Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0550.092• 7 Dec<mber 10, 1992 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, Califomiz.. RESOLunON RF.GARDING COUNTy HAZAROOJ/S WASTE MANAGEMfiNT PLANS Members of the Council: Re.port ig Brief This repart requests that Council adopt a resolution that: (I) directs L"e City Manager or his/her designated represetltative '0 contact the Department of Toxi< Substances Control (DTSC) by Decem'bc:r 3 I, 1992, requesting immediate review and approval on currently submitted hazardous waste management pIzns for Day Area counties and (2) supporu legislation that will require DTSC to review and act on submitted plans within 90 days of submittal or the plans wiD .ulomalically be approved. This resolutiou is neassary because on October 1, 1992, DTSC notified Santa Clara County that the Department cannot re,..-iew the County's revised plan submitted in September 1991, because its statutory authority to do so has ex.pired. Unless a county hazardous waste management pian is approved, loc.a1 agencies will have little control over the slting of hazardous waste managemen t facilities witlun thei r jurisdictions. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has developed a model resolution for cities a."1G CQunues to adopt and send to DTSC and other specified agencies. Background As shown on the attached Fact Sheet (Attachment A), Sarla Clara County prepared a County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (CHWMP) and submitted it 10 the Department of Health Services (DRS) in August 1989, as allowed by AB 2948 (Tanner, 1986). n.e or;ginal pl,n wa; disapproved by DRS, but DHS was required by AB 2595 (T,mner, 1990) 10 ae<ept • Revised CHWMP from the County. CMR:550:92 12/]0/92 Page I 1 I .-:.~ o o .sJJ~rruna; of Revj~ Plan by San~ ClanLCm!.n.tl' Although the deadline for submittal of Santa Clara County" revised plan was June 20, 1991. the plan. was not ac~ly submitted until September 30. 1991 because of the length of time it took to work .out -fair share-language acceptable to the state agency and to obtain the necessary city approva.1s. The County proceeded with submittal after the stal1.Jtory deadline had pa'Ssed. This was because in August 1991, the new!)' formed DTSC 'lotitied the County that they intend:d to continue the worlrir.g relationship rt:garding t1:!e california h~dous waste plans, following Governor-Wilson's reorganization of several state agencies inw the California Environmental Prorection Agency (CAL-EPA). During that reorganization, the Di .... isiun of Toxic Substances Control, former!) a di\'!sion in the rA."artmer.t of Health Services, was elevated to full department status in the new CAL-EPA. PISC Notifies County thai Authority to Reyiew has Exnired Under the provisions of AB 2595, DTSC had 90 days to review and approve (or deny) resubmittOO plans after r:!Celpt, but needed to complete review of ail plans by January 20,1992. Since Sanlll Clara County's plan w .. submitted on September 30, 1991, the Department had nearJy four months before the January 20 deadline to review Santa Clara County's plan. [n fact, Santa Clara was the first of the Bay Area counties needing to resubmit l1leir plan, Santa Clara County was tre first Ray Area to do so. Nevertheles" on October 1. 1992, DTSe's Dire<:tor WiUiaIP F. Sao Hoo sent a letter to SlOpervisor Roo Gonzalez of the San ta Clara County Board of Supervi=. ad,ising that legal counsel review of AB 2595 had concluded that DTSC's autllority to review me County~s plan had expired on January 20. A copy of that letter is attacbed as Attachment D. Reswnsc by Association of Bay Area Governments In response to the DTSC letters to the counties, Assemblywoman Sally Tanner urged ABAG to develop a resolution for tities and counties to adopt. The suggested resolution was fllrwarded in a tetter to Mayor Fazzino on November 10, 1992 from Supervisor Ron GonlaJc.s, requesting that the }>;UO Alto City Council approve the re:;olution and send copies to the Leaglie of California Cities. ABAG. and DTSC. Need for an AWroved COUDty Haz,ardQus. Wiste Man~tment Plan Over five years of effon has been expended by the County's Tanner Coml"f1.inee in VvOTking with DTSC. an<! its predecessor agency to prepare an approvable CHV1MP. Palo Alto has been an active participant and supporter of that process. The lack of an approved hazardous waste management plan results in a loss of loca.I land use control aFJd of proper management of 'hazardous wastes. Further, approval of all S4y Area counl)' hazardous waste management plans is necessary for the implementation of the "fair share" language incorpor.lted into the revised CMR:550:92 12110/92 Page 2 • • / l • , I / o plan •. SB 477 (Greene, 1987) rnjuire, the City, within 180 day. of DTSC awroval of CH'WMP, to either adopt 2. City hazardous waste management plan, incorporate the CHVolMP into the city's gent:ral plan, or enact an ordinance requiring that land use deci!iions be consistent with the specified portion of the CH\\'1"'{P General Plan. S8 477 also allows cities to enforce more stringent requirements thar.: those in the CHWMP, if necessary. "To reflect geologic, bilJiogic, economic, and other characteristics which may be uniql.'C to the jurisdicticn." The Santa Clara Coun~ plan carefully ciescnbed the criteria to be u;;ed in siting such facilities in the County, and the Council appro>·ed the revised plan.t its July 18, 1991 meeting (CMR:373:91). In summary. Palo AIro has endorsed the Count)"s plan, a.:ld neeas the plan's approval to protect !oc:.U land use authority to condition or deny the siting of haurdous waste JTW1agemcnt facilities in Palo Alto. Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution which directs the City Manager or a designated representative to: 1. Contact the Department of Toxic Su.bst.an~.es Control to request immediate review and approval of the currently submitted hazardous waste management plans for Bay Area counties and action on any other hazardous waste management plans within 90 days of submittal; and 2. Support sponsors. of legisiation. requiring 90 day review and action by the DTSC on rou:nty hazardous waste managemen! plans. with a proviso that DTSC non-action results in automatic approval of ~uch plans. Staff will then forward copies of the adopted resolution to the League of California Cities, the Association of Bay Area Governments, and the Depa.rtment of Toxic Substances Control. Respectfully submitted, ~,cl.,V '1iW?r-' DORIS MAEZ Environmental Protection Coordinator Q FL~ rim City Manager CMR:5S0:92 p"~.- , fi~f2 s,cJ..,.w.-k. KENNETH R. SCHREIBER D[TeClor of Planning and Community Environment • 12!10i92 Page 3 ~-: -. o Attachments: A. fac, Sheet: LOCAL COVERNMENT HAZlI.RDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA B. Resolution directing City st3ff to contact DTSC and ,uppa" legislation setting a 9O-day deadline f'or DTSC review or automatic approval of count)' plans C, I...ette;-dated !'iovember 10. 1992 from Supervisor Ron Gon2'.a1ez to Mayor Fazzino re: Request to adopt the resolution D. Lette< dat.od October 1, 1992 from DTSC Director WUliJun F. 500 Hoo to Superviso, Ron Gonz.alez re: COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT Pl.AN Related CMRs: CMR:373:91, CMR:2J4:91, CMR:294:9, CMR:304:9, CMR:455:8, CMR 317: 8, CMR 339:8 cc: City of East Palo Alto To~.'Il of Los Aitos Hi [Is City of Los Altos City of Menlo Park City of Mcuntain View County of Santa Clara Tanner st3ff Planning Commission Stanfonl Universil)l (Ardy Doty, Diane Healey) Barron Park Association College Terrace Residents Association Santa Clara C'..ounty HazardolJS Materials Advjsory Committee CMR:550:92 12110,92 p:"'-'-' '-Page 4 • , • ~.'.~ ljI'- • o Fa<! Sheet r.-' - ~ ~---;: ".' ..... " .•. 1.00 .. 1. GOVERNMENT HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEME.,\,T PLANl\1NG in the SAN f'RANCISCO BAY AREA 1986 1987-1989 February­ May 1990 July 1990 Sept. ::0, 1990 Jan-March 1991 AB 2948 (ran"er) is enacted Counties prepare plans, plans are adopted by counties. and cities and plans are submitted to DHS DHS appro .... es or disapproves county plans For the Bay Area: Approved; Contra Costa and Solano counties. (Fur share language is i.'1operable without approved plans for the other severt Bay Area counties.) Disapproved: Alameda, Marin, San Mateo. San Franc! sea, Santa Clara, and Sonoma Withdrawn pending disapproval: Napa· Creation of the San Frdllcisco Bay Area Hazardous Waste Management Capacity Allocation Committee. All nine :Bay Area counties orga.nize to implement a cooperative fair share process_ AB 2595 \Tanner) is er.acted which creates the .fCsubmittal process, Counties with unapproved plans meet with DHS staff to discuss revisions and how to obtain approved plan.'_ For the Bay Area: Alameda; Feb-CK:t 1991 Marin: March 18, 199i San Mateo: Spring 1991 San Francisco: no fonnal meeting but DRS staff attended puhli.:: meetings where revlsions were discussed w~th SF staff Santa Clara: January 1991 Sonoma: January 29 and Februar), 28, 1991 ~apa COU11ty plans. to resubmit. CMR:550:92 12/10/92 Plli e 5 • I i April-August 'uly 30, 1991 Augu.>t 1991 August 1991 / .. _____ ......tJIII1JII o Counties make cha."1ge:c; to plans, based upon communicatiol1s with DHS staff, and proce.ed with public reviews and city approval proccs~s. Marin County receives letter from DTSC regional office stating "We suggest Marin County and its cities move forward with approvi'lg the revisions a.1.d submitting them to the Department.· An Inter-jurisdictional Agreement (IJA) is approved by die Board, of Supervisors of all ni ne Bay Ar~ cou nties. Dne annO'Jncemenl of incorporation into CAL-EPA, Jerter to counties stating: .. There has been no change in our statutory O!' regulatory aalhority; so for all practical purposes, it's 'business as usual'. We look fOl'Vo'afd to our continued working reiationship regarding the California hazardous wao;;te managemen t programs ... August 1991-County Boards of Supervisor!! approve county plans. January 1992 1991 For the Bay Area: Amneda: Authority approval Dec. 18, 1991 Marin: Augus! 13, 1991 San Mateo: January 16, i992 San Francisco: January 1992 Santa Clara: August 20, 1991 Sonoma: November 5. 1991 September-Revise<! plans submitted to DTSC 1991-May 1992 For the Bay Area: Aumeda: May 10, 1992 Marin: December 9, 1991 San Mateo: February 3, 1992 San Francisco: February 1992 Santa Clara: September 30, 1991 Sonoma: November 22, 1991 July 1992-ABAG oounties and MOU Committee send letter to DTSC ~rilliam Soo Hoo) requesting immediate ooosidel4ltion and approval 0 f county plans September- 1'192 CMR:SSO:92 1"~'- Counties receive Jetter from DTSC stating it wlll net take action em revised plans submilted after Jun< 20, 1991. 12110/92 Page 6 " • 1. 't.: .. ') o RESOLUTION Fm Bay A.r-ea Co:mties and Cities REGARDING COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE W.ANAGEMENT PLANS 'WHEREAS, the state of California authorized Clnd e.flC(Jur3ged Counties to prepare Hazardous waste Man.:gement Pllim.; and WlIEREt\.S, the State of California required tlle Depanment of Toxic Subs-:ances Contr'J! (DTSC) to review and approve county hazardous wast.e managemenl plam; and WHEREAS r the State of California required the DTSC to review and approve resu~mitted county haz.ardous wa.tte management plans within 90 days of receipt of revised plans; and WHEREAS, a DTSC approved hazardous waste management p!an provides for the reduction and disposal of the State"s hazardous waste, fair distn"bution of hazardous waste facilities and attempts to retain local control ofland use decisions; and WHEREAS. lack of an approved hazardous waste management plan results in a loss of local land use control and of proper management of hanudous wastes: ilJ."1d WHEREAS, Counties and Cities, within the San Fr.rncisco Bay Area and the Region 2 staff as well as the central Sacramento office of the DTSC have worked together for over five years to prepare approvable hazardous waste manageme..,t plans including mutlJal1y agreed time lines; and WHEREAS, following resolution of all outstanding issu('.s the regional staff forward to the ceutral DTSC office the redrafted hazardous waste mar,agement plans of the Bay /l..rea counti.es for approval; and WHEREAS, the central DTSC office refused to act on rcsubmi:ted plans, notifying all six Bay Area counties. with unapproved and resubmitted hazardous waste management plans, on September 16, 1992, that they would "no longer review or take action to approve or disapprove county hazardous lNaSte ma.nagemenl plans"; NOW, TIlE'J<EfORE BE IT RESOL VC...J), that the City Manager of Pal" Alto or hi' designated represcntati'/e, will contact the DTSC requesting immediate re .... iew atld approval on currently submitted hazardous waste management plans within 9{) days of submittal and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Palo Alto will support 'ponsors of legislation requiring 90 days review :IDd action by the DTSC on C01Hlty hazardous waste management plans with a proviso that DTSC non-action results in al.ltomatic approval of county hazardous waste management plans. CMR:550:92 12/10/92 Page 7 • ATTACHMENT B o RESOLUT!ON NO. I1BSOLIIT!ON OF THE COUNCIL OF rliE CITY OF PALO AL1'O REQUESTING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF '!'OXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL TO REVIE~ THE RAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT (TANNER I P"AN FOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY WHEREAS~ the California Health and Safety Code (§ 25135 et seq.) authorized and encouraged counties to prepare Hazardous Waete Management Plans; and WHEREAS, the California Health and Safety Code (§ 25135 et seq.) required che Department of Toxic Substa~ces ConLrol (DTSC) to review and apprc,;"e county hazardous waste management plans; and WHEREAS. the California Health and Safety Code (§ 25135 et seq.) required the PTSC to review and approve re9uh~itted county hazardous waste management plans within 90 days of receipt of revised plans: and WHEREAS, a DTSC approved hazardOUS wa9te management plan provides for tne reduction and disposal of the State's hazardous waBte~ fair distributicn of hazardous waste facilities and attempts to reta~n local control of ~and use decisions; and WHEREAS. lack of an approved hazardous waste -management plan results in a loss of local land use control and of proper man&gement of hazardous wastesi and WHEREAS, counties and cities within the San Francisco Bay Area and the Region 2 staff, as well as the central Sacramento offic~ of the DTSC, hdve worked together for over five years to prepare approvable hazardous waste management plans including mutually agreed time lines; and WHER.EA.S j following resolution ot all outstanding issues. the regional DTSC staff forwarded to the ceptral DTSC office the redrafted hazardous waste managemeDt plans of the Bay Area counties for approval; and WHEREAS, the central DTSC office refusad to act O~ resubmdtted plane, notifying all six Bay Area counties with unapproved and reBubmitted hazardous waste management plans, en September 15. 1992~ that they 'Would "no longer review or take action to approve ~r disapprove county hazardous waste management plans-; NOW; THEREFORE. the Council of the City of Palo ~to does RESOLVE as follows: SEctION 1. The City Manager of Palo Alto j or the Ma.nager~s designated representative. is hereby directed to contact the DTSC requesting :i.!mnediate review and approv3.1 on currently submitt:ed hazardous waste mana9emen~ pla~s within gO days of submittal. 1 .. -" o .sEctION 2. The City of Palo AltO will support legislation requiring 90 days review and action by the DTSC on county hazardous waste management pla.ns and providing that DTSC oon3ction shall result in automatic approval of county hazardous ~aBte rnanage~nt plans. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYBS: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENT!ONS: A'M'BST: City Clerk APPROVlID AS TO PORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney 2 APPROVED: Mayor City Manager Direceor of Planning and Community Environment Environmental Protection Coordinator o November 10. 1992 The HODorable Gary Fazzino Mayor, City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton AveDue Palo Altt'. CA 94303 Dear Gary, AiTKUiMENT C RON GONZALES .~ 1\:''.'-., , 1";<~;II;'" !F" OFF/l:E OF THE em MANAGER I am writing as Chair of the Santa Clara County Hazardo .. s Materials Adviwry CommJ~ to bring you up to speed on the status of the County's Tanner Plan and to ask for your assistance in getting the Plan approved. As you may know, the state Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) did nol approve the Tanner Plans for ma."!y counties, including our~. before the legidative deadline passed. At Assemblywom"" Sally Tanner's suggestioD~ we have worked with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to develop a resolution for Bay Area dties and counties to send to DTSC and 10 key legislators "ja the League of California Cities. The resolution is attached. and includes additional background information. The Committee would appreciate your support, and requests that your Council approve the resolution and send copies to the LCe. ABAG, and DTSC by the end of the year. The Committee will continue to keep you infonned on this issue through our quarterly reports. If you have any questions. please call me at 299- 2443 or !sao Kobashi, Program Manager, at 441-1195. Sincerely. A-Ron Gonzales Supervisor, District Three & i-\r,L~ Of St 'j'E.P,\'J:-:',-w,,", S -\', T'" C! . .lo,F\..J., Cc..'lc',r, /('\ \VE:'~T }-ju i[ II ~:c ~TREET. S .... :-..: JI '~i:::, l; .... ~51l I:', 4(,'~ ,: 2')'), 2 -; Z I S ---_ .... .,,-_ ........... ,.-_.----- • ; , J i "EPARTMENr OF roxlc SUBSTANCES CONTROL 400 p Sl'80l "It'! F kxlr p,o.e<l"~ Sa~tllmll ... t~. CA S~812·0e0'5 (lctobef" 1. 1992 Mr~ Ron Gonz~les, Supervisor cQunty Board of supervisors. District ~hree santa Clar~ County 70 We.t Hedding stre=t San Jos~~ California 95110 Dear Mr. Gonzales: ,~TTACHMENT 0 Xhank you for your recent lett~r on behalf of the Santa Clar~ co~nty Tanner Committee regardjng approval or ~he county hazardous waste ~anagement plan. Please be advised that the Department of Toxic Substances control (Department) will no 1 onger be revie.,dng and ta1<:J TIC] actions to approve cr disapprove county hazardous waste management plans submitted to th~ Department after the deadline o.f June 20, 1991-, uno!!.:.:: the previsions of Health and Satety Code CH&SC) ~ection 25135 et seq. This action is a result .of legal oounsel revie1J of the county plannin~' statutE! 'Within th~ HEiSe which con~luqeO that ~) th~ Department's ~tatutoLY authority to approve or disapprove county plans e_xpired Oil January 20 1 1992; 2) the deadlines imposed by the Legislature are ~a~d~tor~; and 3) the oepartrnent does not have tbe .authority t.0' exercise. discretion to di5r~qard the statutory deadlines imposed by the L9qislature. The Departr.',ent wi 11 be prtopar ing recoP.'!t1endations cf available options which will be 5ubl"".i tted to the Departl':'lent' 5 External Progratr, Revie.'", committee dJ.~ing the ne.xt several months, and will notify all counties of any future. proposals regarding the cO\l.nty planning program. r.~e: appreciate your e!fo:rts thus far in the county planni~g proces5 establishe~ under the H&SC. co: See next page. • . .