Item 28 Staff Report Consider Adoption of Amendment to the Solid Waste Management Plan For the County of Santa Clara, 1989 RevisionTOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: March 12, 1992
TO: MAYOR AND TO COU IL
FROM: TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT:
COUNCIL AGENDA
DATE: 3/16/92
ITEM NO. D
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TO THE SOUD WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, 1989 REVISION
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing and receive public comment.
2. Close the public hearing.
3. Reject the amendment to the County Solid Waste Management Plan for the County of Santa Clara,
1989 Revision, which allows importation of limited amounts of nonhazardous treated auto shredder
waste from San Mateo County.
BACKGROUND:
Adoption of the proposed amendment would allow LMC Metals to dispose of 12,480 tons of TASW per year
at Guadalupe Landfill. The waste to be imported under the CoSWMP provisions Is the residual waste
resulting from the recycling of automobile bodies, white goods (appliances), and loose tin which originate
in Santa Clara County and are shipped to the LMC Metals processing facility in the Port of Redwood City
for processing. The residual waste which originates in Santa Clara County is currently disposed of at
Guadalupe Landfill in San Jose.
The West Valley Rate Review Committee discussed this item and Is concemed about the impact of the waste
on the Guadalupe landfill used by Green Valley Disposal Company for disposal of franchised waste: the
Committee agreed that the West Valley cities should not carry the burden of the entire county's automobile
waste. County Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee members response is that most landfills in the
county landfill wastes generated by other jurisdictions. County Solid Waste Management staff is preparing
a table to prove this assumption.
Staff recommends that Council reject the amendment: County Staff will not complete its survey prior to the
ninety day comment period. Consequently, there is no factual Information available to demonstrate that
there is equitable distribution of county -wide generated waste among the landfills in the County.
Despite Los Gatos' rejection of the CoSWMP amendment, it is likely to be adopted. A majority of the cities
are expected to approve the amendment; they claim that rejection of the amendment may result in more
waste being Iandfilled in the County. If the waste is not accepted by one of the landfills in the County for
PREPARED BY: Regina A. F
Community :;', eq Director
RAF:dr
CSD013:A:CNCLRPTS\AMENDMNT.S
ATTACHMENTS: See Page 4 for list of Attachments.
DISTRIBUTION: See Page 4 for Distribution List.
3/12/92 2:09 pm
Rio #
Reviewed by: KGC, Attorney Clerk Finance Planning
COUNCIL ACTION/ACTION DIRECTED TO:
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, 1989 REVISION
March 11, 1992
disposal, then LMC Metals is likely to stop recycling automobiles and white goods generated in Santa Clara
County. Since there are currently no firms in the County that process these materials, the county landfills
could be forced to landfill unprocessed waste. Although there is merit to this argument, adopting the
amendment should be conditioned upon the West Valley Cities' receipt of documented data demonstrating
the equitable distribution of county -wide generated waste.
DISCUSSION:
In September 1991, the City of San Jose requested that the County initiate the County Solid Waste
Management Plan (CoSWMP) amendment process. The amendment would allow the importation of
nonhazardous treated auto shredder waste (TASW) from its point of generation at the LMC Metals recycling
and processing facility in the Port of Redwood City (San Mateo County) to Guadalupe Landfill, located in
San Jose. Adoption of a CoSWMP amendment requires approval by the Board of Supervisors and by a
majority of the cities in the County containing a majority of the incorporated population. The Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors approved the amendment and the Negative Declaration of environmental
impact prepared by the City of San Jose on December 10, 1991. The amendment is now being submitted
to all of the cities in the County for their approval. The City of San Jose, acting as the Local Enforcement
Agency for the disposal site, has granted LMC Metals an exemption to allow disposal of this waste while the
CoSWMP amendment process is completed.
The TASW is the non -recyclable residue remaining after all of the recyclable materials have been claimed
from a shredded automobile. It consists of road dirt that adheres to car bodies, plastic and cloth from
upholstery, foam rubber from seats, glass, fiberglass insulation, ground up nonferrous metals, and small
pieces of ferrous metals that are too small to be extracted from the shredded material.
Amendment Requirements
The proposed amendment (Attachment 1) provides for importation and disposal of TASW from LMC Metals
subject to the following requirements:
The imported solid waste shall be the unrecyclable residue which results from the recycling of white
goods, automobile bodies, loose tin, and similar recyclable materials;
• The annual tonnage of imported solid waste shall not exceed the annual tonnage of unrecyclable
residue resulting from the recycling of materials which originate in Santa Clara County;
• The imported solid waste shall be nonhazardous;
• Guadalupe Landfill shall maintain current operating permits which provide for acceptance of the
imported material;
• LMC Metals and Guadalupe Landfill shall provide updated information, as required by Policy 14 of
the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan, 1989 Revision (and listed in attachment 2)
to the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Program on an annual basis. Information shall be provided
more frequently if requested by the County.
The CoSWMP contains a procedure for review and approval of requests to dispose of nonhazardous solid
waste generated outside Santa Clara County at facilities in Santa Clara County. The attached report
(Attachment 2) summarizes the required application information provided by the City of San Jose as required
by Policy 14 of the County Solid Waste Management Plan, 1989 Revision.
Environmental Review
The current Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Guadalupe Landfill addresses the disposal of automobile
parts if accepted in a nonhazardous form. An initial study of the environmental impact of this project was
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, 1989 REVISION
March 11, 1992
completed in October 1991 and a Proposed Negative Declaration for the project was adopted by the County
of Santa Clara, Department of Planning and Development on October 22, 1991. The County's negative
declaration was based on the conclusion that all potential environmental effects had been reduced below
the level of significance by adoption of mitigating measures. These are detailed in the negative declaration.
The CoSWMP criteria for evaluating importation requests includes, but is not limited to, the impact that the
imported waste will have on long-term disposal capacity for Santa Clara County jurisdictions; and the ability
of the importing jurisdiction to comply with county -wide recycling policies.
The importation and disposal of TASW by Guadalupe Landfill will not cause the landfill to exceed its annual
permitted disposal tonnages. The imported waste amounts to approximately 0.7 percent of the county-
wide waste stream and approximately six percent of the Guadalupe Landfill waste stream. Importation of
the TASW will have a minor negative impact on long-term landfill capacity in the County. Not accepting
imported TASW for disposal could result in local landfilling of automobile bodies and white goods and a
greater negative impact on local landfill capacity.
San Mateo County recycling policies are not relevant to the issue since the waste proposed for disposal
consists solely of residual wastes which are the direct result of the recycling of materials which originate in
Santa Clara County.
The Town, In exercising discretionary review of this amendment for which the County prepared a Negative
Declaration, is a "responsible agency', for purposes of CEQA. The Town had the opportunity to comment
on and consult with the County during preparation of the Negative Declaration. It appears that the County's
Negative Declaration adequately evaluates the project and that with the mitigation measures included, there
is no substantial evidence that the amendment will have a significant effect on the environment.
Committee Recommendations
On October 30, 1991, upon the recommendation of the Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee, the Solid
Waste Committee of Santa Clara County voted to recommend approval of the amendment to the Board of
Supervisors. During discussion of the item, Vera Dahle, West Valley Solid Waste Programs Manager
(Campbell, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, and Los Gatos) expressed the cities' concerns that their landfill site was
being proposed as the only site for disposal of TASW generated throughout Santa Clara County, and
suggested that alternative sites be considered. 'the Committee considered alternative sites and determined
that there are no other landfills in Santa Clara County which are permitted to accept TASW for disposal.
The committee discussed the concerns of the West Valley Cities and voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the amendment to the Board of Supervisors with the following stipulations:
•
A county -wide study of the unique wastes accepted at disposal sites throughout Santa Clara County
will be completed to determine what unique waste disposal needs are being met by area landfills
on a regional basis.
• Efforts will be made to work with landfills throughout Santa Clara County to encourage them to
obtain permits allowing them more flexibility in the materials they are allowed to accept for disposal.
Each City has a 90-day period in which to act upon the amendment. There are three options for taking
action on the amendment:
Agendize it, hold a public hearing, and approve it by resolution.
Agendize it, hold a public hearing, and reject it. If rejected, a letter should be sent to the Board of
Supervisors stating the reasons for rejection.
Allow the 90-day approval period to elapse without acting, which constitutes approval.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, 1989 REVISION
March 11, 1992
CONCLUSION:
Automobile bodies, white goods, loose tin, and other similar materials from Santa Clara County which are
currently processed at the LMC Metals facility may not continue to be processed at the facility, requiring
that these materials be landfilled locally.
An informal poll indicates that a majority of cities are In favor of the proposal. Therefore, the amendment
is likely to pass even if the amendment is rejected by the Town. Staff will notify the Santa Clara County
Board of Supervisors of the Council's action.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. CoSWMP Amendment
2. Negative Declaration and Monitoring Plan
DISTRIBUTION:
County of Santa Clara, Department of Planning and Development, Office of Toxlcs and Solid Waste
Management, Attention Margaret J. Rands, Solid Waste Program Manager, 1735 North First Street,
Suite 275, San Jose CA 95112
Mary Lou Flynn, 209 Nob Hill Way, Los Gatos 95030
ATTACHMENT 1
1991 AMENDMENT TO THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN TO PROVIDE FOR IMPORTATION AND DISPOSAL OF
NONHAZARDOUS RESIDUAL SOLID WASTE, GENERATED BY LMC METALS
OF REDWOOD CITY AND RESULTING FROM RECYCLING OF WASTES
GENERATED IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY
The Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan 1989 Revision, Chapter V:
Disposal and Facilities, Future Considerations Section is amended to add the
following:
IMPORTATION OF OUT -OF -COUNTY WASTE
LMC Metals of Redwood City (San Mateo County) is granted approval to import
nonhazardous solid waste for disposal at Guadalupe Landfill in San Jose (initially
estimated at 12,480 tons per year), so long as the following requirements are met:
• The imported solid waste shall be the unrecydable residue which
results from the recycling of white goods, automobile bodies, loose tin,
and similar recyclable materials;
• The annual tonnage of imported solid waste shall not exceed the
annual tonnage of unrecyclable residue resulting from the recycling of
materials which originate in Santa Clara County;
• The imported solid waste shall be nonhazardous;
• Guadalupe Landfill shall maintain current operating permits which
provide for acceptance of the imported material;
• LMC Metals and Guadalupe Landfill shall provide updated
information, as required by Policy 14 of the Santa Clara County Solid
Waste Management Plan, 1989 Revision to the Santa Clara County
Solid Waste Program on an annual basis. Information shall be
provided more frequently if requested by the County.
APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF SUP RV►c^ '
OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY �� b i9
ONALD M. RAINS, Clerk of the Board
Deputy Cleft.
County of Santa Clara , C2f"',rnia • Advance Planning Office • Environmental Planning Section
Basis for Negative Declaration Recommendation
The Environmental Planning Section of the Department of Planning and Development has reviewed
the initial study for the project and, based upon substantial evidence in the record, finds that the
proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, or, although the
proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant
effect in this case since the mitigation measures have been added to the project.
This finding its based': on:thekfatfowingconsiderations (SeeNote below
1. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the provisions of the Santa Clara County Solid
Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP).
2. Importation of treated waste from the LMC facility will not result in expansion of the landfill site.
3. Transportation of the treated waste will generate one to two truck trips per day, which will not
significantly impact traffic.
4. Under the CoSWMP amendment, the amount of imported waste would remain proportional to the
amount of waste originating in Santa Clara County, and would not constitute a new or significant waste
source. The volume of waste would be equal to 0.7% of the county's waste stream.
5. The waste is handled and continually monitored according to DNS regulations to prevent disposal of
hazardous wastes at a Class III landfill.
rate or auord'sTglfliii�nnf srnlnrafrr•
}- �ifp Al' �tfs�,beadopili
8r�tt�yr,,is�..
Prepared by:
Jaunell Waldo, Planner III
Approved by:
Robert Sturdivant, Chief Planning Officer
da
ij23/<9/
at
11-9-90
County of Santa Clara . Cal, rnia s Advance Planning Office a ,vironmentai Planning Sec -fen
Proposed Negative Declaration
A notice, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code
21,000, et sec.) that the following project when implemented will not have a significant impact on the environment:
File Number
CP91-19
Date
10/22/91
Project Name.
Guadalupe Landfill CoSWMP Amendment
Projecttype
public / government
Owner
Guadalupe Landfill
Applicant:
City of San Jose, Dept. of Neighborhood Preservation
Project Location
Disposal will take place at the Guadalupe Landfill on Mines Road in the City of San Jose.
Project Description
The City of San Jose has requested an amendment to the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management
Plan, 1989 revision, to allow importation of LMC Metal's treated auto shredder waste. This waste is
composed of the unrecyclable residue remaining after the recyclables are removed from automobiles.
The waste from automobiles will be taken from Santa Clara County to the LMC facility in San Mateo
County for processing. LMC is proposing to retum the treated waste to a Santa Clara County landfill.
The current Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management PLan (CoSWMP) specifies that out -of -county
wastes can be accepted for disposal only if specifically authorized by an amendment to the CoSWMP.
This proposed amendment will authorize such importation.
Purpose of Notice
The purpose of this notice is to inform you that the Environmental Planning Section has recommended
that a Negative Declaration be approved for this project. Action is scheduled on this proposed Negative
Declaration before the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors on
December 10.1991 in County Gov't Cntr.,Bd of Supervisors Chambers
•
If the Negative Declaration is approved, the decision may be protested upon filing an appeal with the
Central Permit Office. It should be noted that approval of a Negative Declaration does not constitute
approval of the project under consideration. The decision to approve or deny the project will be made
separately.
RevleW PertO :
.......tr....i...: . „, w ....V. >,: • '«3a.3'�o`.�:,``...�.,,.«.,r....... ;: -....:.... ..,......,,.:,o....v....,......c,..,.;£.;aow».�.a. {as'sfo&a.>:... ...:: ::: .:.,:.: ..........
Public comments regarding the correctness, completeness, or adequacy of this Negative Declaration
are invited and must be received on or before the hearing date listed above. Such comments should
be based on specific environmental concerns. Written comments should be addressed to the County
of Santa Cara, Department of Planning and Development, Environmental Planning Section,
County Government Center, 70 W. Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110, Tel (408) 299-2521. A
file containing additional information on tth.s project may be reviewed at the Department of Planning
and Development. When requesting to view this file, please refer to the tile number appearing at the
top of this form.
Responsible Rgencfes s+3nt copy of this document:`
:tea ....:.,..:.:
RWOCB
Dept. of Health Services
City of San Jose
California Integrated Waste Management Boaro
OF SANTA CLARA CCLJVTY
DONALD M. RAINS. Clerk of the Board
By
10%, ty C
INITIAL STUDY
Environmental Evaluation Checklist for Santa Clara County
, ject Tale: I MC Metal c/Guada1 u.p Landfill _cnslimD Arno nrirni=nt Date: 11 Oct 1001
File Number: APN(s): Not apol i cabl e
500' Map #: NA Zoning: Not aool i cabl e Gen.Ptan Designation. Not aopl i cabl e
USA ('rf any): Not acol i r3h1 o Project Type: County s'e r'13n3gcm1=r1* p1?n -_ r
Applicant's Name & Address: City of San Jose Department ofRNeighborhood Preservation , 0ffi :
of the Director; 801 N. First / Tee gone: (403) 277-5566
Project Location (address or description):
Please see attached report
Project Description: Please see attached report
Environmental Setting: Pl ease see attached report
The.enrr n nentai tactorschecked� .belor may be potentially aff
nrected. by this.prolecf See.sheets attached to the Initial
Study fora,. dtscuss10ri of these: environmental factors and any possibie mfigailoa which may be proposed.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
❑ LAND USE/ GENERAL PLAN
❑ GEOLOGIC
❑ RESOURCES/PARKS
® SEWAGE / WATER QUALITY
DRAINAGE / FLOODING
❑ FLORA AND FAUNA
❑ TRANSPORTATION
❑ HOUSING
• SAFETY/HEALTH
❑ AIR QUALITY
❑ NOISE
❑ AESTHETIC
Q ENERGY
❑ HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGI-
• CAL
❑ PUBLIC SERVICES & UTILI-
TIES
❑ MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
IMF 'T
YES
WILL THE PROJECT:
'Cuestions relating to the Calrfornia Department of
Fish & Game "de minimus impact finding- for the
Certificate of Fee Exemption are listed in italics.
Not SignitI- Signifl-
NO Slgnifl• cant cant_
cant Unless No ap-
Mltlga- parent
tad Mltlga-
tlon
Cumu-
lative
SOURCES
A. LAND USE I GENERAL PLAN
1. Require a change from the land use designated in the
General Plan?
2. Involve a change of zoning?
3. Require a change from adopted specific plans or
community goals?
4. Be in an area with special policies or of critical
concern?
a. San Martin &/or South County
b. Los Gatos/Lexington or Guadalupe Watershed
c. East Foothills
d. New Almaden Historical Area
e. Stanford
f. San Jose
5. Result in any substantial changes in the present land
use, either on or off the project site?
6. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community?
7. Conflict with established recreational, educational,
religious or scientific uses in the area?
B. GEOLOGIC
1. Be located in an area designated as having a poten-
tial for major geological hazard?
2. Be located on, or adjacent to a known earthquake
fault?
3. Be located in a Geologic Study Zone?
4. Be located in an area of soil instability (subsidence,
landslide, shrinWsweli potential, soil creep or severe
erosion)?
5. Cause substantial erosion or siltation?
6. Cause substantial disruption, displacement, compac-
tion or over -covering of soil either on -site or off -site?
7. Cause substantial change in topography or in a
ground surface relief feature?
8. Involve construction of a building, road or septic
system on a slope of:
a. 30% or greater?, f
b. 20% to 30%?
c. 10% to 20%?
® Q LQ = =
® t= Q Q =
Q M 0 Q =
C. RESOURCES / PARKS
1. increase the removal rate or result in the removal of a
natural resource for cQ:IM21l purposes (including
rock, sand, gravel, oil, trees, minerals or top soil)?
® 0 0 Q Q
® 0 = = Q
® = Q = =
NM Q Q Q CI
Q = CQ =I
EMI Q = 0 l�
= Q Q =
— Q = = =
1♦ Q = Q =
5a,1 Oa
7 ,9a
6a,7,10a
6a,b,10a
6a,10a.13,14
6a,10a
6a,7,10a
6a,15,16
6,10a
1,2,3,12b
2,4
2,4
— Q Q 0 = 9b,10c,11a,
122..17,18
® = = = Q 9c,10c,11 a
® 0 0 = = 9c,11 a
1f� 0 0 Q = 9c,12a,12d,20,
21
N M Q 0 0 Q 1,2,3
MI 0 0 Q 0 1,2,3
MI 0 0 0 Q 1,2,3,11 c
— 0 0 0 = 1,3,10j,11c
ft = Q 0 = 1,3,1001c
— Q CI Q Q 1,3,1001c
= = =
2
IMPACT
WILL THE PROJECT:
'Cuestions relating to the California Department of
Fish & Game 'de minimus impact finding' for the
:ertificate of Fee Exemption are listed in italics.
NO
Not
Signifi-
cant
'ES
'Slgnlfi-
cant
Unless
Mltlga-
ted
Slgnifl-
cant.
No ap-
parent
Mltlga-
tlon
CJrnu-
latIva
SOURCES
2. Resuft in substantial depletion of any non-renewable
natural resource?
3. Convert 10 or more acres of prime agricultural land
(Class I to II) to non-agricultural use or impair the
agricultural productivity of nearby prime land?
4. Involve lands protected by the Williamson Act (agn-
cultural preserve) or an Open Space Easement?
5. Substantially affect any existing agricultural uses?
6. Be on, within, or near a public or private park, wildlife
reserve, or trail (includes those proposed for future)?
7. Result in loss of open space rated as high priority for
acquisition.
D. SEWAGE / WATER QUALITY
1. Resutt in a septic field being constructed on soil with
severe septic drainfield limitations?
2. Result in a septic field being located within 50 feet of
a drainage swale; 100 feet of any well, water course
or water body or 200 feet of the high water mark of a
reservoir?
3. Result in a septic field being located in an area where
a high water table extends close to the natural land
surface?
i. Result in extensions of a sewer trunk line with capac-
ity to serve new development?
5. Degrade surface or ground water quality or public
water supply?
6. Be located in an area of special water quality concern
(e.g., Los Gatos or Guadalupe Watershed)?
7. Result in use of well water previously contaminated
by nitrates, mercury, asbestos, etc. existing in the. •
groundwater supply?
E. DRAINAGE / FLOODING
1. Interfere substantially with ground water recharge?
2. Substantially change the direction, rate of flow or
quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
3. Change absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
4. Involve a natural drainage char..tel or streambed or
water course such as to atter the location, course, or
flow of its waters?
5. Be located within a floodway or floodpfain area?
= = = =
IBM = = = =
= 1=1 = =
= = = =
= = = =
® = = = =
= = = =
= = = =
MI = 0 i= =
= = _ =
= = 1 = =
® = = = =
O = = = =
® = = = =
® = i= = =
® = = = =
f1• = = = =
INN = = = =
2,3
2,20,21
1,9a
2
2,9d,10h
38
12d,20,21 ,22
1,2,3,4
10e,11b202124
3
1,3,11b,21
4,10a,13,23
10e,23
3,10e,11b
1,3
3,28
1,3,11 c,28
9c,12c
3
IMPACT
WILL THE PROJECT:
*Questions relating to the Califomia Department of
Fish & Game 'de minimus impact finding' for the
Certificate of Fee Exemption are listed in italics.
NO
Not
Signifi-
cant
Signifi-
cant
Unless
Mttiga-
tad
Sig ni ft-
cant
No ap-
parent
Mitiga-
tion
C.1 mu -
lava
SOURCES
F. FLORA AND FAUNA
1. Affect fish, wildlife, reptiles, or plant life, by [a] change
in diversity or numbers or [Pi introdu'ion of new
species or (cj restrictions to migration or movement or
[di reducing habitat?
2. Affect or cause changes to existing habitat, food
source, nesting place, breeding place for a rare or
endangered plant or animal species?
3. Involve a unique biological area, such as a fresh
water marsh or salt water tide land?
4. Involve construction within 150 feet of a watercourse
or riparian area?
5. invotve cutting of unique or heritage trees or a large
number of trees over 12- in diameter?
G. TRANSPORTATION
1. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system? (Exceed LOS level '0' in vicinity -GP
policy G8.3.)
2_ Increase traffic hazards to pedestrians, bicyclists and
vehicles?
3. Obstruct access to nearby uses or fail to provide for
future street right of way?
4. Cause increases in demand for existing on or off-
street parking because of inadequate project parking?
H. HOUSING
1. Reduce the supply of low-income housing or displace
people or businesses?
2_ Affect the type or cost of housing in the area?
3. Create a demand for additional housing?
L SAFETY/HEALTH
1. involve the application, use or disposal of potentially
hazardous materials, including pesticides, herbicides,
toxic substances, or radioactive materials?
2_ Involve risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances?
3. If yes to #2, be within 1/4 mile of a school [public
notice]
4. Be located within 200' of a 230KV or above electrical
transmission Tine
5. Create any health hazard?
6. Be located in an ALUC Safety Zone?
= G7 = =
= = = f=
— = C= C= =
— = f= I= =
® = [= G= _
— = G7 C= =
® C= =I G7 C=
® 0 = i= =
MI 0 G O =
>• = C= = =
» = C= = =
Ifs L= CZ = =
11 d,e
1Cb,11d,e
1,2,3,1Cb,11d,c
2,3,12b,39
1,2,3.25
= = — = =
NM 0
✓ III 0 C= = =
— 0 0 = =
— 0 CI = =
I• 0 CI =
4,6a,26,27,23,
29,44
3.4
3,12e
1,3,30
3,4
2,3,4
3
1,3,4,5
1,3,4,5
40
2,4
1,3,4,5
4
'ACT
WILL THE PROJECT:
'Questions relating to the Califomia Department of
Fsh & Game 'de minimus impact finding' for the
Certificate of Fee Exemption are listed in aIics.
NO
YES
Not
Signlfl-
cant
Slgnift-
cant
Unless
MItIga-
tad
Slgnifl-
cant.
No ap-
parent
Wigs -
than
Cumu-
tattys
SOURCES
7. Be located in an area of extreme fire hazard?
3. In the case of cul-de-sacs over 800 ft. in length,
require secondary access which will be difficult to
obtain?
. Employ technology which could adversely affect
safety in case of a breakdown?
10. Proposed site plan result in a safety hazard (i.e.,
parking layout, access, closed community, etc.)?
11. Provide breeding grounds for vectors?
J. AIR QUALITY
1 Violate any ambient air quality standard, dntribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
2. Create objectionable odors?
K NOISE
1 Increase substantially the ambient noise levels for
adjoining areas during and/or alter construction?
Generate unusually high noise or vibration levels at
certain times?
3. Be subject to an unusually high noise level?
4. Be located in an ALUC noise zone?
L AESTHETIC
1. if subject to ASA, be generally in non-compliance with
Guidelines for Architecture and Site Approval? '
2. Create an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view?
3. Visually intrude into an area having natural scenic
qualities?
4. Be adjacent to a designated Scenic Highway or within
a Scenic Condor?
5. Obstruct scenic views from existing residential areas,
public lands, public water body or roads?
6. Be located on or near a ridgeline visible from the
valley floor?
7_ Adversely affect the architectural appearance of an
established neighborhood?
8. Generate new light or glare?
M. ENERGY
t. Use fuel, water or energy in large quantities or in a
wasteful manner?
= = = = 10g
= = = = 1,3,4,32,23
= = = = 1,3,5
® i= = = = 3
® 1= = = = 1,3,5
® = = = =
= = =
5,34
1,3,5
= = = = 1,3,5,6a
= = = = 1,3,5
ISM = = = = 2,4
= = = = 31
= = =
)� = = = =
® = = = =
® = = = =
® = = _ =
N = = = =
= = =
O = = = =
_ = = =
35,36
2,3,37
2,3,4,37
7,10f,37
2,3
2,101,11 c,37
2,3
1,3
1,3,5
5
IMF :T
YES
WILL THE PROJECT:
'Questions relating to the Califomia Department of
Fish & Game 'de minimus impact finding' for the
Certificate of Fee Exemption are listed in italics.
NO
Not
Slgni
cant
Slgnlil-
cant
Unlasa
Wigs -
tad
Slgnlil-
cant
No ap-
parent
Mltlga-
tlan
Clmu-
atva
SOURCES
. Involve the removal of vegetation capable of providing 1st Q = = = 2,3
summer shade to a building? Q = _ = 2,3
. Significantly affect solar access to adjacent property?
NI
N. HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICAL
1 Be located in an area of potential archaeological or
paleontological resources?
2 Disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site or a property of historic or cultural
significance to a community or ethnic or social group;
or a paleontological site except as a part of a scien-
tific study?
3. Be located in a Historic District (e.g., New Almaden
Historic Area)?
4 Be within 500' of a historic landmark?
0. PUBUC SERVICES AND UTiUTiES
1. Produce significant amounts of solid waste or litter?
2. induce substantial growth or concentration of popula-
tion? (Growth inducing?)
3. Employ equipment which could interfere with existing
communications or broadcast systems?
4. Cause substantial impact or increase in the need for.
a. Fire Protection
b. Police Protection
5. Cause substantial impact or increase in the need for.
a. School facilities
b. Parks or recreation facilities
c. Maintenance of public facilities
d. Other government services
6. Cause substantial impact or increase in the need for.
a. Electricity
b. Natural gas
c. Water
d. Sewage disposal
e. Storm water runoff
7. Generate any demands that create the need for or
cause a public facility or utility to approach, reach or
exceed its capacity (i.e., sewer line, sewage plant,
street, etc.)?
— = = = = `1od,42
® = = Q = 3.10d,10i,41,
42,43
® = = = = 7,10a
® Q = Q = 10i,43
1• = = = = 1,3,5
® = = t_7 = 1,3,5
® 1Q = = = 1,3,5
® Q = Q = 1,3,5
— = Q Q iQ 1,3,5
Q = _ [=7 1,3,5
2111 = = Q Q 1,3,5
AN p p GI CI 1,3,5
s Q = = = 1,3,5
= = = Q 1,3,5
11111 = p Q = 1,3,5
E = = Q = 1,3,5
= == p = 1,3,5
MIN = = Q Q 1,3,5
E • = G7 = = (1,3,4,5
6
WILL THE PROJE
N O
P. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-
term environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in
a relatively beef, definitive period of time, while long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
c. Have environmental impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(`Cumulatively considerable- means that the incremerrtal effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.
d. Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL. EVALUATION
iscuss on. attached.sheet(s) all ''yes' answers and any 'no' answers thatare potentially controversial or require
clarification. (Must be TYPED) Describe any potential impacts and discuss possible mitigations. For source,.
refer to attached "nitialStudy Source.List"_..When a source is used that is not listed on the form or an individual
is corrtacted,.that 'source and/or individual should be cited in the discussion.
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be recommended'
1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures are included
as part of the proposed project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE RECOMMENDED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is recommended.
SELECT
ONE
j".1-,411--
signature date
PRINT NAME AND TITLE: 2gyioR PErERSoAi
fit. // /99/
SR 4550 C/ArE T/o11,43 RE► U Ass o c/ 4 rE $
7
INITIAL STUDY SOURCE LIST*
1. Environmental Information Form
2. Field Inspection
3. Project Plans
4. Planner's Knowledge of Area
5. Experience With Other Project of This Size and
Nature
6a. County General Plan
6b. The South County Joint Area Plan
7. County Zoning Regulations (Ordinance)
8. Second Amendment to Agreement [with San Jose] for
Allocation of Tax Increment Funds
9. MAPS (various scales)
a. County Zoning (500' or 1,000')
b. ABAG'On Shaky Ground"- Santa Clara County Map
Set (2 miles)
c. Barclays s Santa Clara County Local de Street Atlas
(2631')
d. County Regional Parks, Trails and Scenic High
ways Map (10,000')
10. 5000' or one mile Scale MAP'?
a. County General Plan Land Use
b. Natural Habitat Areas
c. Relative Seismic Stability
d. Archaeological Resources
e. Water Resources & Water Problems
1. Viewshed and Scenic Roads
g. Fire Hazard
h. Parks and Public Open Space
I. Heritage Resources [Key tound in: Historic Re
sources Map Key -computerized list accompany
ing map]
j. Slope Constraint
11. 2000' Scale MAPS
a. State of California, Special Studies Zones [Revised
Official Map]
b. Water Problem/Resource
c. USGS Topo Quad (7 1/2 minutes)
d. Dept. of Fish & Game, Natural Diversity Data
Base Map Overlays & Textual Reports
e. Natural Resources [Key to map found in: Natural
Resource Sensitivity Areas - Locality Data, Har- ,
vey & Stanley Associates- Contact County staff]
12. 1000' Scale MAPS / Air Photos
a. Geologic Hazards
b. Color Air Photos (MPS!)
c. Santa Clara Valley Water District - Maps of Flood
Control Facilities& limits of 1 V° Flooding
d. Solis Overlay Air Photos
e. 'Future Width Line" map set
13. County Lexington Basin Ordinance Relating to
Sewage Disposal
14. Los Gatos Hillsides Specific Area Plan
15. Stanford University Master Use Permit and Environ-
mental Impact Report [EIRI
16. Stanford Protocol and Land Use Policy Agreement
17. County Geologist
18. Site Specific Geologic Report
19. State Department of Mines and Geology, Special
Report #146
20. USDA, SCS, "Soils of Santa Clara County"
21. USDA, SCS, 'Soil Survey of Eastern Santa Clara
County'
22. County Environmental Health / Septic Tank Sewage
Disposal System - Bulletin "A"
23. San Martin Water Quality Study
24. County Environmental Reatth Department Tests
and Reports
25. County Heritage Trees Inventory
26. Official County Road Book
27. County Transportation Agency
28. County Standards and Policies Manual (Vol. I - Land
Development)
29. Public Works Departments of Individual Cities
30. County Off-street Parking Standards
31. ALUC Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding
Airports
32. County Fire Marshal
33. California Department of Forestry
34. BAACMD Annual Summary of Contaminant Excesses
& BAAOMD, "Air Quality & Urban Development -
Guidetlnes for Assessing impacts of Projects &
Plans"
35. Architectural and Site Approval Committee
Secretary
36. County Guidelines for Architecture and Site
Approval
37, County Development Guidelines for Design Review
38. Open Space Preservation, Report of the Preservation
2020 Task Force, April 1987 (Chapter IV]
39. Riparian Inventory of Santa Clara County, Greenbelt
Coalition, November 1988.
40. Section 21151.4 of California Public Resources Code.
41. Site Specific Archaeological Reconnaissance
Report
42. State Archaeological Clearinghouse, Sonoma State
University
43. Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory
44. Transportation Research Board, "Highway Capac-
ity Manual", Special Report 209, 1985.
'Items listed in bold are the most important sources and
should be referred to during the first review of the project
when they are available. The planner should refer to the
other sources tor a particular environmental facto
former indicate a potential environmental impact.
8 ver.7/17/91
GUADALUPE LANDFILL CoSWMP AMENDMENT
IMPORTATION OF AUTO SHREDDER WASTE
INITIAL STUDY
Project Location. The source of the treated auto shredder waste is the LMC
Metals shredding facility in the Port of Redwood City, San Mateo County,
California. The disposal site is the Guadalupe Landfill, located on Guadalupe
Mines Road in the City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California.
Project Description. The City of San Jose Department of Neighborhood
Preservation has requested an amendment co the Santa Clara County Solid Waste
Management Plan, 1989 Revision, to allow the importation of LMC Metal's
treated auto shredder waste (TASW) from San Mateo County for disposal at the
Guadalupe Landfill. The waste is from automobiles brought to the plant from
Santa Clara County. The proposed text of the amendment is as follows:
1991 AMENDMENT TO THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
TO PROVIDE FOR IMPORTATION AND DISPOSAL OF NONHAZARDOUS RESIDUAL SOLID
WASTE, GENERATED BY LMC METALS OF REDWOOD CITY AND RESULTING FROM
RECYCLING OF WASTES GENERATED IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY
The Santa Clara County Solid Waste.Management Plan 1989 Revision, Chapter V: Disposal
and Facilities, Future Considerations Section is amended to add the following:
IMPORTATION OF OUT -OF -COUNTY WASTE
LMC Metals of Redwood City (San Mateo County) is granted approval to import
nonhazardous solid waste for disposal at Guadalupe Landfill in San Jose (initially estimated at
12,480 tons per year), so long as the following requirements are met:
o Imported waste is the unrecyclable residual which results from the recycling
of white goods, automobile bodies, loose tin, and similar recyclable materials;
o Tonnage imported into Santa Clara County does not exceed the tonnage of
residual waste which results from the recycling of materials which originate in
Santa Clara County;
o Imported waste is nonhazardous;
o Guadalupe Landfill maintains current operating permits which provide for
acceptance of the imported material;
o LMC Metals and Guadalupe Landfill provide updated information, as listed in
Policy 14 of the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan, 19a9
Revision, to the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Program on an annual basis.
Information shall be provided more frequently if requested by the County.
The TASW is :he non -recyclable residue remaining after all of the
recyclable materials have been claimed from a shredded automobile. It
consists of road dirt chat adheres to car bodies, plastic and cloth from
upholstery, foam rubber from seats, glass, fiberglass insulation, ground up
nonferrous metals, and small pieces of ferrous metals chat are too small to be
extracted from the shredded material.
The TASW is generated ac the LMC Metals shredding facility in the Port
of Redwood C'_ty. Approximately 25% of che material that is shipped to the
plant originates in Santa Clara County. Santa Clara County materials
processed ac the facility consist of auto bodies, white goods, and loose tin.
LMC generates 160 tons of TASW per day, of which 40 tons (25%) is currently
being disposed of at Guadalupe Landfill. This 40 tons requires one to two
truck trips per day, which occur during normal landfill operating hours (8:00
am to 4:45 pm).
Initially, LMC is proposing importation and disposal of 40 tons per day,
six days per week. This amounts co annual importation and disposal of 12,480
tons, or 17,000 cubic yards of compacted fill material. LMC has requested that
che amount of waste imported and disposed in Santa Clara County be allowed to
increase or decrease based on the documented tonnages of material shipped from
Santa Clara County to the plant for processing. In either event, acceptance
of the waste at the landfill must remain within allowed daily and annual
tonnages. The small amount of waste currently proposed will not require an
expansion of the landfill, nor change the rate of fill or site life. Because
the waste delivered to the landfill is proportional to waste originally
generated in Santa Clara Councy, the project does not necessarily represent an
increase in service area beyond County boun:laries.
The shredder residue is stabilized by che addition of a polysilicated
blend and a cementicious material. The constituents of the treatment process
add little volume, and are nonhazardous. The California Department of Health
Services has determined LMC's TASW does not pose a hazard to human health and
safety, livestock or wildlife, and has classified it as a nonhazardous waste
(Letter from DHS to LMC dated 5/31/89).
IF
The TASW is continually tested for content of hazardous materials, and
is not disposed of until its status as a hazardous or nonhazardous waste is
determined. The sampling and analysis is done according to DHS protocol.
Each day LMC Metals collects a representative one -pound sample of the
TASW every half-hour during normal operations. These samples are combined,
and two one -pound samples are taken from the pile ac the end of the day. The
daily samples are consolidated each week and submitted to a State certified
hazardous waste testing laboratory for analysis. The protocol used is
intended co eliminate potential bias in selecting samples to be tested.
Pending receipt of the laboratory analysis, the waste is kert completely
separate from che next week's batch. When laboratory results confirm that the
TASW is within designated waste limits, the material is shipped with
accompanying documentation to a landfill for disposal. No waste is shipped
October 11, 1991
GUADALUPE LANDFILL TASW COSWMP AMENDMENT -- INITIAL STUDY Page 3
for disposal without demonstrated conformance with the designated waste
discharge limits.
The Regional Water
requires chat a modified
twice a week. The tests
where the waste is to be
Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region,
Waste Extraction Test (WET) be performed on the waste
are conducted using fresh leachate from the landfills
disposed (rather than acid ac pH of 5) to determine
if the TASW is suitable for codisposal with garbage. The RWQCB requires the
Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal Company to include the results of the analysis of
the TASW in the quarterly Self -monitoring Report for the landfill, and to
demonstrate compliance with RWQCB requirements related to waste accepted a:
the landfill. Also, as required by DHS, a Total Concentration Leaching
Procedure test is conducted every six months using citric acid. The TASW does
not require special handling ac the landfill and is disposed as ordinary
refuse.
Environmental Setting. The Guadalupe disposal site is a Class III landfill
located in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains, on the west side of :he
City of San Jose. The landfill serves contractors from the City of San Jose,
portions of Sanca Clara County, and the Wesc Valley cities of Los Gatos, Monte
Sereno, Saratoga, and Campbell.
Access to the site is via .Camden. Avenue to Guadalupe Mines Road co a
private two-lane paved road. Adjacent land uses include open space,
industrial park and residential development. The landfill, which originally
opened about 1929, operates under permits from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (//90-139, 10/90), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
Santa Clara County, and the California Waste Management Board ((/43-AA-001,
6/79) The landfill was the subject of environmental review in environmental
impact reports certified in 1976 and 1989.
The LMC Metals Corporation operates a metals shredder at the Port of
Redwood City co allow economical shipment of scrap metal to market. The
shredder facility is approximately 40 miles from Guadalupe Landfill. The haul
route is along primary thoroughfares: US 101, Highway 85, Interstate 280, and
Highway 17 to Camden Avenue. LMC also ships shredder waste to other landfills
in the San Francisco Bay area.
The Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan, 1989 Revision, was
developed to meet California Government Code requirements. Although the plan
revision was completed prior to the adoption of the California Integrated
Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), the implementation program specified by
the plan revision is substantially consistent with the purposes of the new
law, namely to shift the focus from landfill capacity to alternatives to
landfill disposal. The Guadalupe disposal site is identified in the CoSWMP.
The Santa Clara County CoSWMP establishes a procedure for the review of
requests for importation of nonhazardous solid wastes generated outside of the
October 11, 1991
GUADALUPE LANDFILL TASW COSWMP AMENDMENT -- INITIAL STUDY Page 4
county. The CoSWMP specifies chat out -of -county wastes can be accepted for
disposal only if specifically authorized by an amendment to the CoSWMP.
Solid waste facilities located within the county may not accept solid
waste generated outside the county chat is not described in the CoSWMP.
Acceptance of unauthorized waste would put the facility in nonconformance with
che plan. A proposal for importation must be authorized by the jurisdiction
where the disposal site is located. The proposal is submitted by :he
jurisdiction to the County Solid t.:aste Program staff for review. County staff
then draft an amendment to the CoS\tiMP outlining the request, and circulate the
amendment with appropriate CEQA documentation for approval.
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: Discussion of Checklist Answers
A. Land Use/General Plan
1. Will the project require a change from che land use designated in che
General Plan?
The acceptance of imported TASK.' ac Guadalupe landfill does not require a
change in land use designation. The disposal site is identified as a solid
waste facility in the City of San Jose General Plan and the Santa Clara County
General Plan (1988 Revision of Land Use Map).
2. Will che project involve a change of zoning?
The disposal site zoning allows acceptance of solid waste such as TASW.
3. Will the project require a change from adopted specific plans or community
goals?
Importation of TASW from LMC Metals in San Mateo County to the Guadalupe
Disposal site requires an amendment to the Santa Clara county Solid Waste
Management Plan, as noted under Project Description and Environmental Setting,
above.
4. WilI the project be in an area uich special policies or of critical
concern?
The Guadalupe Watershed and che Quicksilver/Almaden Historic District
are two special districts located in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains
near the landfill. The Guadalupe Disposal site is located outside of these
special districts, and the importation of TASW to the site would not affect
these districts.
5. Will che project result in any substantial changes in the present land
use, either on or off che project sice?
6. Will the project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community?
October 11, 1991
GUADALUPE LANDFILL TASW COSSYMP AMENDMENT - - INITIAL STUDY Page 5
7. Will the projecc conflict with established recreacional, educational,
religious or scientific uses in che area?
Response to 5., 6., and 7.: Importation of TASW to che landfill does
not require a land use change or expansion of the landfill site. The project
would not disrupt the physical arrangement of an established community or
conflict with established uses in :he area.
B. Geologic
1. Will the projecc be located
for major geological hazard?
2. Will che projecc be located
3. Will che'projecc be located
4. Will the project be located
landslide, shrink/swell pocencia
5. Will che projecc cause subscancial erosion or siltation?
6. Wi11 the projecc cause substantial disruption, displacement, conoaccion or
over -covering of soil either on sire or off site?
7. Will the projecc cause subscancial change in topography or in a ground
surface relief feature?
8. Wi11 the projecc involve conscruccion of a building, road or septic system
on a slope of 30% .or greater, 90% co 30% or 10% to 20%?•
Response to 1. - 8.: Importation of TASW to the Guadalupe disposal site
does not require an expansion of the landfill, and would noc pose a geologic
impact.
C. Resources/Parks
in an area designated as having a potential
on, or adjacent co a known earthquake fault?
in a Geologic Study Zone?
in an area of soll'inscabilicy (subsidence,
1, soil creep or severe erosion)?
Will the project:
1. Increase the removal race or result in the removal of a natural resource
for commercial purposes (including rock, sand, gravel, oil, trees, minerals or
cop soil)?
2. Resulc in substantial depletion of any non-renewable natural resource?
3. Will the projecc convert 10 or more acres of prime agricultural Iand
(CIass I to II) to non-agricultural use or impair the agricultural
productivity of nearby prime land?
4. Involve lands protected by che Williamson Act (agricultural preserve) or
an Open Space Element?
5. Substantially affect any existing agricultural uses?
6. Be on, within, or near a public or private park, wildlife reserve, or
trail (includes those proposed for future)?
7. Result in ,loss of open space rated as high priority for acquisition?
Response to 1. - 7.: The project does not require the removal of
natural resources or depletion of a non-renewable resource. The TASW is the
unrecyclable residue remaining after the recyclables are removed from an
automobile. The recycling of automobiles reduces the need to extract natural
October 11, 1991
GUADALUPE LANDFILL TASW COSUMP AMENDMENT -- INITIAL STUDY Page 6
resources. Importac.ion of the TASW to the Guadalupe landfill does not require
a landfill expansion and would not result in loss of agricultural lands or
open space.
D. Sewage/Water Quality
Will che prod ecc.
1. ResuIt in a septic field being constructed on soil with sever septic
drainfield limitations?
2. Result in a septic field being located within 50 feet of a drainage Swale:
100 feet of any well, water course or water body or 200 feet of the high wacer
mark of a reservoir?
3. Result in a septic field being located in an area where a high water cable
extends close co che natural land surface?
Response to 1. - 3.: Septic s not proposed as part of che project.
4. Will che project result in extensions of a sewer crunk line with capacit.
co serve new development?
Sewer line extension is not proposed as part of the project.
5. Will the project degrade surface or ground water quality or public water
supply?
The project is to allow treated auto shredder waste to be imported from
LMC Metals in Redwood City co the Guadalupe disposal site. If untreated auto
shredder waste were accepted at the landfill impacts to water quality would
potentially occur. As noted in Project Description, the treated auto shredder
waste has been designated as non -hazardous by the State Department of Health
Services. Also, the waste is handled and continually monitored according to
DHS regulations co prevent disposal of hazardous wastes at a Class III
landfill (please see the Project Description). The handling and regulation
measures included in the project reduce potential adverse impacts to water
quality co non -significant.
6. Will the project be located in an area of special water quality concern
(e.g., Los Gatos or Guadalupe Watershed)?
The disposal site is located outside of the Guadalupe Watershed special
district.
7. Will the projecr result in use of well water previously contaminated by
nitrates, mercury, asbestos, ecc. existing in che groundwater supply?
•
Such well water use is not proposed for the project.
October 11, 1991
GUADALUPE LANDFILL TAEW COSWvMP AMENDMENT -- INITIAL STUDY Page 7
E. Drainage/Flooding
1. will che project interfere substantially with ground water recharge?
2. Will che project substantially change che direction, race of flow or
quancicy of ground waters, eicher through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through incercepcion of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
3. Will the project change absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff?
4. Will che project involve a natural drainage channel or stream bed or water
course such as co alter che location, course, or flow of ics waters?
5. Will the project be located within a floodway or floodplain area?
Response t0 1. - 5.: Importation of TASW to the Guadalupe landfill does
not require construction which would affect groundwater recharge, absorption
rates, or ground or surface water flows. The landfill is not located in a
floodway or floodplain.
F. Flora and Fauna
Will the projecc:
1. fish, wildlife, reptiles,
or or [b] introduction
or movement or id] reducing
2. affect or cause
breeding place for
3. involve a
tide land?
4. involve
5. involve
over 12" in
affect
numbers
a
unique
changes co
rare or endangered plane. or animal species?
marsh or salt
or plant
of new species
life, by [a] change
or jc) restrictions
habitat?
existing
habitat,
in diversity
to migration
food source, nesting
biological area such as a fresh water
place,
water
construction within 150 feet of a watercourse or riparian area?
cutting of unique or heritage trees or a large number of trees
diamecer?
Response to 1. - 5.: Importation of TASW to the Guadalupe landfill does
not require new construction or landfill expansion, and would not impact
biological resources.
C. Transportation
Will the projecc:
1. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation co the
existing traffic load and capacity of che street system? (Exceed LOS level 'D'
in vicinity -GP policy G8.3)
2. Increase traffic hazards co pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles?
3. Obstruct access co nearby uses or fail co provide for future street right
of way?
4. Cause increases in demand for existing on or off-street parking because of
inadequate projecc parking?
October 11, 1991
GUADALUPE La.NDFILL TASW COSWNIP a.;1ENC;`.E='1 T - - INITIAL STUDY
?asp 3
Response to 1. - 4.: Importation of TASW requires one co two truck
trips per day from Redwood City to :he Guadalupe disposal site, and would not
significantly affect traffic conditions.
H. Housing
Will che project:
1. Reduce che supply of low-income housing or displace people or
businesses?
2. Affect the type or cost of housing in che area?
3. Creace a demand for additional housing?
Response to 1. - 3.: Importation of TASW to the Guadalupe disposal site
would have no bearing on housing supply or demand.
I. Safety/Health
Wall :he project:
I. Involve the application, use or disposal of potentially hazardous
materials, including pesticides, herbicides, toxic substances, or radioactive
materials? •
2. Involve risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances?
3. Be within 1/4 mile of a school (public notice]?
4. Be located within 200 feet of a 230 kilovolt or above electrical
transmission line?
5. Creace any health hazard?
6. Be located in an ALUC Safecy Zone?
7. Be located in an area of extreme fire hazard?
8. Have cul-de-sacs over 800 feet in length, or require secondary access
which will be difficult to obtain?
9. Employ technology which could adversely affect safety in case of a
breakdown?
10. Will the proposed site plan result in a safety hazard (i.e., parking
layout, access, closed community, ecc.)?
11. Will the project provide breeding grounds for vectors?
Response to 1., 2., and 5.: Auto shredder waste potentially contains
hazardous substances, and is managed according to Department of Health
Services and Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, as explained
under Project Description. The waste is treated, and tested prior to disposal
at the landfill, and only waste which is within designated limits and is
defined by the Department of Health Services as a non -hazardous material is
allowed to be•shipped to the landfill. The treatment and handling methods
included in the project mitigate potentially significant impacts to public
health and safety to non -significant. TASW is not an explosive material.
Response to 3.,.4., and 6. - 11.: The project does not require new
construction and would not affect schools, transmission lines, airports, or
October 11, 1991
GUADALUPE LANDFILL TASW COSWMP AMEDMENT -- INITIAL STUDY
fire safety. It is disposed of as a regular hon-hazardous waste at the
landfill and does not require special handling or technologies after it has
been imported. TASW does not include food material and would not provide
breeding grounds for vectors.
J. Air Quality
Will che project:
Page 9
1. Violate any ambient air quality standard, concribuce substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors co
substantial pollucanc concentrations?
2. Create objectionable odors?
Response to 1. - 2.: Importation of TASW to'the Guadalupe landfill
would involve 1 to 2 truck trips per day. These truck trips currently occur
within the air basin, and no additional impacts to ambient air quality would
occur. TA$'.J does no: contain putrescible materials and is not a significant
source of odor.
K. Noise
Will the project:
1. Increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas during
and/or after construction?
2. Generate unusually high noise or vibration levels at certain times?
3. Be subject co an unusually high noise level?
4. Be located in an ALUC noise zone?
Response to 1. - 4.: Importation of TASW will not create a significant
noise impact. Traffic -related noise would not increase along Guadalupe Mines
Road as a result of the project; the 1 co 2 truck trips per day represent a
minor portion of refuse traffic and would occur during normal operating hours.
L. Aesthetic
1. If subject co ASA, will the project be generally in non-compliance with
Guidelines for Architecture and Site Approval?
2. Will the projecc create an aesthetically offensive site open co public
view?
3. Will the projecc visually intrude into an area having natural scenic
qualities?
4. Will the projecc be adjacent to a designated Scenic Highway or within a
Scenic Corridor?
5. Will the project obstruct scenic views from existi g residential areas,
public lands, public water body or roads?
6. Will the project be located on or near a ridgeline visible from che valley
floor?
October 11, 1991
*GUADALUPE LANDFILL TASW COSWMP A:A.E]DMENT -- INITIAL STUDY
Page 10
7. Wi1I the projecc adversely affect che architectural appearance of an
escablished neighborhood?
8. Will che projecc generate new light or glare?
Response to 1. - 8.: importation of TASW to the Guadalupe landfill does
not require a landfill expansion and would not change the visual impacts of
the landfill.
M. Energy
'will che projecc:
1. Use fuel, water or energy in large quantities or in a wasteful manner?
2. Involve che removal of vegetation capable of providing summer shade co a
building?
3. Significantly affecc solar access to adjacent property?
Response co 1. - 3.: _mportation of TASW from LMC Metals in Redwood
City to the Guadalupe disposal site requires 80 to 160omilesuld cfresul'c train vel
daily (1 co 2 trips ac 80 miles per round trip),
and use of large quantities of fuel, water or energy. The project does not
require new construction which would remove vegetation or restrict solar
access.
N. Historical / Archaeological
Will the projecc:
1. Be located in an area of potential archaeological or paleontological
resources?
2. Disrupt or adversely affecc 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 asA arc ofHascoric scientific),c study?
3. Be located in a Historic District (e.g.,
New 4. Be within 500 feet of a historic landmark?
Response to 1. - 4.: Importation of TASW to the Guadalupe disposal site
does not require a landfill expansion or new construction which would affect
historical or archaeological resources. The disposal site is not located in a
historic district.
0. Public Services and Utilities
1. Will che project produce significant amounts of solid waste or litter?
Under the CoSWMP amendment the amount of imported TASW would remain
proportional to che amount of waste originating in Santa Clara County, so that
the project does not represent a new or significant waste source. The
proposed disposal amount would constitute approximately five percent of the
October 11, 1991
GUADALUPE LANDFILL TASW COSWMP AMENDMENT -- INITIAL STUDY Page
Guadalupe landfill waste scream or less than 0.7 percent of the entire county
waste stream.
Wi11 che projecc:
2. Induce subscancial growth or concentration of population? (Growth
inducing?)
3. Employ equipmenc which could interfere with existing communications or
broadcasc systems?
4. Cause subscancial impact or increase in the need for fire proceccion or
police proceccion?
5. Cause substantial impact or increase in che need for school facilities,
parks or recreation facilities maintenance of public facilities, or ocher
governmenc services?
6. Cause subscancial impact or increase in the need for electricity, natural
gas, water, sewage disposal, or scorm water runoff?
7. Generate any demands chac create che need for or cause a public facility
or utility co approach, reach or exceed its capacity (i.e., sever __r.e, sewage
plant, street, ecc.)?
Response to 2. - 7.: Importation of TASW to the Guadalupe disposal site
does not represent an extension of services, nor would it affect the site life
of the landfill. The project does not require new construction. The CoSwmp
amendment would not affect growth, communication systems, or the need for
public services,
P. M3ndatory Findings of Significance
1. WiII che project have che potential co substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number
or rescricc che range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
The projecc does not require new construction which would directly
affect these resources. The treatment and handling of TASW and the
regulations imposed by DHS and RWQCB included as part of the project would
prevent significant impact to water quality which may in turn affect the
quality of the environment.
2. Will che project have che potential co achieve short-term environmental
goals, to che disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (A short-term
impact on che environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time, while long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
The TASW is the unrecyclable residue from a recycling process. The
recycling process reduces the need for landfill capacity, and may be
considered of long-term environmental benefit. The alternative is to accept
October 11, 1991
GUADALUPE LANDFILL TASW COSStiMP APIENCMENT - - INITIAL STUDY Page
unrecycled automobiles originating in Santa Clara County or locate a shredder
in the Councy. The LMC shredder is located at che Port of Redwood Cicy so
that scrap metal can be shipped economically. The automobiles are brought to
Redwood City from various automobile dismantlers and landfills in Santa Clara
County; it is assumed that there is a need to haul the waste this distance
either because of availability of the shredder or for economic reasons.
Acceptance of unrecycled automobiles as waste ac the landfill would be
contrary to the CoSUlP goals of reducing the need for landfill capacity.
3. Will the project have environmental impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ('Cumulatively considerable" means
chat che incremental effects of an individual projecc are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of ocher
current projects, and che.effects of probable future projects).
The project would not significantly affect landfill capacity in Santa
Clara County, and does not present environmental impacts which would be
cumulatively significant.
4. Will che projecc have environmental effects which will cause subscanc:a:
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The treatment, handling and regulation of auto shredder waste included
in the project prevents substantial adverse effects on human beings.
References
California Department of Health Services. May 31, 1989. Letter from James T.
Allen, Ph.D., Chief Alternative Technology Section Toxic Substances Control
Division to Robert Lewon, President, LMC Metals regarding Treated Auto
Shredder Waste Classification.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board. July 17, 1989. Letter from
Sceven R. Ritchie, Executive Officer co Mr. Jim Zanardi, Guadalupe Rubbish
Disposal Company regarding Treated Auto Shredder Waste.
City of San Jose Office of Environmental Management. November 8, 1990.
Memorandum from Michelle Yesney, Director to the Environment Committee
regarding a Request by LMC Corporation to Continue Disposing of Out -of -County
Waste at Guadalupe Landfill. Item 5 at Environment Committee meeting of
November 14, 1990.
City of San Jose. September 1988. Guadalupe Disposal Site Expansion Draft
Environmental•Impact Report. PDC 87-12-100.
LMC Metals. Undated. Sampling and Testing Protocol Treated Auto Shredder
Waste.
October 11, 1991
GUADALUPE LANDFILL TASW COSWMP AMENDMENT -- INITIAL STUDY Page 13
Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development, Advance Planning.
February 1988. Land Use Element, updated map.
Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development Office of Toxics and
Solid Waste Management. September 30, 1991. Memorandum from Michael Perry,
Management Analyst to the Technical Advisory Committee regarding the Proposed
CoSWMP Amendment. Importation of Auto Shredder Waste.
Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development, Office of Toxics
and Solid Waste Management, Solid Waste Program. May 1990. Solid Waste
Management Plan for Santa Clara County 1989 Plan Revision.
4.
October 11, 1991
County of Santa Clara
Department of Planning and Development
Advance Planning Office
County Govemment Center. East wing
TO west Hedding Street
San Jose. California 951 in
i408) 299-252 I
December 2, 1991
Prepared by: jaunell Wald U
Advance Planning
Response to Comments received from the California Integrated Waste
Management Board in regard to the Negative Declaration prepared for a
proposed amendment to the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management
Plan to allow importation of treated auto shredder waste for disposal at the
Guadalupe Landfill
The letter from the Waste Management Board is attached. This document
summarizes the Board's comments and provides responses.
Comment L• Clarify how LMC Metals will track the tonnage of waste
automobiles shipped to Redwood City versus the tonnage of treated waste
returned to Santa Clara County for disposal at the landfill.
Response: LMC Metals currently tracks the tonnage of automobiles received
from various sources via a computer. They also keep records of the tonnage
of waste being exported. The monitoring program adopted in conjunction
with the Negative Declaration will require LMC Metals to provide an annual
report to the Office of Toxics and Solid Waste Management stating the
tonnage imported to their facility for processing versus the tonnage of waste
exported to the Guadalupe landfill. (See attached monitoring program.)
Comment 2: Define the "cementitious" material used to stabilize the
shredder residue.
Response: The cementitious material is portland cement.
Comment 3: Discuss the difference in treatment of the "oversized" and
"undersized" particles remaining after shredding.
Response As noted in the Board's letter, the undersized particles are those
that are fine enough to fall through a screen located near the end of the
treatment process. These fine particles are metallic fragments and bits of
other material. If untreated, they are considered hazardous because the
leachate in the landfill can break them down, resulting in the release of heavy
metals.
Board of Supervisors: Michael M. tlonila. Itinl nizales. x1 I>inulun I)i,uvi< \I( nnhi
County Executive: It. Reed
In 1988, the State Department of Health Services (DHS) performed a series of
tests on auto shredder waste, based on Title 22 procedures. They found that
the fines could be treated sufficiently by encapsulating them in cement or a
similar bonding agent, thus preventing their breakdown when exposed to the
acidic liquids potentially present in a landfill. Based on that and similar
studies, DHS allows the encapsulated fines to be disposed of at Class III
landfills.
The 1988 study also evaluated the potential hazards associated with disposal
of oversized materials. These oversized materials include pieces of foam
rubber, plastic, rubber, wood, window glass, and "fluff" remaining from the
seats and carpeting. The study indicated that no heavy metals or other
hazardous materials result from contact between the oversized materials and
typical landfill leachate.. Since the waste was found to be non -hazardous by
DHS, it can safely be disposed of at a Class III landfill without further
treatment.
90'J-2 -1Q9. 1 1S: 53 t=543111 CP ! i 1TTiI?P i c) L•. 'ATE 1GT TO `r 1 022 935 7 P.01
State of California
Memorandum
To Jaunell Waldo
Santa Clara County
70 W. Heading St.
San Jose, CA 95110
Dare Cox
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
From `` Q.t 4— 4 1.41 ,
George Larson, Su rv, ng Waste Management Specialist
and Manager
planning and Assistance Division
CADITORNIA I:NTEGRATBD WASTB MANAGEMENT BOARD
Subject: SCH # 91103076 - Negative Declaration (ND) for the
proposed anerd:nent to County Solid Waste Management
Plan's Guadalupe Landfill
California Environmental
Protection Agency
Date: November 22, 1991
Post -it" brand fax trarismttai memo
w paq.a�/•�
•
j •
._116/4
��iGt�.�i�
j7671
, } /
,RLU
co.
'i '
Fax l � % 41-/-! 0 ,3 7
,"
California Integrated Waste Management Board (Board) staff have
reviewed the ND cited above and offer the fol.owing comments:
PROJBOT DBSCRIPTION
The City of San Jose has rested an amendment to the Santa Clara
County Solid Waste :":anagrent Plan, (Co8WMP) 1589 revision, to
allow 'importation of LMC Metal's treated auto shredder waste. This
waste is composed of the Inrecyclable residue remaining after the
recyclablas are removed from automobiles. The waste from
automobiles will be taken from Santa Clara County to the LMC
facility in San Mateo County for processing. LMC is proposing to
return the treated waste to a Santa Clara County landfill.
The current C-:SW>r P specifies that out -of -county wastes can be
accepted for disposal cnl,i if specifically authorized by an
amendment to the CoSWMP. This proposed amendment will authorize
such importation.
General Comments
It should be clarified in this dc'cumunt row IBC Meta:._ of
J-vxd C.. t -, cr " e City of Sar. Jose, will track whether the
tTrfi._ae _r.p,D red Sarla C) ar"? County foes not exceed tie
• _ _ 1 15 _- •TL if -- 'I-1`' TC_ F GT TO �i ,�^ SE- T . 2_
Page 2
Amendment for CoSWMP's (3uad lupe Landfill
tonnage of rss_d.al waste which results from the recycling of
materials writ::: arliginace in Santa Clara County
2. Please identify the cnmpcnents of the "cerentitious`t material
Wised for stabilizing the shredder residue.
3. Board staff. in the Special Waste Section of the Research and
Technical Development Division have found that careful waste
classification and monitoring are important for disposing treated
auto shredder waste. Briefly, studies of daily cover show that the
material that falls through the screen used near the end of the
treatment process (for auto shredder waste) is called "undersize"
and the material that remains on top of the screen is called
"oversize". The "undersize" material is then treated, while the
"oversize" material generally is not. The treated undersize
.material, or TASW, has been reviewed by the California Department
of Health Services (DHS), and has been granted a variance for
disposal at Class III landfills. However, the "oversize" material
has not been reviewed by DHS, nor granted a variance. Therefore,
if the "oversize" material is to be disposed at a Class III_
landfill, it rust he analyzed according to the procedures outlined
in Title 22, Article 11. If. the results of that testing indicate
that the "cvereize" material is non -hazardous, it ray then be
d _ scosed at a Class TTI landfill. Board staff recommend that Santa
Clara County consult with the Regional Water Quality Control Board,
DHS and L tC Metals atcut the treatment and testing of both
"undersize" and "oversize" .auto shredder wastes prior to amending
the CoSWMP.
Thank you for the cpportunit_ to review and comment on this ND. If
you have any questions, please call Catherine Cardozo of the
Board's Waste Generation Analysis and Environmental Assessment
Branch at (916; 225-2328.
cc. . ;17) ''?%i. :cam Da%, Le tK:.r Quality Control Board
c ;i _ i,e.. ,- -_,� �;�,'' Health Services
County of Santa Clara
Department of Planning and Development
advance Planning Office
County Government Center. Fast wing
70 west Redding Street
San Jose. California 95 1 10
(408)299.2521
MONITORING PROGRAM
Project Title: Guadalupe Landfill CoSWMP Amendment
File No.: CP.91-19
Date Prepared: December 2,1991 Prepared by: Jaunell Waldo
Approving Body: Board of Supervisor Hearing Date: December 10, 1991
Agency Assigned to Monitor Project*: CA Department of Health Services and Santa
Clara County Office of Toxic and Solid Waste Management.
The following monitoring program Is designed to insure compliance with mitigation
measures proposed In the Negative Declaration to reduce or avoid potentially
significant Impacts:
SUMMARY OF MONITORING AUTHORITY
Authority Mitigation Measure(s)
Dept. of Health Services:
The treated waste will be tested prior to
shipping to the landfill, and only waste which
is within designated limits and is defined by
the DHS as a non -hazardous material will be
allowed to be disposed of at the landfill.
The waste will be handled and continually
monitored to DHS regulations to prevent
disposal of hazardous wastes at a Class Ill
landfill.
Santa Clara County Office The applicant will submit an annual report to
of Toxic* and Solid Waste the Office of Toxlcs and Solid Waste
Management Management listing the tonnage of
automobiles shipped to the LMC Metals facility
from Santa Clara County and the tonnage of
residual waste shipped back to the Guadalupe
landfill.
1-5-89
Board of Supervisors: Michael N1. I -it xtt fdt. Zc>r Lc tgrcf 1. It( )n c 7t tnznlrs. Ilr x 1 I)inc1c x t t )t<rnnr \N f\enn.t
County Executive: sail\ ft. Reed
March 16, 1992
Los Gatos, California
HEARINGS CONTINUED
CDBG FUNDS CONT.
Motion by Mrs. Benjamin, seconded by Mr. Attaway, that Council adopt Resolution 1992-46
entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ALLOCATING COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS TO THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1992-93, as recommended by the Community Services Commission. Carried by a vote
of three ayes. Mr. Ventura and Mayor Carlson voting no, feeling that top priority should be
given to food and treatment and administrative costs should be further analyzed.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN/SANTA CLARA COUNTY/HEARING (28.07)
Mayor Carlson stated that this was the time and place duly noted for public hearing to consider
amending Solid Waste Management Plan for Santa Clara County.
The following person from the audience spoke regarding this subject:
Mary Lou Flynn, 209 Nob Hill Way, supports the staff recommendation.
No one else from the audience addressed this issue.
Motion by Mr. Ventura, seconded by Mrs. Benjamin, to close the public hearing. Carried
unanimously.
Motion by Mr. Ventura, seconded by Mr. Blanton, that Council reject the amendment to the
County Solid Waste Management Plan for the County of Santa Clara, 1989 Revision, which
allows importation of limited amounts of nonhazardous treated auto shredder waste from San
Mateo County, and that Council instruct staff to forward a strong recommendation that all other
solid waste disposal sites should carry the same type permit as the one we have at Guadalupe.
Carried unanimously.
KNOWLES DRIVE 555/MEDICAL OFFICE FACILITY/NME HOSPITALS/HEARING (29.09)
Mayor Carlson stated that this was the time and place duly noted for public hearing to consider
an appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission denying a request for approval of plans to
construct a 59,864 sq. ft. medical office facility in the "O" zone. Architecture and Site
Application S-90-9A and Negative Declaration ND-90-9. Property is located at 555 Knowles
Drive. Property owner, NME Hospitals. Applicant, Bob Elmore, Elmore Design Group.
The following people from the audience spoke to this issue:
Joseph Epps, National Medical Enterprises Counsel, representing Community Hospital and
Rehabilitation Center of Los Gatos -Saratoga, made appeal to Council and submitted letter for
the record.
Truman Gates, Los Gatos -Saratoga Community Hospital Chief Executive Officer, analyzed
hospital expansion project and requested a dual tracking exercise for Hospital, Council and
Planning Commission..
Bob Elmore, Architect for proposed project, asked for Council's consideration and explained the
layout on the lot.
Barry Slater, Community Hospital Chief of Staff and Member of the Board, explained the need
for the new facility by the community and the needs of the physicians.
TC: D3: MM031692 5
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Clerk of the Town of Los Gatos has
scheduled a public hearing for March 16, 1992, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers, Civic
Center, 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos. The Public Hearing is to consider an adoption
of resolution amending Solid Waste Management Plan for Santa Clara County.
If anyone wishes to challenge these matters in court, they may be limited to raising
only those issues they or anyone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,
or in written correspondence delivered to the Town Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing.
A complete record concerning this matter is on file for public inspection in the
Office of the Town Clerk. INTERESTED PERSONS are encouraged to appear and be
heard at this public hearing.
/s/ MARIAN V. COSGROVE
Clerk of the Town of Los Gatos
Pub: 3/4/92
cc: Weekly Times
Mercury News
Manager
Planning
Community Services
Post: Library
Town Board
Distribution List