood drop -off center were located in a commercial area, such as a shopping center parking lot, it is unlikely that significant noise impacts to surrounding uses would result. Since buy -back centers pay for recyclable material, it is likely that they will be used more frequently by the public, and larger quantities of materials would be collected than at a drop-off center. With larger quantities of recyclable material to manage, baling and compacting I operations may be necessary which could generate significant levels of noise. Traffic and other site operational noise may also disturb residences that are adjacent to the site. Therefore, noise generated by a large buy -back center would have the potential to result in significant noise impacts to surrounding land uses. I c. Mitigation Measures 1. Drop -off centers should not be located adjacent to residential or other noise sensitive uses. Locating these facilities in commercial or industrial areas or in areas with substantial setbacks from noise sensitive uses (i.e., residences, parks, undeveloped areas, etc.) would minimize potential noise impacts. Noise levels resulting from project operations at sensitive receptors shall not exceed applicable general plan zoning and noise ordinance standards. 2. Buy -back centers should be located in commercial or industrial zoned areas to minimize noise impacts to surrounding noise sensitive uses. 3. If a buy -back center has the potential to result in significant noise impacts to surrounding uses, the following measures could be implemented: • Provide sound walls along the perimeter of the buy -back center; • Operations that will result in significant noise sources, such as baling and compacting, glass drop -off and consolidation, should be conducted in enclosed structures; • Limit site operation hours. 5.2.1.2 Aesthetics a. Setting. The collection and storage of paper, glass, aluminum and other recyclable materials at drop -off and buy -back centers has the 'potential to result in unsightly conditions. Blowing paper and outdoor storage of collected materials that are visible to the public could result in significant visual impacts. 5.2 -2 9335nwr.s 5.2 bAM.Recycling Component. b. Impact Analysis. Small drop-off centers are often unattended and rely on the public to place donated recyclables in appropriate containers. If the containers. are not emptied often enough, donations may be left outside of containers. This can result in papers blowing from the site and unsightly accumulations of recyclable material. Buy -back centers are attended by employees during operation hours, so the potential for leaving recyclables outside of designated collection areas is reduced. However, if storage space at the center is limited, storage of collected material may be visible to the public. If recyclables are brought to the site after the center -is closed, the material may be dropped off outside the center, rather than transporting the material back home. If recyclables are allowed to accumulate beyond provided storage capabilities, or if material is allowed to collect around the perimeter of the site, a significant aesthetic impact may result. c. Mitigation Measures 1. The storage of collected recyclables should be conducted within approved structures or screened from public view by fences, walls, or other visual buffers. 2. Collected materials should be transported from the collection site on a regular basis. The out -haul schedule should be adjusted as necessary to ensure that adequate storage area is provided and at that least some limited `back -up" storage capacity is provided to accommodate periods when more than anticipated material may be collected. 3. Any recyclable material that accumulates outside of designated storage or collection areas should be removed at the end of, and prior to, the start of each day the center is in operation. 4. The collection center owner and operator's name and phone number should be submitted to the land use permitting agency and the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA). In the event that.litter or other unsightly conditions develop at the site, appropriate clean -up enforcement actions should be implemented by the LEA. 5.2.1.3 Land Use a. Setting. Several aspects of drop -off and buy -back recycling center operations have the potential to result in land use conflicts with surrounding land uses., Potential sources of conflict would include traffic; light and glare, noise, and aesthetics.. Potential noise and aesthetic impacts are described in sections 5.2.1.1 and 5.2.1.2. Odors are not expected to be a significant problem because organic material could not be collected. The potential for drop -off 5.2 -3 Msnwp.s 5.2 BARE Recycling component and buy -back centers t6-result inland use conflicts would occur if they were located within or adjacent to residential area b. Impact Analysis.. It is unlikely that traffic volumes generated by drop -off and buy -back centers would be sufficient to result in significant traffic impacts; however, an increase in traffic on residential streets adjacent to a recycling center may result in land use conflicts. It would be likely that the highest project - generated traffic volumes would occur on the weekends. By locating drop -off and buy -back centers in areas adjacent to arterial or other major roadways, project traffic on residential streets would be minimized. Drop -off centers are typically small operations that do not operate after hours of darkness. Therefore, the potential for light and glare impacts would not be significant. It is unlikely that a buy -back center would collect recyclable materials after dark; however, outdoor lighting may be required for security purposes, to conduct site maintenance, or to process collected material for shipment to market after closing to the public. Excessive lighting of the site perimeters or outdoor storage area would have the potential to be disturbing to adjacent land uses. As described in Sections 5.2.1.1 and 5.2.1.2, drop -off and buy -back centers may result in noise and aesthetic impacts. Implementation of suggested mitigation measures would reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level. c. Mitigation Measures 1. Drop -off and buy -back centers should be located in commercial, industrial, or other areas set back from residential uses. , Access to recycling centers should be from arterial or other major roadways. 2. Outdoor operations should not be conducted during hours of darkness. If exterior lighting is required, minimal site lighting should be provided. This lighting should be oriented towards the project interior, and shielded from surrounding land uses.. 3. Noise and aesthetic mitigation measures described in Sections 5.2.1.1 and . 5.2.1.2 should be implemented as required, 5.2.2 Materials Recovery Facility Program The Materials Recovery Facility program would serve wastesheds for the Cold Canyon Landfill and the Chicago Grade/Paso Robles Landfill. At these facilities, municipal solid waste would be deposited onto a tipping floor and the mixed waste would be placed on a conveyor which would move the waste material past picking stations. Workers would pull off recyclable materials and place them in temporary storage bins for further processing, baling, or shipment. 5.2-4 MDW.s 1 5.2 bo. .RE Recycling Component to market. The residual waste (materials that cannot be recovered for recycling or composting) would be shipped to a landfill for disposal. A materials recovery facility would likely have a processing capacity of between 200 and 1,000 tons .per day, and would require a project site approximately 5 to 15 acres in size, depending upon specific site design. The following issue areas were identified in the initial. study as having the potential to be impacted by the construction and operations of a materials recovery facility. N itigation measures are provided to reduce identified impacts to a less than significant level. 5.2.2.1 Geology a. Setting. The construction of a materials recovery facility is expected to involve excavation, grading and filling activities for site preparation. Structures associated with a materials recovery facility could be subject to adverse impacts resulting from a variety of seismic and geologic processes. b. Impact Analysis. The significance of potential geological impacts on a material recovery facility would be dependent upon the size, location, and construction methods used for the facility. Some typical forms of geologic hazards that would be likely to have potential significant impacts on a materials recovery facility include: subsidence, soil expansion, slope instability, ground rupture, seismically - induced ground shaking, and soil liquefaction. A description of these geological hazards and potential impacts to a materials recovery facility is provided below. Subsidence is ground, settlement often caused by the extraction of subsurface minerals, petroleum, or groundwater. Subsidence can result in significant structural or pavement damage 0 due to ground cracking or differential settling. Differential settlement beneath materials recovery . structures could result in cracks in the tipping floor or other surfaces that may serve as a conduit for fluids that may contaminate soil and groundwater. Soil expansion results from swelling and shrinking of soils due to alternate wetting and drying. The most susceptible soil types are very fine grained. clay and bentonitic soils. Expansive soils can cause extensive structural and pavement damage. Expansive soil conditions can be readily remediated if recognized prior to construction. Slope instability and erosion related hazards generally occur in areas of considerable topographical relief or near fill slopes. Slope instability related hazards include rockfalls, landslides, mudflows, and debris flows. These hazards can result -in property damage and loss of human lives. Slope- related hazards would have the potential to disrupt operations of a materials recovery facility and result in significant property damage. A possible slope- related impact may occur if a material recovery facility were to be located at a landfill, where cut and 1 fill slopes would be present. 5' .2-5 b rMWP.s 5.2 Recycling Component Ground rupture can occur at a site crossed by a fault as a result of movement along the fault. Because surface rupture is most likely to occur along an active fault, ground rupture is not normally considered a potential threat at a site where geologically recent faulting has not i occurred. Ground rupture resulting from fault movement can cause severe damage to structures, displace structures from their foundations, and disrupt or damage utilities and water lines. Under unfavorable circumstances ground rupture can indirectly result in loss of human fives due to structural collapse. Ground rupture beneath a materials recovery facility would be likely to cause extensive damage. Seismically-induced groundshalcing can result in significant structural damage and is primarily responsible for the secondary seismic effects. It is likely that material recovery structures will be subject to groundshaking caused by a moderate to strong earthquake during its lifespan. Without appropriate seismic design considerations, the effects of groundshaking could result in significant structural damage, safety hazards, and the disruption on permanent loss of operations at the facility. Soil liquefaction is a process in which loose, saturated cohesionless (sandy) soils attempt to densify when subjected to extreme shaking or vibration. However, densification cannot rapidly occur due to the water in the intergranular spaces; hence, water pressure ' increases, support from soil particles is reduced to near zero, and. the soil behaves like a fluid. The corresponding loss of strength results.in soils that cannot support foundations. The loss of strength associated with soil liquefaction could cause material recovery facility structures to settle or tilt excessively, resulting in significant damage. If a proposed materials recovery facility was placed in an area subject to subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability or an area subject to seismic hazards, the project may be subject to geologic hazards that could result in significant structural and safety impacts. These impacts can generally be mitigated by appropriate site selection, structural engineering and following standard county guidelines for development. c. Mitigation. Measures 1. Prior to siting a materials recovery facility, the candidate site should be evaluated for the presence of severe seismic or geologic hazards. .Areas � subject to ground rupture, severe soils hazards, or slope instability should be avoided. 2. Geotechnical or soil engineering investigations should be performed at the proposed project site. The results and recommendations from the investiga- tion should be incorporated into the project design. 3. The materials recovery facility should be constructed in accordance with standards specified in the Uniform Building Code .(UBC). 5.2 -6 9335DWP.B 7 5.2 bAkE Recycling C onent 5.12.2 Air Quality r a. Setting. Air . pollution control is administered on the federal, state and local government.levels in California. Both the federal and state control agencies (U.S. Environmen- tal Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board) have established ambient air quality standards based on consideration of the health and welfare of the general public. The pollutant r covered by these standards include: ozone, carbon. monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter less than 10 microns in size, and lead. California also has standards for hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and visibility reducing particulates. These .standards, with the exception of HZS, are the levels of ambient air quality r necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. The HZS standard is based on nuisance. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The California Air Resources Board (ARB) monitors and records air pollutant data throughout the state and publishes this date on a regular basis. There are eight monitoring stations located in San Luis Obispo County. Based on air quality data from these monitoring stations, San Luis Obispo County has been classified as a non - attainment. area for ozone, PM10 (particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter), and possibly SOZ (EIP 1989). r The San Luis Obispo County APCD threshold for reactive organic compounds (ROC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO,) emissions is 5 lb /hour. The significance threshold for carbon monoxide (CO) is 550.lbs/day. Projects exceeding these emission levels are required to install best available control technology (BACT). f a project will emit more than 15 lbs/hour of ROC or NOx, emission offsets are required. It.is likely that revised regulations will be adopted that will require BACT and offsets for projects emitting more than 51bs/hour of ROC or NOx. Project related . air quality impacts which may affect local and regional ambient air quality generally fall into two categories. These include short-term impacts associated with project construction activities, and long -term impacts generated throughout the operational life C of the project, from use of vehicles by employees, operational equipment and transportation of recyclable materials and residual waste to market or a disposal site. b. Impact Analysis. Construction related impacts would primarily result from dust generated during site preparation and emissions of criteria pollutants (NO =, CO, O,, SO2, and PM10) from construction equipment. The implementation of standard dust - control measures, such as watering the site, would reduce short-term construction - related dust emissions; however, it is unknown if these emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level. The implementation of standard construction equipment devices to reduce diesel emissions would also assist in reducing construction air quality impacts; however it is unknown if they would be reduced to a less than significant level. 5.2 -7 "3sawr.s 5.2 E Recycling Component Long term emissions resulting from project operations include: the dumping of various wastes on the tipping floor, the sorting and separation of waste material, vehicles and , machinery used to separate, process, and transport materials at the site, as well as employee and visitor trips to the facility. These types of activities could result. in significant ROC and NOx emissions. vehicle emissions associated with the project would be dependent upon the number , of vehicles that travel to the site and the distance they must travel. If the materials recovery facility was located near a landfill where residual waste could be disposed of without generating a significant amount of additional vehicle miles, the project would have air quality emissions similar to existing conditions. If the project were located in an area that required a significant increase in vehicle miles traveled from the existing waste hauling route, a significant air quality 4 impact may occur. The dumping of various wastes on the tipping floor would generate fugitive dust. If operations were conducted on an enclosed indoor tipping floor, a majority of the PMIO emissions produced by this operation should be removed from the ambient air by implementing a filtered ventilation system. If the tipping floor were located outside, PM,o emissions would be increased and could be significant. Odor emissions from project operations could occur from the processing and storing of organic waste materials. Most of the odors generated would be limited to the tipping floor 4 where the solid waste is dumped and the storage area. The significance of impacts associated with odor emissions depend primarily upon the design of the project and the location of the project site. If materials recovery operations were conducted outdoors, the project could result in significant odor - related impacts: In addition to odors from the tipping floor, the project could generate odors resulting from the storage of organic residual waste materials. These materials i would not be expected to be stored for over a twenty-four hour period, but could still have the potential to result in odor impacts. If the project were located near- sensitive receptors such as residences, the potential of having odor- related impacts would be increased. c. Mitigation Measures 1. If project related short term construction impacts caused by fugitive dust and equipment exhaust have the potential to exceed San Luis Obispo County air pollution control criteria or state standards, the following mitigation measures should be considered for implementation: • The construction_ site should be watered to reduce dust generation and watering should be increased when winds exceed 15 miles/hour; 4 • Cease grading and scraping operations when wind speeds exceed 30 mph; 4 5.2 -8 933snwp.s �1 5.2 '6..RE Recycling Component • Establish an on -site speed-limit for construction vehicles of 15 mph; • Cover stockpiled: materials to prevent the generation of dust • Cover trucks during transportation of excess dirt; • Use low sulfur diesel fuel (0.05 percent by weight); properly maintain -and operate all construction equipment; turn off gasoline fueled engines when not in use.for more than 5 minutes; • Schedule construction - related vehicle trips during non -peak hours to reduce peak hour emissions. 2. If the project has operational impacts which exceed the County of San Luis Obispo standards the following mitigation measures may be required; • Minimize the number of waste and recovered material hauling trips by using the largest vehicle practicable and ensuring that the vehicle capacity is utilized efficiently. • Implement a transportation, demand management plan which would schedule trips during non peak hours and would encourage employee participation in alternative transportation. • Conduct project operations in an enclosed tipping floor and store residual solid waste indoors. • Locate project site in an appropriate area away from sensitive receptors. • Limit the volume of waste that can be stored at one time at the facility. 5.2.2.3 Water Resources a. Setting. Water resources could be impacted by two types of events. Degradation of water quality may occur from on -site runoff, or percolation of waste or waste by- products to water resources. Project- related impacts may result from direct groundwater withdrawal or the obstruction of groundwater recharge. b. Impact Analysis. The project would require a dependable water supply for project construction and facility operations. Short-term water would be used during construction activities primarily for dust control. During project operations water would be used for landscaping, employee use and site maintenance (cleaning of trucks, equipment, etc.). Minimal amounts of water operations are expected to be used for waste processing. Water supply impacts 5.2 -9 93ssnwp.a 5.2 SKRE Recycling Component 1 from the project's water consumption depend upon the condition of the local water supply as well as the historical use of water at the project site. If local water sources are in an impacted (i.e., overdraft) condition, the project could contribute to water supply impacts. However, if project operations would use less water than what is historically used on the project site, the project may reduce water - related impacts. Waste processing, waste storage areas, and . vehicles are potential sources of contaminants that could adversely impact the quality of local groundwater resources. Storm water runoff from the project site that has come in contact with waste material or other on -site contaminant sources could have the potential to contaminate water sources in the project area. Water contamination potential from waste processing and storage activities can be substantially reduced by conducting these activities in an enclosed structure. 1 If the project was located in an area of significant groundwater recharge, the project could reduce groundwater recharge to underlying aquifers. This impact could result from the development of impervious surfaces. Other potential impacts to groundwater quality could result from the storing of municipal solid waste on the tipping floor. Although municipal solid waste is not expected to be stored over long, periods of time, solid waste delivered to the facility could have a high moisture content and/or may contain hazardous wastes generated by households and other small quantity generators. If waste - related fluids permeated through the floor and entered . the soil and groundwater below the site, the project could degrade water resources. The storage of residual wastes may also contribute to adverse groundwater quality impacts resulting from the percolation of contaminants. , In summary, potential water resource impacts from a materials recovery facility will depend upon the location and design of the project as well as the availability of local water supplies. If the project was located in an area of such as an area of high groundwater or high soil permeability, the potential for project impacts to water quality would increase. c. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to the start of operations of the materials recovery facility, baseline water quality conditions should be established to accurately monitor potential project impacts. Potential project sites located in groundwater recharge area with high groundwater or drainage problems should be avoided. 2. The tipping floor should be sealed to minimize infiltration of waste - related fluids. Washing of the tipping floor .should be minimized. When cleaning of the tipping floor is required, the floor should be swept or steam cleaned to minimize water use and the generation of industrial waste water. 3. Project operations and municipal solid waste storage should be conducted in enclosed structures. 5.2 -10 93=WP.a t 5.2 SxIM Recycling Component 4. No floor drains :should be located in the tipping floor and the tipping floor / should be inspected periodically for cracks or other defects. If cracks are found they should be repaired immediately. 5. The project should not be located in an area of significant flooding such as 100 year storm areas or where a watercourse may be affected. 6. To the extent possible, MRFs should not be located in areas where they would contribute to an existing water supply problem. MRF projects should also incorporate measures to minimize water use, such as dry waste processing methods, low -water landscaping, and low -flow plumbing fixtures. 1 5.2.2.4 Biology a. Setting. Construction activities associated with the development of a materials recovery facility at an undeveloped project site would result in vegetation clearing and grading operations. These activities would remove or disturb biologic resources on or near the site. If the facility were constructed at a previously developed" or disturbed site, it is less likely that construction activities would disturb biologic resources. b. Impact Analysis. Construction activities associated with the development of a / materials recovery.facility at an. undeveloped: project site could result in impacts to the biological resources of the site and surrounding area. These impacts may take the form of direct impacts which include habitat loss and fragmentation, introduction of barriers to movement, and the conversion of plant communities to a developed condition including structures, . roads and walkways, and decorative landscaping. Development may also result in indirect impacts which 1 affect the quality of remaining habitats on and surrounding the project site. These impacts may include the introduction of light intrusion, noise disturbances, changes in the quality and quantity of water resources and intentional or accidental depredations by human beings. The significance level of these impacts would be dependant upon the species or 1 habitats being disturbed. Adverse impacts to species or habitats considered to be rare, threatened, or endangered would be significant. Construction and operation activities would be less likely to result in significant biologic impacts if the project were proposed to be put on a developed or previously disturbed parcel. c. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to project approval, a biologic assessment of the proposed project site should be conducted to determine if any sensitive plant or animal communi- ties would be adversely impacted by the project. If possible, the project site should be located on a previously disturbed site that does not contain significant biologic resources. 5.2 -11 9Msnwr.B 5.2 5RRE Recycling Component 2. If significant biologic resources are identified at the project site, appropriate mitigation measures would be required. This may include: replacing lost trees or habitat at an appropriate ratio, trapping and /or transplanting sensitive species, and obtaining appropriate permits from the California Department. of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, and/or Fish and Wildlife Service. 3. Impacts to sensitive habitats on adjacent parcels could be minimized by siting the facility in an area that does not contain significant biologic resources, m ;n;m; zing site lighting, controlling site runoff and the potential for spills or leaks to leave the project site. 1 5.2.2.5 Noise a. Setting. Noise is generally defined as "unwanted or objectionable sound." Because human ears can detect a wide range of sound level, it is common to measure sound magnitude in decibels (dB) which .are logarithmic: A doubling of a sound. intensity is represented by a 3 dB sound level. Generally, a 1 dB increase is barely perceptible to the human ear, a 3 dB increase is clearly noticeable, and a 10 dB increase is.perceived. as a doubling .in sound. Hence, a 70 dB sound sounds twice as loud to the human ear as a 60 dB sound. The duration of noise and the time period at which it occurs are important values in 4 determining the impact of noise on sensitive land uses. Noise is generally considered to be more disturbing at night than during the day, and noise indices have been developed to account for the varying duration of noise events over time as well as community response to them. The community noise equivalent level (CNEL) and the Day -Night Average level (DNL or Ldn) are such indices: They are time - weighted average values based on the equivalent sound level (L.eq), which is a constant sound level that is equivalent to the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time- varying sound over a particular time period. The CNEL adjusts noise levels during the night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) by 10 dB to account for the increase sensitivity of people to noise after dark. Evening noise levels (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) are adjusted 5 dB by the CNEL. 1 Noise levels relate primarily to the exposure of sensitive land uses (residences, hospitals, schools, etc.) to noise levels in excess of 65 dBA and 45 dBA for exterior and interior levels. Noise can be attributed to a variety of factors including short. -term construction activities, operational activities, and from transportation trips associated with the project. Noise associated with the operation of a material recovery facility would include noise generated by 1 vehicles delivering materials to the facility, operational noise from the use of heavy equipment which would be used to sort and load materials, and noise generated from trucks transporting recyclable away from the centers: b. Impact Analysis. Heavy equipment noise associated with site preparation and construction activities can generate noise levels 70-100 dBA at 50 feet from the source. These 5.2 -12 9335DWP.s 5.2 bedm Recycling Compone noise levels would have the potential to exceed maximum allowable ambient exterior (65 dBA) and interior (45 dBA) noise levels for residential uses if residences were located nearby. Construction activities would be expected to occur over a short period of time, therefore, construction noise has. the potential to result in a significant short-term .impact. Project operations would include noise sources such.as.the use of heavy machinery to sort and compact municipal solid waste, and transportation of municipal solid waste by large trucks. If this type of project were located in an area close to a sensitive receptor such as a school or residence, noise impacts would have the potential to be significant. Noise from the on -site equipment may also have hearing impacts to employees working at the site. c. Mi igation Measures 1. All construction equipment should be properly maintained and provided with functional mufflers to limit noise. 2. Activities in outdoor area that have the potential to produce significant noise levels (i.e., heavy equipment to sort materials, equipment used to load materials for transport from the centers, .etc.) should be restricted to the hours between 8 am. and 5 p.m. 3. The project should be located in an area away from sensitive receptors. If this is found infeasible, project operations should be set back from the property boundary at a distance that would reduce significant noise impact to adjacent uses. A hearing conservation program for employees should be implemented at the facility. 5.2.2.6 Aesthetics -a. Setting. The determination of aesthetic effects of a project is subject to some personal interpretation. However, -there are general guidelines which can be used to determine the extent of an aesthetic impact. Generally if construction of a project would result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public and/or may create an aesthetically offensive site open to the public view, the project is expected to have a significant aesthetic impact. The significance of visual impacts may be based on three criteria: project design, project location, and project operations. Development of a materials recovery facility would . result in the construction of new buildings. and the introduction of new activities at a project site. Structures commonly used for materials recovery facilities are relatively large in size to accommodate hauling, trucks, and solid waste sorting activities. 5.2 -13 9smwr.B � 4 51 S1tRE Recycling Component b. Impact Analysis. Development of the project would result in views of construction activities and new structures, and could result in views of waste processing and storage activities. It is also possible that an increase in the presence of litter could occur, resulting from papers or other debris blowing from the site. Project operations such as these could significantly degrade the scenic value of the project area. Outdoor storage of collected materials could also result in significant visual impacts: In addition, project operations may occur during hours of darkness that would require the use of lighting which could impact , surrounding land uses. A material recovery facility may not be located in a developed area due to the required size and use of the facilities. However, if facility structures or outdoor operations (Le., queuing of cars delivering waste, collection and sorting of waste; etc.) were visible from nearby , residential or commercial land uses, potential aesthetic impacts could result. If the materials recovery facility were located in a.rural or open space area, the project may adversely change the visual character of the project site, resulting in a significant visual impact. c. Mitigation Measures 1. Visual screens located between the project site and adversely affected view corridors should be provided.. Visual screens may include fences, walls, berms, and landscaping. 2. Any outdoor waste processing activities should be conducted during daylight hours to minimize the.need for site lighting. 3. All outdoor lighting should be oriented towards the project site and should provide light intensities that would not result in significant off -site light and glare impacts. Light sources shall be shielded. 4. The project should not store municipal solid waste or recovered material in areas of high visibility to the general public. The perimeter of the project site should be fenced, landscaped, and patrolled. frequently to collect any accumulation of litter. 5. Areas designated on city or county plans as visually sensitive (possibly including prominent hillsides, wetlands, historic sites, scenic or unique vistas) should be avoided. 5.2.2.7 Land Use a. Setting. Land use issues include the consistency of a project with the general plan and zoning designations of a project site, along with the compatibility of the project with surrounding land uses. After obtaining appropriate land use permits, a materials recovery 5.2 -14 9MDW.B 4 o 5.2 BARE Recycling Component . facility could be located in an urbanized area (i.e., industrial or commercial) or rural (open space or agricultural) area. b. Impact Analysis. The potential significance of land use conflicts with surrounding uses would be dependent upon the proximity of the closest receptors. Residences and sensitive receptors such as hospitals or schools, would be land uses most sensitive to potential project- 0 related nuisances. Since the acreage requirements of a materials recovery facility would be large (probably ranging from 5 to 15 acres in size), it is possible that a materials recovery project would be located in an open space or agricultural area with low population densities. This will minimize, but not eliminate, the potential for land use conflicts to occur. The most effective method of reducing the potential for land use conflicts with surrounding land uses would be to conduct materials recovery operations in enclosed structures. This allows for greater control of dust problems, facilitates the implementation of odor control mechanisms, and provides noise attenuation. Outdoor solid waste operations would be more dependent upon providing adequate buffer area and setback distances between the project site e and nearby uses to minimize land use conflicts than indoor operations. Project traffic volumes and noise may also result in land use conflicts with nearby land. uses. Limiting project operating and delivery hours to avoid peak hours and routing traffic to avoid residential streets, could be capable of reducing traffic - related land use conflicts to a less than significant level. c. Mitigation Measures 1. If materials recovery operations have the potential to result in significant land use conflicts with nearby land uses, to the extent feasible, all materials recovery and storage operations should be conducted within structures. 2. The materials recovery facility should provide adequate setbacks from the project site boundary and nearby land uses to minimize the adverse effects of noise, dust, pests, and odor impacts. 3. If traffic or project operation noise have the potential to result in land use conflicts with surrounding land uses, project operation hours should be restricted. 5:2.2.8 Risk of Upset/Human Health a. Setting. Risk of upset and human health impacts associated with a materials recovery facility include potential impacts from improper operation and storage of solid waste, exposure to dust and hazardous waste inadvertently deposited in the solid waste stream, the potential for fires, and vectors. 5.2 -15 9335DWP.H 5.2 SRRE Recycling Component The use of heavy equipment, the movement of collection vehicles and the composition of municipal waste can create potentially significant safety risks at a materials recovery facility. Potential risks include bodily injury from heavy equipment and trucks, sharp objects, elevated noise and dust levels, and exposure to hazardous or infectious material. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, specifies minimum safety requirements that would be applicable to the proposed project. Under these provisions, the LEA is responsible for overseeing the safe operation of the facility. Title 14 regulations include specific provisions 1 regarding personnel health and safety and the protection of facility users. Waste management operations at a materials recovery facility have the potential to create a significant fire risk due to the accumulation and storage of large quantities of flammable materials, such as paper, wood, yard waste, plastics, and hazardous materials. The storage of petroleum products for vehicle and machinery maintenance can also result in a fire risk. A fire within a materials recovery facility may also result :in the release of toxic fumes, depending on the fire fuel source, that may result in significant impacts to fire and project site personnel and the general public. Possible ignition sources may include the tipping of hot or smoldering loads, loads that contain cinders buried in the material, sparks from vehicles or machinery, hot exhaust mufflers, cigarettes and matches. Vectors are defined as an organism which can carry pathogens from one host to another. Vectors include certain insects (i.e.. flies) and small rodents (i.e., rats and mice). These organisms, along with birds (i.e., seagulls, crows, and pigeons), may be attracted to the project site by food and habitat availability. b. Impact Analysis. Solid waste dumping, sorting, and storage operations at a processing building would have the potential to expose employees and facility patrons to safety risks such as elevated noise and dust levels. The operation of heavy equipment, such as waste - hauling trucks, loaders, and fork lifts used to transport waste and recovered materials, could result in injuries, particularly to facility patrons unfamiliar with site operations. Increased dust levels could result from the dumping and handling of solid waste. Long -term exposure to elevated dust levels would have the potential to result in chronic and acute respiratory ailments. Noise levels could exceed 100 dBA and prolonged exposure to these noise levels could result in permanent hearing impairment. Facility employees would be most susceptible to long -term exposures to elevated dust and noise levels that would have the potential to result in significant adverse health effects. The accumulation of flammable materials within the materials recovery facility along with the storage of recovered materials has the potential to result in a significant fire safety risk. A fire at the project site could result in smoke, odors, structural damage, personal injury, or loss of life. A fire would also have the potential to generate toxic fames,. that could result in significant health impacts. 5.2 -16 �FFFJZ" /a:1 C 54 QRE Recycling Component Accumulations of waste materials at the project site .would -have the potential to attract vectors and birds and may provide breeding areas. Processing solid waste and storing recovered material outdoors could trap precipitation water that could attract vectors. If stored materials were kept on -site for extended periods of time, these impacts could become significant. If waste processing and storage were conducted indoors, , the potential for vector impacts from insects, rodents, and birds would be reduced. c. Mitigation Measures 1. Dust levels within a processing building should be minimized by periodically sweeping the tipping floor and other appropriate "housekeeping" measures. 2. Fugitive dust levels can be controlled by conducting recovery operations in an enclosed structure. The ventilation system for the building should create a slightly negative air pressure to minimize the migration of dust from the building: The ventilation system should provide filters to remove dust from the air. 3. All employee work station area should be reviewed and approved by an industrial hygienist to ensure that adequate ventilation will be provided. 4. All roadways and project areas (Le .., outdoor storage areas) regularly traversed by vehicles should be provided with a permanent surface to control dust. generation. 5. Circulation within the project site should be designed to segregate commer- cial waste haulers and other heavy duty vehicles from the general public traffic utilizing the facility for waste drop off and recycling services. & Access to the tipping floor and waste processing areas by the general public should. be restricted. 7. Fire suppression equipment, such as building sprinklers, on -site hydrants, fire extinguishers, etc., should be provided in accordance with the requirements of the appropriate fire prevention department. 8. Hazardous waste collected at the facility and that is recovered from the tipping floor should be stored . in a. secure structure to minimize the potential spread of fire to or from this area. This- area should be provided with its own automatic fire suppression system. he design of this area should be approved by the appropriate fire department authority. 5.2 -17 9nMWr.s 11 5.2 Recycling Component 9. Smoking should be restricted at the project site. Signs should be clearly posted and enforced. 10. Site equipment should be cleaned regularly and maintained as directed by the manufacturer's operating instructions to reduce the potential of vehicle - related fires. 11. All fire incidents should be reported to the appropriate Fire Department and .LEA. 12. Waste loads brought to the project site that are suspected to be hot or smoldering (evidenced by odors or smoke) should be dumped. away from the normal operations, area. 13. If a vector problem is identified at the site, adequate control measures as identified by the San Luis Obispo Environmental Health Department should be implemented. 5.2.2.9 Transportation a. Setting. A materials recovery facility project would generate transportation trips from employees, solid waste refuse vehicles, and trips associated with the transport of residual and recyclable materials to a landfill or market. In addition to the generation of transportation trips, the project would include on site circulation which would include access and transportation patterns on the project site for employees, refuse trucks and visitors to the facility. The potential for a materials recovery facility to result in significant traffic impacts would be dependent upon project location and roadways serving the project. b. Impact Analysis. Transportation impacts resulting from traffic generated by a material recovery project would be- significant if the project contributed traffic to a roadway or intersection that operated at an unacceptable level of service. If the project traffic caused a roadway or intersection operation to drop below an acceptable level of service, a significant traffic impact would result. The potential for project - related impacts would be greatest during peak traffic hours (7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.).. If the project were located in an area with roadways or intersections that operated at unacceptable levels of service or project traffic caused a significant deterioration in roadway function, the project may be required to improve roads or intersections in the project vicinity. The cost of road improvements can be very high and may not be feasible. Traffic safety impacts can result from project site access: and circulation design. If the project added traffic to a roadway that has inadequate design features (i.e., narrow width, 5.2 -18 9n5nwr.s C 5.2 uARE Recycling Component road side ditches, sharp curves, poor sight distance, inadequate pavement), the project may result in a significant safety impact. c.. Mitigation Measures 1. Project operation hours and employee shifts should be scheduled to minimize the generation. of vehicle trips during peak traffic hours.. 2. The project should be responsible for instilling any required road improve- ments, such as additional road right-of-way, turn lanes, etc., necessary for safe project site mgress/egress as well as adequate on-site circulation.. 5.2.2.10 Public Services/Utilities' a. Setting. Operation of a material recovery facility and the accumulation of solid waste has the potential to result in fire suppression impacts and a safety hazard to fire department personnel. Utility requirements of a material recovery facility would likely consist of water and electrical service. These utility requirements are expected to be minimal however, if these services are not. available or must be extended to the project site, significant utility .impacts may result. b. Impacts Analysis. Project construction and operation procedures would be required to comply with the appropriate sections of the Uniform Fire Code. Adherence to these requirements -would substantially reduce potential fire impacts. A materials recovery facility project located in an urban or suburban area would likely have adequate response times from nearby fire stations and fire flows. Any required new fire hydrants would likely be feasible to install.. A ject site in a rural or open space area may have significant fire protection proi deficiencies. Regardless of the project location, if adequate fire suppression services cannot be provided to the project site, the proposed project would have the potential to result in significant impacts to fire suppression services. Water use at a material recovery facility would be primarily for domestic purposes and landscape maintenance as dry methods of material separation and recovery would likely be used. Additional sources of water would be used for emergency purposes such as showers, eyewash, and fire flows. Average. daily water use would be expected to be minimal, as landscaped area would likely be limited and domestic use by employees and patrons would be low. If potable water for domestic and emergency purposes.c-ould not be provided, however, a significant impact regarding water service would result. 5,249 93MWP.B r� u c. Mitigation Measures 5.2 ZE Recycling Component 1. Project construction and operation characteristics would be required to comply with applicable regulations (Le.; Uniform Fire Code, local hydrant location and fire flow requirements, etc.). 2. If necessary, fire sprinklers should be provided in all permanent structures. 3. The project should be located in an area where water for domestic purposes can be feasibly provided from a water purveyor or well. If well water is used, water for emergency purposes could be supplemented by on -site storage tanks. The volume of water to be stored on site should be determined by local fire prevention services. 5.2.111 Cultural Resources a. Setting. As discussed in Section 4.1.6, San Luis Obispo County contains several areas of archaeological and cultural significance. Development of a materials recovery facility would result in the construction of new buildings in areas that may contain significant archaeological or cultural resources. b. Impact Analysis.The construction of a materials recovery facility would require the disturbance of 5 to 15 acres of land for the placement of structures, storage and parking areas. If the project is located in an area of cultural or historical significance, construction activities could damage or destroy these resources. The CEQA Guidelines Appendix G 01 state that a project will have a significant effect upon the environment if it will "... Disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archaeological site or a property of historic or cultural significance to a community or ethnic or social group, or a paleontological site except as a pan of a scientific study .._ ". The significance of this impact would depend upon the location of the archaeological or cultural site on the project site and the uniqueness of the resource. c. Mitigation Measures 1. If an initial study evaluation of the proposed project determines that the project has the potential to result in significant cultural resources impacts, a Phase I archaeologic study should be conducted prior to ground disturbing activities to determine if archaeological resources are present on the project site. If archaeological resources are discovered, the project shall conform to the recommendations of the archaeological report. 2. If 'no archaeological resources are discovered from the Phase I analyses, the following mitigation measure would reduce the potential for project - related grading activities from inadvertently impacting any previously undetected 5.2 -20 9335DWP.B 5.2 bARE Recycling Component archaeologic resources. In the event :potentially significant archaeological resources are encountered during grading, work in that area shall be stopped or redirected until a qualified archaeologist and native American representa- tive are retained to evaluate the find. Resources shall be treated pursuant to County and State Archaeological Guidelines. 1 5.2.3. Salvaging at the Landfill Salvaging of recoverable materials, such as ferrous and nonferrous metals, white goods, and other marketable materials, is common practice at many landfills. Materials that are deposited at the working face of a landfill are examined and any materials with recyclable or reuse value are separated from the other materials which are then buried in the landfill . This alternative is labor intensive, and usually requires minimal equipment other than storage containers, and shared use of the rolling equipment (tractor, bulldozer, or leader) already used at the tipping face of the landfill. The types of materials targeted generally depend upon the availability of markets or other outlets for the materials, and their availability and quality in the loads which are received. Landfill salvaging may use existing workers or be contracted to private firms or individuals (both are common practices). Limited landfill salvaging is practiced at the Chicago Grade and Cold Canyon Landfills. 1 5,2.3.1 Risk of Upset/Human Health a. Setting. The recovery of salvageable materials from the landfill prior to burial has the potential to expose people performing this operation to a variety of potential health 1 hazards. These potential hazards could include exposure to hazardous waste, elevated dust and noise, and conducting recovery operations in proximity to heavy machinery. b. Impact Analysis. Salvage operations conducted at the active face of the landfill will result in salvage personnel removing recoverable material that is intermixed with other 1 waste material. Included in this waste is likely to be hazardous waste which has been improperly disposed. Other types of waste that could result in injury would be sharps, such as improperly disposed medical needles, razors, or other similar items. Inadvertent contact with hazardous waste or sharps could result in burns, respiratory ailments, lacerations, or exposure to disease. Salvaging operations at the landfill face would expose salvage personnel to elevated dust and noise levels. The operation of heavy machinery, unloading waste material and earth - moving operations to apply cover material would be primary noise and dust sources. Exposure to elevated noise levels for an extended period of time can result in permanent hearing damage. Prolonged exposure to dust could result in respiratory ailments. 5.2 -21 9M5nwr.a 5.2 SRRE Recycling Component If salvaging operations occur at the landfill face,, concurrent waste disposal operations will also be occurring. This could result in accidents involving salvage personnel and equipment used at the landfill face. 1 c. Mtigation Measures 1. Salvage personnel should be provided with protective clothing, respiratory and hearing protection equipment to reduce exposure to hazardous materials, dust, and noise. 2. Written and verbal training should be provided to salvage personnel to recognize hazardous waste; and:response procedures to implement if hazardous wastes are encountered. Salvage personnel should work in pairs to .minimize the potential for accidents or provide assistance in the event that an accident occurs. 3. Safety equipment should be provided at the project site, such as first -aid, showers, and eye wash. 4. When salvage operations are occurring at the landfill face, disposal operations should be diverted away from the salvage area. 5. All job- related accidents or health problems should be reported to the Local 1 Enforcement Agency. 1 1 1 1 5.2 -22 9335nwr.s 1 S.3 SRRE COAMSTING COAMNENT Composting is the biological decomposition of organic constituents in waste under controlled conditions. Biological decomposition is caused by :microbial activity in the waste mass. The extent of microbial activity depends upon biological factors, five of which are considered essential: suitable microbial population, aeration (.e., oxygen availability), temperature, moisture content, and carbon -to- nitrogen ratio. Controlled conditions are based on maximizing these and other conditions. Microbial population is excessively present in the waste types recommended for composting. Aeration is usually accomplished by turning the compost mass and exposing it to 1 ambient oxygen and/or by artificially injecting compressed air. Adequate oxygen is necessary to promote aerobic decomposition.' If oxygen is not supplied to the compost material, anaerobic composting will occur. Temperature increase during composting is a natural process that destroys pathogens. Moisture is necessary for microbial growth and reproduction, and it provides a means for microorganisms to migrate. Once composted, the material can be dried, 1 if necessary, to improve handling and marketability characteristics. The carbon -to- nitrogen ratio must be balanced to maximize the speed of microbial growth.. Composting of organic material can be accomplished using a variety of different methods. Several basic.cwmposting methods are described below. 1 a. Windrow Composting. This involves building elongated piles (windrows) of compost material, periodically turning the piles, and controlling moisture and temperature levels. Composting time depends primarily on good carbon/nitrogen ratio, proper moisture, and turning frequency to allow sufficient aeration. 1 b. Aerated Static Piles. This method operates on similar principles as windrow composting methods. Aemtion.is artificially provided to the composting mass. c. In-Vessel Aerobic Composting. In- vessel aerobic composting takes place in an / enclosed container rather than in free- standing piles. d. Anaerobic Composting. This.form of composting produces two usable products: biogas and compost. Biogas, a mixture of .50 percent methane and 50 percent carbon dioxide, can be used directly to generate electricity, or can be upgraded and sold as pipeline -quality 1 natural gas. Anaerobic composting can be conducted using in- vessel proprietary systems and operations resembling windrows or static piles sealed in plastic to exclude air. In 1993, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) adopted regulations. pertaining to the composting of green waste. These regulations provide standards for: 1 permitting, the designation and operation of composting facilities, performance standards for compost quality, and the enforcement of adopted standards. 5.3 -1 1 9335DWP.F 5.3 LI Composting Component 1 5.3.1 Yard Waste and Source Separated Organics Composting Materials recommended for composting include yard waste and source separated 1 organics. Yard waste composting would primarily utilize leaves, grass clippings, brush trimmings, etc.., however, limited amounts of wood debris, agricultural waste, sawdust and manure could be accepted. Source separated organics would include materials such as food waste, agricultural material, paper, sewage sludge, and other organic material. These materials would be source - separated to remove non- compostables and mixed to produce a homogeneous 1 mass. Final uses of the compost material may include use in public works projects, agriculture, landscaping, and home use. The environmental analysis provided in the following sections evaluates potential environmental impacts that are generally associated with composting operations. Particular compost materials or processes that have the potential to result in environmental impacts are also noted. Mitigation measures that are provided are intended to.reduce identified impacts to a less than significant level. 5.3.1.1 Geology 1 a. Setting. General seismic conditions found in San Luis Obispo County are described in Section 4.1.7. Geologic hazards and processes that would have the potential to adversely affect the structures and operations of the proposed project are described in 1 Section 5.1.2.1: b. Impact Analysis. Composting operations would be most susceptible to geologic impacts if large permanent structures are proposed. Some composting operations are conducted inside structures to minimize potential odor, pest, and other land.use conflicts. Structures used 1 for composting operations could be subject to a variety of .seismic and soils - related hazards. Ground rupture or shaking may result in substantial structural damage that could result in significant property damage and safety impacts. c. Mitigation Measures 4 1. Prior to siting a composting facility, the candidate site should be evaluated for the presence of severe seismic or geologic hazards. Areas subject to ground rupture, severe soil hazards, or slope instability should be avoided. 1 2. Geotechnical or soil engineering investigations should be performed at the proposed project site. The results and recommendations of the investigation should be incorporated into the project design. 3. The composting facility should be, constructed in accordance with standards 1 specified in the Uniform Building Code (UBQ) 5.3 -2 93s5nwr.r 4 5.3 SR" Composting Component 5.3.1.2 Air Quality a. Setting. Ambient air conditions in San Luis Obispo County are described in Section 5.1.2.2. Air emissions associated with the implementation of a solid waste composting program would include short-term site preparation and construction activities, vehicle- related transportation emissions, and emissions associated with site operations. b. Impact Analysis. Air emissions resulting from site preparation activities would result from the exhaust of construction equipment and fugitive dust. Site preparation activities would likely consist of minor site grading to create a level composting area or for building foundation preparation. The extent of site grading activities would be dependant upon project site, size, topography, soil types, and building requirements; however, it is likely that ground disturbing activities would be limited in scope and duration. Therefore, if standard dust control measures are implemented, it is not anticipated that construction- related emissions would result in a significant air quality impact. Vehicle trips associated with a composting facility will result in indirect project- related emissions. The emissions generated by vehicular sources would be dependent upon facility design capacity, vehicle types and miles travelled to deliver compost material to the facility, the number of facility employees and methods used to transport compost products to market. The diversion of organic solid waste from a landfill to a composting facility could result in greater; similar or fewer total vehicle miles travelled and associated emissions than existing landfill disposal practices. Total vehicle emissions would be primarily dependent on the location of the compost facility in relation to the previous disposal location. If total vehicle miles travelled were to increase substantially over existing conditions, indirect emissions associated with a composting facility would have the potential to be significant. Emissions expected to occur from actual composting operations include odorous gasses, fugitive dust and minor vehicular emissions from using loaders, pick -up trucks, and similar vehicles at the site. Odors produced by composting fall into six general groups. These include fatty acids, amines, aromatics, inorganic sulfur, organic sulfur, and terpenes. Fatty acids, amines, and inorganic sulfur (primarily hydrogen sulfide) odors are generally produced when the compost is allowed to become anaerobic, either due to a lack of aeration or from isolated anaerobic clumps. Aromatics may be released during the aerobic decomposition of the sewage sludge or produced by the aerobic breakdown of lignins (a common component of plants). Organic sulfur may be produced under aerobic or anaerobic conditions, but production under anaerobic conditions is greater. Organic sulfur compounds have very low odor thresholds, two-three parts per billion volume (ppbv) and can be detected by sensitive receptors at concentrations less than one ppbv. The waste streams composted should not contain materials that could produce sufficient quantities of fatty acids or terpenes to cause a significant odor impact. The types of odorous compounds of concern are amines, inorganic sulfur and organic sulfur produced under 5.3 -3 9335DWP.F 5.3 SAKE Composting Component anaerobic conditions andaromatics and organic sulfur produced under aerobic conditions. It:is expected that aromatic odors would not be significant due to the probable low concentrations of aromatics in the sewage sludge and relatively low concentration of lignin in the yard waste. Therefore, organic sulfur odors are the greatest potential odor problem during normal aerobic operation. During upsets causing localized or general anaerobic conditions within the compost mass, or if anaerobic composting is conducted., amine or inorganic sulfur odors may be produced in sufficient quantities to cause a significant odor impact. In addition, if wet sewage sludge and green yard waste are allowed to be stored and accumulate prior to composting, odors could be produced that may become significant. Fugitive dust would be produced primarily when windrows are turned to .enhance aeration. Mechanical equipment that turns the compost material is frequently used for this process. Although the moisture content of the compost material should minimize dust emissions, this aeration process may still produce significant volumes of dust (PMIo). c.. Mitigation Measures 1. During construction and site preparation activities, dust control measures, such as site watering, should be implemented whenever necessary. 2. Construction vehicles should be properly maintained and shut off when not in use. If necessary, simultaneous use of heavy-duty construction equipment should be avoided. 3. Prior to project approval, site and project specific air quality analysis should be conducted. If a potentially significant air quality impact is identified from vehicle and/or composting- related emissions the following measures could be imple- mented: • Minimize the number of truck trips to haul compost material by using the .largest vehicle practicable and ensuring that the vehicle capacity is fully utilized. • Schedule haul trips during non -peak hours to reduce local. peak hour emissions. • Conduct composting processes in enclosed structures to limit the migration of dust. If enclosed composting is not feasible, compost material moisture content should be at maximum optimal levels prior to turning. 4. To minimize the potential for compost - related odors, the following types of control measures could be implemented: 5.3-4 9335DWP.P U 5.3 SR-nE Composting Component • Use in- vessel or enclosed composting processes which allow for more control of the composting process (i.e., regulation of `moisture levels and maintenance of aerobic conditions) and could reduce the number of odor - producing upsets. • 'The composting operation should be designed with process gas recovery system and/or odor control features. These may include: chemical scrubbing, adsorption with activated carbon, biofiltration, and odor neutralization. Odor dispersion techniques should also be used such as: exhaust stacks, maximum possible setbacks from sensitive receptors, solid walls or barriers to increase wind turbulence and/or wind machines. • On -site storage ' of material to be composted should be minimized to the extent possible to reduce the potential for odor impacts. • If the proposed project is implemented and a chronic or occasional odor problem is experienced, an olfactory odor monitoring program could be initiated on -site to detect odors before they migrate off-site. This program could consist of routine inspection of specific potential odor sources by trained operators using a scentometer. If necessary, additional odor. control devices could be utilized. 5.3.1.3 Water Resources a. Setting. Composting operations have the potential to result in significant water quantity and quality impacts. Composting procedures that utilize large volumes of water to maintain proper moisture levels may result 'in a substantial decrease in direct groundwater recharge and have the potential to leach contaminants into groundwater resources. Regulations adopted by the CIWMB for the design and operation of green waste composting facilities, such as drainage control and liner requirements, could reduce the potential for adverse impacts to water quality. b. Impact Analysis. Water use for composting operations can vary significantly and are dependant on variables such as the type of material being composted and the selected compost method. Windrow composting generally uses more water than static pile method composting operations conducted in enclosed buildings and composting vessels, since evaporative losses of water are reduced. The significance of potential water use impacts will also be dependent upon the availability of water at the project site (either from a public or private water purveyor or well water) and the previous water use, if any, at the project site. A composting operation can also result in water quantity impacts if a large portion of the project site is covered with impervious surfaces, such as buildings, parking lots, or 5.3 -5 9MW1?.P 5.3 SRkE Composting Component 1 impermeable layers to protect water quality. If these surfaces cover a significant area and are located within highly permeable soils, a significant loss of groundwater recharge may occur. Substantial volumes of water may be required to be added to the compost material to maintain proper aerobic decomposition. Although compost material should not become saturated, long -term operations in a relatively small area could cause accumulations of compost - related residues to collect in the soil and groundwater at the project site. Constituents of concern that could potentially exist in the runoff water include heavy metals, hazardous materials, chemicals from pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides, and other decomposition products. These substances may have the potential to leach.mto soils and groundwater. beneath the project site, resulting in potentially significant water contamination impacts. Nitrogen levels. in yard waste compost is typically low, .requiring the addition of a nitrogen source to enhance the use of final compost product. The application of additional nitrogen may have the potential to result in significant increases in nitrate concentrations in groundwater. Sewage sludge may contain heavy metals, such as cadmium, copper, nicW, lead, and zinc. Composting of the sludge does not remove heavy metals. Therefore, if sludges used for composting contain.high concentrations:of heavy metals, runoff from the composting area may contain trace amounts of these metals. If allowed to enter on -site soils and groundwater, heavy metals may result in a significant groundwater quality impact. Food waste may also be used for compost material. Since the food waste may be derived from municipal solid waste, there is the possibility that it could be exposed to trace levels of household hazardous waste inadvertently contained in mixed solid waste. Any hazardous waste substances that may be associated with food waste would have the potential to adversely impair groundwater quality. . c. Mitigation Measures 1. All compost facilities shall be designed, constructed and operated in a manner that is consistent with applicable state and federal regulations. 2. Areas that have been identified as important for recharging groundwater should be avoided when siting composting facilities. Compost methods or structures that minimize water use should be encouraged. 3. prior to the start of site operations, the applicant should establish baseline water quality conditions of the project site. The results of a baseline study should be provided to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA). 5.3 -6 9333DWP.F SRrL Composting Component 4. While the facility is in operation, periodic groundwater quality tests should be conducted. The results of samples .taken from beneath the project site should be evaluated to monitor for the possible site - related contamination. 5. If a suspected water quality impact resulting from site operations is detected, a verification and, if necessary, corrective action program should be implemented by the applicant. All proposed verification and corrective action programs should be approved by the RWQCB and LEA. Immediate steps should be taken to identify and rectify the. source of the contamination. 6. To eliminate the potential for precipitation contact with the compost material, reduce the volume of water needed to be applied during the composting operation, and facilitate the collection of any fluids generated by the compost material, composting operations may conducted in a covered or enclosed structure. The floor of a composting structure should be sealed or have a low- permeability surface to prevent water infiltration as required by regulatory standards. The compost area should also be bermed to minimize precipitation water contact with the compost and to contain precipitation runoff. 7. Collected compost fluids should be collected and disposed of in a manner approved by the RWQCB and LEA. This may include reapplication to the compost material and/or discharge to a sanitary sewer in accordance with the requirements of the applicable sewage district. 5.3.1.4 Biology a. Setting. Clearing and construction activities associated with the development of a composting facility at an undeveloped project site would require vegetation clearing and grading operations. These activities could remove or disturb biologic resources on or near the site. A composting facility is expected to require five to twenty acres of land. If the composting operations were conducted at a previously disturbed or developed site, it is less likely that construction activities would disturb or remove biologic resources. b. Impact Analysis. Clearing and construction activities for composting operations could result in the removal of plant and animal communities and the displacement of existing plant and animal species. Increased human activity, noise, lights and vehicles may adversely effect sensitive habitats or migration corridors located adjacent to the project. The significance of these impacts would be dependent upon the species or habitats being disturbed. Adverse impacts to species or habitats considered to be rare, threatened, or endangered would be significant. c. Mitigation Measures 9335DWP.F 5.3 -7 5.3 SRkE Composting Component I. Prior to project approval, a biologic assessment of the project site should be conducted to determine if any sensitive plant or animal. communities would be adversely impacted by the project. If possible the project site should be located on a previously disturbed site that does not contain significant biologic resources. 2. If significant biologic resources are identified at the project site, appropriate mitigation measures would be required. This may include: replacement of lost trees or habitat at an appropriate ratio, trapping and/or transplant of sensitive species, and obtaining appropriate permits from the California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineer and/or Fish and Wildlife Service. 3. Impacts to sensitive habitats on adjacent parcels could be minimized by siting the facility in an area that does not contain significant biologic resources, minimizing site lighting and controlling site runoff. 5.3.1.5 Noise a. Setting. Noise sources associated with a composting facility would include construction activity, increased traffic levels, and equipment necessary to conduct composting operations. This type of equipment may include grinders, windrow turners, loaders, and exhaust fans. b. Ympact Analysis. Heavy equipment noise associated with the site preparation and construction activities can generate maximal allowable noise levels of 70-100 dBA at 50 feet from the source. These noise levels would have the potential to exceed ambient exterior (65 dBA) and interior (45 dBA) noise levels at nearby land uses. Construction activities would be expected to occur over a short period to time, probably not more than several weeks. Therefore, construction noise impacts have the potential to result in a significant short-term impact. Project- related traffic noise would result from increased traffic in the project vicinity. Heavy trucks used to haul compost material and finished product could be a significant noise i source. Traffic noise increases would have the greatest potential to result in significant impacts . if residences are located along haul routes or near the project site. Existing traffic in the project . vicinity and the volume of project - generated traffic will also be factors that will determine the potential for the project to result in significant traffic noise impacts. t Noise levels generated by compost equipment could range from approximately 80 to 100 dBA, 50 feet from the source. The highest noise levels would be from grinders used to produce uniform size compost material. Other equipment, such as windrow turners, would likely be at the lower end of the noise range. These noise levels would have the potential to result in significant noise impacts to on -site employees and nearby sensitive noise receptors. If 5.3 -8 9Bsnwr.F 5.3 SPI" Composting Component compost operations were conducted within a structure, noise attenuation by the structure walls could be between 25 and 40 dBA, depending on construction materials. 1 c. Mitigation Measures 1. All construction equipment should .be properly maintained and muffled. If necessary, acoustic " curtains" around stationary (i.e., cement mixers, saws) may also be required. If necessary, construction activities could be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 2. When necessary to minimize noise impacts to surrounding uses, project operations 1 should be conducted indoors. If compost operations are, to be conducted outdoors, stationary' noise sources, such as grinders,. may require shielding to minimize noise impacts. If other outdoor activities have the potential to result in. significant noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors (i.e., deliveries, windrow turning, compost loading, etc.) they should be conducted between the hours of 7 1 a.m. and 7 P.M. 3. Adequate separation distance area between the project site and adjacent sensitive land uses should be provided to reduce project- related noise impacts to a less than significant level. The separation distance would be dependent upon anticipated 1 construction activities, traffic volumes, project equipment, and proposed noise attenuation devices. Noise levels resulting from project operations at sensitive receptors shall not exceed applicable general plan, zoning and noise ordinance standards. 1 4.. A. hearing conservation program for site employees should be implemented at the .site, consistent with Federal and State requirements. 5.3.1.6 Land Use a. Setting. Construction and operation of a composting facility has the potential to result in. nuisance impacts that could result in significant land use conflicts with adjacent land uses. Potential nuisance factors could include odors and dust, noise, traffic, and pests. b. Impact Analysis. The potential significance of land use conflicts with surrounding uses would be dependent upon the proximity of the closest receptors. Residences and sensitive receptors such as hospitals or schools would be land uses-most sensitive to potential project - related nuisances. Since the acreage requirements of a sub- regional or regional composting facility would likely be large (probably ranging from five to twenty acres in size) it is likely that a composting project would be located in an open space or agricultural area with low population densities. This will minimize, but not eliminate, the potential for land use conflicts to occur. 5.3 -9 9335DWP.P 5.3 SRRRE Composting Component The most effective method of reducing the potential for land use conflicts with surrounding land uses would be to conduct composting operations in enclosed structures. This allows for greater control of the composting processes and minimizes the potential for odor episodes, dust migration, and pest problems. Indoor operations also facilitate the implementation of odor control mechanisms and provides noise attenuation. If indoor operations are not feasible, other nuisance control measures suggested in the EIR are available to limit the potential for land use conflicts. Outdoor operations would be more dependent upon providing adequate buffer area and setback distances between the project site and nearby uses to minimize land use conflicts than indoor operations. Project traffic volumes and noise may also result in land use conflicts with nearby land uses. Limiting project operating and delivery hours to avoid peak hours and routing traffic to , avoid residential streets, should be capable of reducing traffic - related land use conflicts to a less than significant level. c. Mitigation Measures 1. If a composting operation has the potential to result in significant land use i conflicts with nearby land uses, to the extent feasible, composting operations should be conducted within structures. 2. The composting facility should provide adequate setbacks from the project site 4 boundary and nearby land uses to minimize the adverse effects of noise, dust, pest, and odor impacts. An appropriate setback distance would be dependent upon the type of composting operation and adjacent uses. 3. If traffic or project operation noise has the potential to result in land use conflicts with surrounding land uses, project operation hours should be restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Project traffic should avoid residential streets. 5.3.1.7 Risk of Upset/Human health t a. Setting. Potential risk of upset and human health impacts associated with a composting facility could.impact employees and other users of the site. Events that would most likely result in significant upset or health and safety impacts would include: improper composting procedures, exposure to dust and hazardous waste, fire, vectors and birds. 4 The enforcement of state and local regulations intended to minimize accident and health risks is the responsibility of the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA). In San Luis Obispo County, the LEA is the Environmental Health Department. b. Impact Analysis. If not conducted properly, composting operations have the potential to result in the proliferation of pathogens that could result in significant health impacts. 5.3 -10 9snwe.a 4 5.3 SRi c: Composting Component Pathogens associated with the composting of municipal, yard, and sewage sludge wastes include bacteria, virus,.helminths (i.e., roundworms and tapeworms) and protozoa (i.e:, giardia). These pathogens are sensitive to heat and are eliminated when compost temperatures exceed S5 °C (131 °F) for several days. Operational factors that can influence the ability to maintain adequate temperatures during the composting process include uniform mixing and moisture control. Mixing of the material is required to break up "clumps" that may not be exposed to required temperatures and to aerate the composted material. Moisture control is important because when moisture levels become too low (less than 25 percent), biologic decomposition slows. Low moisture levels can also result in excessive dust.creation that can result in health impairment. When moisture levels are too high (more than 70 percent), air circulation. is reduced and anaerobic conditions may occur. Anaerobic conditions have the potential to result in significant odor impacts.. Although odors are not likely to result in a significant health risk, this type of upset condition could result in significant air quality impacts and .land use conflicts. Composting operations could utilize yard waste and. source separated organic material. These waste streams should not contain significant quantities of hazardous wastes. If hazardous waste was inadvertently included in the compost material, accidental exposure to these substances could result in potentially significant safety impacts to site employees. Hazardous waste may also adversely effect the quality of the compost product. Programs to identify and remove household hazardous waste prior to compost material grinding and composting would be required to reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. Considerable quantities of dust may be generated by compost facilities, resulting from activities such as unloading compost material, grinding, and turning windrows. Exposure to elevated dust levels can result in chronic and acute respiratory ailments. Dust - related health impacts could be significant if composting operations are conducted in enclosed structures with inadequate ventilation and air filtering systems. The accumulation of large quantities of yard, wood, and paper debris may result in a significant fire potential; Maintaining moisture levels in the compost material necessary for efficient compost processing will reduce fire risk, but will not eliminate the potential for fires to occur. If composting operations are conducted at a rural project site, adequate infrastructure to provide required fire flows may not be available. This would result in a significant fire protection impact. Vectors are defined as an organism which can carry pathogens from one host to another. Vectors include certain insects (i.e., flies), and small rodents (i.e., rats and mice). These organisms, along with birds (i.e., seagulls, crows, and pigeons), may be attracted to the project. site by food and habitat availability. Composting of food and yard waste could attract a variety of vectors and birds.. These impacts would be most likely to occur early in the 5.3 -11 9MWP.F 5.3 SRAE Composting Component composting process, if it was conducted outdoors, and would have the potential to result in significant nuisance and health impacts to surrounding uses and site employees. Public Safety impacts may also result if the public or visitors to the facility are allowed to enter loading, unloading, or processing areas. Adequate traffic circulation and other measures to separate the public from hazardous area or operations would minimize these potential impacts. c. Mitigation Measures 1. A trained compost facility operator should be utilized to conduct composting operations. ongoing monitoring of the composting process (i.e., types and mixture of materials being composted,-temperature, moisture and oxy$en levels) will minimize the potential for upset conditions. 2. Samples from finished compost products should be regularly tested for the presence of pathogens. If unacceptable levels of pathogens are detected, site operations should be modified to ensure that composting conditions are adequate to eliminate potential health hazards. 3. A screening program should be developed to inspect compost material for hazardous and other non- compostable waste. Hazardous and other unacceptable waste should be removed prior to grinding or commencement of the composting process. Procedures should be established for handling, storing, and disposing of rejected material. 4. If composting operations are conducted within a building, a ventilation system for the _processing building should create a slight negative air pressure within the structure to minimize the migration of dust from the building. The ventilation system should provide filters to remove dust from the air. 5. Moisture levels in the compost material should be monitored prior to turning operations to ensure adequate moisture levels to minimize dust generation. 6. Fire suppression equipment, such as building sprinklers, on -site hydrants, fire extinguishers, etc., should be provided in accordance with the requirements of the appropriate fire prevention department. 7. Adequate access to and around the composting and storage areas should be maintained at all times. All roadways and outdoor storage areas should be provided with an all- weather surface for adequate site access. 5.3 -12 9M5DWP.F 5.3 SR" Composting Component 8. Adequate fire flows, as determined by local fire prevention authorities, should be provided at the project site. In rural areas, it may be necessary to supplement existing fire flows with on -site water storage. 9. Conducting composting operations in an enclosed structure would reduce potential bird and vector impacts to a less than significant level. If outdoor composting operations are to be implemented, vector and bird control measures approved by the LEA should be implemented. These measures may include: minimizing the occurrence of standing water, utilizing temporary or permanent covers over compost material to discourage birds, maintaining "good housekeeping" measures and implementing rodent control measures as necessary. 10. Adequate signage, fencing, and traffic circulation should be provided to separate the public from hazardous areas and/or operations at the compost facility. 5.3.1.8 Aesthetics a. Setting. Development of a composting facility would result in the construction of new buildings and the introduction of new activities at the project site. If a large regional composting facility is constructed, a substantial project area may be required. This would likely require that the project be located in an agricultural or open space area. b. Impact Analysis Composting operations would result in the accumulation of compost material in windrows, static piles, or large vessels in which the material to be composted is placed. The location of windrows or static piles adjacent to public roadways or visible to the general public would have the potential to result in significant visual impacts. If composting operations are conducted within a building, the development of a new large structure, particularly in an open space or agricultural area could also result in significant visual impacts. Vessels for composting operations are typically large cylinders that come in a variety of sizes and configurations. The use of this type of composting procedure could result in significant visual impacts if the cylinders were located adjacent to public viewing locations or if the height of the cylinders significantly exceeded the height of screening provided around the perimeter of the project site. c. Mitigation Measures 1. Outdoor composting and storage areas should have a minimum 100 -foot setback from public roadways and other public viewing locations. 2. A landscape buffer area should be planted at.the beginning of project development to allow it to become fully established and provide full screening as soon as possible. 5.3 -13 9335DWP.F 0 I 5.3 SRRE Composting Component 3. The entire project site perimeter should be fenced and landscaped. A solid wall or fence .should be provided adjacent to public streets. 4. The architectural design of a composting building should provide design features and materials compatible with surrounding development. 5.3.1.9 Transportation a. Setting. Traffic trips associated with a permanent composting facility would consist of vehicles delivering waste material, the outhaul of compost and employee/visitor trips. The potential.for a compost facility to result in significant traffic impacts would be dependent on a variety of factors including: the project location and roadways serving the project, anticipated traffic volume generation rates, and the hours of facility operation. Ingress and egress from the facility would also have the potential to result in traffic safety impacts. b.. Impact Analysis. It is not expected that a compost facility would generate a substantial number of average daily vehicle trips. Since the volume of material that could be accepted for compost would be limited by facility space and time needed to complete the composting process, traffic generation levels are expected to be minimal. A compost facility would be most likely to result :in a significant traffic impact if it contributed traffic .trips to roadways or intersections that operate at an unacceptable level of service. during peak traffic hours. Peak traffic hours are generally considered to be between 7:30 to 9 a.m. and 4:30 to 6 p.m. Traffic generated during non -peak hours or on weekends would be less likely to result in significant traffic impacts. The outhaul of collected wastes is anticipated to be conducted by heavy -duty vehicles capable of transporting at least several tons of material. Therefore heavy -truck traffic would likely be limited. Vehicle trips by employees and visitors would also be expected to be minimal as the number of employees required for the operation. of the facility is expected to be small. Turning movements required for site ingress/egress may have the potential to result in a significant traffic safety impact if there is insufficient road right -of -way to provide adequate acceleration/deceleration lanes or adequate area to complete left and right turns in a safe manner. These types of safety impacts would have the greatest potential to occur if the proposed project were to gain access from a highway or other regional roadway that carries high traffic volumes. c. Mitigation Measures 1. If the project will utilize a presently impacted roadway or intersection, project operation hours and employee shifts should be scheduled to. minimize the generation of vehicle trips during peak traffic hours. 5.3 -14 9snwF.F C' n 5.3 SP" Composting Component. 2. The compost facility should be responsible for installing any required road improvements, such as additional road right -of -way, turn lanes, etc., necessary for safe project site ingress/egress. 5.3.1.10 Public Services /Utilities a. Setting. Operation of a compost facility and the accumulation of organic material has the potential to result in fire suppression impacts and a safety hazard to fire department personnel. Utility requirements of a compost facility would likely consist of water and electrical service; these utility requirements are expected to be minimal. However, if these services are not available or must be extended to the project site, significant utility impacts may result. b. Impact Analysis. 'Project construction and operation procedures would be required to comply with the appropriate sections of the Uniform Fire Code. Adherence to these requirements would substantially reduce potential fire impacts. Since the compost material is kept moist to optimize the composting process, the potential for this .material to cause a significant fire hazard is reduced. A project site location in an urban or suburban area would likely have adequate response times from nearby fire stations, and fire flows. Any required new fire hydrants would likely be feasible to install. A project site in a rural or open space area may have significant fire protection deficiencies. Regardless of the project location, if adequate fire suppression services cannot be provided to the project site, the proposed project would have the potential to result in significant impacts to fire suppression services. Water use at a compost facility" would be primarily for maintaining proper moisture levels in the compost material. Average daily water use could be significant and would be dependent on the volume of material composted and the type of process used. If water for operation, domestic and emergency purposes could not be provided, however, a significant impact regarding water service would result. c. Mitigation Measures 1. Project .construction and operation characteristics would be required to comply with applicable regulations (i.e., Uniform Fire Code, local hydrant location and fire flow requirements, etc.). 2. If water supply impacts have the potential to be significant, the feasibility of enclosed or covered composting operations should be evaluated. These systems will minimize water use. 3. If water for domestic purposes cannot be feasibly provided from. a water purveyor, chemical toilets and bottled water for drinking and hand washing purposes may be permitted. Landscaping and water for emergency purposes 5.3 -15 9Msnwp.r • 5.3. SRRE Composting Component could feasibly be provided by. on-site storage mks. the volume of water to be stored on site should be determined by local fire prevention services. 5.3.1.11 Cultural Resources. a. Setting. Cultural resources commonly encountered in San Luis Obispo County are described in Section 4.1.6. Development of a composting facility may. result in the disturbance of land that may contain significant architectural or cultural resources. b. Impact Analysis. Site grading and other ground disturbing activities have the potential to remove or disrupt cultural resources. The application of large quantities of water can also be harmful to artifacts. Project development at a previously undeveloped site is more likely to result in impacts to cultural resources than at a developed site. Since it is iiiwly that the project would be developed in an open-space or agricultural area, the project does have the potential to result in significant impacts: to cultural resources. c. AMgation Measures 1. if an initial study evaluation of the Proposed Project determines that the project has the potential to result in significant cultural resource impacts, a Phase I archaeologic study should be conducted prior to ground disturbing activities to determine if archaeological resources are present at the project site. , If archaeological resources are discovered, the project shall conform to the recommendations of the archaeological report. 2. If archaeological. resources are encountered during grading or construction activities, work in that area should be stopped or redirected until a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative are retained to evaluate the find. Resources shall be treated. pursuant to county and state archaeological guidelines. 5.3-16 933ZWP.F 5.4 SRRE SPECIAL .WASTE COAMNENT Special waste includes any waste that at its source of generation, oontains physical, chemical or biological conditions that require specia I handling or disposal. Special wastes identified by the Source Reduction and Recycling Elements that have the potential to result in substantial wastestr-earn volume reductions for the cities and unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County include the following materials: construction and demolition debris, fires and white goods. No new facilities are planned at this time to implement the proposed special waste programs. Existing processing operations at existing facilities or short-term operations at the debris generation site would be used. 5.4.1 Construction and Demolition Debris Asphalt, concrete and sheetrock have been targeted for the development or enhancement of diversion and recycling programs. Thesel programs, along with potential uses for the recovered material are described below. The environmental analysis provided in the following sections evaluates potential environmental impacts that may result from the implementation of the proposed programs. Mitigation measures that are provided are intended to reduce identified impacts to a less than significant, level. a. Asphalt Recycling. Asphalt recycling can be performed at a construction site using a cold process or at a recycling facility using hot or cold processes. Asphalt millings (small pieces of asphalt produced when grindmg the surface of a deteriorated roadway), or large Pieces of asphalt that have been placed in a crusher, are taken to a hot-mix asphalt plant. The crushed aggregate is heated to make it more fluid, combined with additional virgin aggregate and asphalt binder, and mixed to produce a new asphalt batch. The process produces a high-quality asphalt -subbase or surfacing material. Cold recycling takes place on site where the roadway is being rehabilitated. The existing deteriorated asphalt is removed and ground UP . A softening and bonding agent is introduced to produce a new asphalt blend. The mixture is then applied to the roadway and compacted. This produces a low-quality product, but does reuse .the asphalt and eliminates the transportation costs of hauling the old asphalt to the landfill and trucking new asphalt to the construction site. Another cold recycling method produces a higher-quality material. By hauling the deteriorated material off site to an asphalt batch, plant, new aggregate and a binding or softening agent can be added with more mixing and quality control capabilities. The material is then transported to the construction site for placement. b. Concrete Recycling. Concrete recovered from utility installation, street repair operations, site demolition, and renovation operations can be .recycled. Concrete recycling 5.4-1 9n5cWPI 5.4 SRRE Special Waste Component involves breaking up the concrete, removing any reinforcing steel crushing and removing embedded steel and asphalt, crushing the remaining concrete again into various sizes depending on the end -user needs, and stockpiling the material prior to resale. The concrete aggregate produced can be used in new concrete mixes or as subbase aggregate. Steel is sold to steel mills for recycling. c. Sheetrock Recycling. Sheetrock waste is generated from private contractors involved with new construction and renovation of commercial and residential buildings. This „ waste is typically part of an uncompacted load of construction debris commingled with lumber, cardboard, metal studs, and other debris. Source- separated or salvaged sheetrock may be chipped in a grinder and used as an agricultural soil amendment in place of lime. Typical use is approximately one ton per acre. 1 5.4.1.1 Air Quality a. Setting. Sources of additional air emissions resulting from increased construction and demolition debris recycling would include transportation of material to a processing facility, processing operations, and shipping the processed material to market. b. Impact Analysis. Hauling asphalt, concrete and sheetrock to a processing operation would result in vehicle- related emissions of criteria pollutants. It is likely that large diesel- powered trucks would be used. Emissions associated with debris transportation would likely be similar to emissions generated from hauling the material to a disposal site. Therefore, this aspect of debris hauling is not expected to result in a significant air quality impact. Processing of asphalt, concrete, and sheetrock at either a processing facility or at the generation site would require the use of additional machinery processes that would result in increased air emissions. Emissions of concern would be PM10 and other criteria pollutants. Most processing operations require, the use of a rock crusher. Rock crushing operations can produce significant quantities of PM10. If processing operations at existing facilities were to increase substantially, additional PM10 emissions may result in violations of emission limits imposed by permits previously issued by the San Luis Obispo County APCD. Any exceedance in permitted emission levels would result in a significant air quality impact. Rock crushing operations conducted at the generation site would be conducted for short periods of time. These operations could result in significant short-term emissions of PM10. Other emissions associated with processing operations would include increased operation of heavy machinery, such as loaders. This incremental increase in machine operation is not expected to result in significant short- or long -term air quality impacts. Vehicle emissions would result from hauling processed material to a construction site. These emissions, would likely be similar to emissions that would have otherwise resulted from hauling new material to the construction site. Therefore, no significant increase in this aspect 5.4-2 035CWP.1 r� 5.4 SRRE special Waste Component of transportation related.emissions would occur. On -site processing with subsequent reuse would ' result in incremental decreases of material hauling- related emissions. c. Mitigation Measures 1. If increased . construction and demolition debris processing operations at an existing facility has the potential to exceed previously approved material processing or emission levels specified in a "permit to operate" issued by the San Luis Obispo County APCD, appropriate permit revisions should be implemented. Emission levels could be reduced to previously permitted levels by applying best available control technology to emission sources or obtaining emission offsets. r 2. Increased short- and long-term g processing operation - related PMIO emissions resulting from debris recycling programs may include wetting debris prior to or during crushing operations, spraying or covering material stockpiles, pave dirt roads at existing processing facilities, and utilize dry collection mechanisms (.e., a baghouse). 5.4.1.2 Noise a. Setting. Asphalt, concrete and sheetrock recycling would generate noise from the removal of the materials from. the site, transportation to a recycling facility, and the process of recycling including grinding and crushing. Transportation and processing operations may also result in significant noise sources. b. Impact Analysis. The removal and hauling of asphalt, concrete and sheetrock from a construction site to a processing operation would be short-term existing operations and would not result in a significant increase in noise levels. Therefore, these activities would not result in a significant. noise impact. . The processing of asphalt, concrete, and sheetrock at either a processing facility or at the generation site would require the use of crushing and grinding machinery which could generate substantial noise levels. The recycling of asphalt or concrete materials at the generation site would involve recycling activities for only a short duration. Therefore, recycling activities occurring at the project site are not expected to be significant. Some aggregate materials are presently being recycled at existing facilities. An :increase in asphalt, concrete, and sheetrock.recycling may increase recycling operations at these facilities. Increased recycling operations at a.site would not increase crushing and grinding noise levels, but could result in increased operational hours and prolonged noise generation. If the recycling areas were located near a sensitive receptor (i.e., residence) an increase in duration of noise may impact these uses 5.4 -3 9M5CWP1 5.4 SRRE Special Waste Component c. Mitigation Measures 1. If increased recycling operations have the potential to result in significant noise impacts to adjacent land uses, noise control and attenuation devices should be used. These may include limiting crushing and grinding operations between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays only and/or the installation of sound walls, acoustic curtains, or other attenuation devices. Noise levels resulting from project operations at sensitive receptors shall not exceed applicable general plan, zoning, and noise ordinance standards. Although the removal,and on -site recycling of asphalt, concrete, and sheetrock would have only short-term impacts, the following mitigation measure should be implemented to reduce i the potential for adverse noise impacts. 2. In noise sensitive areas, such as residentially -zoned neighborhoods, the removal and recycling asphalt, concrete, and sheetrock on site shall be conducted between the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. to reduce the potential for any adverse impacts to surrounding land uses. 5.4.2 Tires Several recycling and landfill diversion programs have been recommended for used tires. Diversion of tires from landfills is an important aspect of the proposed SRRE, both for waste diversion and to avoid problems associated with landfill disposal of tires. Tire "float" is a phenomenon that occurs at landfills when the hollow shape of a tire fills with landfill gas, become buoyant, and work their way to the landfill surface. Recommended fire management programs are described. below. The environmental analysis provided in the following sections evaluates potential environmental impact that may result from the implementation of the proposed programs. Mitigation measures that are provided are intended to reduce identified impacts to a less than significant level. No special handling or disposal requirements would be required for the tire management program. Tire generators would transport the tires in the same manner currently used; when feasible, however, the tires will be delivered to retreading, crumb rubber, or shredding facilities. Handling requirements for the physical reuse of tires will be specific for the needs of each project. No new facilities are planned for the tire management program at this tune. Many of the recommended programs for managing used tires are oriented towards increasing demand for used tire - derived products. Regulations pertaining to the operation of "major" and "minor" fire facilities are provided in Section 42800 et. seq. of the Public Resources Code. 5.4-4 [7. —� 5.4 SRRE special Waste Component a. Physical Reuse of Tires.. Physical reuse of tires includes direct use of old tires for landscape borders, highway crash barriers, artificial reefs and breakwaters, erosion control, playground materials, dock bumpers, and fishing reefs. b. Tire Retreading. About 10 to 30 percent of old tires can be retreaded for vehicle use. Typically, this practice has been limited to bus, truck, and other large tires. Currently, passenger car retreads are not economically competitive with new, inexpensive, imported tires. Two processes are used for retreading: mold -cured and procured. In the mold -cured process, uncured tread rubber is applied. The tire is placed in a mold to form the desired tread pattern, and tread rubber is vulcanized. In the procured Process, a Procured, premolded rubber tread is applied. Retreading facilities are established in the San Luis Obispo County area. c. Tire Shredding. Tire shredding is a mechanical process that slices the tire into six to ten pieces. Tire shredding reduces the volume of the tire, allows easier handling and eliminates the tire float problem. After shredding, tires are landfilled or can be used for fuel. d. Crumb Rubber From Tnvs. In this process, scrap rubber.is broken into. small particles by mechanical or cryogenic embrittlement. Mechanical processes break the tires down into small pieces and remove the fiber and steel. In the case of cryogenic processing, tires are frozen to extremely low temperatures ( -20 °F or less), smashed into smaller pieces, and separated . into rubber, fiber, and wire. Crumb rubber can be used for a variety of uses including: rubberized asphalt; sports, recreational, and feedlot surfaces; soil improvements; oil spill clean-up, and new rubber products. It can replace up to 50 percent of the virgin rubber needed to make carpet backing, doormats, friction - breaking material, roofing adhesives, car underseals and other protective coatings and new rubber products. e. we- Derived del. In this process whole tires are shredded into small chips (about two square inches or less) for use as a fuel supplement. Tire rubber has a high energy value (approximately 15,000 Btu.per pound); therefore, the chips are burned for fuel. The tire- derived fuel (TDF) shreds are used as a fuel supplement at pulp, paper, lumber, cement, and other heavy industries. When blending fuel, tire chips can be substituted for as much as 10 percent of the existing fuel supply. 5.4.2.1 Air Quality - a. Setting. Recommended tire management programs would not result in substantial changes in used tire transportation or handling methods. Therefore, vehicle- related emissions associated with the management of used tires would not be significant. 5.4-5 933X W1 1 ® 5.4 SRRE Special waste component Programs that would result in the physical reuse of tires; retreading, shredding, or crumb rubber manufacturing would not result in processing operations that would result in significant air pollution sources. Using shredded tires. as a fuel source would have the potential to result in increased air; emission resulting from combustion processes. b. Impact Analysis. Tire derived fuel would be used as a fuel supplement. Industries that are generally suitable for using tire derived fuel, such as boiler and kiln uses are somewhat limited in San Luis Obispo County. Limited use potential for fire derived fuel would i1 minimize the potential for widespread increases in tire combustion emissions. If tire derived fuel were used, it would likely be used .to supplement natural gas as a primary fuel source. Tire combustion could result in increases in NO=, S02; and PMIo emissions. If SOZ emissions are substantially increased, potential odor impacts may result. Toxic emissions, such as benzene, may also result from the combustion. Increased emissions of criteria or toxic air emissions would have the potential to result in significant air quality impact. c. Mitigation Measures 1. Industries proposing to utilize tine derived fuel should be required to amend their "permit to operate" issued by the San.Luis Obispo County APCD: If necessary, the project should be required to install best available control technology to purchase emission offsets to reduce project emissions. Possible control methods for criteria and toxic pollutants may include: Controlling the combustion process (i.e., temperature and air content), adjusting the amount of tire derived fuel utilized, installing the gas scrubbing system and catalytic converter. 5.4.2.2 Human Health a. Setting. Increased reuse of used tires in the various proposed programs will result in increased storage and stockpiling of tires. This may occur legally and illegally at tire dealerships, gas. stations, permitted and unauthorized tire collection facilities. b. Impact Analysis. The hollow shape of tires traps rainwater that can lead to mosquito breeding and could also provide an environment that can result in the proliferation of mice, rats and other rodents by providing nesting opportunities. The breeding or attraction of pests and vectors at a fire stockpile has the potential to result in significant public health impact. Shredding stored tires would minimize the potential for the material to trap water and create habitat for vectors. Tire storage that would be most likely to result in,health impacts would be large whole tire. stockpiles associated with major tire processing operations. c. - Mitigation Measures 9335CWPI 5.4 -6 5.4 . SRRL especial Waste Component 1. Schedule the delivery of tires to processing facilities to minimize the need to stockpile excessive numbers of tires. 2. Outdoor tire storage areas for processing facilities should be inspected periodically for the presence of pests or vectors. If the presence of rodents or mosquito larvae are detected, appropriate abatement procedures should be implemented. All abatement programs should have approval from the San Luis Obispo County Environmental Health Department prior to implementation. 5.4.2.3 Risk of Upset 1 a. Setting. The petrochemical content of the average, passenger tire is about two and a half gallons of oil, with an energy potential of 15,000 Btu per pound more than coal. When stockpiled tires catch fire this energy potential results in a fire that is extremely difficult to control and -extinguish.. Tire fires are often allowed to burn themselves out rather than attempting to. extinguish the fire. F b. Impact Analysis. Uncontrolled tire bunting results in significant emissions of S%0 NO =, particulates and toxic compounds such as toluene and benzene. Tire fires result in significant odor impacts and generate large volumes of smoke resulting from (particulates mixed with steam produced from trapped water inside the tires). Combustion of the tires is usually incomplete and results in. petrochemical products that can infiltrate into the ground, and can contaminate soil and water resources. Tire fires can burn for days or weeks if sufficient volumes of fuel (tires) are available, some historic tires have lasted for months. Long -term efforts to control a tire fire would result in significant impacts to local fire departments. C. Mitigation Measures 1. The delivery of tires to processing facilities should. be scheduled to minimize the need to stockpile excessive numbers of tires. 2. If tire stockpile size should be limited to control the amount of potential fuel in each stockpile. This could require the creation of several small piles rather than one.large stack. 3. Appropriate fire suppression chemicals and equipment approved by local fire suppression jurisdictions should be stored at the project site. 4. Tire stockpiles should be located.in rural areas to minimize the effects of short- term smoke and other air emission impacts on surrounding land uses. -5.4 -7 93 .1 n 1 5.4 SRRE Special Waste Component 5. Nonsmoking signs should be posted around all fire stockpile area 5.4.3 White -Goods White -goods is a generic term for appliances such as refrigerators, washers, dryers, air conditioners, and other similar bulky items. A white -goods management program recommended by the SRRE that was identified by the Initial Study as having a potential to result ' in significant environmental impacts is described below. The following environmental analysis evaluates potential environmental impacts that may insult from the implementation of this proposed program. No new facilities are expected to be required to implement the proposed white -goods program. Mitigation measures that are provided are intended to reduce identified impacts to a less than significant level. . 1 a. Scrap Metal Recovery From White- Goods. White -goods contain significant amounts of ferrous and nonferrous metals. Shredders can be used to recover and separate the metals for recycling. 5.4.3.1 Noise a. Setting. Recovery of metal contained in white -good appliances.is proposed to be accomplished by shredding the appliances. It is anticipated that shredding operations would be conducted at existing facilities with shredding capabilities. b. Impact Analysis. The operation of a small shredder could result in noise levels approximately 80-90 dBA, 50 feet from the source. Increased shredding operations at an existing facility would not result in louder shredder- related noise, but could result in increased shredder operation and prolonged noise emitted from the facility. Time- varying noise is often measured using energy equivalent sound levels (Leq). An Leq measurement of noise represents a sound level which, if continuous, would contain the same total acoustical energy as the actual time- varying noise. An increase in facility noise levels measured in Leq of approximately 3 dBA would be noticeable by sensitive receptors in the project area. If exterior noise levels at the receptors exceeded 65 dBA, the project would result in a significant noise impact. 1 Restricting shredder operation hours and, if necessary, installing noise attenuation devices would reduce potential noise impacts to a less than significant level. c. Mitigation Measures. 1: If increased shredder operations' have the potential to result in significant noise impacts to adjacent land uses, noise control and attenuation devices should be utilized. This may include limiting shredder operations. between 8 a.m. and. 5 p.m. or the installation of the shredder within a structure. Increased noise attenuation for an existing structure can be obtained by installing noise insulation material. 5.4-8 9n5cwP1 5.4 SRRE apecial waste component 5.4.3.2 Air Quality a. Setting. Potential sources of air emissions resulting; from a white -goods shredding program would include transportation emissions and the release of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) from coolant components. b. Impact Analysis. Increased transportation trips associated with the delivery of appliances for shredding, and the outhaul of shredded metal would likely be done with large capacity trucks on a limited basis. Therefore, transportation related emissions are not expected to be significant. M If cooling units are not removed from appliances prior to shredding, ozone layer damaging CFCs would be released'into the environment, thereby contributing to an identified environmental hazard. CFCs should be removed prior to appliance destruction using a vacuum system into sealed canisters. Recovered CFCs that are recycled or properly disposed would not result in a significant air quality impact. c. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to appliance destruction, all CFCs should be removed using a vacuum system. All recovered CFCs should be recycled or disposed in a manner consistent with State and Federal requirements. 5.4.3.3 Risk of Upset/Human Health a Setting. Electric appliances manufactured prior to 1979 contained Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) used in transformers and electrical capacitors. PCBs are human carcinogens and are classified as extremely hazardous waste by Title 22 of the California. Code of Regulations. Disposal of PCBs is also regulated by the. Federal Toxic Substances Control Act. b. Impact Analysis. Shredding of electrical appliances that were manufactured before 1979 could result in the release of PCBs into the environment and the contamination of the shredded material Exposure of people to this waste could result in a significant_ health impact. If components of the appliances that contain PCBs are removed prior to shredding, the release of PCBs would be reduced to a less than significant level. Removing and stockpiling of appliance components that contain PCBs, however, would result in potential health hazards if improperly handled or stored. In the event of an upset condition, such as a fire or spill, PCBs could result in health hazards to emergency response personnel or be released into the environment. c. Mitigation Measures 933scwra :5.4 -9 5.4 SRRE Special Waste Component ! 1. Prior to 'shredding.. appliances should be inspected to determine their date of manufacture. Appliances manufactured prior to 1979 should have all PCB containing components removed. ! .2. Recovered PCBs should be handled, stored and disposed of in accordance with State and Federal regulations. The volume of PCBs that may be stored at a project site should be limited to state requirements (55 gallons). 4 3. Operators of shredding facilities that accumulate PCBs should arrangements consistent with the requirements of Section 67126 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations to inform police, fire, and emergency response teams and emergency response teams that PCBs are stored at the project site. 4 ! 5.4 -10 9335C".I o 5.5 SRRE DISPOSAL CAPACITY COMPONENT This section of the SRRE evaluates the capacity of existing waste disposal facilities in San Luis Obispo County to determine if they have the ability to accept residual waste material over a fifteen year planning period. Landfill facilities that were evaluated include the Cold Canyon, Chicago Grade, California Valley, Camp San Luis, Obispo, Camp Roberts, Santa Fe and Paso Robles. A recommendation was made to expand the Cold Canyon. Landfill, consistent with existing plans for the expansion of this facility. No short -term period expansion or changes in operation of the Chicago Grade Landfill are proposed. No other landfill expansion programs were recommended by the SRRE. The-environmental analysis provided below evaluates potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed expansion of the Cold Canyon Landfill. This project has been previously evaluated by an EIR that was released for public review in December 1990. The fmal.EIR is hereby incorporated by reference. A summary of the environmental findings of this EIR is presented below. The final EIR is available for review at the San Luis Obispo County Government Center. 5.5.1 Expansion of the Cold Canyon Landfill The Cold Canyon Class Ill Landfill is located in southwest San Luis Obispo County, approximately six miles south of the City of San Luis Obispo. The landfill accepts solid waste from the cities and communities of Cambria, Cayucos, San Luis Obispo, Avila Beach, Pismo Beach, Los Osos, Morro Bay, Grover Beach, Nipomo, Oceano, and Arroyo Grande. The proposed landfill expansion would consist of a lateral and vertical expansion of the waste disposal area. The landfill area would be expanded 22 acres to a total size of 89 acres. The expansion would add approximately 4.29 million cubic yards (2.46 million tons) of refuse disposal capacity. The existing plus additional capacity of the landfill would allow for a minimum of nine additional years of waste acceptance through the year 2003. A combination natural (clay) and synthetic liner would be constructed in the expansion area. This liner would meet the standards of Title 23, Chapter 7, Subchapter 15 of the California Code of Regulations. A leachate collection and removal system would also be provided. Surface water drainage facilities would also be provided to control, collect, and divert precipitation runoff originating from the project site and upgradient tributary areas. Upon completion of waste disposal activities, a final cover would be constructed over the landfill. The final cover would consist of one -foot of compacted soil placed over the refuse, one -foot of low permeability soil, and two feet of soil planted with native vegetation. A 15 -year post - closure maintenance program would be implemented to verify that containment and monitoring facilities retain their integrity. 5.5.1.1 Geology 5.5 -1 9335DWP.O • � I 5.5 SRRE Disposal Capacity Component a. Setting. The Cold Canyon Landfill site is underlain primarily by the Monterey formation and flanked on the north and south by deposits of the Pismo formation. Thin alluvial cover occurs over small areas of the older formations. Surficial deposits of landfill refuse, graded bedrock, and soil cover are found in the central portion of the site. Trenching activities conducted during hydrogeologic investigations confirmed the presence of the Indian Knob fault in the northern portion of the previously permitted optional expansion area Previous studies suggest that seismic activity along the Indian Knob fault continued until approximately 300,000 to 500,000 years ago. This fault does not appear to be active (of Holocene age) based on current available data. The maximum probable earthquake (MPE) for faults in the project:region range from approximately 6.3 to 8.3 on the Richter scale. Associated peak ground accelerations would range from 0.09 g to 0.65 g. An MPE on the Indian Knob fault would result in the upper range of ground accelerators because this fault underlies the site. An 8.3 earthquake on the San Andreas Fault would result in ground accelerators of only 0.20 g because the San Andreas Fault is 35 miles from the project site. Maximum ground accelerations at the project site would also have the potential to result in liquefaction impacts in sandy, uncompacted sediments found at the I project site. High groundwater levels would contribute to the occurrence of liquefaction impacts. The Cold Canyon area has a low landslide risk. An evaluation of the expansion site detected minor slides in the southern area that consisted primarily of active earth flows and slumps involving surficial soils and weathered bedrock. Three naturally - occurring soil types are found in the expansion area: Arnold loam, Lodo clay loam and Pismo loamy sand. These soils display rapid to moderate permeability characteristics and moderate to high water erosion potential. The Arnold and Pismo soils are subject to wind erosion and the Lodo series has a moderate potential for shrink-swell impacts. b. Impact Analysis. The existing swales and rolling topography of the project site would be transformed into a broad, flat - topped terraced landform by the proposed project. This change in topography was considered. to be a significant and unavoidable impact by the project EIR. Based upon available information, the Indian Knob fault is not considered to be active (of Holocene age as defined by state regulations). Thus, potential surface faulting impacts are considered insignificant with regard to placement of the proposed landfill expansion within 200 feet of the fault. The Cold Canyon landfill expansion area may be subject to a maximum peak ground acceleration of 0.65 g sometime during the life of the project. Significant environmental impacts resulting, from the failure of the containment area and peripheral slopes could occur without proper landfill design. No perched groundwater was found in borings installed in the expansion area. However, if areas of alluvium contain seasonal peached 5.5 -2 933snwP.o 5.5 SRRE Du'posal Capacity Component groundwater, then a potential for liquefaction would exist during seismic shaking which could have a significant impact on the landfill structure. Proposed cut slopes were analyzed and considered to be within limits of tolerable displacement for a temporary slope. Approximately 2:5 feet of estimated displacement would occur during MPE ground shaking. No significant impacts on site or off-site are anticipated / from this movement. Once refuse fill is in place, no future significant movements of the cut slopes are predicted. Proposed fill slopes were analyzed and found not to exceed engineering design safety factors for permanent landfill slopes. During an MPE groundshaking event, an estimated slope failure of approximately one . foot is anticipated and would not pose any significant impact to landfill slope integrity if mitigative repairs are conducted immediately. 1 Soils an the project site are not considered to be prime agricultural soil. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact regarding agricultural soils. On -site soils exi ibit moderate permeability characteristics and would not be suitable for use as liner or low- permeability final cover. The project applicant is not proposing to utilize on -site soils for 1 these purposes. Erosion of on -site soils and siltation of drainage systems has the potential to result in significant impacts. c. Mitigation Measures 1. Landfill containment structures will be . designed to withstand peak ground acceleration of 0.65 g. 2. If alluvial and silty sand deposits contain groundwater when implementing the proposed expansion, ground surface water will be diverted away from alluvial 1 area to minimize liquefaction impacts. 3. Final excavation plans should mitigate any potential project - related destabilization of existing landslides. In the event of a refuse slope failure, appropriate remediation should be implemented: 4. Low - permeability soils will be imported and/or synthetic materials will be utilized as water infiltration barriers. 5. Adequate drainage and sedimentation facilities will be provided to minimize erosion impacts. 5.5.1.2 Water Resources a. Setting. The Pismo and Monterey Formations that underlie the project site are not considered to contain major water resources, although these formations reportedly yield usable quantities of water to local domestic and stock wells. For example, a number of domestic 5.5 -3 5.5 SRRE Disposal Capacity Component wells completed in the sandstone units of the Pismo Formation have been documented to yield up to 50 gallons per minute. Shallow aquifers within the Pismo formation generally yield water of good chemical quality, while deeper wells exhibit poorer water quality. The Monterey Formation also yields usable quantities of water for domestic and. stock purposes. Yields of 30 gallons per minute have been reported from the Monterey Formation in the Paso Robles area where the formation is highly fractured. Groundwater generally. flows from northeast to southwest, following the topographic slope. Eleven groundwater monitoring wells are located within the landfill site.. Each well was completed in different geologic units and were placed hydraulically upgradient, downgrad- ient and cross- gradient of the landfill. Regional groundwater 'quality prior to landfill operation exhibited a generally magnesium - bicarbonate nature. Several notable exceptions include localized areas with chloride and potassium levels which exceeded the basin -wide norm. Regional groundwater quality was not subject to significant change in character subsequent to landfill operation. Typical waters exhibit magnesium- bicarbonate chemistry with local chloride -rich exceptions. Wells within a one -mile radius of the landfill exhibit water quality parameters similar to those of the general region, for both pre- and post - landfill operation analyses. Analysis of water samples from landfill monitoring wells have detected trace (at or near analytical detection limits) levels of several volatile organic compounds. These components were detected in both upgradient and downgradient wells and were not duplicated in subsequent tests. Samples were also analyzed for several surface water sources. All samples contained levels of iron and total dissolved solids that exceed maiiimum contaminant levels for drinking water. No volatile organic compounds were detected. 1 b. Impact Analysis. Available geologic and hydrologic data suggest that potential exists for impacts to groundwater quality by implementation of the proposed project. The soils underlying the proposed expansion area appear to be similar to those underlying the existing landfill and have the capacity to transmit leachate to underlying groundwater resources if mitigating. measures are not taken. in addition, the water - bearing zones underlying the facility 1 are sufficiently permeable to allow significant migration of contaminants if penetration ooaus. The potential exists for usable groundwater resources in the area to be impacted if significant contaminant migration occurs. Based on the results of previous surface water sampling and the proposed provision of surface water drainage facilities, it is unMmly that the proposed project could result in significant impacts to surface water quality. Water use at the landfill is proposed to be provided: by on -site wells. Pumping tests of water supply wells have indicated that proposed pumping rates will not significantly impact neighboring wells. 5.5-4 9snwr.a 1 C 5.5 SRRE D4osal Capacity Component c. Mtigation Measures 1. Install four new monitoring wells around the perirmeteiof the landfill and conduct quarterly quality monitoring. 2. In the event that monitoring identifies significant levels of contaminants, the RWQCB will be notified immediately. A subsurface investigation will be .conducted to assess the vertical and horizontal extent of the contaminant plume and potential sources. Additional studies of aquifer hydraulic gradients and parameters may be required to fully evaluate the implications of any, contamina- tion. 3. If any observed gioundwater contaminant plume is deemed to be significant, implementation of groundwater remediation may be required. The remediation program will consist of continuous extraction of groundwater from a series of strategically- situated.extraetion wells or trenches. Contaminated groundwater will be treated with granular activated carbon, air stripping, or other applicable technology. The treated water may then .be reinjected, used for dust control or irrigation, pursuant to direction by the RWQCB. 4. A leachate collection and removal system (LCRS) will be constructed for the landfill expansion to prevent the infiltration of leachate in the underlying groundwater: The existing Cold Canyon Landfill is unlined and does not contain an LCRS. To minimize vertical migration of leachate in any existing.permitted area which has not yet received fill, these areas should be lined and have an LCR designed. 5. The following actions will be taken if leachate is detected in a previously dry leachate collection sump, or if a progressive increase in the volume of fluid in a leachate collection sump Js - detected: • Notify the RWQCB within 7 days of detection; • Sample and analyze the leachate to determine the chemical characteristics of the leachate; • If required, remove the leachate from the collection sump and use it for dust control (or other appropriate application) if nonhazardous or dispose of it in an acceptable manner; and • Perform measures to reduce leachate generation (i.e., reconstruct clay cap, runoff diversion, etc.). 5.5 -5 "3snwra 5.5 SRRE Disposal Capacity Component / 53.1.3 Air Quality a. Setting. Landfill activity results in the on -site generation of vehicle emissions, 1 fugitive dust, reactive and non - reactive gaseous emissions from the surface of the landfill. Vehicle emissions are also generated by traffic traveling to and from the site. •b. Impact Analysis. Diesel- powered earth- moving vehicles are cuueatly used during 1 cut-and-fill operations. Expansion of the landfill is not expected to increase the number of vehicles used in daily operation, although the resulting emissions may increase due to the expanded use of the equipment. Fugitive dust emissions can occur from cut- and -fill operations, waste disposal, and vehicle travel on unpaved roads. Based on existing operational practices, the proposed project has the potential to result in significant dust impacts: 1 Landfill gas, which consists printanly of methane, carbon dioxide and trace organic compounds, results from the decomposition. of organic waste. Landfill gas generation modeling for the expanded landfill indicated that the hndfill would produce approximately 2.139 million cubic feet per day: Health risk analysis for project gas determined that long -term airborne concentrations of indicator compounds would not result in a significant health risk at the perimeter of the landfill. Odors may also be produced by landfill operations, resulting from the collection of waste material prior to disposal and the decomposition of organic matter. Due to the relatively small size of the working face at Cold Canyon Landfill, the odors that. may be released directly from the refuse prior to being covered are usually at low levels and are dispersed in the atmosphere at levels of concentration below that which would create a nuisance to local receptors. There may be infrequent instances when the combination of wind conditions and the odors from specific refuse materials allow these odors to be detected. However, odor from this source does not appear to be a problem at Cold Canyon. The venting of decomposition gases is to be expected. There may be instances when wind conditions may allow these odors to be detected by local receptors. Currently, reports of such episodes are infrequent. c. Mitigation Measures 1. Minimize grading area to reduce surface disturbance. 2. Water unpaved roads graded and excavation area and stockpiled soil at least two times per day. Additional watering_ may be necessary during high wind conditions. 3. Revegetate fill areas to reduce wind erosion. 4. Use chemical dust suppressants. 5.5-6 9Usnwe.o 5.5 SRRE Iniposal Capacity Component 5.5.1.4 Traffic - a. Setting. The Cold Canyon Landfill site is located in southwestern San Luis Obispo County, immediately northeast of State Route 227. The City of San Luis Obispo lies approximately 6 miles to the north, with the community of Arroyo Grande looted 6.5 miles south of the site. In the vicinity of the landfill, State Route 227 (also known as Edna Road) is constructed as a two-lane rural highway. The roadway section consists of roughly 24 feet of pavement with no shoulders. The speed limit near the facility entrance is 55 mph. At the entrance to the landfill, State Route 227 crests a small hill. No separate turn lanes, acceleration lanes, or signalization presently exists at the entrance to the landfill. . Ingress and egress to the landfill entry road is generally difficult due to the limited sight distance for vehicles on State Route 227. The sight distance difficulty is attributable to the location of the landfill entry at the top of 'a small hill. Research of County and Caltrans records, however, indicates that no significant history of accidents exist along the segment. of State Route 227 near the project entrance. The intersection currently operates at an acceptable level of service (LOS) A. : Average daily traffic to the landfill is approximately 526 ADT. Traffic varies somewhat, however, with a high of 560 ADT Monday through Friday and a low of 346 ADT on Sundays. b. Impact Analysis. Utilizing traffic and waste disposal historic growth factors, an overall average annual increase in monthly traffic at the landfill was determined to be 6.9 percent per .year, or approximately 930 trips per month. This annual growth factor is similar to.the growth experienced between 1982 and 1988, prior to the closure of the Los Osos landfill. On a daily basis, the annual increase in traffic resulting from an extension of landfill operations was calculated to be 30 trips per day. - The addition of 30 trips per day to the roadway system serving the landfill is not expected to cause any.significant impacts to the operation of the overall street system. There is adequate capacity to accommodate project - generated trips, therefore, project - specific impacts on the surrounding street system would be considered adverse, but not significant. With the increased traffic at the entrance to the landfill, the operation of the intersection with State Route 227 would continue to operate at LOS A, although the visibility problem would result in a safety impact The project's impact on the entrance intersection with State.Route 227 would, therefore, be considered significant but mitigable. c. Mitigation Measures 1. The intersection of the landfill entrance and State Route 227 should be restriped to provide a left -turn lane. A median should also . be constructed from the 5.5 -7 c 5.5 SRRE Lzposal Capacity Component northbound lanes of State Route 227 at the project entrance. These improvements should be constructed by the applicant with the design approved in advance by CALTRANS. Installation of these improvements would reduce the project - specific impacts to an insignificant level . 5.5.1.5 Biology a. Setting. The primary vegetation habitats on the project site include coast live oak woodland, non - native or disturbed grassland and exotic trees. Coast live oak woodland accounts for 16.2 acres or 13.4 percent of the project:area. Non -native grassland occupies 55 acres (45.5 percent) of the project site. Exotic tree species (eucalyptus and cypress) are most evident adjacent to Highway 227 and occupy 0.5 acres of the project site. The remainder of the project site (49.3 acres) either lacks vegetation, has been recently disturbed, or is occupied by existing landfill operations. Animal species at the project site are limited largely to woodlands and grasslands. The overall wildlife value of the project site has been lessened by long -term disturbance by landfilling operations. Several common reptile species and bird species common to disturbed grassland and oak woodlands were observed at the project site. Several mammal species have also been observed. No sensitive plant species were detected at the project site; however a spring survey would be required to confirm this. No sensitive animal species were observed or are expected to be found at the project site. Potentially occurang sensitive species (based on habitat or. known occurrence in the project vicinity) include one amphibian, one reptile, four raptors and three mammal species. The oak woodlands looted at the project site have been degraded somewhat by livestock grazing and landfill operations. Oak woodland is considered to be a sensitive habitat by the County of San Luis Obispo. b. Impact Analysis. Impacts to biologic resources resulting from implementation of the proposed project would result primarily from construction and waste disposal operations in the proposed expansion area. Construction of sedimentation basins, drainage systems and a maintenance road may also result in significant impacts. No sensitive plant species were detected or are expected to occur within the proposed expansion area or the currently permitted vertical expansion area. Both non - native grasslands and the understory of oak woodlands in this area have been subjected to long -terra grazing activities and are, therefore, not expected to support sensitive plant species. Some potential exists for the occurrence of Pismo clarkia in the optional expansion area The only other real potential for occurrence of sensitive plants is in the relatively undisturbed oak woodland in the northeast corner of the site. Neither this area nor the optional expansion area is included within the proposed expansion. Sensitive plant species in either area, if present, would, therefore, not be directly impacted by this project. 5.5 -8 -5.5 RM Disposal Capacity Component California tiger salamander and coast horned lizard are moderately sensitive amphibian and reptile_ species, respectively, which could occur in low numbers in woodland, grassland, or .open, disturbed areas of the site. However, these species are not expected to constitute significant resources onsite due to their sensitivity status and low expected population size onsite. No sensitive bird species are expected to utilize this site for nesting. Several raptors could utilize non -native grassland habitat for foraging. The loss of foraging area for raptor species is considered an incremental but non - significant impact in a local and regional context. . Mountain lion and bobcat are expected to make only casual use of the property, at best, and relatively little use of non -native grassland habitat in the proposed expansion area due to the lack of cover. Project implementation would not result in significant impacts to either species. Neither non - native grassland nor disturbed habitat is considered sensitive in a local or regional context, nor do they support sensitive plant or animal species. Virtually no biological values are associated with disturbed habitat, .and impacts to disturbed are, therefore, not considered significant. Oak woodland is considered a sensitive resource by the County of San Luis Obispo. Although the woodlands onsite are somewhat degraded, they nonetheless provide valuable wildlife habitat in an area otherwise dominated by disturbed grasslands. The loss of this habitat is, therefore, considered a significant impact. which will require mitigation under CEQA. c.. Mitigation Measures 1. Oak trees removed from the expansion area shall be replaced with 500 oak trees. 2. Oak woodland habitat removed from the project site should be replaced at a ratio of .2:1. This would require that 0.3 acre of. oak woodland be established. 3. All oak and habitat replacement programs should be implemented as specified in the Oak Tree Mitigat on.Program prepared for the landfill expansion project, and as amended by the Draft. ER for the landfill expansion. 0 P 5.5-9 0 srtsrnvra 0 I 5._5 SRRE Duposal Capacity Component 5:5.1.6 Noisd a. Setting. The primary sources of noise at the Cold Canyon landfill are trucks and 4 heavy equipment used to deliver and dispose of solid waste. In addition to routine landfill operations, a mobile wood chipping operation occurs every two months for a five-day period. Typical noise emissions from landfill equipment range from 75. to 85 dBA at 50 feet. Noise measurements indicated that daytime hourly sound levels ranged from 47.9 to 75.5 dBA Laq and depend on the location of site, proximity to equipment, and topographic attenuation. Land u surrounding the landfill are primarily agricultural, with scattered residences- Most of the.residences are topographically separated from the landfill, and landfill noise cannot be detected. Two -residences are directly exposed to Iandfill-related none. b. Impact Analysis. The proposed landfill expansion would not require the use Of additional landfill equipment or change existing operations. Over time, landfill operations would move closer to the residences that are presently exposed to landfill noise. "Worst -case' noise levels at one of the residences would increase significantly over existing levels, but would be 4 - substantially bstantay below the 75 dBA Ldn standard for agricultural land uses. Therefore, noise generated by the landfill expansion would be an adverse but not a significant impact. c. Mitigation Measures 1. At the southern end of the landfill, the first refuse lift should be oriented to establish a noise buffer between the landfill operation and State Route 227. 5.5.1.7 Risk of Upset/Human Health k. Setflng_ potential'imm-related impacts evaluated in this section include Etta, birds, vectors, hazardous and infectious waste. Litter in the vicinity of the Cold Canyon landfill has been an ongoing problem for local landowners. Complaints often result from reports of windblown litter and litter dropped by gulls. An additional source of litter in the project area results from accidental litter discharges from commercial and residential waste haulers. Illegal dumping also occurs in the vicinity of the landfill. The landfill's operation includes a program to minimize litter impacts. This program 4 includes the use of portable and permanent fences and onsite litter cleanup. Under this program, daily cover is not placed over the refuse. Intermediate cover is used when no additional refuse will be placed in a given area for an extended period of time. a 5.5-10 9335DWA3 5.5 SRRE ]Usposal Capacity Component A bird population control program has also been established at the landfill- This program includes limiting the site of the working face of the landfill, artificial predators located in nearby trees, and a wire grid system placed over the working face. Vectors (Le., rats, flies-and other vermin) are monitored at the landfill by the San Luis Obispo Health Department. No significant findings of vector impacts have been identified. ' The Cold Canyon landfill is a Class M facility and accepts only non - hazardous municipal solid waste. Hazardous wastes that have been previously accepted of may be improperly disposed of include asbestos, infectious waste, household and commercial/industrial hazardous wastes. Asbestos is designated a hazardous waste by California law, however, until k. April 1990, the landfill accepted asbestos waste under a variance issued by San Luis Obispo Health Services. Asbestos is no' longer accepted for disposal. To minimi the volume of hazardous waste that enters the landfill, a waste acceptance control,program is required by Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 15 of the California Code of Regulations, and is aimed at screening private and commercial waste loads for prohibited wastes. Infectious waste has been previously accepted at the landfill for disposal. Recent changes in state regulations regarding the disposal of infectious waste will result in the discontinuation of previous disposal practices. Infectious waste must now be sterilized. before it may be disposed of in a landfill. b. Impact Analysis. Continued operation of the expanded landfill using performance standards (.e., controlling litter by means other than daily applications of cover material) is likely to result in increased amounts of windblown litter and potentially significant impacts. Increased waste volumes may also result in increases in litter discharged along surrounding roadways. Continued landfill operations, along with increased waste volumes, will also have the potential for bird - related impacts at the landfill and to surrounding properties. Any continuation .or increase in landfill- related bird populations is a significant impact. The Cold Canyon landfill no longer accepts asbestos and it would not be accepted at the expanded landfill. Therefore, the proposed expansion will not have a significant effect on existing levels of asbestos in the landfill. Recent legislation substantially reduces the volume of infectious waste that would enter the Cold Canyon landfill. Continued inspections of the facility by the San Luis Obispo Department of Health Services and enforcement of new disposal regulations will reduce potential infectious waste disposal impacts to a less than significant level. The disposal of household, commercial, and industrial hazardous wastes at the Cold Canyon landfill can contribute to significant water and air quality impacts and health and safety 5.5 -11 .5.5 SRRE Disposal Capacity Component impacts to. employees who may exposed to the wastes. Although the volume of hazardous waste that may be contained in the waste stream is expected to be small, it has.the potential to result in significant - impacts. c. Mitigation Bleag&W 1. To minimize.litter and bird impacts, implement a daily cover program or other acceptable alternative at the landfill. This measure, however, would result in a 896,500 cubic yard shortage of soil material for cover purposes. This would require the importation of soil from off -site locations, with potential traffic, air quality, grading and other impacts. 2. :If measure #1 above*is not implemented, continued operation under performance standards would be required. This entails implementing litter control measures, implementing measures to discourage birds from foraging at the site, and implementation of a. covered waste load program for vehicles entering the landfill. 3. Landfill employees should be trained to recognize infectious waste and proper responses if exposed to infectious waste. Personal protective equipment should also be issued. Periodic inspections of the waste stream should be conducted to monitor the volume and type of infectious waste that may be improperly delivered to the landfill. 4. The waste acceptance control plan should be continued to minimize the volume Of hazardous waste accepted at the landfill. 5.5.1.8 Aesthetics a. Setting. Uses surrounding the project site are predominantly agricultural and rural in character. The landfill site includes a series of gently rolling hills. Current landfill operations are visible from area roadways and residences. Yews of the landfill are distinguished by graded hillsides, lack of vegetation and angular topography. Topography near the project site limits views of the landfill from distant locations. Litter in the vicinity of the landfill also adversely affects the visual quality of the project site and vicinity. b. Impact Analysis. The proposed landfill expansion would laterally extend refuse fill to near the southwestern and southeastern fencelines of the property, and increase vertical fill heights in the active and optional expansion areas to 460 feet above MSL: The final appearance of the finished landfill with the expansion would be a broad, flat topped hill, extending east, west, and north across the project site, and tapering down in steps towards the Property's boundary. The lateral aspect of the proposed landfill expansion would extend the fill I further south into an area without the benefit of surrounding, - intervening topography to limit 5.5 -12 3.5 SRRE L Jrsposal Capacity Component visibility. The vertical aspect of the proposed landfill expansion would extend the fill further south into an area without the benefit of surrounding, intervening topography to limit visibility. The vertical aspect of the expansion would increase the current visual impact of the existing fill by increasing the visible landfill surface. Consequently, the. proposed expansion would alter existing views by introducing additional intrusive physical acs into surrounding viewsheds. This is considered a significant visual impact. The overall sensitivity of the project site views are considered moderate. While the surrounding area is sparsely populated, clear unobstructed views of the site exist along nearby roadways/viewsheds. Long -range visibility of the landfill is available, yet locally obstructed by intervening topography and/or vegetation. The existing landfill is a permanent and contrasting feature of the viewscape. The proposed expansion will increase the physical dimension of this feature and thereby, its visual effect on the surrounding area. Based on the above consider- ations, the proposed landfill expansion would create and compound significant adverse impacts to visual resources in the project area. c. Mitigation Measures 1. The project site would be landscaped as recommended by a biologist or horticulturist. Additional vegetative screening would be planted along the southern and western perimeter of the expansion area. 2. A final vegetative cover will be placed over the old fill area when final grades are achieved. 3. Initiate m_ itigation measures to reduce litter impacts as provided in Section 5.5.1.6. .5.5.1.9 Land Use a. Setting. The existing Cold Canyon landfill is located in an area designated Public Facilities (PF) on the Land Use Element Map of the County General Plan (1989). The proposed 22 -acre expansion area is currently zoned Agriculture (AG); however, the County is planning on updating their zoning ordinance to rezone this area to PF. The intent of the PF zone is to provide areas for development of public facilities such as the landfill to meet community and regional needs. The "AG" zone is intended to identify area where a combination of soil types, topography, water supply, existing parcel sizes, and good management practices will result in the economic viability of agricultural land. The proposed landfill expansion area is periodically used for cattle grazing, although at this time no grazing occurs. The existing land use category on all properties adjacent to the landfill is Agriculture. Land uses and structures on the agriculturally -zoned lands are rural in character and include grazing of farm animals to the east, sheep operations and vineyards to the southwest, and an 5.5 -13. 5.5 SRRE Disposal Capacity Component infrequently used privately -owned airstrip (Weir Landing Strip) to the southeast of the landfill (Figure IV:I -1). Approximately four residential structures exist.in the vicinity and a winery bottling plant is located to the north of the landfill. Other land uses in the vicinity of the Cold Canyon Landfill include the County Airport approximately 4 miles to the northwest, Biddle Regional Park approximately 12 miles to the east of the landfill, and the Arroyo Grande Oil Field approximately 4.5 miles west of the landfill. b. Impact Analysis. According to the San Luis Obispo County General Plan, solid waste disposal sites are an allowable use within the "AG" designation, provided special standards or permit procedures are followed. Therefore, a General Plan amendment to change the land use designation of the expansion area is not required. However, potentially significant land use compatibility conflict exists between the proposed landfill expansion and the operations of neighboring landowners. The main incompatibility issue involves the migration of litter onto neighboring properties. Latter is primarily carried by wind to areas outside the landfill, as well as being illegally disposed on adjacent streets after facility operating hours. The impacts to land use compatibility created by the proposed landfill expansion are considered to be significant, but mitigabee. c. Mitigation Measures 1. Potential significant impacts from. the proposed landfill expansion will be mitigated by incorporating the mitigation measures contained in Section 5.5.1.6 and 5.5.1.7 of this document. No additional measures are required. 1 5.5 -14 "MWP.a 1 5.6 . HHWE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING COMPONENTS 0 5.6.1 Permanent HHW Collection Facility - This section evaluates environmental impacts that may result from the construction. and/or operation of a.facility designed to accept hazardous waste generated by households. The -types of wastes likely to be accepted by this facility include: paint, solvents, cleaners, automotive products, pesticides, fertilizers, and similar substances. The facility would be staffed by trained personnel who would identify, sort, package and store the collected waste in designated areas. Wastes would likely be kept in a structure designed specifically for the storage of hazardous materials. All collected wastes would be sent to off -site locations for treatment, ' recycling, or disposal. No processing of wastes, other than consolidation into containers suitable for transportation, would occur. - - Prior to waste consolidation, residents may be able to. participate in a 'Recycling Days" or waste exchange program. This would allow participants the opportunity to recycle or acquire paint or other usable substances for their personnel use. Since no specific project design, operation plan or locations are available for review, this 0 analysis of potential environmental impacts identifies impacts that are typically associated with this type of facility. hfrtigation measures that are included in this section are feasible measures that should be capable of reducing identified significant impacts to a less than significant level. 5.6.1.1 Geology a. Setting. General seismic conditions found in San Luis Obispo County are described in Section 4.1.7. Geologic hazards and processes that would have the.potential to adversely affect the structures and operations of the proposed project are described in Section 5.2.2.1. b. Impact Analysis. Permanent structures located at a HHW collection facility would have the potential to be impacted by a variety of seismic and geologic processes that are common to San Luis Obispo County. Selecting a project site that is not underlain by a fault or subject to severe soils- and slope- related hazards would minimize the potential for ground 10 rupture and associated geologic impacts. Severe ground shaking, resulting from movement along a nearby fault or a major earthquake on a distant fault, could result in structural damage and/or damage to waste storage containers. Building design and construction techniques that implement proper building foundations and measures to secure storage containers to minmuze the potential for accidental discharge during an earthquake, would reduce potential seismic impacts to a less than significant level. c. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to siting a new, permanent HHW collection facility, the candidate site should - be evaluated for the presence of severe seismic or geologic hazards. Areas subject to ground rupture, severe soils hazards or slope instabilities should be avoided. 5.6-1 D 5.6 HHWE Conectiun/Recycibig Components 2. Geotechnical or soil engineering investigations should be performed at the proposed project site.. The results and recommendation from the investigation should be incorporated into the project. 1 3. The permanent.HAW collection facility should be constructed in accordance with standards specified in the Uniform Building Code (UBC).. 5.6.1.2 Air Quality 4 a. Setting. A description of the air quality characteristics of San Luis Obispo County and impact assessment thresholds is provided in Section 5.2.2.2. Potential sources of air emissions resulting from a HHW collection facility would include construction activities, project- generated vehicle traffic, and the collection and handling of hazardous wastes. b. Impact Analysis. Construction impacts would result primarily from dust generated during site preparation and emissions of criteria pollutants (NO =, CO, %, SO2 and PM10) from construction vehicles. Site preparation would likely consist of minor site grading, soils and foundation preparation. It is likely that the project site would be relatively small and that site preparation activities would occur over a very limited period of time. . The implementation of standard dust - control measures, such as site watering, would minimize short- term construction - related dust emissions. Due to the limited site area required for this type of project, heavy equipment required for site grading would be minimal. Therefore, construction equipment emissions would not be likely to result in significant short -term criteria pollutant emission impacts. Emissions resulting from project operations would consist of criteria pollutants resulting. from vehicle trips delivering waste to the site, employee vehicle trips, and the outhaid of collected wastes. Additional emissions would result from the consolidation of collected waste materials when small quantities of collected waste materials are consolidated into larger containers. These emissions would consist primarily of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and toxic heavy metal and organic compounds. 1 Vehicle emissions associated with the project would be dependent upon the number of vehicles that travel to the site and the distance they must travel. Estimates of potential vehicle emissions for a proposed HEM collection facility in southern Santa Barbara County determined that combined truck and automobile emissions would not exceed a significance threshold of 2.5 pounds per peak hour for ROC and NO= (Santa Barbara County, 1991). This estimate was based 4 on an assumption of 40 automobile trips to the site each day the facility was open (two days per week) and a round trip distance of 20 miles. Truck trips to haul collected waste were assumed to be four trucks per quarter at distance of 50 miles within the county. Significantly different operational characteristics, such as longer or shorter operational time per week, generating a significantly greater or reduced number of vehicle trips, may result in higher, or lower peak 4 vehicle - related emissions. The San Luis Obispo County APCD estimates, however, that for a project to exceed the 5 lbs/hr emission threshold for ROC and NOx, approximately 2,000 5.6=2 5.6 HHWE CollectionMecycling Components . b. Impact Analysis. Water use by a permanent.HHW collection facility would be primarily for domestic purposes. Therefore, the project would not be expected to consume a significant amount of water or result in a significant water supply impact. The development of a new HHW collection facility at an undeveloped site would require the installation of impervious surfaces (parking lots, collection areas, storage buildings, etc.) that could reduce groundwater percolation and generate increased storm water flows to downstream properties. If the project site is located in-an important groundwater recharge area / or as area with significant drainage probl ems, the project could result in significant water recharge and drainage impacts.. The storage and handling operations associated with the collection of hazardous wastes has the potential to result in leaks or spills that may adversely impact ground and surface water quality. Leaks or spills of waste materials may percolate into groundwater or migrate into surface water sources. Implementing above ground storage of collected materials in containers, designing proposed buildings specifically for hazardous waste storage, and limiting the length of time collected materials would be stored at the project site, would minimize but not eliminate the potential for water resource impacts. / c. Mitigation Measures. 1. Prior to approval of a new HHW permanent collection facility, site specific 1 ground and surface water evaluations should be conducted to establish baseline conditions and more accurately assess potential project impacts. Potential project sites located in significant groundwater recharge areas, areas with high groundwater or drainage problems (i.e., flooding or lack of drainage improvements) should be avoided. 1 2. Runoff from the project site should be directed to an on- and off -site drainage system capable of accommodating site runoff from a 10D-year storm. 3. All hazardous waste should be handled, stored and transported in a manner � consistent with federal, state and local regulations. ibis would include evaluation of the installation of berms around collection and storage areas to control spills, the use of approved storage containers, limits on the length of time collected materials may be stored on -site (one year for household wastes), and the use of licensed haulers for waste materials that are classified as hazardous by state and 1 federal regulations. 4. The floors of collection and storage areas should be sealed to minimize infiltration -by spilled fluids. .Installation of a clay of synthetic barrier below the storage area would provide additional protection against the migration of hazardous waste into 1 groundwater, supplies. 5.6-4 $ 1 0 5.6 HHWE Collecion/necyding Components average daily trips must be generated (Morrow, 1991). 11terefore, it is unlikely that project related vehicle emissions would result in a significant air quality impact. VOCs and toxic air emissions from collected wastes would occur when wastes such as .latex and oil -based paints, solvents, motor oil and antifreeze are transferred from the small containers brought to facility by project patrons to 55 -gallon drums or similar containers. Additional emissions would result from the residual waste in the small containers after the waste is transferred to the 55 -gallon drum. A health risk analysis conducted for the Santa Barbara County facility described above concluded that the project would not result in a significant cancer or non - cancer health risk to populations near the project site toxic from air quality emissions (Santa Barbara County, 1991). If the location and operation characteristics of a HHW collection facility in San Luis Obispo varied significantly from those assumed in the Santa Barbara example, a HHW collection facility could have the potential to emit significant quantities of VOC and toxic air emissions. _ c. Mitigation Measures 1. During construction/site preparation activities, dust control measures, such as site watering, should be implemented whenever necessary. 2. Construction vehicles should be properly maintained and shut -off when not in use. If necessary, simultaneous use of heavy -duty construction equipment should be avoided. 3. Prior to project approval, site and project specific air quality analysis should be conducted. If a potentially significant air quality impact is identified, from vehicle and /or waste-related emissions, the following measures could be implemented: • Alter project operation time - frames (i.e., number of days or hours) to reduce the peak number of vehicles and total vehicle miles travelled to the project site. • Implement vapor recovery systems to minimize emissions of VOC and toxic emissions. • Limit the volume of waste that can be collected and stored. at the project site. 5.6.1.3 Water Resources a. Setting. Potential sources of impacts to water resources resulting from a.HHW collection facility would include degradation of water quality from on -site runoff, or waste by products to water resources or project related impacts as a result from. direct groundwater withdrawal or the obstruction of groundwater recharge. _5.6 -3 5.6 HHWE Coll"o ' �y�g Components 5. A program of periodic groundwater quality monitoring should be established downgradient of the project site to provide early detection of a facility- related contamination impact. If groundwater quality is impacted due to project operations, appropriate remediation measures would be required to mitigate project- related water quality impacts. 5.6.1.4 Biology a. Setting. Construction activities associated with the development of a new HSW collection facility at an undeveloped project site may require vegetation clearing and grading operations. These activities may remove or disturb biologic resources on or near the site.. If the facility were constructed at a previously developed or disturbed site, it is less likely that construction activities would disturb or remove biologic resources. b. Impact Analysis. Construction of anew HEM collection facility could result in the direct removal of plant and animal communities and. the displacement of existing plant and animal species. Increased human activity, noise, lights and. vehicles may adversely effect sensitive habitats or migration corridors low adjacent to the project. The significance of these impacts would be dependant upon the species or habitats being disturbed. Adverse impacts to species or habitats considered to be rare, threatened, or endangered would be significant. Hazardous waste storage operations conducted within enclosed structures would not result in a significant threat to biologic resources under normal conditions. If a spill or leak contaminated nearby water sources, a potentially significant impact to flora and fauna on or near the project .area could result. c. 1Vritigation Measures 1. Prior to project approval, a biologic assessment of the project site should be conducted to determine if any sensitive plant or animal communities would be adversely impacted by the project. If possible the project site should be located on a previously disturbed site that does not contain significant biologic resources. 2. If significant biologic resources are identified at the project site, appropriate mitigation measures would be required. This may include. replacement of lost trees or habitat at an appropriate ratio, trapping and/or transplant of sensitive species, and obtaining appropriate permits from the California Department of Fish and game, Army Corps of Engineer and/or Fish and Wildlife Service. 3. Impacts to sensitive habitats on adjacent parcels could be minimized by siting the facility _in an area that does not contain significant biologic resources, minimizing site lighting, controlling site runoff and the potential for spills or leaks to leave the project site: 5.6-5 4 _ -5.6 HHWE Collecct7iionAtaycling Components _5.6.1.5 Noise a. Setting. .Construction activities may require the use of .heavy construction equipment that has the potential to disturb nearby sensitive (.e., residential) land uses. Project operations would have the potential to introduce new noise sources, such as automobiles and large trucks into the project vicinity. b. Impact Analysis. Heavy equipment noise associated with site preparation and I construction activities can generate noise levels 70-100 DBA at 50 feet from the source. These noise levels would have the potential to exceed maximum - allowable ambient exterior (65 DBA) and interior (45 DBA) noise levels at nearby residences. Construction activities would be .expected to occur over a short period of time, probably not more than several weeks. I Therefore, construction noise has the potential to result ;in a short-term impact. Project operation noise would result primarily from vehicle traffic travelling to and from the project site, This increase in noise would have the greatest potential to result in impacts if the project were located in :a rural area with generally low ambient noise levels. Increased traffic noise could also be disturbing to sensitive receptors located adjacent. to the project site. Facility operations would likely be conducted during regular business hours which would minimize the potential for significant noise impacts resulting from evening and nighttime operations. c. Wdigation Measures 1. All construction equipment should be properly maintained and muffled. If necessary, the simultaneous operation of construction equipment should be avoided. If necessary, acoustic "curtains' around stationary equipment (Le-, cement mixers, saws) may also be required.., Construction activities should be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays. 2. Adequate separation distance between the project site and adjacent sensitive land uses should be provided to reduce project - related noise impacts to a less than significant level. The separation distance would be dependent upon anticipated construction activities, traffic volumes, and any project equipment that may generate noise. A separation . distance of approximately 1,000 feet may be required to reduce project construction. noise to a less than significant level at receptor locations. It is likely that substantially less separation distance would be required to minimize site operation noise, which would not be as loud as construction noise. Sound walls or berms may also be used to control project operation noise. Noise levels resulting from project operations at sensitive noise receptors shall not exceed applicable general plan, zoning or noise ordinance standards. .. 9DW"e 5.6 HHWE Collection/Recycling Components 5.6.1.6 Land Use . A. Setting. After obtaining appropriate land use permits, a HHW collection facility could potentially be located in an urbanized (i.e., industrial or commercial) or rural (open space or agricultural) area. The placement of a HHW collection facility adjacent to a residential area, would increase the potential for the project to result in significant land use conflicts. b. Impact Analysis. Project related traffic, noise, light and glare, ask of upset and health risk impacts all have the potential to result in land use conflicts with adjacent land uses. Restricting project operating hours would minimize traffic, light and glare and noise conflicts with surrounding uses, but would not eliminate the potential for significant conflicts to occur. If an accident were to occur at the project site, such as a major spill or fire, conditions could be created that may result in a significant risk of upset and health and safety impacts to surrounding land uses. The implementation of operation and safety practices common to this type of facility, such as providing fire suppression equipment, proper storage faciliti es, adequate spill control and containment measures would substantially reduce, but not eliminate, potential health and safety and risk of upset impacts. If an adequate buffer area was provided between the operational areas and surrounding land uses, potentially significant land use conflicts resulting from upset conditions and :health risk could be reduced to a less than significant level. A risk of upset analysis conducted for• a proposed HHW collection facility in southern Santa Barbara County determined that an appropriate buffer. area around the facility to minimize damage to surrounding structures in the event of a major accident would be approximately 100 feet. A health risk analysis indicated that the proposed facility would not result in a significant health risk to a residential community approximately 650 feet from the facility (Santa Barbara County, 1991). Although the size of any specific buffer area will vary based on project- specific conditions, it should be considered feasible to reduce land use conflicts resulting from health and safety and risk of upset impacts to a less than significant . level. C. lwitigation Measures 1. Project operation hours should be restricted. Reshicted hours are intended to reduce traffic trips during peak hours, nummize the effects of project generated noise during sensitive evening, early morning, and nighttime hours and +n'm'n ze the need for exterior lighting. • 2. The project should implement required- federal, state and local safety regulations and requirements. These measures will reduce the potential for upset conditions to occur and minimize environmental effects should an accident happen. , 3. Based on site - specific risk of upset and health risk analysis, an appropriate safety area buffer should be provided between the project site and adjacent land uses. The buffer area should be property owned or leased by the facility. 5.6-7 B 4 5.6 HHW E Collection/Recycling Components 5.6.1.7 Risk of Upset -a: Setting. The collection, handling, storage, and transportation of HHW has the potential to result in significant safety impacts in the event of an accident. Safety impacts may affect site employees, facility patrons or surrounding land uses. The severity of any upset condition at the project site would be dependent upon the type and volume of material involved in an accident, proximity of people to the accident location and measures implemented to control and clean up the accident. b. Impad Analysis. Potential transportation - related accidents associated with the operation of a HHW collection facility could result from patrons transporting waste and transporting collected waste to a recycling/disposal facility. State and federal regulations limit the volume of material that maybe accepted from any single vehicle to five gallons or 50 I pounds. By advertising and enforcing these limitations on the public, potential impacts resulting from a single-event spill or leak would be minimized. The risk and potential. impacts of a transportation - related accident would be similar to tiansporting pesticides from the garden store or gasoline from the gas station. Therefore, potential transportation- related HHW accidents involving the public is not considered to be significant. Transportation of collected hazardous I wastes from the facility would involve considerably larger quantities. The shipment of Collected material in approved containers, such as 55 -gallon drums approved by the Department of Transportation, by licensed hazardous waste haulers would reduce the potential for transportation - related HHW accident impacts to a less than significant level. I Handling and storage of HHW at the collection facility also has the potential to result . in significant impacts in the event of a spill, leak, or other upset condition. The highest risk substances likely to be collected at the facility would be gasoline, oil -based paints and solvents. The most likely type of accident that may occur would be dropping and the rupture of a five- I gallon container. Collection, handling, storage and spill response procedures to be implemented at the project have not been specified, however, the implementation of appropriate operation practices, design features and contingency procedures should be adequate to substantially reduce the significance of this type of accident. Identifying waste brought to the facility, segregating incompatible waste, providing a sealed and termed collection and storage area, and storing it I in appropriate containers will further minimize the effects of upset conditions. In the event of a catastrophic accident, such as a fire or explosion, safety impact could result from radiant heat from afire, the release of flammable or toxic vapors or blast pressure from an explosion. Without appropriate control measures, these events could result in I significant impacts. The use of specially designed hazardous waste storage buildings that incorporate special ventilation, blast panels in the "roof, explosion proof lighting and wiring, and spill control features, will reduce the potential for, and minimize the effects.of a catastrophic event. The provision of adequate buffer area between the facility and adjacent uses would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. I 5.6-8 IMM"M 5.6 HHWE Col lIctio nlPi cyclin8 Componeift c. Mitigation Measures, . 1. Advertise and enforce federal and state regulations limiting the volume of - hazardous waste that can be delivered to the project site by facility patrons. 2. Use licensed haulers and appropriate containers to transport collected hazardous waste. 3. The collection and storage area should utilize sealed concrete or a similar surface to minimize permeation by spilled hazardous substances. Berms capable of holding the contents of the largest storage tank at the facility should be installed to MIMMI p the migration of. spilled wastes. 4. .Firefighting equipment, spill absorbent and other emergency equipment required by local fire protection authorities should be provided at the project site. 5. Storage tanks should be placed above ground to minimize the potential for undetected leaks. 6. Waste identification procedures should be implemented at the facility to ensure that incompatible wastes are segregated. Collected materials, that cannot be identified should be stoned in separate containers until they can be identified. . 7. The collected HHW material should be stored in a building specifically designed . for this type of use. 8. Based on project and site - specific analysis, a.mininmm buffer area between the operational area and surrounding land uses should be established. The buffer area should be owned or leased and maintained by the facility owner or operator. 9. Smoking and other potential ignition sources should be prohibited from project site. 5.6.1.8 Human Health a. Setting. Long -term exposure to air emissions from a permanent HHW collection facility would have the potential to result in significant.health risk impacts to nearby receptors. Factors that would influence potential health risk consequences would include site- specific meteorologic conditions, operation practices, volumes of HHW collected and cumulative impacts from any adjacent toxic emission sources. Evaluation of potential health risk impacts are conducted utilizing procedures adopted by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). Generally, a project is considered to result m a significant health risk if a. health risk analysis concludes that the project would cause one additional case of cancer in A population of one million people. :Employees at a HEW collection facility would also be 5.6.9 O n .5.6 HHWE CollectionMecycling Components exposed to potential health risks. Inhalation of fumes and skin contact with hazardous wastes may result in chronic and acute health effects. b. Impact Analysis. Major sources of toxic air emissions from a HHW collection facility could include paints, gasoline, solvents, pesticides, and other similar materials. Emissions would occur primarily from consolidating the contents of small containers delivered by the public into larger storage and transportation drums and the drying of containers prior to off-she disposal. The health risk associated with "worst -case" long- term ('70 -year) exposure to facility' related toxic emissions would largely be dependent upon the type and volume of material accepted at the facility. It is likely that substances such as paint and motor oil would comprise a significant share of the waste that'would be collected. These substances do contain toxic and carcinogenic compounds, but-in low to very low concentrations. Other substances that may be collected, however, such as solvents, gasoline, and pesticides, may contribute to a potentially significant health risk. Site employees responsible for unloading, moving and packaging of collected wastes may be exposed to unhealthful levels of toxic materials. The use of appropriate protective clothing, dust or vapor filters and proper training would mininiizc this potential risk, c. Mitigation Measures 1. As part of the . environmental review process for the development of a. new permanent HHW collection facility, a site- specific health risk analysis should be prepared. This analysis would consider estimated types and volumes of materials to be collected, proposed site operation procedures, meteorologic conditions and the proximity of receptors to the project site. . 2. If a health risk analysis indicates that a new permanent HHW collection facility has the potential to result in a significant health risk, measures should be implemented to minimize emissions of toxic compounds. These measures may include vapor recovery systems. Increased project setbacks from receptors and changes in proposed material handling and storage practices will also reduce potential health impacts. 3. All site employees should be provided with protective clothing and appropriate respiratory apparatus as required by OSHA, CAL-OSHA or local regulations. Emergency showers and eye wash stations should also be provided. 5.6.1.9 Transportation a. Setting. Traffic trips associated with a permanent HHW.collection facility would consist of vehicles delivering waste material, the outhaul of collected waste and employee/visitor 5.6-10 B 5.6 HHWE Coneccdonatecycling Components trips. The potential fora HHW collection facility to result in significant traffic.impacts would be dependent on.a variety of factors including: the project location and roadways serving the project, anticipated traffic volume generation rates, the number of days per week the facility operates, and the hours of facility operation. Ingress and egress from the facility would also have the potential to result in traffic safety impacts. b. Impact Analysis. It is not expected that a HHW collection facility would generate a.substantial number of average daily vehicle trips. A proposed collection facility in southern Santa Barbara County that would operate two days per week is expected to generate 23 to 45 average daily trips (Santa Barbara County, 1991). A HHW collection facility would be most likely to result in a significant traffic impact if it, contributed traffic trips to roadways or intersections that operate at an unacceptable level of service during peak traffic hours. Peak traffic hours are generally considered to be between 7 :30 to 9 a.m. and 4:30 to 6 p.m. Traffic generated during non -peak hours or on weekends would be less likely to result in significant traffic impacts. The outhaul of collected. wastes is anticipated to be conducted by heavy-duty vehicles capable of transporting at least several tons of material. Therefore heavy -truck traffic would likely be limited to several truck trips per month. Vehicle trips by employees and visitors would also be expected. to be minimal as the number of employees required for the operation. of the facility is expected to be small. Turning movements required for site ingress/egress may have the potential to result in a significant traffic safety impact if there is insufficient road right-of-way to provide adequate acceleration/deceleration lanes or adequate area to complete left and right turns in a safe manner. These types of safety impacts would have the greatest potential to occur if the proposed project were to gain access from a highway or other regional roadway that carries high traffic volumes. c. Mitigation Measures 1. Project operation hours and employee shifts should be scheduled to minimize the generation of vehicle trips during peak traffic hours. I The collection facility should be responsible for installing any required road improvements, such as additional road right -of -way, turn lanes, etc., necessary for safe project site ingress/egress. 5.6.1.10 Public Services/Utilities a. Setting. Operation of a.permanent H13W collection facility and the accumulation of hazardous waste has the potential to result in fire suppression impacts and a safety hazard to fire department personnel. 5.6-11 5.6 HHWE Collectiionatecycling Components Utility requirements of a permanent HHW collection facility would likely consist of water and electrical service; these utility requirements are expected to be minimal. However, if these services are not available or must be extended to the project site, significant utility impacts may result: b. .Impact Analysis. Project construction and operation procedures would W required to comply with the appropriate sections of Article 80 (Hazardous Materials) of the Uniform Fire Code. Adherence to these.requirements would substantially reduce potential fire impacts. A project site location in an urban or suburban area would liloely have adequate response times from nearby fire stations, and fire flows. Any required new fire hydrants would likely be feasible to install. A project site in a rural or open space area may have fire response time deficiencies. Regardless of the project location, if adequate fire suppression services cannot be provided to the project site, the proposed project would have the potential to result in significant impacts to fire suppression services. Water use at a HHW collection facility would be primarily for domestic purposes and landscape maintenance. Additional sources of water would be used for emergency purposes such as showers, eyewash, and fire flows. Average daily water use would be expected to be minimal, as landscaped area would likely be limited and domestic use by employees and patrons would be minimal. If potable water for domestic and emergency purposes could not be provided, however, a significant impact regarding water service would result. c. Mitigation Measures 1. Project construction and operation characteristics would be required to comply with applicable regulations (i.e., Uniform Fire Code, local hydrant location and fire flow requirements, etc.). 2. If necessary, fire sprinklers should be provided in all permanent structures. The presence of various chemical substances in project structures may require the use of a dry chemical suppression system. 3. If water for domestic purposes cannot be feasibly provided from a water purveyor, chemical toilets and bottled water for drinking and hand washing purposes may be permitted. Landscaping and water for emergency purposes could feasibly be provided by on -site storage tanks. The volume of water to be stored on site should be determined by local fire prevention services. 5.6.1.11 Aesthetics a. Setting. Development of a permanent HHW collection facility may result in the construction of new buildings and the introduction of new activities at the project site. Structures commonly used for the storage of collected hazardous waste are of metal construction. Metal buildings are sometimes perceived to be visually incompatible with surrounding structures. 5.6-12 1 1 5.6 HSWE Colton/Recycling Component b.:Impact Analysis. If facility structures or outdoor operations (i.e., queuing of cars delivering waste, collection and sorting of waste, etc.) were visible from nearby residential or / commercial land uses, an aesthetic impact would have the -potential to result. Locating the collection facility in a rural or open space area may adversely change the visual character of the project site, resulting in a significant visual impact. It is anticipated that structures liikely to be associated with a permanent HHW collection facility would be small, thereby limiting the potential for significant visual impacts. Outdoor storage of collected materials could also result 1 in significant visual impacts; however, it is anticipated that outdoor HHW storage would occur for only brief periods of time, until the waste is identified and consolidated . into larger containers. It is not anticipated that project operations world occur during hours of darkness that would require the use of light resulting in significant light or glare impacts. / c. Mitigation Measures 1. Visual screens located between the project site and adversely affected view corridors should be provided. Visual screens may include fences, walls, berms, 1 and landscaping. 2. Project setbacks from adjacent land uses to m;nimi�p potential safe, and land use conflicts would also minimize the potential for the project to result in visual impacts from public viewing locations. 1 5.6.1.12 Cultural Resources a. Setting. As discussed in Section 4.1.6, San Luis Obispo County contains several area of archaeological and cultural significance. Development of a permanent HHW collection 0 facility would result in the construction of new buildings in areas that may contain significant archaeological or cultural resources. b. Impact Analysis. Construction of a new HHW collection facility could result in the direct disturbance of archaeological and cultural resources if the project was located in an area of known cultural significance or located in a previously undeveloped parcel of land. The significance of this impact would depend upon the proximity of the archaeological or cultural site to the project, c. Mitigation Measures 1. If an initial study evaluation of the proposed project determines that the project has the potential to result in significant impacts to cultural resources, a Phase I study should be conducted in order to determine if archaeological resources are present on the project site. If archaeological resources are discovered, the project shall conform to the recommendations of the archaeological report.. 5.6-13 o5.6 HHWE collea%n/Recycling components 2. If no archaeological resources are discovered from the Phase I analyses, the following mitigation measure would reduce the potential for project related grading activities from inadvertently impacting any previously undetected archaeologic resources. If archaeological remains are encountered during grading or construction activities, work in that area shall be stopped or redirected until a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative are retained to evaluate the find. . 5.6.2 Temporary HHW Collection Events This section evaluates potential environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of programs that would conduct temporary HHW collection events. Two types of collection events have been evaluated; periodic HHW collection events and mobile HHW facilities. Periodic events would establish a temporary collection facility at a project site for one or two days and there would be no permanent structures associated with a periodic program.. These events are typically intended to provide HHW collection services for a.region -wide area. Wastes that could be collected include paints, automotive products, solvents, pesticides, cleaners, / and other HEW. The only on -site processing of collected wastes would be the consolidation into 55 -gallon drums or similar containers. All collected waste would be sent to appropriate locations for treatment, recycling, or disposal. Periodic events may be conducted at various locations throughout the County several times a year. The second type of temporary collection event, a Mobile HHW Facility would utilize 1 a vehicle designed for the collection and transportation of HEW. The vehicle would be parked at a specified location and residents from that area could transport HHW to the vehicle for collection. The collected waste is transported in compartments. This type of program is generally intended to serve a smaller geographic region than periodic events, such as a small 1 community or specified neighborhoods. For both the periodic and mobile collection programs, trained employees would be responsible for handling, identification, and packaging of collected waste delivered by area residents. 5.6.2.1 Air Quality 1 a. Setting. Potential sources of air emissions associated with periodic and mobile HHW collection programs would include vehicle operations and emissions resulting from the consolidation of hazardous wastes into containers suitable for storage and transportation. Air quality conditions for San Luis Obispo County are described in Section 5.6.1.2. 1 b. Impact Analysis. The operation of vehicles transporting wastes to and from these events will result in emissions of criteria pollutants (NO=, CO, %9 PMro, SO2). Although previous periodic HHW collection programs .in San Luis Obispo County have been successful and have attracted large numbers of participants, project- generated traffic volumes are not 1 anticipated to be sufficient to exceed San Luis Obispo County emissioi:thresholds. Due to the short-term and limited extent of these emissions, project- related vehicle emissions would not 5.6-14 B 1 5.6 HHWE Collection/Recycling Components result in a significant air quality impact. Vehicle emissions associated with a single mobile collection event would likely be.less than for a single periodic event; because a smaller service area would generate fewer cars. The mobile collection program would be likely to result in similar total vehicle miles traveled and associated emissions after providing collection services throughout a similar geographic area that was served by a single periodic event. Air emissions from waste handling operations at periodic and mobile events would consist primarily of volatile organic and toxic components. Similar to operations at a permanent facility (Section 5.6.1.2), these emissions would result from consolidating waste materials into 55 -gallon drums, vehicle compartments, or simihu containers. These types of emissions have the potential to result in adverse air quality impacts, however, due to the limited time frames that these emissions would occur, the project would not result in significant air quality impacts. c. .Mitigation Measures. No significant air quality impacts resulting from periodic or mobile EMW collection events were identified, therefore, no mitigation measures are required. The following measures are suggested to minimize project - related vehicle emissions: 1. The location of periodic collection events should be moved to various geographical location in the County to minimize vehicle miles traveled to dispose of HHW. 1 2. Site operation and layout for periodic and. mobile collection events should be designed to muumize vehicle queuing and the need . for repeated vehicle starting and stopping. 5.6.2.2 Land Use a. Setting. Periodic and mobile HHW collection events are temporary in natum and would be conducted at a variety of locations. Although these collection events would be operated on a very short-term and intermittent basis, collection activities have the potential to result in conflicts with adjacent land uses. Potential problems that would result in land use conflicts could include increased traffic, noise, risk of upset, and human health risk. b. Impact Analysis. Periodic and mobile collection programs will generate traffic volumes in the project area that may be disturbing to nearby land uses. If the project location was near a residential area, increased traffic on residential streets and noise from project traffic and collection activities could also result in land use conflicts. It is likely that periodic and mobile collection would be conducted on weekends to accommodate residents of the service area Limiting collection activities to weekends, or restricting operating hours to non -peak traffic times,. would. minimize potential traffic conflicts: Limiting operation hours would also avoid noise conflicts during early morning and evening hours: Adequate buffer areas between the project site and adjacent uses would also be necessary to reduce potential noise conflicts to a less than significant level. 5.6-15 e 5.6 HHWE Collectionatecycling Components The potential for risk of upset and health :risk conflicts with adjacent uses would be minimized by the short and intermittent-tune frames associated with the operation of temporary collection events at any particular location. To reduce potential accident and health risk conflicts to a less than significant level, adequate project setbacks from sensitive receptors should be provided. c. IWitigation Measures 1. Periodic and mobile collection events should be conducted between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to reduce traffic taps during peak hours. These hours will also minimize the effects of project- generated noise. 2. Periodic and mobile, collection events should be located in non - residential areas . g and should not result in substantial increases in traffic on residential streets. Locations such as large commercial, :industrial, or institutional parldng lots not in use on weekends may be suitable locations. 5.6.2.3 Risk of Upset i a. Setting. Temporary collection events would operate at a given location for only brief periods of time, usually less than eight hours. For periodic events, the collected waste would liWy be on the project site less than 24 to 48 hours. Mobile events would remove the a collected waste from the collection site at the end of the event. These limitations on operation time frames and the amount of HHW that would be collected would result in relatively small amounts of Haw that would be accumulated at a project site. b. Impact Analysis. As described in section 5.6.1.7, collecting and handling hazardous waste creates a risk that an accident or upset conditions resulting in injury or property damage may occur. With wastes such as gasoline or solvents, even small amounts have the potential to result in significant risk of upset conditions. if an explosion or other catastrophic accident were to occur. Transportation of collected waste, both to and from the event site, results in an additional accident risk. This risk can. be reduced to a less than significant level, by advertising and enforcing regulations that limit the volume of waste that may be accepted from any person, proper packaging of wastes after they have been collected and, by using .licensed haulers to transport the collected hazardous waste material. At the collection site, accidents such as broken containers and spills may occur. If proper response equipment, such as liquid absorbent and fire extinguishers are available, minor spills should not result in a significant impact. In the event of a major fire, explosion, or other accident, collected HHW has the potential to result in significant safety and property damage impacts. Controlling potential ignition sources for a fire or explosion, providing response equipment to extinguish fires or clean up spills .before a significant safety risk occurs and 5.6-16 B 4 5.6 HHWE COIII Components providing adequate setbacks from adjacent land uses would minimize the risk of a catastrophic accident to a less than significant level. c. 11 Ugation Measures .1. Advertise and enforce federal and state regulations limiting the volume of hazardous waste that can be delivered to the project: site by facility pat<vns. 2. Use licensed haulers and appropriate containers to transport collected hazardous waste. 3. The collection area should be a level paved area to minimize the potential spread of spilled fluids. 4. Waste identification procedures should be implemented at the site to ensure that incompatible wastes are segregated. Collected materials that cannot be identified should be stored in separate containers until they can be identified. 5. Fire fighting equipment, spill absorbent and other emergency equipment required by local fire protection authorities should be provided at the project site. 6. Temporary collection events should be conducted in areas with adequate clearance from adjacent buildings or structures. . 7. Smoking and other potential ignition sources should be prohibited from the collection sites. 5.6.2.4 Human Health a. Setting. Exposure to air emissions from HHW have. the potential to result in significant health impacts. The primary source of emissions that could result in significant health affects would be from consolidating volatile liquids into storage and transportation containers. . b. Impact Analysis. The potential for temporary collection events to result in significant health effects to surrounding land uses would be minimized by the limited volume of waste that would be stored at the collection site and the brief amount of time the wastes would be located at the site. These factors would eliminate the potential for long -term exposure to substances that have the potential to result in adverse health effects. Short-term exposure to HHW air emissions, however, have the potential to result in health effects such as respirator and eye irritation and may still be perceived to have the potential to result in adverse health effects. Providing adequate setbacks between the collection site and nearby land uses and - implementing measures to reduce the potential for accidents to occur would reduce the potential for short-term health impacts to surrounding land uses to a less than significant level. 5.6-17 B 5.6 HHWE CoRection/Recycling Components Project employees would have an increased potential for exposure to HHW and possible health effects. The provision of appropriate protective clothing and, when necessary, breathing apparatus would be necessary to reduce this potential.mVact to a less than significant level. Project patrons would be at the collection facility for very limited periods of time and would not be subject to significant health risks. patrons .may have the potential to be exposed to hazardous waste, however, if they are allowed to 'scavenge° as part of the waste exchange program. .Separating usable material from waste material would reduce this ask. . -c. Mitigation Measures 1. Temporary collection sites should be sited to avoid conflicts with residential uses or other sensitive receptor land uses. 2. Measures identified in Section 5.6.2.3 to minimize the effects of an onsite accident should be implemented to reduce the :risk of potential health impacts from an accident. 3. Onsite employees should be provided with protective clothing and appropriate breathing apparatus as required by OSHA and CAL -OSHA requirements. 4. Waste delivered to the collection site suitable for inclusion in the waste exchange program should be stored temporarily in an area separated from waste materials that will not be included in the waste exchange program. 5.6.2.5 Transportation a. Setting. Traffic trips associated with a periodic or mobile collection event would consist primarily of vehicles delivering HHW. Some additional tops would result from employees and vehicles to haul collected waste. Since temporary collection events would be conducted in a geographical area on an intermittent basis, it is anticipated that traffic volumes would be considerably greater than traffic volumes generated by a permanent collection facility that operated on a regular basis. b. Impact Analysis. If a temporary collection program resulted in additional vehicle trips on roadways or at intersections that operated at unacceptable levels of.service during peak hours, the project could result in a significant traffic impact. If the collection events were conducted on weekends; the potential for peak hour traffic impacts would be substantially reduced. Operation of the collection programs to avoid peak traffic hours would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Turning movements required for site access may have the potential to result in short- term traffic. safety impacts. Collection events should be conducted at locations that provide 5.6-18 B 5.6 HHWE Collection/Recycling Components adequate road tight -of -way for turning movements and line-of-sight distance for vehicles entering and leaving the site. Adequate vehicle stacking distance should be provided to allow-vehicles to wait to unload waste without impeding traffic flow in the road right-of way. c. N[itigation Measures 1. Temporary collection events should be conducted between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to avoid peak hour traffic impacts. 2. Temporary collection events should be conducted at locations that have existing road improvements that provide adequate site ingresslegress and space to allow vehicles to safely wait before unloading wastes. 5.6.3 HHW Collection at Vendor Locations.. This section evaluates potential environmental impacts associated with establishing a program where vendors of materials that ultimately become household hazardous waste would collect and temporarily store similar waste items. Materials thatwould Mmly be included in this type of program are paint, automobile batteries, antifreeze and motor oil. Most of the HHW waste collected by vendors would be recycled at offsite locations. 5.6.3.1 Air Quality a. Setting. The primary source of air quality impacts - associated with HHW collection at vendor- locations would be vehicle trips to deliver and remove waste material from the collection site. Some waste materials, such as paint, may create volatile organic compound emissions from consolidating collected fluids into large storage containers. b. Impact Analysis. It is anticipated that many of the vehicle taps associated with this type of collection program would be in conjunction with vehicle taps that would have otherwise been made to the vendor. For example, a used car battery would be traded in for a new battery, or a vehicle trip to drop off old paint would be combined with a tip to the paint vendor or other nearby commercial uses. Total vehicle miles traveled and associated air emissions resulting from this program would Wzly-be minimal and would not result in a significant air quality impact. Emissions associated with waste fluid consolidation would be dependent upon the type and volume of fluids collected. _ The most likely type of fluids to be collected and consolidated would be used motor oil, antifreeze and paint. The volatile organic compound content of most of these substances is low and the volume of waste that would be collected is likely to be limited. Some oil -based paint -may be collected, but this type of paint is not as widely used as water based latex paint. Therefore, potential air quality impacts resulting from volatile organic compound emissions from fluid consolidation is not expected to be significant. 5.6-19 e S.6 HHWE CoUb-dondtecycling Components -c. Mitigation Measures. No significant air quality impacts associated with HEW collection at vendor locations were identified. Therefore, no mitigation measures: are necessary. 5.6.3.2 Risk of Upset/Human Health a. Setting. Project related accidents have the potential to occur while transporting waste material to and from the vendor location and during handling and storage at the collection site. The handling and storage of. collected material may also have the potential to result in ! adverse health effects resulting from exposure to fumes and accidental physical contact. b. Impact Analysis. The potential impacts associated with a vehicle transporting HEW materials to the vendor location would be similar to other collection programs. If the volumes of waste that could be accepted at a vendor were limited to 50 pounds or five gallons, a transportation related spill would not involve a significant quantity of waste material. Additionally, the types of materials that are likely to be collected under this program in small quantities do not pose a substantial environmental or safety threat in the event of an accidental spill. The transportation. of EEW from the collection site would involve substantially larger ! quantities of material. Proper waste handling,- packaging and transportation procedures would reduce the risk and consequences of an accident to a :less than significant level. Under this type of collection program, vendors would only collect wastes that are similar to new products that they sell. The storage and handling of wastes at the collection site ! would incrementally increase the potential accident risk associated with the handling and storage of the similar new products that are sold at the vendor site. The incremental accident risk associated with the collection program can be reduced to a less than significant level by utilizing proper storage containers, providing an adequate storage.space, enforcing maximum time frames for the storage of collected waste, and providing adequate fire protection/suppression equipment ! and ventilation in the storage area. Individuals most likely to be exposed to any significant health risks associated with this program would be employees at the collection site. Contact with hazardous wastes and the inhalation of fumes could result in health effects such as bums, respiratory and eye irritation. ! These potentially significant impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level by providing protective clothing, safety equipment, and adequate storage area ventilation. c. Mitigation Measures ! 1. Advertise and enforce federal and state regulations limiting the volume of hazardous waste that can be delivered to the collection facility. 2. Waste materials should be packaged, handled, stored and transported consistent with regulations applicable for the HHW being collected. ! 5.6-20 A 4 1 _ 5.6 HHWE Collectionatecycling Components 3. Vendors requesting to be collection centers "should be subject to pernift ft requirements. A permitting ,program can be used to ensure that vendors provide 1 adequate handling procedures, storage facilities, and are aware of applicable federal, state, and local regulations. A permitting program would also.facilitate the ability to conduct periodic inspections of the collection facility to ensure regulation compliance. 1 4. Prior to granting a permit to a.vendor collection site, the proposed storage area should be inspected by appropriate jurisdiction agencies (i.e., building and safety, fire department, environmental health, etc.) to ensure that the facility meets or can feasibly meet applicable HHW storage requirements. 1 5. The jurisdiction sponsoring the vendor collection program should be responsible for maintaining contracts with waste haulers and recyclers that are to be used to transport and process the collected waste. 1 1 1 1 1 1 5.6-21 1 9319CSVP9 � \ ' 1 6.0 . CUMULATIVE .IM PACTS Cumulative impacts are defined by the State CELIA Guidelines as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or . increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects." Implementation of the recommendations of the Source Reduction and Recycling Element and the Household Hazardous Waste Element will introduce new waste management programs intended to reduce waste generation and divert waste from landfill s. These new programs may be conducted simultaneously along with continued operation of existing landfills. The implementation of multiple SRRE and HHWE recommended programs throughout the cities and unincorporated area of San Luis Obispo County, along with other proposed development projects, may have the potential to result in cumulatively significant environmental impacts. Issue areas most likely. to experience cumulative impacts as a result of proposed waste management programs include air quality, water supply, and traffic. Sources of air emissions most likely to result in cumulative air quality impacts would include increased vehicle miles traveled for waste management purposes and emissions associated with the consolidation of collected household hazardous wastes into storage containers. Vehicle miles traveled that would be associated with proposed solid and .hazardous waste collection programs would likely result in an increase over existing vehicle miles that are traveled to collect and transport waste to. landfills. Increased collection - related miles travelled would increase vehicle emissions. However, the waste generated in San Luis Obispo County must continue to be collected regardless of the proposed project and the proposed programs will also reduce waste volumes thereby reducing vehicle trip emissions associated with hauling waste to landfills and landfill operations. Therefore; any increase in combined, vehicle emissions from proposed collection programs are not likely to result in a significant increase over existing collection- related emissions. A major source of air emissions will be generated by vehicle trips associated with hauling recovered materials and residual waste to market or tneatment /disposal locations. This increase in vehicle miles traveled could result in a significant increase over existing waste hauling- related emissions. This increase has the potential to be significant because the volume of recovered material is expected to increase significantly after implementation of the recommended programs. The level of cumulative increases in residual wastelrecovered material vehicle- related emissions will largely be dependant upon the total increase in vehicle miles traveled over existing conditions. The increase in vehicle miles traveled will be dependent upon the number and location of new waste management projects implemented. Since San Luis Obispo is a non- attainment area for PM10 and ozone, any increase in these emissions would result in a cumulatively significant impact. The implementation of project - specific emission reduction measures, along with the possible purchase or implementation of emission offsets, would be necessary to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 6-1 W.0 • .6.0 Cumubtive Impacts Emissions resulting from the operation of proposed .SRRE and HHWE programs are Mmly to be limited, with the possible exception of volatile organic compounds resulting from the operation. of household hazardous waste collection programs. The implementation of measures to control project- specific emissions may be capable of minimizing potential cumulative impacts; however, if several waste collection programs are implemented, it may be necessary to purchase or implement emission offsets to reduce cumulative emissions to a less than significant level. Recycling commodities such as, glass, aluminum, and paper results in a substantial reduction in energy use when compared to using new materials. Decreased energy use would also have the potential to reduce air emissions in the air basins when the manufacturing processes are talang place. The operation of SRRE and HHWE programs will increase the amount of water used for waste management purposes on a County-wide basis. Existing waste management water use is primarily for dust control at existing landfills. Although the diversion of waste from landfills would result in an incremental decrease in solid waste disposed at landfills resulting in a decrease in water use, the proposed programs such as composting operations will likely result in a net increase in water demand. The significance of this cumulative demand would be dependant upon the location of proposed waste management programs, the ability of the water purveyor to supply water, and the historical water use at the proposed site. For example, if the water for a composting operation came from a different purveyor or aquifer that supplied water for an existing landfill, the potential for a significant cumulative impact would be avoided. However, if a composting facility were to obtain water from an aquifer that was in a state of overdraft, or from a jurisdiction with a recognized water shortage, the additional demand of water for waste management purposes may result in a significant cumulative impact. If a proposed program was implemented and a site where historical water use was greater than the proposed project's water use, the project may not have cumulative impacts to water resources. Each city and the unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo are required to achieve the waste reduction and diversion requirements of AB 939. This will likely result in the .implementation of new or expanded programs (.e., curbside collection, drop -off and buy -back centers, etc.) throughout the County. This dispersal of programs throughout the region will minimize the potential for cumulative traffic impacts from multiple new waste management facilities on any particular roadway system. If a proposed waste management facility were to contribute additional traffic to a roadway or intersection that presently operates at an unacceptable level of service, this additional waste management - related traffic would contribute to a significant cumulative impact. If the affected jurisdiction has a traffic impact mitigation fee for project- specific and cumulative impacts, payment of this fee may be sufficient to reduce project - related cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. In some instances, installation of road improvements such as turn lanes or traffic signals may be necessary to mitigate a cumulative traffic impact. 6-2 1 IN 7.0 GROWTH MUCENMgT DIPAC1'S Growth inducement is an action which could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of new development, either directly or indirectly. Growth - inducement ocet rs by removing or eliminating an impediment to population or development growth in an area (CEQA; Section 15126[g]). Implementation of the proposed Source Reduction and Recycling Element and the Household Hazardous Waste Element would not result in signift nt economic or population growth inducing impacts. Programs implemented by the SRRE and HHWE may generate limited employment opportunities, however, these jobs will not be likely to result in the in- migration of laborers from outside the local area. Labor- intensive programs, such as waste recovery recovery project, will likely draw upon the'local labor pool. .Proposed source reduction and recycling programs are intended to divert solid waste from being disposed at landfill s. Reducing the wastestream of the cities and unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County will not remove an existing obstacle to growth. 7 -1 MMWP.D o 8.0 ALTERNATIVES The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR, "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the pr ect, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the proposed project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. " A variety of solid and hazardous waste management alternatives will be required to establish an integrated waste management program capable of implementing waste reduction and diversion requirements of AB 939. The environmental analysis contained in Section 5.0 of this EIR evaluates environmental impacts associated with the solid waste and household hazardous waste management alternatives recommended by the Source Reduction and Recycling Element and the Household Hazardous Waste Element. Because the environmental analysis contained in this EIR evaluates a wide range of waste management programs, this alternative section focuses on the "No Project" alternative. Alternative programs listed in the SRRE and HHWE that were not selected for implementation because they were found to be infeasible, have not been included as alternatives in this EIR as CEQA Guidelines, section 15126 (d), requires that only feasible alternatives be evaluated. Other alternatives such as project redesign or new project location, have also been excluded from the alternative analysis, as project specifics are not available for comparative analysis. In place of project- specific alternative design and location analysis, a general evaluation of project size and location alternatives has been provided.. Impacts associated with providing large regional waste management facilities that would serve a region or sub- region versus several smaller facilities that would-serve local areas. Impacts associated with locating new facilities in. urban versus rural locations have also been evaluated. The evaluation of regional versus local facilities and urban versus rural locations considers projects that would have the greatest potential to result in environmental impacts. These project include a.material recovery facility, permanent household hazardous waste collection center, and composting facility. 8.1 NO PROJECT I The "No Project- alternative is required by CEQA to be evaluated as an alternative to the proposed project. This alternative assumes a status -quo or the continuation of existing waste management conditions. . If the waste management . programs recommended by the SRRE and HHWE were not adopted and implemented, the majority of solid waste generated in San Luis Obispo. County would continue to be disposed by landfilling. The continued reliance on landfilling for solid waste disposal would not be consistent with the objective of the proposed project to reduce the volume of landfilled solid waste in accordance with the requirements or AB 939. AB 939 legislation requires a 25 percent reduction in solid waste to landfill s by 1995 and a 50 percent reduction by the year 2000. If solid waste management strategies similar to those proposed by SRRE and HHWE are not implemented in the near future, available landfill capacity within the 8 -1 9335cwra • J 8.0 Alternatives county would be utilized at an accelerated rate and it is Mmly that San Luis Obispo County and. incorporated cam will not comply with AB 939 requirements. Non-compliance with the AB 939 waste reduction.requirements could result in substantial monetary penalties (up to $109000 Per day). Another impact that could result from not implementing the proposed HHWE would be continued reliance on limited programs for the collection of household hazardous waste. By providing only limited collection opportunities, the potential for illegal disposal, improper storage in the house and associated impacts is increased. The "No Project ", alternative would avoid the significant impacts associated with implementing theproposed waste management projects. This alternatives, however, would result on a continued reliance on landfilling for solid waste disposal and non - compliance with the legislative requirements of AB 939. Therefore, the "No Project" alternative is not a viable alterative to the proposed project. 8.2 REGIONAL VERSUS LOCAL PROJECT SERVICE AREAS This alternative evaluates environmental impacts associated with the scale or size of proposed solid and hazardous waste management projects. "Scale of operation' refeas to the physical size of the facility, the size of the wasteshed that it serves and the volume of waste material handled or processed each day. A facility that serves a local area (such as an individual City) would be smaller in size than a facility that would serve multiple jurisdictions or a.rtiegion- wide area Implementation of the local service area alternative would require the use of multiple smaller facilities, rather than one or two large facilities. Projects most liloely to be subject to local versus regional size considerations would be material recovery, composting and permanent household hazardous waste collection facilities. Implementation of the multiple local project alternative would locate waste management facilities closer to individual cities and wastesheds. The local approach would reduce the vehicle miles traveled associated with hauling waste material to a regional facility, resulting in a reduction in vehicle- related emissions. An additional source of vehicle emissions associated with the proposed waste management projects would be hauling recovered materials to market. If the multiple facilities recovered a similar volume of material as regional projects, recovered material haul trips and emissions would be similar: Potential air quality impacts resulting from the combined operations at multiple sites would likely be similar to a regional project because a similar total volume of waste material would be recovered and similar operations would be conducted. However, if the total number Of permanent on -site vehicles or employees at the multiple facilities were greater than, at a regional facility, resulting from a duplication of activities at multiple sites, actual project operation emissions from a regional facility could be slightly lower. 8 -2 Mscwr.x 8.0 alternatives :The combined land area required for the-implementation of the local project sites alternative could vary considerably; but due to possible duplication of operations at the sites, it is possible that a.greater total. land area may be required than for the operation of a regional facility. For example, several small composting facilities would require multiple operation and storage areas. This may require more land area than the storage area for a larger centralized facility that possessed a similar quantity of material as the combined smaller facilities. If the multiple sites were located in areas with significant groundwater -resources or near biologically sensitive habitat, the multiple project sites may result in increased impacts than from only one facility. Conversely, if a smaller land area were required by the localized facilities because the local programs would allow each facility to be- specifically tailored to the needs of the individual city or jurisdiction, potential environmental impacts could be reduced..Muldoe project, sites may result in increased impacts than from only one facility. With the multiple site alternative, land use conflicts such as noise, light and glare, and concerns regarding compatibility with surrounding uses would have the potential to occur at several sites, instead of at only one facility. Siting of waste management facilities is often controversial. It could be more difficult -to site, permit, and construct multiple facilities than one large facility. If one or more jurisdictions could, not construct and start waste management facility operations at a local facility in a timely manner, AB 939 waste reduction requirements may not be met. By decentralizing the proposed project into multiple sites, the potential for traffic impacts to roadway /intersection operation would be decreased because waste hauling traffic would be dispersed over .additional roadways. Under this alternative, however, it would be possible to adversely affect additional intersections, although, the severity of the impact would likely be dam. Impacts regarding total water use for waste management could also vary considerably under the local versus regional scenarios. Duplication of effort at multiple sites would result in increased water use, however, the ability to tailor waste management operations to specific waste streams may result in similar or less total water - use than at a regional facility. The significance of possible water supply impacts would be largely dictated by the ability of local jurisdictions to supply water to either a local or regional facility. Potential impacts regarding risk of upset and human health impacts would be incrementally increased at a regional facility because of increased volumes and concentrations of waste materials. By 'centralizing waste management activities, however, fewer monitoring and inspection. programs are required to ensure compliance with applicable regulations that reduce the risk of waste - related accidents. In conclusion, this alternative would either concentrate or decentralize waste management operations at large facilities or several smaller local facilities. This alternative would allow each jurisdiction to design the project to meet their specific needs, but may result 8-3 9s+scwrrr 0 8.0 Alternatives in redundant operations that could incrementally increase cumulative impacts associated with multiple waste management operations. The severity of site specific impacts associated with smaller local facilities could be less than the impacts associated with a regional project, however, it is likely that similar mitigation measures to reduce impacts of a large facility would also be required at the smaller facilities. Therefore, without specific project types or locations available for review, no clear determination can be made at this time whether the local or regional facilities alternative would be environmentally superior. 8.3 . URBAN VERSUS RURAL PROJECT SITE LOCATION This alternative compares environmental impacts associated with locating large waste managementfacHities at project sites that are located at rural and urban sites. Rural areas would primarily be open space or agricultural areas. Urban area would be areas designated for commercial or industrial uses. Implementation of a large waste management facility in a rural area would reduce the number of people near the facility that could potentially be affected by facility- related impacts such as noise, pests and vectors, odors and other. land use conflicts. By limiting these types of impacts, siting and obtaining required land use permits may face reduced public opposition. Rural sites, however, typically demonstrate characteristics that may result in significant development constraints. Since a rural site would not have been previously developed, or experienced only minimal ground disturbance, the potential for biologic and archaeologic impacts may be higher than at an urban site. It is also likely that a rural site will not have infiastructive capabilities to serve the project, such as sewer and water service. Extension of these services to the rural site could result in significant growth inducing impacts. Response' times by emergency services would be greater at a rural site, therefore, impacts resulting from upset conditions would have the potential to be increased at a rural site. Most of the wastestream processed by waste management facilities would be generated in urban areas. If processing or collection facilities were in a rural area, the need to haul waste materials to a distant site for processing would increase total vehicle miles traveled and associated air emissions. Baseline traffic conditions at a rural site will likely have lower traffic volumes than at an urban site.. Therefore, the addition of traffic to the project area roadways is less likely to result in a significant traffic impact. A substantial increase in traffic volumes at a rural location, however, would likely result in an increased percentage of vehicles utilizing the roadway than would occur at an urban site. For example, traffic from a material recovery facility may result in a 25 percent increase in traffic on a rural roadway, but only a 5 percent increase in an urban area. The relatively greater increase in total vehicles on rural roads could result in impacts such as traffic safety and noise that would not occur at an urban site. In conclusion, there are substantial advantages and disadvantages to both urban and rural project sites. While urban sites will have an increased likelihood of being able to provide necessary services and will be less constrained by biologic or archaeologic resources, rural sites are less likely to result in conflicts with surrounding land uses. A final determination regarding 8-4 s33scwr:a- 4.0 Alternatives which type of site is environmentally superior would be dependant upon the type of project proposed and specific project site characteristics. 8 -5 I snscWPA 4 4 1 4 I 1 1 1 1 9.0, LEqCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED 9.1 REF'EItENCES Canzono, Pasquale and Aian, Kenneth (August 1988), "Optimum System for Odor Control,' BioGycle, 40. Chadsey, Matt and Richard, Tom (April 1990), "Environmental Impacts of Yard Waste Composting," BioGycle, 42. County of San Luis Obispo (June 1972), Open Space Plan, Planning Department. County of San Luis Obispo (March 1975), Seismic Safety Element, Planning Department. Epstein, Eliot and Jonathan (Aug_ ust 1989), "Public Health Issues and Composting," BioQm1e, 50. Haug, Roger (October 1990), "An Essay on the Elements of Odor Management," Biogcle, 60. 9.2 PERSONS CONTACTED Dave Morrow, County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District. Gary Willey, County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District. 9 -1 ss3snwr.x APPENDIX A INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF PREPARATION MAILING LIST C I NrrL4L STUDY ► Household Hazardous Waste Element San Luis Obispo CawU L Background Project Description: The Household Hazardous Waste Bement (H iWE) is required by legislation to identify methods for the 1 collection, treatment and disposal of household hazardous wastes (HHW) generated by residences. San Luis Obispo County is proposing to include HHW Collection, Waste Acceptance Control Programs, and HHW Public Educational Programs to be included as sections in the HHWE. These sections and the characteristics of their programs are described in Table 1 -1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 1 -1. Household Hazardous Waste Element Household Hazardous Waste Section > ... Charazberistie of'Pmgram HHW Collection Periodic HHW Collection A temporary collection center, sec up for a short period of time Events (1 or 2 days). Residents can bring unused hazardous materials and accumulated hazardous wastes (.e. used oil, per, pesticides, batteries, etc.) to the center on collection days. The waste is sorted and packed into 55 -gallon drums. Wastes are transported by a licensed hauler to a licensed hazardous waste facility for recycling, treats, or disposal. Collection days advertised in advance. Permanent HHW Collet• A permanent collection center for residential hazardous material tion Facr'hty collection. The permanent HHW Collection Facility is staffed by trained personnel who screen, sort and package waste and store it in designated areas pending transportation of the material to a recycling, treatment or disposal facility. Mobile HHW Collection A mobile HHW collection facility consists of one or more Facility specially designed storage structures generally mounted on semi - truck trailers or placed temporarily on a prepared asphalt or concrete slab. The laity collects hazardous wastes from one community or neighborhood for at least 1 day, the moves to another location in a manner ®miler to bookmobiles. Suitable structures are manufactured by several companies and can be outfitted with accessories to improve safety and increase the range of wastes handled. The mobile collection center is staffed by trained personnel who screen, sort, and package wastes, and store them in designated areas within the structure. These personnel can often be provided by companies that sell or lease the collection vehicles. HHW Collection at Vendor Vendors of paint, batteries, and other products that eventually Locations become the household hazardous wastes can collect and store HHW for later pick-up by a licensed hauler. Waste collection opportunities are specific to the product or material each type of vendor sells (e.g., battery vendors would collect used batteries). Most or all HHW collected by vendors would be destined for recycling, and some wastes could be accepted on a trade-in basis. The County could advertise partiutipaiing vendors, who would potentially benefit from increased customer traffic at their locations. gl%Awr.s Page I 1 Table 1-1 (Continued) HHW Curbside Pick-Up In a curbside pick-up program, householders put their hazardous Program waste at curbside on designated days. Alternatively, the program is earned out in conjunction with garbage collection or curbside recycling programs. Specially equipped trucks staffed. by trained workers stop to collect the wastes. no wastes are then classified according to compaula*, properly packaged as part of the collection proem, and later delivered to a commercial treatment or recycling facility. Education Educational Program Prepare educational and management programs that focus on: encouraging proper HHW disposal, reducing HHW that enter the solid .wants jsORT, cn_muw proper HHW management Solid Waste Load Load Clacking Identifies and removes hazardous wastes that will enter the waste Checking Program stream by identifying HHW phor to refuse collection and implementation of procedures designed to CUSUM proper management of prohibited wastes by generators, including households. In addition, the program checks for hazardous wastes delivered at solid waste collection facilities. Household hazardous wastes are generated from &wide variety of household products, including the following: • Household cleaners • Pesticides • Batteries • Wood preservatives • Auto and furniture polish • Fertilizers • Automotive products • Adhesives and sealants • Paints and coatings ' • Photographic chemicals • Pool chemicals • Used oil A list of typical household hazardous wage products and specific programs that could be used for collecting and recycling include, but are not limited to the followitir- Used Oil. Used oil collection centers either located at gas stations, attended - recycling centers, and Cpunty-sponsored periodic and/or permanent HHW collection centers. R.ecyclers could pick up oil and could re-refine it for use as a lubricant or wast&derived fad. • Solvents. LaIm oil, solvents can be part of a permanent or mobile collection facility. Solvents brought to the facility can be collected, stored, and eventually picked up by a racycler. Much like used oil, the solvents may be re-refined and returned to use as solvents or burned as waste-derived fuel. • Used Batteries. Car batteries and household batteries. Collection of batteries either at gas stations, recycling station or County-sprmsored events. • Paints. Collected at a. recycling station or govermireatt-sponsored event. Generally lab-packed Or consolidated (bulk-packed) into 55 -gallon drums. • Used Antifreeze. Collected at a facility, neighborhood pick up or radiator shops. Can be recycled to create new anfifre=, airplane de-icing solution, and other products. 933MWP.E Page 2 .4 1 1 1 1 1 EO O Ibe HHWE would reduce the potential for improper disposal of these household hazardous wastes by: .D Reducing the amount of hazardous materials used and waste generated by households. • Ensuring that.hnnseholds have and use adequate moans of safety managing these wastes. • Providing for safe recycling or disposal. The programs involved in implementing the HHWE include setting up permanent and temporary HHW collection programs, promoting recycling of HHW products at the source and promoting public education programs. The following Initial Study considers potential environmental impacts associated with the HHWE, including potential impacts occurring from siting of HHW Collection Facilities; and operations of each section of the HHWE. II. Environmental Impacts: Explanations of all 'yea', 'maybe', and 'no' answers are contained on attached sheets. 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. . Change in topography or ground surface relief features ?. d.. - The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e... Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, :either. on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or . similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: A. Substantial air omissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alternation of air movement, .moishtre, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally. Yes . -Maybe No X X X — X — X — X — X X WAR SMMWr.s Page 3 1 • o . 1 1 M 1 933MwP.s Page 4 1 Yes Maybe No 3. Water. Will the proposal result iw A: Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water :movements, in either marine or fresh waters? — X — b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? — X — c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? — X_ — d. Change in the amount of surf tce water in any water body? — X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ _ X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? — _X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interceptions of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _. _ X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available .for public water supplies? _ _ X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? = X 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including Gees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X — b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? — X _ c. Introduction of new species of plants into as area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? — X — 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthc organisms or insects)? X — 1 1 M 1 933MwP.s Page 4 1 9MAWP.a Page 5 1 Yes Maybe No b Reduction of the numbers of any unique; race or 1 endangered species of animals? — X c. Introduction of new species of animal into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X — 1 d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? — X — 6: Noise, Will the proposal result in: . a. Increases in existing noise levels? — X — 1 b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? — — X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X — 8: Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? _ X — _ 1 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:' a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? — — X 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in: 1 a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the eveut:of an accident or upset conditions? X — / . b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? —X 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population of . an area? 7X 1 12. Housing. Will the proposal afflict existing housing,. or . create a. demand for additional housing? — — X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: 1 a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X . b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? — — X 1 c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems ?' — X 9MAWP.a Page 5 1 9335AWPA - Page 6 1 Yes Maybe No d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or _ movement of people and/or goods? _ _ X 1 e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? — — X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? — X — . 1 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? — X c: Schools? - — X_ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? — 1 e, Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? — — X f. Other governmental services? _ — X 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: 1 a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? = X- b, Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of n_ ew sources " of energy? — — X 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new' systems, or substantial alterations to utilities? — X — 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential ;health 1 hazard (excluding mental health)?, - — X — b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? — X — 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal. result in. the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public; or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? — X — 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 9335AWPA - Page 6 J I 1 1 1 1 1 ect hav the tial a e prof a poten to degrade the quahty of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the rmige of a rare or endangered plant or animal or a ininnrn important examples of the major periods of CaUfomia history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals?, (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period • of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the fitture.) c. Does the project have ;impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively'consideiable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? — X X X .X — M. Dis vision of Enviroximental Evaluation Implementation of the programs recommended by the Draft HHWE will have the potential to result in various Significant environmental impacts. Table 1 -2 sumawizes each of the issue areas identified' by this Initial Study gs`sAwr -e Page 7 1 Yes Maybe No 20. Cultural Resources. a Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? - - X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, shucture, or object? X X c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? — — X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or .sacred uses within the potential impact area? — — X 2i. Mandatory FSndipgs of Srgriikance. . Does th e a e prof a poten to degrade the quahty of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the rmige of a rare or endangered plant or animal or a ininnrn important examples of the major periods of CaUfomia history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals?, (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period • of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the fitture.) c. Does the project have ;impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively'consideiable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? — X X X .X — M. Dis vision of Enviroximental Evaluation Implementation of the programs recommended by the Draft HHWE will have the potential to result in various Significant environmental impacts. Table 1 -2 sumawizes each of the issue areas identified' by this Initial Study gs`sAwr -e Page 7 1 • o - 1 which may be affected by the projects proposed for each section of the HHWE. Each of the identified issue areas should be evaluated further in an Environmental Impact Report. Table 12. Household Hazardous Waste Element ! Issues to be Dissussed in the EIR :Section `? Pnagram ..; L�oe +Stems :. Collection Periodic HHW Air, noise, land use, risk of upset, transportation, human health Collection Events Permanent HHW Earth, air, water, Plant bb, animal life, noise, light and glare, Collection Facility land use, natural resources, risk of upset, transportation, public services, utilities, human health, aesdietics, cultural resources Mobil HHW Air, noise, land use, risk of upset, transportation, human health Collection Facility HHW Collection at Air, risk of upset, human health Vendor Location HHW Curbside Pick -up Air, risk of upset, human health Program Education E&i ational Programs No impacts were identified Solid Waste Load Load Checking Human health, risk of upset Checking Programs 1 1 1 IV. Determination 1 On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effax on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although die Proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, them will not be a significant effect in this case because the 1 arrogation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the Project A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ❑ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 1 Date Signature For 1 1 szis,.aP -a Page 8 1 IL. Envir anental Impacts 1. Earth a. Excavation necessary to construct or operate permanent structures proposed by the Household Hazardous Waste Element sections are not expected to result in significant unstable earth conditions or changes in the geologic substructures. b, c. Site preparation activities for permanent or temporary structures may require minor disruption, displacement, compaction, overcovering of the soil, or change existing topography. HHWE project operations are not expected to result in significant topographical impacts. d. Dependent upon the location of permanent structures, the. project may result in the destruction, covering or modification of unique geologic or physical features. Project activities involved in operating components of the HHWE are not expected to have significant impacts. e, f. Dependent upon the location of permanent structures, the project may have significant impacts to bodies of water, or increase the wind or water erosion of soils. g. If permanent collection facilities recommended by the HHWE are located in a seismically active region or an area subject to geologic hazards, geologic impacts could occur which may expose people or property to significant hazards. 2. Air a. Construction activities associated with a Permanent HHW Collection Facility may create short term impacts to air quality firm construction activities at the project sites. These activities could impact short term ambient air quality. Vehicle trips associated with HHW collection programs, or temporary HHW centers may cause. short term impacts to certain areas, however impacts are not expected to be significant due to short duration or the limited number of vehicles participating in the programs at any given time. All of the proposed HHWE collection programs have the potential to create. significant air quality impacts from consolidating, packaging, and storage of household hazardous waste.. In the event of an accident, HHW collection programs have the potential to result in significant degradation to air quality resulting from the release of vapors.. Recycling operations also have the potential to result in significant air emissions resulting from activities such as consolidating materials and processing operations. Education ping_ rams would not have the potential to result in significant air emissions. 9335nwr.x 1 b. The collection, . storage, or tran . sportation of HHW is not expected to result in a significant source of odors. C. The recommendations. of the Household Hazardous Waste Element are not expected to alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or change climate. 31; Water a. Permanent structures recommended by the HHWE for collection programs have the potential to impact water movement if located near a waterway or a flood prone area Implementation of existing programs to limit now construction in flood-prone areas will reduce this potential impact to less than, significant levels. b. A Permanent HHW Collection Facility, if located on an undeveloped parcel, May change absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount Of Surface runoff. C. permanent structures recommended by the HHWE, if located in an area of flooding, ding, ni ay alter the course or flow of flood waters. Implementation of existing programs to limit new construction in flood-prone *areas will reduce this potential impact to less than significant levels. d. The HHWE recommended projects are not expected to result in a change in the amount of surface water in. any water body. e. L The HHWE recommended projects would not discharge contamination into surface waters, or alter surface water quality by introducing diwIved oxygen or turbidity, or altering the direction or rate of flow of ground waters. g, h. The HHWE recommended Project Operations are not expected to require Substantial amounts of water. i. if temporary or permanent structures associated with the HHWE are located in a flood hazard area, impacts may occur from exposure of Persons or property to water related hazards. Implementation of existing programs to limit new construction in flood-prone areas will reduce this potential impact to less than significant levels.. 4. - Plant Life a. b. Depending upon the location, Of Permanent structures recommended by the HHWE, the project may change the diversity of species or number of any species of plants. If project structures are located in a biological sensitive area or are located in an 9335AWP.H 2 o area of unique,. rare or endangered species of plants, significant impacts may occur. Biological impacts from educational programs are not expected to be significant. C. Implementation of proposed HHWE programs will not introduce now plant species to the project region. d. - If permanent HEW facilities are located in an area of agricultural production, the project would result in the reduction in acreage of agricultural crops. 5. Animal Life a-d. Depending upon. the location of permanent structures recommended by the collection section of the HHWE, the. project may result in impacts from changes in the diversity of species, changes in the numbers of any species or animals, result in. a barrier to the migration or movement of animals, or deterioration of habitat. Education programs are not expected to result in significant animal life impacts. 6. Noise a, b. Permanent structures proposed by the collection section of the HHWE may create short term impacts from construction activities. Periodic or mobile HHW collection activities may also increase existing noise levels resulting from vehicle or project operation. Vendor or aubside collection programs would not result in significant increases in traffic noise levels. Noise levels from proposed projects will not expose people to severe noise levels. 7. Light. and. Glare a. Permanent collection structures recommended by the collection section BHWE may create new light and glare if operating hours are scheduled at night and/or if programs are located next to residential areas, areas sensitive to light, or a highly visible area. Education programs would not result in significant light or glare impacts. 8. Land Use a. Permanent and periodic collection programs recommended by the HHWE have the potential for land use conflicts if located near a residential area or if located in a conflicting general plan or zoning designation. Mobile, vendor or curbside collection programs would occur on an.infrequent basis or at existing commercial locations, thereby reducing the potential for land use conflicts to an insignificant level. Education programs would not result in significant land use conflicts. 933SAWP.H 3 Potential land use impacts resulting from . recycling operations would be reduced to an insignificant level by conducting recycling functions in appropriate land use 1 zones. 9. Natural Resources a. Implementation of-the EMWE is not expected to result in a reduction in the use of 1 natural resources. Therefore, this project would not, result in any significant natural resource impacts. 10. Risk of 141set • - 1 -a. Collection, storage, processing, and transportation of hazardous waste associated with proposed collection and load checlpng programs has the potential to result in significant risk of upset impacts. - Education programs would not result in significant risk of upset impacts. b. None of the BH WE sections are expected to result in the interference with any emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan. 11: ftalAtLon • 1 a. Implementation of programs. recommended by the HHWE are not expected to alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of human population of the area. 12 Housm*g 1 a. Implementation of the programs recommended by the EU IWE are not expected to create a demand for additional housing. 13. Transportation 1 a, c. Periodic and permanent collection facilities would . have the potential to generate substantial volumes of traffic that would adversely affect intersections or roadways that operate at reduced levels of service. Traffic generated by mobile, vendor, or curbside collections programs would be minimal or temporary in nature and would 1 not result in significant traffic generation impacts. Education and load checking programs are also not expected to generate substantial volumes of traffic. b. Proposed programs recommender) by the EMWE would not creates large demand_ for parking facilities. 1 9B5AWP.a 4 I d. Recommended collection and recycling programs would alter the transportation patterns of hazardous waste from primarily landfills to proposed facilities.. This alteration is not expected to result in significant traffic impacts. e. Collection or recovery of HHW will not substantially alter waterborne, rail or air traffic transportation patterns. 1 f. Increased transportation of hazardous waste by the public and commercial haulers has the potential to result in _signif cant transportation safety impacts for collection projects in the SRRE. g. Educational programs and-load checking programs Will not be transporting wastes and will not have an impact to transportation. 14. Public Services a -f. A permanent EH W collection program may adversely affect fire protection services. Other proposed collection programs would occur on an intermittent basis, accumulate limited quantities of hazardous materials, or occur at existing facilities. These programs would not result in a significant increase to fire protection services if collected materials are stored in accordance with applicable regulations. 0 Education programs would not create a significant demand for fire, police, school, park, public facilities, or other governmental services. 15. Fo r a, b. The recommended HHWE programs- are not expected to use substantial amounts, of fuel or energy. 16. Utilities 1 a. Dependant upon the location of the Permanent HEW Collection Facility, utilities may need to be expanded or altered., Other .recommended ]pgrams would not result in significant utility requirements. 17. Human Health I 9335AWPII I a, b. The recommended HHWE collection and load checking programs would include packaging, recycling and handling hazardous substances. Accidents, upset conditions, or, negligence in the handling of the HHW has the potential to result in health and safety hazards to employees and patrons of the facility. Proposed education programs would not have the potential to result in significant health impacts. 5 s.3sawp.x ® � 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 18. Ali' a. Obstruction of scenic vistas or views open to the public may occur if permanent structures of the collection section of the HHWE are looted in a scenic area: Other programs would not require structures and are not expected to have aesthetic impacts. 19. Recreation a: The HHWVE programs are not expected to result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities. 20. Cultural Resources a-d. The construction of a permanent HEW collection facility may have impacts upon cultural resources if structures are located in. areas of archaeological significance, unique ethnic cultural: areas, religious or sacred areas or would result in the removal of a historic structure. Other HHWE programs would not.disturb cultural resources. 21. Mandatory. Findings of Si canoe a. The construction of a permanent HHW Collection Facility has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment if mishap occurred and may result in biological impacts if located in sensitive areas. b. The-project is expected to be a long -term method of reducing hazardous waste disposed of at landfills. C. The proposed project may have impacts which are individually limited; such as traffic and air quality, but have the potential to be cumulatively significant. d. This initial study has identified programs recommended by the HHWE that have the potential to result in significant adverse effects regarding natural hazards, man- made hazards, natural resources, and man -made resources. 9MAWP.H 7 •MAILING LIST - EIR & NOTICE OF PREPARATION Sov2Gfa UooaTi og NmkD "CAfCUfI(o jL.t�9..&LTr PROJECT TITLE F&W AW,09r S sjASTL fl,:&4. REVIEW PERIOD: — NOP REVIEW /RESPONSE PERIOD: hth:4 , T),U 4��i COUNTY BOARD AND COMMISSION (CONTINUZD) Div of Environmental Health _)L<,_Co. Engineering Department .X.Co. Planning Department Bryce Tingle RMS Section _Bob Carr Air Pollution Control Dist. County historical Society "County Museum San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Airport-Land Use Commission Paul Hood LAFCo __4_Co. Fire Department Co. Sheriff's Department _)S,__Co. Counsel PROJECTS IMPACTING STATE HIGHWAY Mark Harmon Area Coordinating Council c/o Planning Department PROJECTS INVOLVING CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS DISEASE CONTROL, PESTICIDES, AND RELATED AGRICULTURAL CONCERNS _)S,_Co. Agricultural Commissioner BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS _Harry Ovitt Supervisor District 1 _Laurence Laurent Supervisor District 2 X Evelyn Delany Supervisor District 3 rev.. 3/91 d Ruth Brackett Supervisor District 4. David Blakley Supervisor District 5 Commissioner Susan James Commissioner Shirley Bianchi commissioner - Fabian Romano Commissioner Don Keefer Commissioner Kenneth Schwartz Commissioner David Oakley COMMUNITY ADVISORY GROUPS /COMMISSIONS I 1 1 X- Avila Valley Advisory Council 1 ATTN: Jim Fickes 2855 See Canyon Rd. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Z Cayucos Advisory Council 1 P.o. Box 274 Cayucos, CA 93430 _Concerned Citizens Council for Cambria P.O. Box 698 1 Cambria, CA 93428 V- CSA 9 Advisory Group ATTN: Noel King c/o Planning Dept. _Los Osos Land Use Committee 1 ATTN: Bob Semonsen 1120 4th Street Los Osos, CA 93402 _Y,_Oceano Improvement Assoc. 1 P.O. Box 597 Ocean, CA 93445 Santa Margarita Adv. Council P.O. Box 916 Santa Margarita, CA 93453 1 COMMUNITY ADVISORY GROUPS /COMMISSIONS (CONTINUED) _Santa Margarita Civic Assoc: 1 P.O. Box U Santa Margarita, CA 93453 X Solid 'Waste Mgmt. Commission ATTN: Karyne McMurphy 1 STATE AGENCIES STATE AGENCIES (CONTINUED) _; it -• ��' .., .. + :. _. Sandy 'Owen (Marine Biologist) 213 Beach St. Morro Bay, CA 93442 Jim Lidberg (Terrestrial Biologist)' P.O. Box 6360 Los Osos, CA 93402 1� State Clearinghouse ��t�S• 1400 10th St., Rm. 121 CA Dept. of Conservation Sacramento, CA 95814 1415 9th St., Rm 1326 =2 Sacramento, CA 95816 Secretary for Resources ATTN: Dennis O'Bryant 1 1416 9th St. Rm. 1311 Div of Mines & Geology Sacramento, CA 95814-, Div of Oil & Gas Div of Land Resource Protection Office of Planning & Research Division of Oil and Gas 1400 loth-St. P.O. Box 227 1 Sacramento, CA 95814 Santa.Maria, CA 93456 CA Air Resource Board Dept. of Boating P.O. Box 281.5 & Waterways Sacramento, CA 95812 . 1629 "S° St. (916) 322 -2990 Sacramento, CA 95814 -7291 1 cA Dept. of Parks &.Rec. CA Coastal Commission Coastal San Luis Coastal Area South Central Coast Region 3220 S. g St., #131 925 De La San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 9.3103 1 CA Dept. of Parks & Rec. CA Coastal Commission Environmental Review 631 Howard St. 1416 9th _St., Box 942896 San Francisco, CA 94015 Sacramento, CA 94296 -0001 Office of Hist. Preservation CA Dept. of Transportation P.O. Box 2390 1 P.O. Box 8114 Sacramento, CA 95811 San Luis Obispo,-CA 93403 -8114 CA Reg. Water Quality Control CA Energy Commission Board, Central Coast Region 516 9th St. 1102 -A Laurel Lane Sacramento, CA .95814 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 1 Native American Heritage Comm. State Water Resource Control 915 Capital Mall Rm. 288 Board; Regional Water Rights Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. Box 2000 Sacramento, CA 95812 -2000 CA DEPT. OF FISH & GAME ` ATTN: Mike Falkenstein/ft. Van Dyck 1 Regional Office Yountville Fac., Bldg C State Lands Commission Yountville, CA 94599 245 W. Broadway #245 Oakland, CA 94612 Karen Worcester (Aquatic Biologist) 1 P.O. Box 1535 Morro Bay, CA 93443 -1535 9 STATE AGENCIES (CONTn=D) FEDERAL AGENCIES (CONTINUED). CA State Conservancy USDA Soil Conservation Service 1330 Broadway #1100 610 10th St., #B Oakland, CA 94612 Paso Robles, CA 03446 1 PROJECTS WITHIN AIRPORT REVIEW USDA Soil_ Conservation_Service AREAS 624 -B W. Foster Rd. #1 Santa Maria, CA 93454 .CA Dept. of Transportation Division of Aeronautics Soil Conservation Service 1 P.O. Box 94274 318 Cayuga St., #206 Sacramento, CA 94274 -0001 Salinas, CA 93901 ATTN: Jack Kemmerly FHWA PROJECT WITHIN OR ADJOINING P.O. Box 1915 STATE PARK Sacramento, CA 95809 CA Dept. of Forestry .. Dept. of Energy, Region 7 635 N. Santa Rosa St.. ATTN: Martha Dixon /Jim Davis San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7815 Broadway Oakland, CA 94612 PROJECT NEAR MOONSTONE BEACH 1 DRIVE AREA (CAMBRIA) OR HEARST RANCH US Fish & Wildlife Service AREA Ecological, Services 2140 Eastman Ave. 4100 State Dept. of Parks & Rec. Ventura, CA 93003 P., O. Box 8 San Simeon, CA 93452 __ US Fish & Wildlife Service 1 ATTN: David Donahue Ecological Services 2800 Cottage Way FEDERAL AGENCIES Sacramento, CA 95825 U.S. Forest Service US Fish & Wildlife,Service ATTN: Dick McGuiden Endangered Species Office. 1 1616 Carlotti Drive 2800 Cottage Way Rm. E -1823 Santa Maria, CA 93454 Sacramento, CA 95825 U.S. Army Corps of Engineer _Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 2711 ATTN: Luretta Barsamian Los Angeles, CA 90053 -2325 215 Fremont Ave: 1 San Francisco, CA 94105 U.-S. 'Army Corps of Engineer c/o Army Reserve center PROJECTS NEAR CAMP ROBERTS 3227 State St., #114 Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Brian Duke, Env. Planner CA Army National Guard 1 Bureau of Land Management ATTN: CACR -DFE (Mr. Duke) 4301 Rosedale Hwy Camp Roberts, CA 93451 -.5000 Bakersfield, CA 93308 (805) 861 -4236 PROJECTS WITHIN OR ADJOINING LOS PADRES - ;'NATIONAL FOREST F.A.A. / ATTN: Mike Mavrakis Los Padres National Forest San Francisco Airport 6144 Calle Real District Office Goleta, CA 93771 831 Mitten Rd. Burlingame, CA 94010 _ - LIBRARIES South County Library 800 West Branch 1 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 County Library. 6850 Morro Rd. Atascadero,-CA 93422 County Library P.O. Box 3108 California Valley, CA 93453 Paso Robles Library 800 12th St. Paso Robles, CA 93446 California Polytechnic Library Robert E. Kennedy Library Cal Poly State Univ. San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 - Cuesta College Library P.O. BOX 8106 San Luis Obispo, CA 93463 San Luis Obispo Co /City Library 995 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 .SLO County Law Library Rm 1251 Co. Govt Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 4 LIBRARIES (CONTINUED) County Library P.O. Box 85 San Miguel, CA 93451 County Library P.O. Box 118 Santa Margarita, CA 93453 County Library P.O.. Box.196 Shandon, CA 93461 County Library 230 Leeward_ Shell Beach, CA 93449 COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS Atascadero High School 1 High School Hill Atascadero, CA 93422 _ -Atascadero Unified District 5601 W- Nall Atascadero, CA 93422 Cambria Union Elementary 2950 Santa.Rosa Creek Rd. Cambria, CA 93428 Coast Union High School 2950 Santa Rosa Creek_ Rd. Cambria, CA 93428' Cayucos School. District 301 Cayucos Dr. Cayucos, CA 93430 Crown Hill Campus 600 Crown Hill Arroyo. Grande, CA 93420 Lucia .Mar Unified District 602 Orchard Arroyo Grande., CA 93420 -Paso Robles Jr. Union HS Dist. P.O. Box 7010 Paso Robles, CA 93446 Paso Robles School District P.O. BOX 7010 Paso Robles, CA 93446 _Phillips School Shandon Star Route Shandon, CA 93446 County Library 9.00 Main Street Cambria, CA.93428 County Library 201 Ocean Cayucos, CA 93430 County Library P.O. Box 1 Creston, CA 93432 County Library 2075 Palisades Ave. Los Osos, CA 93402 County Library 625 Harbor St. Morro Bay, CA 93444 County Library 330 W. Tefft St. Nipomo, CA 93444 Paso Robles Library 800 12th St. Paso Robles, CA 93446 California Polytechnic Library Robert E. Kennedy Library Cal Poly State Univ. San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 - Cuesta College Library P.O. BOX 8106 San Luis Obispo, CA 93463 San Luis Obispo Co /City Library 995 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 .SLO County Law Library Rm 1251 Co. Govt Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 4 LIBRARIES (CONTINUED) County Library P.O. Box 85 San Miguel, CA 93451 County Library P.O. Box 118 Santa Margarita, CA 93453 County Library P.O.. Box.196 Shandon, CA 93461 County Library 230 Leeward_ Shell Beach, CA 93449 COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS Atascadero High School 1 High School Hill Atascadero, CA 93422 _ -Atascadero Unified District 5601 W- Nall Atascadero, CA 93422 Cambria Union Elementary 2950 Santa.Rosa Creek Rd. Cambria, CA 93428 Coast Union High School 2950 Santa Rosa Creek_ Rd. Cambria, CA 93428' Cayucos School. District 301 Cayucos Dr. Cayucos, CA 93430 Crown Hill Campus 600 Crown Hill Arroyo. Grande, CA 93420 Lucia .Mar Unified District 602 Orchard Arroyo Grande., CA 93420 -Paso Robles Jr. Union HS Dist. P.O. Box 7010 Paso Robles, CA 93446 Paso Robles School District P.O. BOX 7010 Paso Robles, CA 93446 _Phillips School Shandon Star Route Shandon, CA 93446 =. o SCHOOL DISTRICTS (CONTINUED) SW Coast Unif. -District 1499 San Luis Drive San Luis Obispo, CA '93401 Cuesta College Library P.O. Box 8106 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Pleasant Valley Joint Union Star Route Box 4390 San Miguel,,-CA 93451 San Miguel Joint Union P.O. Box 299 San Miguel, CA 93451 Shandon UInified District P.O. Box 79 Shandon, CA 93461 Templeton Unified School Dist. 960 Old County Rd. Templeton, CA 93465 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICTS - _Templeton Comm. Serv. Dist. 141 -5th Street Templeton, CA 93465 _San Simeon Acres CSD 111 Pico St. San Simeon, CA 93452 �Nipomo Comm. Serv. Dist. 148 S. Wilson Nipomo,, CA 93444 Cambria Comm. Serv. Dist. P.O. Box 65 Cambria, CA 93428 Ys Calif Valley Comm. Serv. Dist. P.O. Box 165 California Valley, CA 93453 _)S,_Oceano Comm. Serv. Dist. P.O. Box 599 Ocean, CA 9344.5 FIRE PROTECTION AGENCIES WITH - JURISDICTIONS.IN SLO COUNTY Avila.Beach Fire District P.A. Box 308 Avila Beach, CA 93424- c o f FIRE PROTECTION AGENCIES (CONTINUED) South Bay Fire Prot*.* Dist. 2315 Bayview Hts Dr.. Los Osos, CA 93402 Templeton Fire Prot. Dist. P.O. Box 295 Templeton, CA 93465 San Miguel Fire Prot. Dist. P.O. Box 26 San Miguel, CA 93451. Cayucos Fire Prot. Dist. ' 201 Cayucos Dr. Caycuos, CA 93430 Cambria Comm. Serv. Dist. P.O. Box 65 Cambria, CA 93428 927 -4700 Santa Margarita Volunteer Fire Department P.O. Box 67 Santa Margarita, CA 93453 438 -5342 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District .P.o. Box 548 Arroyo Grande, 93420 .CA , _Upper Salinas & Las. Tablas Resource Conservation Dist. 610 10th St. Paso Robles, CA 93446 INCORPORATED COMMUNITIES _Xr_City of Arroyo Grande Planning Department 214 E. Branch St., Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 _City of Atascadero Planning Department 6500 Palma Ave., Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 City of Grover City Building Department 154 Sth St., Box 365 - Grover City, CA 93433 • 1 INC. COMMUNITIES -(CONTI ww). v, city of Morro Bay. Building_ Department 595 Harbor St. Morro Bay, CA 93442 -City of Paso Robles Planning Department 1030 Spring St., Box -307 Paso Robles, CA 93446 _City of Pismo Beach Building /Planning Dept. 1000 Bello St., Box 3 Pismo Beach, CA 93449 �. -City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department 990 Palm St., Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 _City of. Santa Mar-fa Planning Department 110 E. Cook St. Santa Maria, CA 93454 -5190 OTHER COUNTIES �- County of Santa Barbara Resource Management Dept., 105 E. Anapamn St. Santa Barbara, CA 93101 9 LJ NEWS MEDIA (CONTINUED) KOTR 840 Sheffield Cambria,-CA 93428 KOSZ 1234 Ramona Ave. Grover City, CA 93433 KBAI P.O. Box 1,150 Morro Bay, CA 93442 KPRL P.O. Box 7 Paso Robles, CA 93446. KCBX FM 90 4100 Vachell.Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 544 -5229 KCPR Radio Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 KDDB Radio - 1224 Higuera.St. San Luis Obispo$ CA 93401 KLZZ Radio 321 Madonna Rd. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 __;&,_County of Monterey Planning Department KJDJ News Radio 240 Church. St. 1160 Marsh St. Monterey, CA 93901 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Kern County KPGA /KVEC Planning Department 3195 McMillan Ave. 1103 Golden State Ave. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Atascadero News Kings County P.O. Box 6068 Planning Department Atascadero, CA 93423 1400 W. Lacey Blvd. .Hanford, CA 93230 The Cambrian P.O. Box C NEWS MEDIA (NEWS RELEASES ONLY) Cambria, CA 93428 jUCAL Five Cities Time -Press Rec. 129 N. Halycon Rd. P.O. Box 460. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 KIQO FM Paso Robles Daily Press 14359 Atascadero Rd. P.O. Box 427 Atascadero, CA 93422 1050.Park Street Paso Robles, CA 93446 ■ NEWS MEDIA (CONTINUED) The Sun Bulletin . P.O. Box 1387 Morro Bay, CA 93442 o , MISCELLANEOUS (CONTINUED) Morro Coast Audobon.Society P.O. Box .160 Morro Bay, CA 93342 1 Telegram Tribune Santa Barbara County Flood P.O. Box 112 Control & Water Cons. District San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 123 E. Anapamu St. Santa Barbara, CA 93101 KSBY -TV ATTN:.Jack Fertig 467 Hill St. 1 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 _Joan Leon 250 Charles Drive KGUR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ATTN: News Director ' College ,Public Interest.Action Center Cuesta 1 P.O. Box J P.O. Box 15113 San Luis.Obispo, CA 93401, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 ATTN: Raymond Bracken MISCELLANEOUS �< Environmental Center Condor Research Center P.O. .Box 1014 ATTN: Linda Blum San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 2140 Eastman Ave. #100 Ventura, CA 93003 _Nature Consevancy c/o Ken Wiley Mr. Michael Glassow - P.O. Box.15810 Office of Public Archaeology SAn'Luis Obispo, CA 93406 1 Dept. of Anthropology 546 -8378 Univ.. of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106 CA State Coastal.Conservancy 1330 Broadway• #1100 Co. Archaeological Society Oakland,,CA 94612 1371 Avalon San'Luis 0bispo,,CA 93401. FOR ALL CAMBRIA NOP'8 AND EIR'S Port San Luis Harbor Dist. Roy Gorman ATTN: Cathy Pullis, Prop. Mgr. 1419 Broadway Ave. 1149 P.O. Box 249 Oakland, CA.94612 Avila Beach, CA 93424 (415) 465 -4494. Sierra Club Conservation Comm. Cambria Citizens Advisory c/o Tom Knepher. Bill Allen 584 Napa Avenue P.O. Box 1046 Morro Bay, CA 93442 - Cambria, CA 93428 927 -1341 1 CA Native Plant Society P.O.. Box 784 PROJECTS AFFECTING MORRO BAY San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Don. Parham, President San Luis Obispo Co. Friend of the Estuary at Land Conservancy Morro Bay John Ashbaugh P.O. Box 1375 . P.O. Box 12206 Morro Bay, CA 93442 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 League of Women Voters P.O. Box 4210 1 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 PROJECTS AFFECTING CREEKS (CONTINUED) ..Judy Neuhauser , 314 Higuera St. 1 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 544 -6723 ..San Luis Obispo Creek Project Robert P.O. B_ox 2258 / Avila Beach, CA 93406. $3wp/5390u. 1 1 1 1 1 I 8 .. • O `. � 1 1 .. 1 1 ► APPENDIX B RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 4 4 1 January 21, 1994 CITY OF GROVER BEACH MAYOR - FRED R. MUNROE MAYOR PRO TEM -HENRY -GENE' GATES COUNCILMEMBER - LOWELL FORISIER COUNCIuamBER - PETER KEaH COUNCILMEMBER - RONALD ARNOLDSEN . my ADmiNmTiATOR - PENELOPE J. CULBRETH. D.PA .. tTr!497' s Tr 2 41994 Stephen A. Devencerm vvc:Si "'iL OF GOVERNMENTS Solid Waste Program Manager San Luis Obispo Council of Governments 1150 Osos Street, Suite 202 San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 t Subject Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Source Reduction and Recycling Elements and the Household Hazardous Waste Element Dear Mr. Devencenzi: Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRRE) and the Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE). Overall, the draft EIR'is very thorough in its analysis of potential environmental impacts that may result from implementation of the SRRE and HHWE. However, we are requesting that the following comments be addressed in the Final EIR: 1. Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires adoption of a mitigation monitoring program at the time findings are made regarding the environmental impact report. Please forward a copy of the mitigation monitoring program for the SRRE and HHWE when you submit the Final EIR to the City. 2. Page 5.2 -2, Section 5.2.1.1 c.1: "Substantial setbacks" should be defined to minimize differing interpretations by jurisdictions. Z 3. Several sections of the draft EIR discuss noise impacts and mitigation measures. However, compliance with a jurisdiction's General Plan Noise Element is not discussed. A mitigation measure that requires conformance with an agency's Noise Element requirements needs to be included in the draft EIR. The Noise Element will assist in determining if potential noise impacts will occur and establishes the procedure for preparing an acoustical study. San Luis Obispo Council of Governments SRRE and HHWE Draft-El R January 21, 1994 Page 2 4. Page 5.2-20, Section 5.2-2-11 c.1- Revise this mitigation measure to state that at a Phase I archaeologic study would be -required only if the project is 'in an area. of 4 archaeological and cultural . . sensitivity based on information available to the jurisdiction. 4 5. Page 5.4-5, Section 5.4.2 a.-, first sentence: Correct the typographical error - "ships" should be "chips." 6. Section 5.42: This section should discuss any environmental impacts associated with handling and storing shredded bras. PleaCse provide the City with a copy of the Final El R or written responses to these comments at least ten days 'prior to certification by the Council of Governments. if you have any questions, please contact me at 473-4520. , ly r Si cee "'y Sandra M. Bi rdzinsk Assistant Community Development Director Xc. Penny Culbreth, DPA - , City Administrator Bob Nicholson, Resource Conservation Coordinator I 4 1 I 1 1 1 1 o Commentor: City of Grover Beach Date: January 21, 1994 1. Comment noted. A copy of the mitigation monitoring plan will be provided to all jurisdictions that adopt their Final SRRk /HHWE. 2. The setback distance that should be provided to reduce potential noise impacts from-drop-off and buy back recycling centers would be..dependent upon the type of recycling operation that is being conducted and the noise standards that have been adopted by the jurisdiction where the project is located. The required setback for a project that collects only newspapers would be less than a 'full- service° collection. facility.. The setback that is provided should be sufficient to reduce expected project- related noise to a level that is consistent with applicable, general plan, zoning and noise . ordinance requirements. 3. Comment noted. Please see response number two above. Mitigation measures :for potential noise impacts in the EZR have been clarified to state that proposed projects must conform to applicable general plan, zoning and noise ordinance standards. 4. Comment noted. This mitigation measure has been clarified to state that if an initial study that is conducted for a subsequent project determines that potential impacts to archaeologic resources may result, a phase I evaluation should be conducted. 5. Comment noted and a text amendment has been made. 6. Potential impacts associated with the handling and storage of shredded tires has been clarified.in section 5.4.2. Shredding tires .minimizes potential impacts from trapping water and providing potential habitat for vectors. Potential. fire - r-elated impacts would not be substantially reduced by shredding tires. City of SAn 1 OBISPO 990 Palm StreetlPost Office Box 8100 o San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 -8100 January 26, 1994 . Steve Devencenzi Senior Planner Council of Governments 1150 Osos St. Suite 202 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Steve, JAN 2 81994 SAN LUIS OU-Sk" The following are my comments on the Program Environmental Impact Report for the SRRE and the HHWE. 1 1 In general I note two areas in which programs selected incthe HHWE and SRRE for the City of San Luis Obispo were not included in the environmental impact analysis. First, in the HHWE, curbside collection of used motor oil is discussed in Section 6, Selection and Implementation of Programs, on page 6-2.. Curbside collection of used motor oil is listed -�-1 as a selected program that is optional for each jurisdiction and will not be implemented regionally. Was this program not included because it is not a regional program? An analysis of the environmental impacts of curbside oil collection will be needed by those jurisdictions that may want to implement it and should be included in the DEIR to reflect local as well as regional programs selected in the HHWE. 1 Second, please refer to page I -6-21 of the SRRE for the City of San Luis Obispo which states that "Due to the distance from the city of existing processing facilities, new facilities are expected to be required for the asphalt or concrete recycling program ". Page 5.4 -1 of the DEIR states that "No new facilities are planned at this time to implement the proposed 2 construction and demolition debris programs ". This statement is erroneous in relation to the San Luis Obispo SRRE. Inclusion of this analysis is needed to accurately reflect the programs selected in the San Luis Obispo SRRE. Please include an analysis of the impacts of an asphalt /concrete processing facility. Inclusion of all the programs selected in our SRRE and HHWE within this first tier DEIR will provide jurisdictions with an adequate DEIR and will provide the maximum yield from this first tier analysis upon which any future analytical needs can be based. Analysis of all facilities in the SRRE and the HHWE is a critical step toward expediting implementation of our programs. 1(�I The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. 7elornmmunicafinnc Device for the Deaf (805) 791 -7410. 1 1 I am also concerned about the clarity of several statements addressing the significance of identified -impacts. After a conversation with John Loane, the CEQA staff specialist at the California Integrated Waste Management Board, it is my understanding that these statements need to be clearly. decisive as to whether or not the impacts are deemed to be significant, or can be reduced by mitigation to less than significant levels, or can be maintained at below significant levels. Several statements of significance. in the DEIR are not decisive. An example is found on page 5:41 under Construction and Demolition Debris which states, "Mitigation measures. that are provided are intended to reduce identified impacts to a less than significant'level ". On page 554 the statement is made that "...it is unlikely that the proposed project could result in significant impacts to surface water quality". This language is ambiguous. Provision of.decisive statements of significance is important not only for the clarity 'of.the document and its value as a usable tier in the EIR process; it is also important to responsible agencies that will have to know which impacts are defined as significant in order to develop findings.. Statements of the type cited above are, found through out the DEIR. Please clarify them by making the statements conclusively reflect their intent; whether or not the analyzed impacts are deemed to be significant, can be maintained below significant levels, and /or can be reduced by described mitigation measures to less than significant levels. The following comments are the results of a review by San Luis Obispo Planning staff-. The benefit of this review is two fold.. First, Planning staff. offers comments based on an experienced background in EIR review. Second, being unacquainted with the details of solid waste and recycling issues; this review offers an objective viewpoint with suggestions which could make the document more understandable to the general public. 4�-3 In relation to "style ", the DEIR would be easier to read with less jargon and with the #k4 addition of a Glossary. Examples of jargon include "wastestream", "Risk of Upset ", "sharps" and "tipping floor". .P.1 -1 The Background section would.be more complete by clarifying:. • Whether or not the SRRE and HHWE are complete? • If complete, who prepared them? Whether or not each jurisdiction has separate documents or will one comprehensive$ document be prepared to cover the entire county and incorporated cities? P.24 Perhaps "preliminary investigation" could be more clearly defined by "surface6 reconnaissance" or "limited subsurface testing". DEIR Page 3 1 PA-3 The North County isn't mentioned under .Education and Public Information Programs? . It is understood that recycling and education programs are underway in North County. Please explain. 1 P.5.1 -1(b) Under Impact Analysis the DEIR does not clearly state that significant adverse impacts are likely. It states that illegal dumping "could occur" as a result of rate structure # g modifications. Are there data and previous studies to support this conclusion? . is mitigation necessary? 1 0S.1 -2 At bottom should this read "Section 5.1.1.1(c) "9 �9 P5.2 -2 The DEIR is ambivalent about the impacts and desirability of small neighborhood recycling centers. At the bottom of p. 5:2 -1, the DER states that material volumes and impacts would be minimal; on the following page it recommends. that they not be allowed -01 O 1 adjacent to residential areas. To achieve the dual objectives of fewer auto trips and waste recycling, shouldn't the EIR allow for the possibility of small recycling centers in residential areas (possibly in C -N commercial centers "adjacent to residential ", subject to approval of a conditional use permit)? . 1 P.5.24 Under Land Use Impact Analysis, the magnitude of the traffic impact is vague and 1 lacks supporting data. P.52-7 The forth paragraph contains acronyms needing definition. Z . 1 P.5.2 -9 The impact analysis of Water Resources is vague. What is a reasonable "worst case assumption" on water use? How will expansion of landfills change water use? Middle P. 52-14 Suggest adding a "mitigation measure #5": Locate facilities to avoid areas designated in city or County plans as visually sensitive, possibly including prominent hillsides, wetlands, historic sites, scenic or unique vistas. Bottom, Ibid. The DEIR should discuss land `use impacts relative to open space/agricultural /habitat preservation. There is an underlying, and perhaps incorrect, assumption here that by locating facilities away from cities, land use impacts are essentially'ISI eliminated. See 53.1.8.(a). Locating a composting facility on an agricultural or open space area poses a potential land use impact in loss of agricultural land and open space. Please comment. Bottom P.5.44 It. is not clear why as mitigation, the DEIR recommends that tires be �1 stockpiled in rural areas. First, .what is a "rural area" in SLO county? Second, doesn't this approach simply relocate air quality and visual impacts so that monitoring and mitigation becomes more difficult? Please explain. 0 0 DEIR Page 4 5.5-1 The first sentence says 'This section of the SRRE evaluates the capacity of .existing waste disposal facilities in SLO County to determine if they have the ability to accept residual waste material over a fifteen year period." The DEIR evaluates only the capacity of the Cold Canyon Landfill; however it should, if only briefly, also address the capacities of the other facilities as promised in the opening sentence. Middle P. 5.6.7 and bottom 5.6-8 Please describe what is an "adequate buffer" necessary It to reduce "risk of upset" impact to less than significant levels? Bottom P5.6 -18 The DEIR states that if a temporary collection program increased traffic on intersections that operated at unacceptable levels of service at peak hours, it would have a significant adverse impact. There is not enough information at a program EIR stage to 19 state that impact significance would depend on the timing and number of added trips. Suggest that this wording be changed to "could" have significant adverse impact, or provide additional information. Middle P.6-1 Clarify the meaning of the paragraph starting with "Vehicle miles traveled.. ". It is unclear how the conclusion that combined vehicle emissions from proposed collection #� 1 programs are not likely to result in a significant increase over existing collection related emissions is drawn from the first sentence stating the miles traveled associated with proposed programs would likely result in an increase over existing miles. Top PAI Clarify what is meant by "Emissions resulting from the operation of the proposed 1 SRRE and HHWE programs are likely to be limited.. ". Limited to what? What emission #7-1 levels have other jurisdictions experienced with similar programs? . Worst case estimate? Middle and bottom P.6-2 This analysis leaves the reader uncertain whether SRRE and HHWE programs will have any impact on water use, and oversimplifies the issue. The 1 analysis could be strengthened by providing specifics on water use in a typical landfill; 422 drawing assumptions from current operations in the county; making some water use projections; identify issues which subsequent project environmental studies need to address, etc. Middle P.8-1 While CEQA requires that only "feasible alternatives be evaluated ", the courts have .interpreted this to mean that the EIR should include a statement as to whichZ3 alternatives were rejected as infeasible, and why they were rejected (Laurel Heights). Alternative programs in the SRRE and HHWE which were not addressed in the DEIR should be identified, and their deletion briefly explained. Third Paragraph P$ -2 Isn't the most significant impact of the "no project alternative" that we could run out of landfill space within the planning period? Non - compliance with AB 939 requirements seems of lesser concern. DEIR Page 5 1 Bolton PPS-3 and 84 Issues of regional v. local project service areas and urban v. rural project site locations seem extremely important to the feasibility• of SRRE and HHWE Z� programs important enough to expect some guidance. from this DEIR.. The discussions 1 of both alternatives are inconclusive, and probablyof little use for decision makers and the public. Some "hard" data, comparisons, previous experience and other background would help. Thank you for working with the consultant to provide participating jurisdictions with a 1 complete and functional Program EM Sincerely, C - 1 Cyndi Butterfield Solid Waste Coordinator i 1 c: Bill Roalma_ n John Moss 1 1 ' 1 1 C' Commentor: City of San .Luis Obispo Date: January 26, 1994 1. An analysis of..potential .impacts associated with curbside collection of used motor oil was not included in the EIR because this program was identified only as an optional program that could be implemented by individual jurisdictions. Curbside collection of used motor .oil was not a program identified by the SRRE /HHWE as being necessary for the County and its incorporated. cities to meet their AB 939 diversion requirements. -It would be likely, however, that potential impacts associated with curbside collection of used motor oil would.be similar to the.potential impacts identified for the collection of household hazardous waste at a permanent, temporary or vendor collection facility. These potential impacts were addressed in section 5.6 of the EIR. 2. The City of San Luis Obispo SRRE indicates that the City should examine the feasibility of establishing new asphalt and concrete processing facilities. No new processing facilities were recommended by the Element. Given the relatively low volume of concrete and asphalt waste generated by the City (approximately 500.0 tons per year) it is possible that the use of existing facilities located near -Santa Margarita and on the .Nipomo Mesa would be feasible,. :Regardless, since no new facilities- were recommended by the SRRE to meet waste diversion requirements, potential impacts associated with new asphalt and concrete processing facilities were not included in the EIR. 3. The California CEOA. Guidelines provides guidance regarding the level of detail that is required . in an EIR that is prepared to evaluate impacts associated with the adoption of a plan such as the SRRE /HHWE. Section 15146 indicates that •the degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR.° Programs recommended by the SRRE /HHWE and that are evaluated in the EIR have not been defined in terms of their location; design or operational characteristics. Furthermore,, it is not the purpose or intent of the SRRE/MM process to provide this information. With the absence of detailed project information, it is not reasonable to make definitive conclusions regarding the environmental impacts that would occur from a particular project, to provide precise mitigation.measures that must be implemented, or to make conclusions that the proposed mitigation measures would in all instances reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Using the guidance provided by section 15146, the EIR is obligated to disclose potential impacts and mitigation measures at a level of specificity that is similar to the information that is available regarding the general characteristics of the proposed projects. This has 1 been done by describing impacts that are commonly associated with the proposed programs and identifying measures that may be capable of minimizing the identified impacts. Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines states that the EIR need not engage in speculation. Providing quantitative analysis and corresponding mitigation measures for unspecified waste management projects would require the EIR to speculate as to the magnitude, location and operation characteristics of the project recommended by the SRRE /HHWE. In the court case Laurel Heiahts improvement Assoc v Regents of the University of California (1988), the court noted where future development is unspecified and uncertain, no. purpose can be served by requiring an EIR to engage in sheer speculation as to future environmental consequences. Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines provides additional guidance regarding the level of analysis detail that is required of a Program EIR, such as the EIR that was prepared for the SRRE /HHWE. Subsection (c) requires that "subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.° This section requires that if it is determined through an Initial Study process that environmental impacts may result from a proposed SRRE /HHWE project that were not considered in the Program EIR, additional environmental review and documentation would be necessary. Therefore, section 15168 recognizes that the environmental analysis contained in a Program EIR may not provide the detailed level of analysis that would be required for a.project specific EIR prepared under section 15161 of the CEOA Guidelines. Based on the CEQA requirements described above, the environmental analysis and mitigation measures provided in the SRRE /HHWE Program EIR is considered to -be adequate to promote informed decision making and to disclose .potential impacts that may result from the adoption of the ,proposed SRRE and HHWE. .4. The-words described by the commentor are commonly used solid waste management and CEQA document terms. Additionally, their use in the context of the EIR provides an adequate frame of -reference as to their meaning. 5. The Draft SRRE /HHWE is complete, however, a Final. SRRE /HHWE cannot be adopted until the environmental review process is complete, a public hearing has been held for the;Elements, the Elements are adopted by the local jurisdictions and the California Integrated Waste Board approves the Elements. The draft SRRE /HHWE was prepared by the consulting firm of Brown, Vence and Associates_ A separate SRRE /HHWE has been prepared for each incorporated city and the unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County._ 6. More specific requirements to mitigate potential impacts to archaeologic resources are provided in section 5.0 (Environmental Impact Analysis) of the EIR. 7. The EIR states that education and public information programs have been implemented in portions of the unincorporated area of the County. This reference was not intended to delineate or exclude any specific areas of the County. 8. It is reasonably foreseeable that if the cost of -solid waste disposal were to be.increased, that illegal dumping may result to avoid paying-higher fees. However, a precise conclusion regarding public reaction to such a program or a prediction of how much illegal dumping may occur would be speculative and is not required -by CEQA. Since the potential for environmental impacts is reasonably foreseeable, it is appropriate to provide mitigation measures. Other. jurisdictions have. noticed an. increase in illegal disposal after implementing revised waste disposal rate structures_ For example, countie_s.in. the San Joaquin Valley have experienced a large increase in incidents of illegal tire dumping after implementing increased landfill fees for tire disposal. 9. Comment noted and a text amendment has been made. 10. Comment noted. The EIR text has been clarified to state that although noise sources would be "limited, project - related noise could result in nuisance impacts if a collection center were to be located adjacent to a residential area. 11. See response number 3 above. .The discussion of potential land. 'use conflicts that may result from traffic generated by recycling centers is adequate to inform the public and decision makers that such projects have the potential to result in traffic- related.land use conflicts. 12. Comment noted and a text amendment has been made. 13. See response number 3 above. The amount of water used by a material recovery "facility (MRF) may vary considerably depending on its size and operating characteristics. The significance of the -project's water. use would also be dependent on the location of.the - project and the source of the water. At this time,.none of these project - related details are known. Speculation regarding the amount of water that may be used by a MRF project that may be implemented in conformance with the SRRE is not required by CEQA. 14. Comment noted and a text amendment has been made. 15. The emphasis of the analysis of potential land. use conflicts resulting from a MRF or other types of solid waste management projects was to identify and minimize impacts to sensitive receptors such as residential uses. This emphasis. was provided because typically land use conflicts (dust, odors, pests, noise, etc...) from solid waste management project affect residential and other sensitive land uses more than agricultural or open space uses. The EIR also recognizes that locating solid waste management projects in an agricultural or open space area will not avoid the potential for land use conflicts. 16. As stated in the EIR, the purpose of this mitigation measure is to minimize the. short -term air quality impacts that would result if a tire fire were to occur in a heavily populated area. Although efforts should be made to prevent tire fires, it would also be prudent to locate a. tire stockpile in an area that, in the event of a fire, would effect the fewest number of people. 17.. The disposal capacities of existing landfills in San Luis Obispo County are described -in the Disposal Capacity Components that are contained in the SRREs that were prepared for each jurisdiction in the County. Only the Cold Canyon Landfill was described in the EIR because this is the only facility that was recommended for expansion.• Therefore, the Cold Canyon Landfill is the only landfill- related project subject to environmental review as a result of the SRRE /HHWE program. 18. Setback distances ,that must be provided to reduce potential impacts from solid and hazardous waste. facilities would be dependent upon project and site specific characteristics such as the type. and quantity of waste being processed or stored, and the types of structures that are utilized for material processing, containment and /or storage. It would not be reasonable to provide precise setback requirements for projects at this time given the absence of project- specific information: 19. Comment noted and a text amendment has been made. 20. Proposed programs such as source reduction and recycling will reduce the amount of solid waste that must be collected and disposed. This reduction in solid waste generation, along with a corresponding reduction in the need for collection and disposal activities, will somewhat offset additional emissions that will result from proposed programs that are: designed to collect or process solid wastes. 21. The reference to 'limited' in the indicated paragraph refers - to amount of pollutants that could be produced. This .. 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 conclusion is' based on the analysis of potential impacts contained in section 5.0 of the EIR. As previously described in response number .3 above, it is not reasonable to quantify emission levels resulting from proposed solid and hazardous waste management. programs that are recommended by the SRRE /HHWE at this time. Any conclusions that may be made at this time regarding future project- related air emissions would be based on speculation and is not required by CEQA. 22. As described in response number 3 above, it is not reasonable to quantify water use impacts resulting from proposed solid and hazardous waste management programs at this time. 23. Comment noted, however, section 15126 (d) of the CE OA Guidelines requires that a reasonable range of alternatives to the project be evaluated. CEQA does not require that alternatives to individual components of a project be evaluated (see Big-Rock Mesas Property Owners Association v. a.+vaiu vi ..ruvci va Wvc �cu ✓ia �.. i� i . , ratci ca.vac, rcu�aca.� va the EIR are directed to the SRRE /HHWE documents prepared for each jurisdiction in the County for an analysis of why certain waste management programs were rejected from further consideration. r 24. Comment noted and a text amendment has been made. 25. The analysis of alternatives to the proposed project concentrates on facility siting issues because recent court decisions have indicated that the °rule of reasons for alternative selection applies to alternative sites. Since siting issues are often one of the most controversial aspects of waste management projects, this is a reasonable approach to the required alternatives evaluation. As described in response number 3 above, without project specific information regarding the programs recommended by the SRRE /HHWE documents, a qualitative analysis and comparison of impacts associated with various recommended waste management projects and siting alternatives is not reasonable at this time and is not required by CEQA. • o COUnTY E ENGINEERING S COUMY ENGINEER - GLEN L PRIDDY N ONG SEEV 5 NOEL KING DEFUTY COUNTY ENGDPEER February 10, 1994 FEB 1.0 1994 Steve DeVencenzi Council of Governments 11 S0 Osos St Ste 202 ROAD TRANSI FLOOD CONTRA WATER CONSERVATIO1 COUNTY SURVEYO SPECIAL DISTRICI San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Subject: Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Source Reduction and Recycling Elements and Household Hazardous Waste Element Dear Steve: . This Department has the following comments on the above document. There has been a significant amount of time since the 'project was started and the draft of the final documents, including this EIR. In general, a clarifying statement regarding the time lapse between the drafting and publication of the respective documents would be helpful for the current and future readers. -It needs to be clear to readers that this EIR and the SRREs and HHWE are reflecting conditions or facilities and programs that were existent in 1990-1992. The. EIR document does not necessarily reflect conditions in 1994. Other comments that follow highlight some areas that are 1 affected (especially regulatory). Page 2 -1 Section 2.0 Summary. The State 'requirement for the County's completion of the CoIWMP is undetermined due to changes in law tying the deadline to State regulatory action. Please update the EIR to reflect this change rin the law. Page 3 -9 Table 3.4-3 unincorporated areas" unincorporated areas). Source Reduction Component Characteristics. mentions "seven should this be seven incorporated citiesi' (There are more than seven Page 3 -11 Table 3.4-4 Household. Hazardous Waste Element. We need to include curbside oil , collection in this table and the EIR analysis. Page 4 -3 Section 4.2. bdsting Programs. A statement is needed here regarding the time frame of the SRRE for identifying existing programs. 1 Page 4-3 Section 4.2.1 Most county unincorporated areas do not have franchises for solid waste services. Only a few special districts have chosen to franchise this service. Also, Ralcco provides . these services for unincorporated areas also. Also, note the correct spelling of this company's name. C • Page. 5.1 -1 Section 5.1.1 Rate Structure Modification. Another possible mitigation to consider includes mandatory subscription to garbage service for all residents and businesses. In addition to the mandatory requirement, another mitigation would expand the rate structure modification in the following manner. The .service fees would be assessed in two parts: a base rate level and an incremental increasing amount to reflect the level of service requested (by volume and frequency). 1:6(0 Exemptions (based on certain specific criteria) from mandatory service could be granted for the level of service required, but no exemptions would be allowed from the base rate. The base rate would be required of everyone thereby encouraging some further use of the system since it is already being paid for at the base rate. This may help stem the tide of illegal dumping by having some minimum level of "buy-in'. to the collection system. Please correct reference in 5.1.1.2c1 to be 5.1.1.1c. . Page 5.2 -1 Section 53.1.1 Drop Off-Buy Bade Noise. The Draft EIR impact analysis states there is a low volume of materials and few users, yet the mitigation says that siting adjacent to residential users is not appropriate. For an unincorporated community some commercial uses adjacent to residential areas are possibly the best places for site drop off centers in order to provide convenient i•j recycling locations for residents without curbside services. This is a land use issue that appropriate local permitting review can resolve and that the EIR should not preclude. A more positive statement for Section 5.2.1.1 c1 could be crafted to reflect that 'local conditional use permit review for noise impacts would be appropriate when locating these facilities near sensitive uses (residential).' Page 5.2- 4- 5.2.20 Material Recovery Facility Program. An additional statement regarding$ compliance with state and local. regulatory and land use permit review conditions would be appropriate as they cover most of the concerns articulated here. The Draft EIR does not reflect -the phased -in approach (manual sort/separated, waste - mechanized sort/mixed waste) that the SRRE proposes. This phasing in should, at a minimum, be acknowledged, if not analyzed. Additionally,. the SUE describes two facilities (North and South) with likely 9 capacities of 200 and 500 TPD. The EIR should reflect any differences between impacts in the North and South (traffic, noise etc.) and. these tonnages, or state why other tonnages were considered. Page 5.2 -10 first sentence, top of page, Water Resources. Since parts of San Luis Obispo County have had historical experience with drought conditions and overdraft of water supply, some further mitigations should be suggested to limit a project's use of water. Such mitigations, at a minimum, Ic would suggest use of non - potable water for landscape and other appropriate uses. Because a new use of a site is expected to require less water than earlier uses, the need or opportunity to further reduce potential water consumption by a project is not eliminated. Page 5.2 -10 Section 5.2.23c1. Water Resources. Potential project impacts need to be known before final siting approval not prior to operations. Please modify the paragraph to reflect this. In addition, siting locations to avoid should include any ground water recharge areas with high ground 41 water and with connections to municipal or private water supply aquifers. A suggested new paragraph c1 is 'As part of specific project.environmental review for final siting of a material recovery facility, water quality conditions.should be assessed. Potential project sites located in ground water recharge areas with high ground water or drainage problems, or with connection to municipal or private water supply aquifers should be avoided. Prior to material recovery facility operations, • O baseline water quality conditions should be established in order to ,accurately monitor potential project impact.° 1 Page 5.2 -14 Section 5.2.2.6 Aesthetics. Might a negative air flow here also be a partial mitigation I for litter control? Page 5.2 -15 Section 5.2.2.7c2 Land Use. Are there any specific setback guidelines that the El can suggest as part of land use review based on.siize/type of facility and adjacent uses? Page 53 -1 Composting. Suggestsome reference to State and Federal Regulations regarding green waste, food waste, sludge and MSW composting. Many requirements are now in place that didn'tI exist at the time the EIR was first drafted. The continual mention of enclosing compost facilities is unnecessary and misleading. The current regulatory process accounts for operational issues such as odor, dust,r noise, vectors, etc. and, attempts to mitigate these through regulatory compliance. The regulations do not require enclosure in all cases. For the EIR to suggest yard waste composting be done indoors to limit dust and odors is 1 excessive in most cases, dependent on factors such as size and location of operation. Distinction 1 should be made for types of operations (yard waste; food, sludge or MSW) and their different degrees of potential impacts. More careful wording of mitigations should reflect these distinctions. Page 53 -5 and 53-6 Sections 53.13 Water Resources. Aren't heavy metals and other pollutants addressed now in state and federal regulations? If so, update. The EIR should) acknowledge these regulations and state if the mitigations that follow are covered by them. Page 53-6 Water Resources. The second paragraph should acknowledge that local sludge may not contain significant levels of heavy metals. (It hasn't). It should suggest that the sludge be tested to determine the potential for this type of contamination from run -off or leachate. 1 Page 53-6 Sermon 53.13c4 An enclosed structure is not the only way to reduce the volume of water . needed or to facilitate collection of leachate. A covered structure would reduce the volume of water needed also. Current State regulations call for impermeable surfaces of 10x-6 for compost operations. This and collection/drainage requirements cover the leachate and runoff concerns 1 without enclosed structures. Page 53-8 Section 53.1.5c2 'Noise. Grinders are. noisy but requiring grinders to be enclosed without regard to location and other operational efforts to minimize sound is excessive. Sound barriers and operating time limits and buffer restrictions should be adequate for most smaller 1 facilities. (See Mitigation 3) Delete the first two sentences of Mitigation 2, Page 53 -10 through 12 Section 53.1.7 Human Health. Public safety may be an issue fe those facilities accepting disposal from private landscape contractors and the general .public. Also, any facility that has a bag or bulk retail operation may have additional safety issues to resolve. The Draft El R should reflect this concern and require design consideration to keep public areas physically 1 separate from operational areas. There might also be some suggestion of limiting hours for public access to assure safety during peak operation times. Recent California experience has shown concern for impacts from Aspergillus spores. Perhaps these 1 should be added to the list of airborne pathogens that require mitigation. c Page 53 -15 Section 53.1.11c2 Cultural Resources. This is not consistent with the mitigation for / a material recovery facility on Page 5.2 -20. Suggest adding the second sentence from section 5.2.2.11c2 and a third sentence. 'Continued activities shall be subject to state, county and local 1 guidelines." �22 Page 5A.1. Special Wastes. Second paragraph should be broader to reflect that no new facilities are proposed for special waste programs, not just construction and demolition debris programs. 1 Page 5.4-4 Section 5.4.1.2c2 Noise. The limit on hours of activities should be consistent anA specify 'weekdays only'. Page 5.44 Section 5.4.2 Tires. A statement regarding waste fire facilities regulations would be 'Va J appropriate. Page 5.4-5 Section 5.4.2e. Tire Derive Fuel. °..shredded into small ships?' I wish I thought of 011� that Appendix A Initial Study Table 1 -1. Why is County being used under Characteristics of Program ?4 It. is both City and County programs. Deletion of the County specifically would not harm the 1 statements, while 'inclusion of County is misleading. Page 6 of the Initial Study - Special Waste. Did the Initial Study not include sheet rock as part #>7 of the asphalt/concrete (construction and demolition) debris program? The Initial Study Checklist Page 9 No. 3h indicates no substantial reduction in the amount of water available for public water supply, yet further on the discussion of impacts on water (Text, Page 4) �a4 states that water use in the composting component may affect local water supply. Is there an inconsistency here? The Draft EIR acknowledges the potential for significant water quantity and quality.impacts (Page 5.3 -5) yet does not propose any mitigations. In addition, it only discusses decreases in ground water recharge. Is there any concern for surface water supplies? ,TITENW:7 Page 3 -5 Capitalize "no" in second to last paragraph2� 'Alternative' not 'Alterative" in last paragraph Page 3 -9 How would rate structure modification result in aesthetics and safety issues?� Salvaging - no mention of CFC spill Page 4-4 Is sewage sludge really being recycled by drying and reused for fertilizer and soil 4-jl amendments? Do other landfills have white goods recovery? Page 5.1 -2 Would mandatory garbage collection which will be implemented in the next 3 `� couple of years be a mitigation measure? O Page 5:2-6 *Performed" not preformed in C.2. Page. 5.2 -7 all" not T n. mid: paragraph . What is °R iOC ? (see mid - paragraph) Page 5.2 -13 Remove in bottom paragraph Page 5.2 -21 A mitigation measure may be to have salvage personnel work in pairs and never alone. Page 5.3 -1 Remove parenthesis in sentence at bottom of page. Page 53 -2 Decomposition of organic matter requires that sewage sludge or.some nitrogen contain-ing material be added . Page 55 -1 Does the composite liner for the Cold Canyon Landfill expansion comply with . Blanket WDR's adopted by Regional Water Quality Control Board? Page 55 -5 Daily cover is being placed over refuse since mid- December 93. Page S.6-1 Please note that a permanent HHW facility exists at ,Kansas Avenue, that it's the one recommended in the HHWE (pp IV 6 -2 and 3), and that-it has an Operations 4. Plan; no Recycle Days or waste exchange are anticipated at the Kansas Avenue Facility. The environmental analysis should be geared around the Kansas Avenue. facility [note the Kansas Avenue facility was exempt from CEQA (Class I Categorical Exemption)]. Page 5.6-3 Santa. Barbara HHW is a state -of -the -art and expensive facility; there is no *LVA comparison between the two. Page 5.6-7 What about illegal drop -off of wastes after hours? Page 5.6-8 Change °effect° to °affect' at top paragraph. 4, Page 5.6-19 In last paragraph, please note that no vendor locations collect oil -based paint. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 4 Sincerely, CLINTON MILNE County Engineer File: SW 4.23 AB939 Planning m: \leanne \mw \eirresspnJtr Commentor: San Luis Obispo Engineering Department Date: February 10, 1994 1. Comment noted. Countywide, or Regional. Siting Elements will not be due until 18 months after final regulations pertaining to the preparation of the plans are finalized. The reference to the due date for the.. County's Siting Element has been deleted from the EIR text. 2. Comment noted and a text amendment has been made,: 3. An analysis of potential impacts associated with curbside collection of used motor oil was not included in the EIR because this program was identified only as an optional program that could be implemented by individual jurisdictions. Curbside collection of used motor oil was not a program identified by the SRRE /HHWE as being necessary for the County and'its incorporated cities to meet their AB 939 diversion requirements: It would be likely, however, . that potential impacts associated.with curbside: collection of used motor oil would be similar to the potential impacts identified for the collection of household hazardous waste at a permanent, temporary or vendor collection facility. These potential . impacts were addressed in section 5.6.of the EIR. 4. Comment noted and a text. amendment has been made. 5.* Comment noted. The EIR text indicates that only portions of .the unincorporated County have franchise agreements for solid waste services. 6. Mandatory waste collection requirements work well in urban and suburban areas, but may not be feasible in rural areas. This is due primarily,to the relatively high collection costs associated with providing service in low population density areas. 7. It is not'the intent of the. proposed mitigation measure to preclude drop -off centers from being located in commercial areas adjacent to residential areas. This mitigation measure . requires that appropriate locations and /or setbacks from residential uses be provided to minimize. potential nuisance impacts. It is assumed that all proposed project locations would be subject to some level of review by the appropriate jurisdiction. 8. It is assumed that this program EIR will not provide the final environmental review for many of the proposed waste management programs that have been proposed and that subsequent review will be conducted.. 9. The intent of the analysis contained in the Program EIR is to identify environmental impacts that are likely to occur when implementing the proposed waste management, projects. Conducting this type of environmental analysis early in the planning process is encouraged by CEQA. Site and project specific impacts would be evaluated when actual development plans are .proposed. 'Without the identification of specific project locations, it would not be possible to determine if a :500 ton per day project in one location would actually result in greater environmental impacts than a 200 ton per day project in a different location. Increased or decreased environmental :impacts resulting from different waste sorting/ recovery processes and material volumes would also be considered as part of the subsequent project specific environmental review process. 10. Comment noted. A mitigation measure has been added to the EIR to encourage reduced water use.. 11. As stated in response number 9 above, it is anticipated that subsequent environmental review will be required for some of the programs and projects that are recommended by the SRRE /HHWE. The appropriate time to conduct this additional review will be when details regarding. the proposed project's design, operations and location are known and prior to final project approval. It is also expected that existing water quality conditions and potential project- related impacts would be assessed during, the subsequent environmental review process. The intent of the proposed mitigation measure is not to subvert the subsequent environmental review process, but rather to establish credible baseline. data regarding water quality conditions that can be used to monitor, the project over time and determine if it is resulting in water quality impacts. The mitigation measure has been amended to clarify this. In regard to the reference to the protection of groundwater recharge areas, the term 'significant° has been deleted.. The reference to "connections to iriunicipal or private water supply aquifers° has not been added to the mitigation measure as this requirement may be overly restrictive if design, processing operations and other mitigation measures are applied to the proposed project. 12. Providing a structure with a negative airflow system may be effective in controlling the escape of odors, but is unlikely to be sufficient to result in a significant decrease in the migration of litter out of the structure. 13. Setback distances that may be necessary to minimize potential 1 1 1 1 1 C� O - land use conflicts will vary considerably depending on a variety of factors, such as the processes and equipment that are used, traffic volumes and the type of structures) that may be used. Setback distances necessary to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level should be developed as part of the project design and /or the subsequent environmental review process. 14. Comment noted. The EIR text has been amended to describe new state requirements for composting of green waste. . 15. The enclosure of composting operations would be an effective method of reducing the potential for land use conflicts if a facility were to be located near sensitive receptors such as residences. If the project site were. located in an area removed from sensitive. land uses, it is unlikely that enclosing the composting operation would be necessary. It should not be assumed that compliance with composting regulations would be sufficient to reduce potential impacts to less than significant in all instances. 16. Standards for compost facility operations and compost quality are contained in .state and federal regulations. Text has been added to the EIR that identifies that such standards now exist and that composting facilities shall comply with the 1 adopted requirements. 17. The EIR describes potential water quality impacts that may result if the sludge used for composting contained heavy metals. If testing of the sludge and compost product as required by state regulations indicates that heavy metal 1 concentrations are below adopted standards, -the potential for significant water quality impacts would be minimized, but not eliminated. The EIR text has been.modified to indicate that sludge or compost products with high heavy metal content are more likely to result in significant water quality impacts than sludge /compost with :low metal concentrations. 1 18. Comment noted. The EIR text has been amended to recommend the use cover structures as well as enclosed structures. 19. Comment noted. The EIR text has been amended to state that the recommended noise mitigation measures should be implemented if subsequent environmental review determines that the project may result in a significant noise impact. 20. Comment noted and the EIR text has been amended. 21. Comment noted. The EIR text has. been amended to make the requirements of the two mitigation measures similar. 22. Comment noted and a text amendment has been made. 23. Comment noted. The EIR text has been amended to provide consistent recommendations for- limiting the hours of operation for-noise producing activities if those operations have the 1 potential to result in significant noise impacts. Actual hours of operation for a .particular project should be developed based on proposed sound producing activities and the location of any nearby sensitive receptors. 24. Comment noted and a text amendment has been made. 1 25. Comment noted and a text amendment.has been made,, 26. The reference to •County° pertains to the County of San Luis Obispo, not just the unincorporated areas. 1 27. Sheetrock recycling had not been identified as a. possible program by the SRRE at the time• that the Initial Study was prepared. This program was subsequently added and reviewed by the EIR. The Initial Study checklist item 3h incorrectly 'indicates that 1 proposed projects would not have the potential to result in water supply impacts. This item should have been checked 'maybe°. Regardless of the error, potential water supply .impacts were considered in the EIR. Additional mitigation measures have been added to the EIR to minimize water use by material recovery and composting 1 operations. 29. Comment noted and a text. - amendment has been made. 30. If the implementation of a:rate structure program resulted in increased incidents of illegal dumping, potential aesthetic 1 and safety impacts could..result. Potential impacts from CFCIs from white goods is addressed in the Special Waste section of the EIR. 31. Land farming of sewage sludge is a- common disposal method. No other existing white good recovery programs were identified by 1 the SRRE. 32. See response number 6 above. 33. Comment noted and.a text amendment has been made. 34. Comments noted and text amendments have been made. 35. Comment noted and a.text amendment has been made. 36. Comment noted and a text amendment has.been made. 1 37. Comment noted and a text amendment has been made. 38. Nitrogen amendments may not be required to facilitate an 4 1 - C • adequate composting operation. State requirements for green 1 waste composting facilities recognize this and exclude operations that do not add additives or supplements.from.low permeability liner requirements. 39. It is anticipated that any liner that is installed in the Cold Canyon Landfill would comply with existing Waste Discharge 1 Requirements and the,requrements of Subtitle D. 40. Comment noted. 41. Comment noted. The environmental review provided in the EIR for HHW collection facilities could be utilized to accommodate 1 modifications to the operations of. the Kansas Avenue facility_ or to site, construct and operate an additional facility sometime in the future. 42. Comparison of the Kansas Avenue facility to -the Santa Barbara facility provides a 'worst- case° evaluation of potential air 1 quality impacts. 43.. Illegal drop off of hazardous wastes after hours would have the potential to result in spills .tor other environmental exposure. These impacts have been addressed by the EIR. 44. Comment noted and a text amendment has been made. 45. Comment noted,'however, it is possible that paint may be collected sometime in the future. 1 1 - 0 0 AIR POLLUTION. CONTROL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO .. ..: h.Ll MAR 0 3 1994 TO: Steve Devencenzi, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments L ` ° mot, krtw-Md° TSB FROM: Diana S. GouM,* ality Planner; APCD Heather A Thomley, Intern, APCD DATE: March 1, 1994 SUBJECT: Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Source Reduction and Recycling Elements and the Household Hazardous Waste Element The District has reviewed the Draft EIR:for the above- mentioned elements of the Integrated Waste Management Plan. This Plan contains the Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRREs) and the Household Hazardous Waste Element (HI IWE) for the County of San Luis Obispo and the cities within the county. This document has identified significant air quality impacts for several of the proposed programs. We disagree with several of the assumptions on which these conclusions are based, and believe that technologies exist to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. The following comments address these concerns: I. voiatue Organic Compounds and Toxic Air Emissions An analysis of air quality impacts associated with the construction and operation of a permanent HHW Collection Facilities indicates that these facilities have the potential to emit significant quantities of Reactive Organic Gases (LOG) and toxic air erissions. Prior to the siting of such a facility, an 41 in -depth air quality analysis should be performed to identify project - specific air quality impacts, and identify appropriate mitigation measures. Technologies exist to minimize emissions of VOCs and toxic air emissions, thus reducing air quality impacts to less than significant. It is likely that HHW Collection Facilities would require a District permit. Thus, consultation with the District is an important step in this process. 2. Objectionable Odors Several sections in this document indicate that the potential exists for odors to be generated from composting facilities. In order to minimize odor complaints from composting facilities, appropriate siting criteria should be developed. Aerobic decomposition, where' oxygen is injected into 14 decomposing material, will result in decreased amines and inorganic sulfur compounds, thus reducing 1 the potential for objectionable odors. A discussion of this type of technology,, and its' effectiveness should be included in this section. 2156 Sierra Way. Suite 8 • San Luis Obispo. CA 93401 • 805 781 5912 • FAX 805 781 1035 1 S. Devencenzi SRRE and HHWE March 1, 1994 Page 2 1 3. Cumulative. Impacts As recycling and the use of recycled products becomes widespread, energy consumption decreases, with resultant benefits to air quality. Thus, the District supports programs of this type. Benefits of 1 the programs proposed should be addressed in this section on cumulative impacts. The EIR indicates that implementation of several of the proposed programs will result in an increased Z number of vehicle trips and miles travelled for collection vehicles, The EIR identifies this increase J as having the potential to create significant air quality impacts. Based on information presented in this EIR, the assumption could be made that an increase in vehicle trips and miles travelled for 1 collection vehicles would be offsetby a decrease in vehicle miles travelled for regular garbage trucks. .Regular garbage trucks would not be making as many trips to the landfill, because recyclables that were being thrown away are now being diverted to .recycling. It would be appropriate to discuss this in the section pertaining to cumulative impacts. 1 In summary, the District believes that recycling and source reduction programs result in a net air quality benefit to society. Our primary concerns on a local level are focused on the potential for localized odors and problems, and the potential for significant ROG emissions at the 19M collection sites. We believe both impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 1 We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposals. Please contact the District at (805) 781 -5912 if you have questions regarding.these comments, or require additional information. J ii�ww�wuHn�wrs��ow�mc�oc 1 J 1 Commentor: Air Pollution Control District 1 Date: March 1, 1994 1. It is anticipated that any, future proposal to construct and operate a HHW collection facility would be subject to subsequent environmental review and an analysis of potential air quality impacts. This analysis would be based on proposed operation procedures and expected waste types and quantities.. CEQA would require that, if necessary, the subsequent environmental review identify mitigation measures capable of reducing significant air- quality impacts. 2. Injecting oxygen .into the compost material is an effective method to control odors, but may not eliminate the potential for odor impacts to occur. The EIR also identifies other methods to control odors associated with! composting operations. 3. Comment noted and a text-amendment has been made.� 4 i a RESOLUTION NO. 8327 (1994 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL OF MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 78 -94 (COUNTY FILE 94 -058), DIVIDING ONE LOT INTO TWO WITH EXCEPTIONS TO LOT WIDTH AND DEPT -TO -WIDTH RATIOS, AT 1023 SAN CARLOS DRIVE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of the tentative map of MS 78 -94 and staff recommendations, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the general plan. .2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R- 1.zone. .3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easements for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision, because there are no recorded easements. 5. An initial study of environmental impacts was prepared by the Community Development Department on July 22, 1994, that describes significant environmental impacts associated with project development. The Community Development Director has reviewed the environmental initial study and granted a Negative Declaration of environmental impact, with mitigation. The initial study concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment., subject to the mitigation measures being incorporated into the project, and the City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration and finds that it reflects the independent judgement .of the City Council. R -8327 Resolution no. 5327 (1994 Series) MS 78 -94: 1023 San Carlos Page 2 6. The property to be divided is of impossible or undesirable, in the conform to the strict application zoning regulations because 1) no possible without some exception; site as one lot may interrupt the design in this neighborhood. such shape, that it is particular case, to of the subdivision and subdivision of the site is and 2) development of the historical pattern of lot 7. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the subdivision and zoning regulations is not the sole reason for granting exceptions to lot width and depth -to- width standards. 8. The lot width and depth -to width exceptions will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. 9. Granting exceptions to lot width and depth -to -width standards is in accord with the intent and purposes of the subdivision regulations, and is consistent with the general plan and all other plans of the city, because it allows continuation of a neighborhood development pattern. 10. The dimensions and size of the lots will assure that no deep -lot subdivisions may be made on these lots in the future. SECTION 2. Conditions. The approval of the tentative map for MS 78 -94 is subject to the following conditions: 1. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the City for review, approval and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. The final map shall be prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and Subdivision Regulations. 2. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's control network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation.of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final parcel map. A 5 -1/4" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data for use in autocad for Geographic Information system (GIS) purposes, is also required to be submitted to the City Engineer. Any exception to this requirement must be approved by the City Engineer. Resolution no. 8327 (1994 Series) MS 78 -94: 1023 San Carlos Page 3 3. The subdivider shall provide individual electrical, cable television, and natural gas services and metering for each lot to the approval of affected public utility agencies and the City Engineer. 4.. The subdivider shall extend the existing 8" public water main in San Carlos Drive across the entire property frontage, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer. The subdivider may request reimbursement for off -site connections to the water main extension, in accordance with City regulations. 5. The subdivider shall provide individual water services and sewer connections for each lot, to the approval of the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer. 6. The subdivider shall construct street frontage improvements across the entire property frontage, per City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer (6' -wide integral curb, gutter, and sidewalk). 7.' The subdivider shall remove the existing street barricade and pave the full width of the street across the property frontage, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Structural design shall use a T.I. = 5.5 and shall comply with City standards. That portion of unpaved street between this property and Florence Avenue shall be graded and based to accommodate drainage, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer (a berm may be required to contain the water within the right -of -way limits). An alternative pavement design may be approved by the City Engineer, to provide for continuity with existing paving on this street. The developer may be eligible for reimbursement.for a portion of the expense, in accordance with Municipal Code section 16.44.091. 8. The subdivider shall construct a street barricade at the westerly end of the new.street improvements, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 9. Lots shall be graded to direct drainage towards the street, to the approval of the City Engineer and Chief Building Official. 10. Street trees shall.be planted with the development of each lot, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 11. An addressing plan shall be submitted for approval by the Community Development Director. I� Resolution no. 8327 (1994 Series) MS 18 - -94: 1023 San Carlos Page 4 Mitigation measure: 12. Plans for- development of the lots shall include sound mitigation techniques, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, including strategic locations of windows and combinations of sound walls and building walls, to limit noise exposure in outdoor use areas to 66 dB at projected city buildout. An acoustical analysis of proposed development may be required. On motion of Vice Mayor Settle seconded by Council Member Roalman and on the following roll call vote: AYES -Vice Mayor Settle, Council Members Roalman, Rappa, "_Romero, and Mayor Pinax NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 16th of August , 1994. Mayor F�egLllinard ATTEST: C' Clerk Dia R. Gladwell APPROVED: __III 1 . ../a k' e �a �00 N C Cj 8326 RESOLUTION NO. (1994 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF AN ACTION TAKEN BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TO DENY A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH TWO STRUCTURES CONTAINING FOUR APARTMENTS AND A GARAGE AT 1231 GARDEN STREET (ARC 72 -94) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Finding . That this Council, after consideration of ARC 72 -94 and the Architectural Review Commission's decision, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The structures to be demolished are historically, culturally and aesthetically significant. Cumulatively, small diminutive housing, built in the early part of this century, near the downtown, is an important part of the City's housing stock and representative of the historical character of the City. 2. Demolition of these structures would erode the availability of affordable housing convenient to the downtown, which is contrary to general plan policies regarding conservation of housing stock and the importance of housing in and near the downtown. SECTION 2. Denial. The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action regarding ARC 72 =94 is hereby denied, and the action of the ARC to deny the request to demolish structures at 1231 Garden Street (.ARC 72 -94) is hereby upheld. A_R 11! On motion of Council Membes:Roalman seconded by Vice Mayor Settle and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member-.Roalman, Vice Mayor Settle and Mayor Pinard NOES: Councilmembers Rappa and Romero ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 16tllay of August 1994. Mayor PA Pinard ATTEST: Ci erk Diane R. aladwell APPROVED: r - .� �� `������ r� 1�- -S�� �1�� �� �' r, RESOLUTION NO. 8325 (1994 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RESCINDING THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE FOR CCT TRUST (RESOLUTION NO. 8257 DATED JANUARY 4, 1994) WHEREAS, Central Coast Taxi Trust (CCT Trust) previously had applied for Certificate of Convenience with which to provide taxicab service in the City of San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, the Certificate of Convenience was Conditionally approved by Resolution No. 8257; and WHEREAS, CCT Trust failed to provide proper proof of insurance as mandated by Municipal Code number 520.270, and WHEREAS, adequate insurance is necessary to protect the citizens of San Luis Obispo, and WHEREAS, the Certificate of Convenience was not issued, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby Rescinds Resolution No. 8257 dated January 4, 1994 thereby rescinding the conditionally app -roved Certificates of Convenience for CCT Trust (dba Yellow Cab of Five Cities. On motion of Settle , seconded by Romero . and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Vice Mayor Settle, Council Members Romero, Rappa, Roalman, and Mayor Pnard NOES: None ABSENT: None I R -4425 the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 16th day of August 1994. �%; �. mmyle •i� 'I ATTEST; mm /1 1, ! �• . APPROVED: jr�• ►V). n