DATE: December 31, 2013 CASE#: DR 1-2013
DATE FILED: 1/04/2013
OWNER: YULUPA INVESTMENTS APPLICANT: C&S WASTE SOLUTIONS
REQUEST: The operation of a “Small Indoor Green Material Composting Facility”, to compost ground “green materials” as defined by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, at an existing Recycling Center which was previously permitted for and currently includes the operation of a Material Recovery Facility to process single-stream recyclables including the sorting, compaction, and bailing of glass, plastics, paper, cardboard and metals, a grinding operation for wood waste, green waste and
construction/demolition materials as well as a metal scrap operation to include the sorting and bailing of ferrous and non-ferrous materials.
LOCATION: 3.1± miles south of the City of Ukiah towncenter, lying on the east side of Taylor Drive (CR# 143) 0.3± mile south of its intersection with Plant Road (CR# 142). APN# 184-170-03, -06, -07 and -11.
PROJECT COORDINATOR: DUSTY DULEY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, C&S Waste Solutions (C&S), has submitted a Development Review application to establish a commercial “Small Indoor Green Material Composting Facility” at an existing
Recycling Center in the Ukiah Valley. The request includes the composting of “green materials” as defined by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) that are currently conditionally approved to be ground at the Recycling Center (DR# 1-2012). C&S is requesting that a maximum of 70,000 cubic yards of raw green materials (equivalent to 35,000 cubic yards of ground green material) be composted at the site per year. Additives and amendments as defined by CalRecycle, such as wood chips, lime and composted manures may be added to the composting piles or finished compost product on a limited basis, subject to review by the Department of Planning and Building Services (PBS).Current sources of green
materials are from curbside collection routes and transfer stations in both Mendocino County and Lake County. Applicant has provided a Schematic Process Configuration showing the location of various components of the composting operation within Building C (page 15). The layout of composting operations may change, however all composting activities must remain indoors. According to the applicant’s project description,
Green material that is currently ground onsite will be composted within a 45,000-square foot building (Building C). Ground material will be placed into Aerated Static Piles (ASPs) in the main room to compost for a period of approximately 8 weeks. Compost will be cured in separate rooms within the building for approximately 60 days. It will then be screened and stored inside until shipped.
Staff notes that the applicant has already received a conditional entitlement (#DR 1-2012) to haul green materials to and grind materials at the Recycling Center.
DEFINITIONS: Per Administrative Appeal (#AA 1-2013), the County classifies a “Small Indoor Green Material Composting Facility” as, a type of General Industrial use when this type of facility only accepts green material, not exceeding 12,500 cubic yards on site at any one time, that is handled (i.e. chipped, ground, screened, composted and stored) indoors and then distributed off site. Indoor Green Material Composting Facility shall not accept Agricultural Material, as defined by CalRecycle. Additives and amendments may be accepted at this facility for the purpose of blending composted green material, on a case by case basis, provided there are no significant environmental impacts, in accordance with CEQA.
The following definitions are used to define the type of materials that may be composted at this facility and can be found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Division 7, Chapter 3.1, Section 17852(a):
(21) “Green Material" means any plant material that is separated at the point of generation, contains no greater than 1.0 percent of physical contaminants by weight, and meets the requirements of section 17868.5. Green material includes, but is not limited to, yard trimmings, untreated wood wastes, natural fiber products, and construction and demolition wood waste. Green material does not include food material, biosolids, mixed solid waste, material processed from commingled collection, wood containing
lead-based paint or wood preservative, mixed construction or mixed demolition debris.
(2) "Additives" means material mixed with feedstock or active compost in order to adjust the moisture level, carbon to nitrogen ratio, or porosity to create a favorable condition. Additives include, but are not limited to, fertilizers and urea. Additives do not include septage, biosolids, or compost feedstock. (7) "Amendments" means materials added to stabilized or cured compost to provide attributes for certain
compost products, such as product bulk, product nutrient value, product pH, and soils blend. Amendments do not include septage, biosolids, or compost feedstock.
Environmental Checklist.
“Significant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change, may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15382).
Accompanying this form is a list of discussion statements for all questions, or categories of questions, on the Environmental Checklist (See Section III). This includes explanations of “no” responses.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality
Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population / Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
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 prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: This section assesses the potential individual and cumulative environmental impacts which may result from the project. Staff notes that the Environmental Noise Assessment and Traffic Review analysis completed for previous projects, Use Permit #U 5-2011 and Development Review #DR 1-2012, included an evaluation of an indoor composting operation at this site and were used in staff’s preparation of this Initial Study. This environmental review is subsequent to that previous environmental determination. Questions in the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist are stated and answers are provided based on analysis undertaken. Staff notes that wherever the potential project impacts are characterized as “combined with” or “in addition to” shall mean an impact subsequent to the approved Recycling Center. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact
As previously established by the certified Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Recycling Center (#DR 1-2012), the property and existing buildings are visible for a brief moment when traveling along State Highway 101 and Taylor Drive (CR# 143). The County General Plan and Ukiah Valley Area Plan do not designate the property or surrounding areas as scenic vistas. Trees between the site and Highway provide some screening of the property. No new buildings are being proposed with the project and all composting will occur indoors. The project in combination with the approved Recycling Center will not adversely affect any scenic view. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact
State Highway 101 in Mendocino County is not an official state scenic highway. The project in combination with the approved Recycling Center will not result in damage to any scenic resources.
The property which was formerly utilized in an intensive manner for processing and packaging of pears is now occupied by the approved Recycling Center. The property is in area with other urbanized commercial and industrial uses which are visible from the Highway including a solid waste transfer station, lumber yard and bus storage depot. Otherwise, agricultural and residential uses surround the subject property. The property is already developed, no new buildings are proposed, and composting will occur inside Building C. The project in combination with the approved Recycling Center will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than Significant Impact
The applicant is proposing to conduct composting operations during “daylight” hours. Composting will be conducted indoors. Existing exterior lighting on-site will be used. As the site is already developed and no new sources of light are proposed, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would affect day or nighttime views. The applicant’s project description notes that any new exterior lighting to be installed in the future will be downcast and shielded so that only indirect, non-glaring light is visible beyond property boundaries. No mitigation required.
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources a) through e) No Impact
The site, which was previously developed as a pear packing facility and is now occupied by the approved Recyling Center, will not require conversion of farmland or forestland to accommodate the project. The property is zoned Limited Industrial and is not in an Agricultural Preserve Contract under the Williamson Act. Land uses on the surrounding properties to the north, east and south include established vineyards and the adjacent 93± acres property to the east is also in the Williamson Act. The project is not expected to interfere with any of-site agricultural endeavors.
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Where available,
the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of any applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact
The project is located within a part of the North Coast Air Basin. The Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (AQMD) is responsible for enforcing the State and Federal Clean Air Acts as well as local air quality protection regulations. According to AQMD staff, the project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plans. AQMD commented that the applicant may need to obtain a permit from the District for the proposed bio-filter to reduce odors that may be generated during the
composting process. See Condition Number 1.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? No Impact
The project was reviewed by AQMD staff. The project is not expected to violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to any project air quality violation. Further discussion found below under responses to Item III Air Quality c) and d).
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than Significant Impact AQMD provided comments to staff on previous project #U 5-2011 stating that, “the District is in attainment for all Federal criteria air pollutants and is also in attainment for all State standards except Particulate Matter less then 10 microns in size (PM10).” AQMD staff reviewed the project and offered the following comments and determination, “It is not anticipated that the composting operation itself would generate a great deal of airborne particles and any that is generated through feedstock handling or grinding operations will require mitigation through our normal permit conditions. Based on the information we have currently reviewed, the District believes that the project will not cause a significant increase in criteria pollutants within the District or the North Coast Air Basin”. Condition Number 1 will ensure that the applicant obtain all necessary permits from AQMD prior to commencement of composting operations.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact Land uses in the area include vineyards, orchards, single-family residences, farm labor housing, a municipal waste transfer station, a lumber yard, a health club, the Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA) yard, as well as the County’s Animal Control and hazardous waste recycling facilities. The closest off-site residential buildings are located approximately 150 feet away from Building C on an adjacent property which is owned by the applicant and includes approximately 25 separate living units currently used as farm labor housing. A separate private residence is located on Taylor Drive, just south of the main employee entrance. The 31 unit Fairview Acres residential subdivision is located approximately 700 feet west of the Recycling Center on the opposite side of State Highway 101.
Potentially significant sources of air pollutants resulting from the project include emissions from vehicles, gas emissions from composting piles and dust. As discussed under the Transportation/Traffic and Greenhouse Gas Emissions section of the report, the project is not expected to significantly increase traffic trips and may actually decrease the overall number of vehicle miles traveled. Adherence to control measures identified in the Odor Impact Minimization Plan (OIMP) and AQMD permits are anticipated to minimize potential air quality impacts and ensure sensitive receptors are not subjected to substantial pollutant concentrations.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
The project has the potential to create objectionable odors that could significantly impact the surrounding community. The applicant is proposing to solely compost green materials. Additives and amendments as defined by CalRecycle, such as wood chips, lime and composted manures may be added to the composting piles or finished compost product on a limited basis, subject to review by the Department of Planning and Building Services (PBS). As noted in the project description, composting activities will occur inside building C. The applicant has provided a Schematic Process Configuration showing a layout of compost activities within building C (page 15).
The primary sources of composting-related odors are: (1) feedstock management (e.g., delivery, storage and handling); (2) active composting (e.g., surface emissions, turning windrows, tearing down piles); and (3) curing (e.g., surface emissions, turning windrows, and tearing down piles). Other minor sources of
composting-related odor include mixing of feedstocks into windrows; finished product loading; and poor site management conditions (e.g., runoff, leachate, surface ponding, and road spillage). (1URS Corp, 2006).
Green material will be composted using the aerated static pile (ASP) process. According to the applicant’s OIMP, perforated piping will be laid out underneath the composting piles in a bed of porous materials such as wood chips. A blower will be attached to each pipe and can be used to ventilate the compost piles or in
reverse, negative pressure can be applied so air (odors) is drawn through the compost piles with fans, exhausting the air (odors) through a biofilter. The biofilter will be made from readily available materials such as stabilized compost, compost overs or wood chips and is an effective tool for minimizing odors.
The County Environmental Health Division (EH) provided the following comments related to odors from green waste;
“The elimination of agricultural material as a feedstock is a significant proactive effort towards minimizing odors; the LEA has rarely observed strong or foul odors at a local green material compost facility. Other proactive measures to minimize odors include limiting the size of the operation and operating indoors. In regards to operating indoors, having complete control over the moisture content of materials during the composting process is ideal towards maintaining an aerobic process that naturally minimizes odors.”
Building C will be used to support the composting operation and has 3 permanently open bays to the outside. Having permanent openings will decrease the ability of the applicant to control any malodors from leaking outside and potentially affecting off-site receptors. However, use of the proposed bio-filter could be used to draw air from the piles minimizing foul odors from traveling off-site. Staff understands from LEA comments, that green materials, when composted correctly, are not likely to create significant odors and use of the bio-filter may not be necessary the majority of days. Staff recommends the bio-bio-filter installation as a safeguard, helping ensure that the project does not create a significant off-site odor nuisance to surrounding sensitive receptors. Bio-filter system and sizing details are found in the OIMP and applicant’s project description. To minimize potential significant off-site odor and water quality impacts staff identified Condition Number 4 limiting the total amount of materials that can be within the composting areas of Building C at any given time to 5,400 cubic yards. The intent of Condition Number 4 is to limit the amount of material that can be
processed and stored within Building C, based on the size of the building, while allowing the applicant the flexibility to compost as much ground green material as possible, consistent with applicable permits
governing the project. Composting areas within Building C are shown on the applicants Schematic Process Configuration (page 15).
Another potential source of odor is leachate. Leachate is water or liquid that has percolated through the materials and contains traces of materials (dissolved or suspended) from it. Leachate is typically caused by precipitation contacting the materials to the point of oversaturation. Compositing will occur indoors avoiding material contact with stormwater however materials may be oversaturated when they initially arrive at the facility. If the facility receives highly saturated feedstocks, they will be combined with drier materials before being composted. As active composting, curing, and storage of materials/finished compost will be
conducted indoor and since materials will be blended to obtain ideal moisture content prior to composting; the potential for creating leachate is reduced.
The primary document or tool used to mitigate and respond to odors that may arise during the composting process is the Odor Impact Minimization Plan (OIMP). This OIMP is intended to provide guidance to on-site personnel in the handling, storage, and removal of compostable materials, in accordance with Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 17863.4. The applicant prepared an OIMP (Exhibit C) that identifies site management practices to minimize odors as well as protocol for verifying and responding to any odor complaints. The County Environmental Health Division acting as the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) has authority to deal with any odor issues that may arise as a result of the project. The OIMP can be modified at any time should the project generate strong off-site odors.
If the County receives odor complaints that the operator is unable to resolve, the LEA, upon determining that objectionable odors from the facility are traveling off-site and finding that the applicant is not adequately addressing odor controls, has the authority to require operational and/or technical modifications to the facility. In accordance with Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 17863.4,
If the operator is not following the procedures in the OIMP, the EA may issue a Notice and Order to require the operator to either comply with the odor impact minimization plan or to revise it. If the odor impact minimization plan is being followed, but the odor impacts are still occurring, the EA may issue
a Notice and Order requiring the operator to take additional reasonable and feasible measures to minimize odors.
The LEA drafts the solid waste facility permit for concurrence by CalRecycle, reviews the Report of
Composting Site Information (RCSI) and OIMP for compliance with State Minimum Standards, and conducts monthly inspections of permitted composting facilities. The LEA monthly inspections include a review of whether or not the OIMP is being implemented correctly and if OIMP measures are sufficiently minimizing odors. Should strong odors travel off-site as verified by LEA, the LEA can require the applicant to
immediately stop taking in the suspect feedstock(s) until the odor issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the LEA.
Project design, including installation of the bio-filter, adherence to the applicant’s OIMP along with previously approved mitigation measures 3 though 9 for #DR 1-2012 (Exhibit E) are expected to minimize off-site odor impacts to a less than significant level as a result of the project in combination with the approved Recycling Center. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Less than Significant
Overland flow from the site ultimately leaves the property at several discharge locations along property lines, flows through a culvert under the railroad tracks and then off-site into a vegetated drainage ditch in an adjacent agricultural field. Surface waters are eventually delivered to the Russian River, approximately 0.25 miles to the east. No changes to drainage patterns are proposed. The Russian River Creek is identified by the County’s Biological Resources/Natural Area Map as providing habitat for salmon and steelhead populations.
Activities which may increase pollutant discharges and impact water quality in the Russian River and its fish habitat include routine automotive trips from employees and delivery trucks, use of large mobile equipment and other on-site heavy machinery which may result in the accumulation and release of fuels, oils, greases, coolants, brake dust, and other potential water quality pollutants on site. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into previous entitlement, DR #1-2012 to ensure that stormwater is treated for pollutants before leaving the property. Composting will occur indoors on a concrete pad, avoiding contact with stormwater, generation of leachate and potential impacts to fish habitat.
The Recycling Center currently operates under an Industrial Stormwater Permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board as well as Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP identifies pollutant sources that may affect the quality of stormwater discharge and requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP) to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges along with a water quality monitoring and reporting plan. The Recycling Center is subject to inspections by Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) staff. Additional water quality protection measures may be imposed on the facility by the RWQCB through the SWPPP.
By composting indoors on an impermeable surface and by collecting any excess moisture from delivered material, the potential for the project to impact fish habitat in the Russian River, located approximately 0.25 miles away, is expected to be reduced to less than significant. Continued compliance with the protection measures and BMP’s found within the Recycling Center’s SWPPP and Stormwater Management Plan will further ensure protection of the waterways and its fish habitat as a result of the project in combination with the approved Recycling Center. Further discussion found in the hydrology and water quality section of the report.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant
The majority of the site is surfaced with concrete and asphalt. The California Natural Diversity Database did not indicate any sensitive plant or animal species to be located on the subject or adjacent properties. Staff is not aware of any wetlands in the vicinity. No major vegetation removal include any trees will occur as a result of the project in combination with the approved Recycling Center.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact
There are no wetlands on or in the vicinity of the property. The project in combination with the approved Recycling Center will not have an impact on wetlands.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact
Project is utilizing a property that was previously developed to support a pear packing facility and is now occupied by the approved Recycling Center. No grading is proposed. The project in combination with the approved Recycling Center will not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact
There are no trees subject to a tree preservation policy in the project vicinity. The applicant is not proposing nor does the project necessitate the need to remove any trees. As discussed elsewhere in the Biological Resources section of the report, the project is not expected to significantly impact biological resources. The project in combination with the approved Recycling Center does not conflict with any local regulations aimed at protecting biological resources.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact
The project is not located in an area subject to Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or similar plan.
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
V. Cultural Resources a) through d) No Impact
As part of the County’s evaluation of General Plan Amendment (GP 4-10) and Rezone (R 5-10), the subject project was referred to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as well as the consultation list of tribes required by California Government Code Section 65352.3 (SB 18). The project was evaluated at a November 10, 2010; hearing before the County Archaeological Commission whom determined that an archeological survey was not warranted based on historical development of the property along with the fact
that little exposed soil remained at the site. Based on the previous disturbed nature of the site, the project is not expected to cause a substantial adverse change to any archeological resources and no impact is
anticipated. No mitigation required, however, the applicant has been apprised of the standard “Discovery Clause” as noted in County Code Section 22.12.090 and 22.12.100. See Condition Number 5.
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact
According to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, the closest fault is the Maacama Fault which is located approximately 1.7 miles east of the facility. All existing buildings were constructed to California Uniform Building Code standards at the time of construction. Any new construction, change of occupancy, or remodel would be subject to the current state building codes. Although the property would be subject to ground shaking in the event of major seismic activity, based on the distance to the Maacama Fault and the fact that all structures were built to code, the project in combination with the approved Recycling Center is not expected to pose a substantial risk to people due to a seismic event. The applicant is not proposing to build any new structures. No mitigation required, however the Building Division has provided comments that building permits may be required for any building change of occupancy, alterations or additions. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact
The property is relatively flat with the majority of land covered with impervious surface. The applicant is not proposing any grading. Project in combination with the approved Recycling Center will not result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Impact
There are no known geologic hazards or unstable soil conditions known to exist on the site. The site has been previously developed and the applicant will be utilizing an existing structure for the indoor composting operation. The project is not located on a known geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact
According to the County soils survey, underlying soils consist of Feliz Clay Loam and Cole Loam. These soil types are not considered to be an expansive soil as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994). No adverse environmental effects related to topography, soils or geology are expected as a result of this project in combination with the approved Recyling Center.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact
The majority of property has been surfaced with concrete and asphalt, leaving minimal areas of exposed soils. According to the County soils survey, underlying soils consist of Feliz Clay Loam and Cole Loam with characteristics of drainage and permeability described as “well drained; slow to medium runoff; moderate permeability”. The property is improved with two on-site septic systems with water provided by the Willow County Water District. No improvements are proposed or required to accommodate the project.
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact
Production of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) will result from the transportation of materials to and from the Recycling Center, the associated emissions from heavy vehicles operating on-site, and the decomposition of organic material. The applicant notes in their project description as follows,
“Currently green material is ground at one facility and transported to other facilities for processing. The co-location of grinding and composting activities eliminates the hauling of ground material to a compost yard, resulting in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from trucking.”
AQMD reviewed the project and determined that the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant. Any diesel engines in excess of 50 hp are required to meet current emission standards and will require a permit from AQMD. Additional measures may be imposed by AQMD to control emissions through their permit requirements. See Condition Number 1. The proposed project in combination with the approved Recycling Center will not occur at a scale or scope with potential to contribute substantially or cumulatively to the generation of GHG, either directly or indirectly. No mitigation required. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases? No Impact
To date, no Federal, State, or Project area local agencies have developed thresholds against which a proposed project can be evaluated to assist lead agencies in determining whether or not the climate change impact from a proposed project is significant. The global nature of climate change warrants investigation of a statewide threshold of significance for GHG emissions. Staff determined that GHG emissions associated with the project in combination with the approved Recycling Center will not result in a significant impact.
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact
No hazardous materials are accepted at this site. Sources of green materials include curbside collection routes and transfer stations in both Mendocino County and Lake County. Materials are not anticipated to contain any hazardous materials, however all incoming loads will be inspected by site personnel trained to identify any potentially hazardous material. Any hazardous waste material discovered will be separated and disposed of at an appropriate off-site location. No mitigation required.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact
Materials such as hydraulic oil and diesel fuel used in the operations are subject to a Hazardous Materials Business Plan as approved by DEH. The plan identifies actions to be taken should a fuel or oil spill occur on site, including cleanup methods and appropriate agencies to contact in an emergency situation. No
mitigation required.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact
The closest existing school, Ukiah Junior Academy, is located approximately ½ mile southwest of the project site. Staff is unaware of any proposed schools within the project vicinity. Indoor composting of green
materials in combination with the approved Recycling Center is not expected to have any impacts on surrounding schools.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact
The property was previously used as a pear packing facility and is currently used to support a Recycling Center. The property is not listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No mitigation required.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact
The property is located approximately 1 mile south of the Ukiah Municipal Airport. The applicant is not proposing to accept hazardous materials. Protocols have been identified for dealing with any unexpected hazardous materials. The project in combination with the approved Recycling Center is not expected to result in a safety hazard to those working at or around the airport.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact
Staff is unaware of any private airstrips in the project vicinity. No impact anticipated.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact
Staff is unaware of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan that the project may impair or physically interfere with.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact
The property is located in Ukiah Valley away from heavily forested areas subject to wildland fires.
Surrounding properties are currently used to support residential and irrigated agriculture uses. The project in combination with the approved Recycling Center will not expose people or structures to significant risk due to wildland fires. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
k) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters considering water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical stormwater pollutants (e.g. heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients,
oxygen-demanding substances, and trash)? l) Have a potentially significant impact on groundwater quality?
m) Impact aquatic, wetland or riparian habitat?
The site is relatively flat and mostly covered with concrete or asphalt. Overland flow from the site ultimately leaves the property at several discharge locations along property lines, flows through a culvert under the railroad tracks and then off-site into a vegetated drainage ditch in an adjacent agricultural field. Surface waters are eventually delivered to the Russian River, approximately 0.25 mile east of the project site. Internal site drainage patterns are shown on the Stormwater Management Site Plan (Exhibit D) prepared for #U 5-2011 and #DR 1-2012. Staff notes that composting will occur in Building C rather than Building D as identified on the Site Plan.
The existing Recycling Center currently operates under an Industrial Stormwater Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board as well as a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer. Further, a Stormwater Management Plan was prepared for #U 5-2011 and subsequently #DR 1-2012 which identified source control and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) as well as a stormwater sampling and monitoring program. The Recycling Center is subject to inspections by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) staff. Additional water quality protection measures may be imposed on the Recycling Center by the RWQCB through the SWPPP. a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than Significant Impact
with Mitigation Incorporated.
The closest receiving waterbody is the Russian River located approximately 0.25 mile east of the Recycling Center and is under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB. Composting operations will occur indoors and will not come into contact with stormwater minimizing opportunity for those activities to impact water quality. Project activities which may increase pollutant discharges and impact water quality include routine automotive trips from employees and delivery trucks, use of large mobile equipment and other on-site heavy machinery which may result in the accumulation and release of fuels, oils, greases, coolants, brake dust, and other potential water quality pollutants on site. BMP’s were previously identified within the Stormwater Management Plan for #DR 1-2012 to mitigate potential illicit fluid discharges. Source control BMPs include spill prevention, control and cleanup; vehicle and equipment fueling, cleaning and repair; outdoor loading/unloading; outdoor equipment operations; outdoor storage of raw materials; waste handling and disposal; maintenance of buildings & grounds, parking & storage areas, and drainage systems, and a number of other BMPs. This project is subject to all BMP’s outlined in the SWPPP and Stormwater Management Plan. Additional water quality protection measures may be imposed on the Recyling Center by the project through the SWPPP. Previously approved #DR 1-2012 conditions numbers 12 through 15 were determined to adequately mitigate potentially significant impacts to water quality from the Recycling Center. All aspects of the composting
process will occur indoors and will not be exposed to rainfall and will not generate polluted stormwater runoff. Condition Numbers 3 and 4 are offered to mitigate potential water quality impacts.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less than Significant Impact
The Willow Water District supplies water to the property and there are no wells on-site. The main use of water for this project will be to maintain ideal moisture content to the composting materials and to clean equipment. The Willow Water District is recommending project approval. The project in combination with the approved Recycling Center will not result in a substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality c) - g) No Impact
The project will not result in the alteration of existing drainage patterns or waterways. Rather the applicant will utilize a previously developed site and existing buildings to support the project. As mentioned previously, the Recycling Center currently operates under an Industrial Stormwater Permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board as well as a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer. The project request to allow indoor green waste composting does not pose any additional potentially significant water quality impacts that require further mitigation beyond conditions placed
on #DR 1-2012. Additional water quality protection measures may be imposed on the project by the RWQCB through the SWPPP.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less than Significant Impact
The easterly portion of the property is identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as being located within the 100-year floodplain (page 13). As structures already exist and no new building are proposed, the project in combination with the approved Recycling Center is not expected to further impede or redirect flood waters.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less than Significant Impact
The property is subject to significant flooding especially during a 100 year flood event. According to a Flood Elevation Certificate dated June 22, 1988, building C, which will house the compost operation, was
constructed above the base flood elevation. The applicant has previously prepared an Emergency Response Plan for the Recycling Center identifying protocols, in the case of flood event, to prevent floodwaters from carrying material, debris and any pollutants off site. Any equipment used in the composting operations small enough to be carried off will be moved inside or located above flood waters. The project request to allow indoor green waste composting does not pose any additional risk from flooding that requires further mitigation beyond condition number 15 placed on #DR 1-2012. No additional mitigation required.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact
The property is not subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No mitigation required.
k) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters considering water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical stormwater pollutants (e.g. heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, and trash)? Less than Significant Impact
Project activities which may increase pollutant discharges and impact water quality include routine
automotive trips from employees and delivery trucks, use of large mobile equipment and other on-site heavy machinery which may result in the accumulation and release of fuels, oils, greases, coolants, brake dust, and other potential water quality pollutants on site. As stated above, BMP’s have been identified within the existing SWPPP and Stormwater Management Plan for the entire Recycling Center.
By composting indoors on an impermeable surface, materials will not be exposed to rainfall and thus will not generate contaminated stormwater runoff or leachate. Any materials that arrive oversaturated will be mixed with dry materials to obtain ideal compost pile moisture content. The potential for the project to impact water quality is expected to be less than significant. Additional water quality protection measures may be imposed on the Recycling Center by the RWQCB through the SWPPP. Further details related to water quality protection, including BMP’s, are found in the applicant’s Storm Water Management Plan prepared for the Recycling Center (#DR 1-2012).
l) Have a potentially significant impact on groundwater quality? Less than Significant Impact
The site is almost entirely surfaced with concrete and asphalt. Composting operations will occur indoors on concrete floor minimizing any opportunity for leachate to infiltrate groundwater. The applicant notes that Willow Water District currently supplies domestic water to the property. The project in combination with the approved Recycling Center is not anticipated to significantly impact groundwater quality either through project use of or contamination of groundwater.
Overland flow from the site ultimately leaves the property at several discharge locations along property lines, flows through a culvert under the railroad tracks and then off-site into a vegetated drainage ditch in an adjacent agricultural field. Surface waters are eventually delivered to the Russian River, approximately 0.25 miles to the east. Vegetated drainage ditches located in agricultural fields between project site and the river could be considered riparian habitat. The Russian River Creek is identified by the County’s Biological
Resources/Natural Area Map as providing habitat for salmon and steelhead populations. Upon reviewing the California Natural Diversity Database and aerial photos, staff is not aware of any wetlands in the project vicinity. As composting will occur indoors on impervious surfaces, stormwater will not be contacting materials during the composting process, minimizing the creation of leachate which could impact habitats if allowed to leave the site. Previously approved #DR 1-2012 conditions numbers 12 through 15 were determined to adequately mitigate potentially significant impacts to water quality from the Recycling Center. The project request to allow indoor green waste composting does not pose any additional potentially significant impact to aquatic, wetland or riparian habitat that require further mitigation beyond conditions placed on #DR 1-2012. No additional mitigation required.
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact
The project in combination with the approved Recycling Center will not result in any physical improvements or barriers that would divide an established community.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact
The land use classification of the project site is Industrial (I) and its zoning designation is Limited Industrial (I1). An “Indoor Green Material Composting Facility” is a General Industrial use type which is a permitted use in the I1 zoning, subject to Development Review, Chapter 20.188 of the County Inland Zoning Code.
The project is in the Extended Approach/Departure or B2 zone of the Ukiah Municipal Airport located approximately 1 mile north of the Recycling Center. As the project will utilize existing building formerly occupied by a pear packing operation, staff has reviewed the proposed use of the property for consistency with the Mendocino County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The previous General Plan Amendment (#GP 4-2010) and Rezone (#R 5-2010) project was referred to the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). ALUC provided comments noting that as a result of the project being in the B2 zone,
restrictions may be placed on certain types of development to ensure “low intensity” (maximum 60 persons per acre) uses. The applicant estimates that up to 80 employees may be needed to operate the Recycling Center on the 15+/- acres parcel (This estimate includes proposed composting operation along with previously permitted activities). The site was previous used as a quasi industrial agricultural pear packing operation which according to the applicant maintained a 24-hour working schedule with three shifts of employees, each with approximately 250-350 workers for a number of decades. Any new construction or change of building occupancy may require review by the ALUC. The project in combination with the approved Recycling Center will not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No
Impact
The project is not located within any conservation plan area. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. Mineral Resources a) and b)
The property is already developed and has historically been used for a quasi industrial/agricultural operation prior to its current use as a Recycling Center. The project in combination with the approved Recycling Center will not interfere with the recovery of or impact the availability of any mineral resources.
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
XII. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact
In developed areas of the community, noise conflicts often occur when a noise sensitive land use is located adjacent to a noise generator. Noise in these situations frequently stems from on-site operations, use of outdoor equipment, uses where large numbers of persons assemble, and vehicular traffic. Some land uses, such as residential dwellings, are considered noise sensitive receptors and involve land uses associated with indoor and/or outdoor activities that may be subject to stress and/or significant interference from noise. Background noise levels at the site and nearby receptors fluctuate depending on surrounding activity. Existing primary noise generators in the area include Highway 101 traffic, aircraft traffic from Ukiah Municipal Airport, agricultural equipment in adjacent vineyards and other surrounding industrial uses.
According to the applicant, Hours of operation will be consistent with operating hours of the Recycling Center, as described in Condition 17 of #DR 1-2012 which states, Facility operations shall be limited to the hours between 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday thru Friday and between 7a.m. and 5 p.m. on Saturday. Use of heavy equipment, including equipment identified in condition 16a above, shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays and Saturday. Sunday operations are prohibited. Startup of waste collection vehicles before going on pick-up routes is specifically excluded from the above limitation. Office work and any other minor activities that would not create a nuisance to off-site residences are also excluded from this limitation. Main sources of noise resulting from the project would include associated truck traffic and heavy equipment use. Staff notes that the County previously approved Development Review #DR 1-2012 permitting the operation of a Recyling Center including a Material Recovery Facility to process single-stream recyclables including the sorting, compaction, and bailing of glass, plastics, paper, cardboard and metals, a grinding operation for wood waste, green waste and construction/demolition materials as well as a metal scrap operation to include ferrous and non-ferrous materials.
The County has identified noise standard within the County General Plan to ensure noise compatibility between land uses. The project is subject to the noise standards found in the County General Plan including:
• The Exterior Noise Level Standards (Table 3-J) General Plan Policy DE-100 • The Noise Compatibility Guidelines (Table 3-K) General Plan Policy DE-101
• Maximum Acceptable Interior Noise Levels (Table 3-L) General Plan Policy DE-103
A noise study report was conducted for previous projects, #U 5-2011 and later #DR 1-2012, by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. The study estimated cumulative noise levels from simultaneous operation of all activities including the proposed indoor composting operation as well as the previously approved Recycling Center. The study assessed potential noise impacts to the closest sensitive off-site receptors as a result of Recyling Center operation including the indoor compost operation. Noise level measurements were taken from the farm labor housing units on adjacent land under the applicant’s ownership (LT-1), an adjacent single-family residence at the end of Taylor drive (LT-2), and the 31 unit Fairview Acres residential subdivision located approximately 700 feet west of the Recycling Center on the opposite side of State Highway 101 (LT-3). Measurement locations are shown in Figure 2 and described within the Study Based on the noise measurements provided in the Study and General Plan Policy DE-100, it was determined that individual operations of the Yard Equipment, Scrap Metal Baler and C&D Grinder would exceed the adjusted County L50 day and night Standards at the LT-1 location. Indoor composting activities were not considered to be
major contributor of noise.
The study recommended three mitigation measures to reduce exterior noise levels at the farm labor housing units and comply with County L50 noise standards (Policy DE-100).
• Limit the operation of yard equipment powered by internal combustion engines, the use of
back-up beepers, scrap metal baling and possible future C&D grinding operations prior to 7am to the greatest extent possible.
• Site the C&D grinding operations under the East Canopy to increase the distance to noise
sensitive receptors.
• Construct noise barrier walls along the western edges of the adjacent residential areas to
reduce daytime noise levels due to scrap metal baling and possible future C&D grinding operations to levels at or below County Standards.
These recommendations were applied to #DR 1-2012 as mitigation measures and are found in Condition Number 16 of #DR 1-2012. The noise barrier walls have been constructed. Green waste grinding is currently being conducted indoors within Building C, rather than at the outdoor location recommended in the noise study and approved by #DR 1-2012, further minimizing potential noise impacts to noise sensitive receptors. Again, the project is subject to applicable noise standards in the General Plan however the project is not expected to significantly increase noise levels or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan. This project in combination with the approved Recycling Center will not result in any additional noise impacts. No additional mitigation measures required.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No Impact
There are no activities associated with the project in combination with the approved Recycling Center that would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact
The project in combination with the approved Recycling Center will not result in any permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant Impact
Background noise levels at the site and nearby receptors fluctuate depending on surrounding activity. Existing Primary noise generators in the area include Highway 101 traffic, aircraft traffic from Ukiah Airport, agricultural equipment in adjacent vineyards and other surrounding industrial and residential uses. There are
no schools or hospitals within audible distance of the site. As noted above a previous noise study was prepared for the Recycling Center, which included composting operations in its analysis, which identified mitigation measures to ensure compliance with applicable County noise standards. Study recommendations are identified in Section XII (a) above. The project in combination with the approved Recycling Center will not cause a substantial temporary or periodic incre
