HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 5 O.C. HAZAR WASTE 05-06-91PUBLIC HEARING NO. 5
5-6-91
•NL)A
,w! iV`•, r,Ii
inter -Cem
DATE: MAY 61 1991
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Determine that the previously approved Final EIR is
adequate for consideration of the Orange County Hazardous
Waste Management Plan, as amended, by adoption of Resolution
No. 91-67; and
2 ) Approve the Amendments to the Orange County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan by adoption of Resolution No. 91-65.
BACKGROUND
In late 1986 the California State Legislature approved Tanner Bill
2948 which requires each county in the state to prepare a Hazardous
Waste Management Plan ("Plan"). As the lead agency, the County of
Orange has worked with representatives from many Orange County
cities, including Tustin, to prepare the Plan and its accompanying
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The Orange County Board of Supervisors approved the County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan and certified Final Program
Environmental Impact Report No. 490 on January 25, 1989. The Plan
and EIR were then transmitted to all cities in the County for
approval from at least 50% of the cities representing 50% of the
urban population. After local approval, the State Department of
Health Services had 90 days to approve or disapprove the Plan.
On March 20, 1989, the Tustin City Council approved the Orange
County Hazardous Waste Management Plan and certified the Final
Environmental Impact Report by adopting Resolutions 89-41 and 89-
40. Furthermore, on June 18, 1990, the Tustin City Council adopted
Urgency Ordinance No. 1045 regarding City-wide interim zoning
regulations for the siting of hazardous waste facilities (extended
on July 16, 1990.)
City Council Report
Orange County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan
May 6, 1991
Page 2
The Plan was approved by Orange County cities within the
legislative mandated time frame and sent to the State Department of
Health Services on June 1, 1989. However, on November 30, 1989,
the State Department of Health Services formally disapproved the
Orange County Waste Management Plan because several sections of the
Plan failed to substantially comply with the State's guidelines.
Subsequent to the Department's disapproval of so many Plans
statewide, Assemblywoman Sally Tanner held a hearing in Sacramento
on March 20, 1990 to determine what the problems were and how to
resolve them. Following up on the results of the hearing, she
sponsored legislation (AB2595) that set forth guidelines for
resubmittal of disapproved Plans. The Governor approved the bill.
Beginning September 30, 1990, the County and its cities had 270
days to ratify any amendments to the Plan and resubmit it to the
Department.
Since that time, the County has submitted draft revisions to the
State Department of Health Services for review. In a letter dated
December 10, 1990, the State indicated that these revisions as
submitted were found acceptable and should again be ratified by 50%
of the cities with 50% of the urban population.
As the next step, the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved
the Amendments to the Plan on February 19, 1991. At their request,
the City of Tustin Community Development Department has reviewed
the Amendments and forwarded them to the City Council for formal
action. An analysis of the amendments is provided below.
ANALYSIS
The following summarizes the significant Amendments to the Orange
County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The Amendments, in their
entirety, are shown in Attachment 1.
* "Fair Share" language change to the Orange County Hazardous
Waste Management Plan, Section V.3. Orange County Facility
Siting Policy:
1) Hazardous waste management facilities that meet the
County's "fair share" can be approved subject to criteria
required by law, unless other California counties have the
capacity and agree to handle specific hazardous waste.
2) The County may reject a waste management facility that
exceeds its "fair share" if it has made arrangements with
other counties, or if it has the capacity to handle the waste.
City Council Report
Orange County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan
May 6, 1991
Page 3
3) The County shall not reject uneconomic "fair share"
hazardous waste facilities if it doesn't have the capacity or
has not made arrangements with other counties, unless the
proposed facility could adversely impact public health and/or
the environment.
* Additions to Siting Criteria, Table V-3, Criteria Number 6
(Containment and Groundwater Monitoring) and Number 7 (Water
Quality) which allow for deviations from certain siting
criteria through the Health and Safety Assessment (Attachment
1, pages 3 and 4).
* Inclusion of mapping criteria clarification as presented by
the Environmental Management Agency in a memo dated October
10, 1990. (Attachment I, pages 10 and 11)
Staff has analyzed the proposed Plan Amendments and has determined
that they will not significantly impact the City of Tustin.
However, the amendments regarding fair share may have a minor
effect on Tustin because the County's responsibility regarding
hazardous waste facilities indirectly affects all cities within its
boundaries. The County, for example, in meeting its fair share,
may happen to site hazardous waste facilities in proximity to the
City of Tustin pursuant to the siting criteria established by the
Plan and City of Tustin Urgency Ordinance No. 1045. This fair
share obligation does not change such criteria; it only attempts
to ensure a balance among counties. The other amendments, however,
fare generally for clarification purposes and therefore create no
real impacts on Tustin.
In anticipation of State approval of the County Plan, staff will
soon be presenting to Council appropriate changes to Urgency
Ordinance No. 1045. Once the Plan is approved by the State, a
permanent ordinance which is consistent with the approved Plan will
be prepared for Council consideration.
CONCLUSION
Staff has reviewed the proposed Amendments to the Orange County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Based on this review, staff
recommends that the Final EIR be determined adequate for
consideration of the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan,
City Council Report
Orange County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan
May 6, 1991
Page 4
as amended, through adoption of Resolution No. 91-67 (Attachment 2)
and that the Amendments to the Plan be approved through adoption of
Resolution No. 91-65 (Attachment 3).
Scott Reekstin
Assistant Planner
SR:kd\hazwastl.ccr
C ristine A. Shinglet
Assistant City Manager
Attachments: 1) Amendments to the Orange County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan
2) Resolution No. 91-67
3) Resolution No. 91-65
ATTACHMENT 1
I. Addition to V.3 Orange County Facility Siting Policy_
(Interpretation of Fair Share Pblicy)
Approval of proposed hazardous
waste management facilities
that do not exceed a
jurisdiction's "fair share"
will depend on siting criteria
and other criteria required by
existing law, unless effective
interjurisdictional agreements
Provide for adequate hazardous
waste management capacity for
the specific hazardous waste
which the facility would have
handled in another California
County.
A county can re -i ect a proposed
hazardous waste management
facility/project that exceeds
its "fair share" if there are
effective interjurisdictional
agreements for the management
of the specific hazardous waste
generated in the county or
there is adequate capacity to
handle these wastes in the
county.
If adequate capacity does not
exist in the county_ or
effective interjurisdictional
agreements do not exist, a
jurisdiction shall not reject
hazardous waste management
proposals that exceed "fair
share" if the proponent
demonstrates that the "fair
share" facility (i.e., smaller
facility) is economically
nonviable, except in cases in
which the jurisdiction
demonstrates that there are
appreciably increased public
health and/or environmental
risks associated with the
Proposed facility.
ANALYSIS:
Hazardous . waste management
facilities that meet the
County's "fair share" can be
approved depending upon
criteria required by law.
Exception: if other California
counties have the capacity and
agree to handle specific
hazardous wastes.
The County can reject a waste
facility that exceeds its "fair
share"...
• if suitable arrangements
have be6n made with other-
counties,
thercounties, or
• if the County has capacity
to handle the hazardous wastes.
If the.County doesn't have the
capacity or no other
arrangements have. been made
with other counties, the County
shall not reject uneconomic
"fair share" hazardous waste
facilities. Exception: Where
the proposed facility could
adversely impact public health
and/or the environment.
The "fair share" language
contained in this Plan is only
effective in conjunction with
interjurisdictional county
agreements.
COMMENTS :. Per Department of
Health Services letter of June
13, 1990.
"Effective" Interiurisdictional
Agreements - Counties have
asked about the meaning of the
term "effective" as used in the
preceding discussion of
interjurisdictional agreements
and their .relation to
acceptable "fair share"
statements in CHWMPs. It is
the department's position that
at this early date it would not
be meaningful to attempt to
define the term in some precise
manner. A definition now might
ultimately work against
counties by foreclosing options
for such agreements which have
not yet,, been developed or
foreseen.
In any case, if a hazardous
waste management facility is
rejected by a county based upon
"fair share" provision in the
CHWMP and upon the facility's
inconsistency with
interjurisdictional agreements,
and if an appeal board is
convened to review that local
decision, the appeal board will
review all aspects of the
decision in making its
determination of whether to
uphold or overturn it. The
appeal board will review all
documents and information which
are relevant to the local
agency's decision to disapprove
a proposed facility, including
the CHWMP (approved or
disapproved), the applicable
General Plan, and any
documentation or evidence of
interjurisdictional agreements
to manage hazardous waste. In
other words, to the extent that
an appeal board must make such
a determination in order to
render its -decision, an appeal
board would judge whether
"effective" interjurisdictional
agreements are in place._
II. .Changes to Specific- Siting Criteria
6. Qontainment and Groundwater
Monitoring
All Facilities: Facilities
shall be fully enclosed by
containment structures of
impermeable materials which
would contain any unauthorized
release of hazardous material.
Facilities shall be equipped
with leak detection and spill
control and recovery
capability. Groundwater
monitoring wells must be
located around each facility to
determine background vadose
zone and ground water quality,
and to detect leaks and spills
from the facility unless -
demonstrated to be safe without
them through the Health and
Safety Assessment. An ongoing
groundwater monitoring program
should be developed in
consultation with local, state
and water district
representatives.
COMMENTS: This criterion does
not put unreasonable
constraints on facilities. For
example, existing refuse
transfer facilities are
typically constructed with a
concrete or asphalt pad.
Secondly, the hazardous*'waste
industry is -getting away from
hazardous waste storage' on
soil.
Any proposed facility will have
to meet proposed stormwater
regulations. This will
necessitate isolation of
facilities from stormwater,
require a controlled drainage
plan and, potentially require_
some form of stormwater
treatment.
The requirement to provide
monitoring wells regardless of
the type of facility has been
modified. The initial
condition of a site will still
need to be determined. In that
process, wells and cores
drilled during a site
assessment could be developed
as monitoring wells at very
little cost if need is
demonstrated.
The modification regarding
groundwater monitoring wells
has been made to allow the
project to demonstrate need via
the Health and Safety
assessment.
7._ Water Quality
All Facilities: Facilities
shall not be sited within
watershed areas tribut which
flow to open reservoirs or
aqueducts that contain drinking
water supplies. Facilities
shall locate such that
domestic water supply wells
cannot be adversely affected
from unauthorized releases of
contaminants: As a guideline,
facilities should locate at
least one mile from domestic
supply wells in the Forebay
areas (principal recharge area
to the Orange County
groundwater basin), and at
least one-half mile from
domestic supply wells in the
pressure area of the Orange
County groundwater basin,
unless demonstrated to be safe
at closer proximity through the
Health and Safety Assessment.
Facilities shall not locate
within well head protection
zones as identified by EPA
guidelines or municipal water
supply agencies and local water
districts, unless demonstrated
to be safe at closer proximity
through the Health and Safety
Assessment. Facilities shall
not impact the quality of
surface waters (lakes,
reservoirs, streams, creeks,
etc.) or groundwater resources
which have been identified for
beneficial uses by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board
Basin Plan (per State Water
Resources Control board Policy
Resolution 88-63). The
-required Health and Safety
Assessment will identify water
quality issues. Facilities
must meet Federal, state and
local water quality
requirements.
Comments: The first sentence
is self explanatory.
Facilities shall not be sited
where runoff from the facility
flows into storm drains,
channels, or creeks which
discharge into reservoirs or
aqueducts which are drinking
water sources. Typically
reservoirs and aqueducts are
located at high elevations.
This sentence would prohibit
locating a facility above them.
For example, a facility shall
not be located above Irvine
Lake in Orange County, or Lake
Mathews in Riverside County.
The siting of facilities in the
watershed above reservoirs
which do ,.not collect runoff for
drinking water purposes would
not be affected by this
sentence. For example, San
Joaquin Reservoir, which is an
open domestic water reservoir
surrounded by wall and receives
no runoff.
The location of facilities one
mile from domestic wells in the
forebay and one-half mile in
the pressure zone is presented
as a guideline and not a
prohibition. No absolute
minimum distance between the
facility and domestic wells is
required. The actual safe
distance will be determined
during the Health and Safety
Assessment.
Hydrogeologic evaluation of the
Orange County groundwater basin
has shown that wells within a
proximity of one mile affect
each other. If a hazardous
waste treatment facility
"leaks" into the groundwater
and is required to drill a well
to reverse groundwater flow,
then this remediation may
affect the production of
neighboring wells and impair
local ,water agencies from
delivering water to its
customers.
The prop - _ i.tion of locating
facilitie ithin.well head
protection zones as stipulated
by Federal and state regulation
is stated in the criterion to
avoid conflict with Federal and
state regulation now and in the
future.
Treatment, rec,r^ling and
collection :ilities:
Facilities are diseearaged
encouraged to
locate outside of
structured recharge areas to
regional aquifers as defined in
local or state plans, including
the Forebay area. Facilities
may locate in the following
areas only with increased
engineered design features such
as horizontal and vertical
containment and monitoring
systems to ensure protection:
(a) Major aquifer recharge
areas, (b) Areas of permeable
strata and soils, (c) Areas
where the existing groundwater
has beneficial uses as
described in the Basin Plan.
Facilities with subsurface
storage or treatment must be
sited, designed and operated to
ensure that hazardous materials
will be abeve e f f v
feet abeve the highest
the
tension-saturated zone.
Comments: The first sentence
has beer codified to avoid
siting fa,__Lities within areas
designed and operated as
aquifer recharge areas. It is
understood that the entire
forebay contributes to the
groundwater basin, but specific
areas have been developed and
are operated to augment natural
groundwater replenishment.
Examples in the Orange County
groundwater basin are: Anaheim
lakes, Santa Ana River bed, and
Santiago gravel pits. These
areas have been "structured" to
maximize groundwater
replenishment.
The section from "Facilities
may locate... in the Basin
Plan.", could be considered
permitting criteria.
The requirement of siting
facilitids with. a minimum of -
five feet of unsaturated soil
has been changed to the siting
of facilities above the
tension -saturated zone. The
tension -saturated zone is the
term gaining acceptance over
the use of the term capillary
fringe. It is that zone above
the groundwater interface where
water completely fills the pore
space, and is held there by the
interaction of the size of the
pore space and the surface
tension of water. Within this
zone the same liquid -liquid
transport of contaminants and
chemical reactions can occur as
in the saturated zone. The
thickness of the tension -
saturated zone ranges from a
few centimeters in sands to as
much as 30 meters in certain
clays. The thickness of the
tension -saturated zone would be
determined during an initial
site -assessment.
In addition, experience gained
through the underground tank
program has shown, that the
failure of underground tanks is
highest in high groundwater
areas. This. stipulation
recognizes that fact by
requiring, voidance of high
groundwater areas.
k�
Residuals re sitories:
Repositories arm prohibited
from locating in principal
recharge areas to regional
aquifers as defined in local or
state plans, including the
Forebay area. Repositories are
prohibited in areas of high
permeability (such as sand and
gravel) per the requirements of
the State Water Quality Control
Board and California Code of
Regulations, Title 23,
Subchapter 15, Section 2531(b) .
Repositories may locate only
where the uppermost water-
bearing zone or aquifer is
mineralized (by natural or man-
induced conditions) to the
extent that it is not
considered for beneficial use
by the Basin Plan.
Repositories must be sited,
designed and operated to ensure
that hazardous materials will
always be a five
feet above the tension-
saturated zone hlghe
antlelpated eleyatinn e
Comments- Orange. County's
experienc Ath repositories of
hazardous materials indicates
that they leak. Orange County
is dependent on its groundwater
to meet immediate needs and to
provide protection from
drought. Protection of the
Forebay area from potential
contamination from residual
repositories is important.
Residual repositories are not
excluded from Orange County
.since they may locate above non
water -bearing areas and areas
where the upper most water
bearing zone has no beneficial
uses -as described in the Basin
Plans.
The de minimus requirement of
locating five feet above
highest anticipated elevation
of groundwater has been changed
to locating above the tension -
saturated zone. This change is
incorporated to recognize the
importance of liquid -liquid
transfer of hazardous
materials.
The following provides an overview of Orange County's project
review process. . The tasks are grouped under general category
headings for simplification of presentation. In fact, each process
will involve a number of additional steps depending on the specific
project proposal, along with Planning Commission and/or Board of
Supervisors review and approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PROCESSES (one of the following)
Environmental Impact Report
• Negative Declaration
Categorical Exemption
DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL PROCESSES (one or more of the following)
• General Plan Amendment
- Zone Change
• Conditional Use Permit or Site Plan
NON -DISCRETIONARY PERMIT PROCESSES (requires all of the following)
Grading Permit `
• Building Permits
• Building Inspection
OR
• 9
County of Oran,
91I F'O ¢t
DATE:
CT ig�fl
TO: Karen Peters, Manager, Hazardous Materials Program
FROM: George Britton, Acting Manager, Advance Planning
SUBJECT: Mapping Criteria Clarification - Hazardous Waste Management Plan
In response to questions from Department of Health Services (DHS)
representatives during our meeting of October 3, 1990, Bob Aldrich of my staff
researched the criteria used in generating the composite maps in the proposed
Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The following provides
additional specificity as to the mapping -procedures used for both the
"Residual Repositories" and the "Treatment, Recycling and Collection
Facilities" General Study Area Maps.
The "Residual Repositories" and "Treatment, Recycling and Collection
Facilities" General Study Area Maps were generated using a base map and
appropriate overlay maps to screen out areas clearly constrained by the
selected mappable criteria. As stated in the proposed hazardous waste plan,
the general criteria utilized for the "Residual Repositories" map were as
follows:
° Areas within 2,000 feet of existing or zoned residential development,
based on projected 1995 buildout data.
° Areas within 200 feet of active earthquake faults.
° Open space areas including national forest, state, and regional parks,
designated open space, and prime agricultural land.
° Military installations.
° Areas within 100 -year floodplain and dam inundation areas.
° Areas of high groundwater (water level 5 feet from surface).
° Areas subject to potential rapid p geologic change, including landslides,
mudflows, liquefaction, or soil subsidence.
The general criteria utilized for the "Treatment, Recycling and Collection
Facilities" map included the following:
° Areas in existing residential use or zoned for residential use, using
1995 projected residential buildout data.
° Areas within 200 feet of active earthquake faults, per State
Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones.
° Open space areas, including national forests, state and regional parks,
designated open space land, and prime agricultural land.
F:850-188(3/84)
- L -
Military installations.
In addition to these general categories, staff developed additional mapping
criteria to address those areas within the County with potential for
landslide, liquefaction, expansive soils, mudflow or seismic activity. To the
best of my knowledge, these criteria were used in the generation of 'the
"Residual Repositories" General Study Area Map only.
° Areas indicated on the "landslide" overlay map with a moderately high,
high or very high potential for landslide activity were screened out.
° Areas indicted on the "liquefaction" overlay map with high liquefaction
potential and all areas of soil gas accumulation were screened out.
° Areas indicated on the "expansive soils" overlay map with a moderate or
high potential for soils expansion and potential peat deposit areas
were screened out.
° All areas subject to mudflows indicated on the "mudflow" overlay map
were screened out.
° Areas indicated on the "seismic" overlay map,with moderate or high -
seismic potential were screened out.
During the October 3rd meeting, DHS officials also inquired whether the San
Juan Creek and Aliso Creek Basins (as shown on the "groundwater"overlay map)
include groundwater recharge areas. Upon staff review of the County's General
Plan Resources Element, staff has determined that these basins do not contain
groundwater recharge areas. The Santa Ana Riverbed, between Katella Avenue
and Imperial Highway, is the principal recharge area for the coastal plain.
Lastly, a recommendation was made by DHS to include a flowchart depicting the
required steps necessary for an applicant to secure government agency
approvals for siting a treatment or residual repository facility. (DHS
specifically sited the flowchart in the San Bernardino plan as an example to
follow.) For your review, I have enclosed a flowchart of the EMA development
review tasks. If this chart is too detailed for use within the Hazardous
Vaste Plan, let's discuss what level of simplication is necessary and my staff
will assist in its preparation.
I hope that this provides the necessary background information on the mapping
criteria used in generating the composite maps as well as other issues raised
by DHS. If you have any additional questions, or wish to discuss this
further, please contact Bob Aldrich at 834-2166.
George BYitton
BA:tk
0100914350217
J
to LLI
w5�l919
p m;I ..
• •r'.�•.�••r••r�•�..••.r••r.r
J
V<
LL
a
_ ;
Woa, .
CIO
05 J
J o
J °C �m `• ' o Co er
c�Ir
W�:
..i?<0�
a��z
�E
f
RW
z -
oc
¢
-i
:33ZU.
'
(
0
N Z
ti — O
I o
U
W
(�
C LC
J W <N
-
F -p
W OOQ
S m 0 I
I
ZImt7Wc>
<<
_¢ �I
W
W
Ui 1J
f11
4-j
G 'iAs
c�E
c•
W = ~
a
IxH
1
CL
J
a~=
us
N00iJ
W
aOz
<<�o
d
I
ous
Z
O
G
co ca
d..
i o= I
pEm0
2
W 14
L LJ
O
'J
W m
a
7
M
0 . H as
.� H
W Z
.,,
Lv
O0
q C W
co�
N 7 O w
< W V
Z
I
H Rf
e-1 ca
W
O t
G
<Q 2
d
N O r-1 O
`
z r<j, W >
<< n
r--
G w cd 3
O
00 to c, co
W i
a
Z C V W
I I
C
co
co O co
OWo
VO¢
00
O
I I
u a�
fA O 0 w
BZW
W<
W O <
�W Wm
� dQVW �
u Q. ca ca
W 1. CO 11
aO=cc
Yi N.G
a 3 O u
b -H O41
IL
W
( W <v
J ai a o
ca u
C uw (a
F—i
mnu
o aj co
cc z
a
z
O W
W
Joo
< N M�
IY
us
' W
I
..
= C
C
W J
V IL -1
aID
w
H
uj U8
0
0
W
QQ
O
=W2
W c
O J
W O
N
I
Oct
_<J ,
W W
:� a. a.
Z
UAcr �
U
Lo«J
--� WUA cr 3 W
OW }�<
J z
O
J
<0
dw
Q a.O
N <
cc
w0W
J
pV
W
U
OZ= -9 0
OJW
W Z1.
(0-404i
O
tr
J; a. ¢
v a. 4
Q
IA
Z
O Z Q W
y Z 2 0 �_
Z
W
J
4c
W
do
_W
C
W Z N=
o a ¢N
sw
%uj
C9 '-- U)
W
ZCCmNN
= �C
tW
tm>
<C <
dO
W¢
CL
S�� <N
W
< W
V J
cc
U
a
cJ a
a U
a s O
a 0
a
�
W
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
i
9'
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. 91-67
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, FINDING THAT THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE
ORANGE COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE EIR FOR THE
PROGRAM, AS AMENDED, BY THE COUNTY AND THAT
ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN
PREVIOUSLY INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the Orange County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan is considered a "project" pursuant to the
terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the project is covered by a previously
certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan which
serves as the Program EIR for the proposed project. This
Environmental Impact Report was previously certified by
the County Board of Supervisors on December 26, 1988 and
by the Tustin City Council on March 20, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Amendments have been reviewed by City
of Tustin staff and City Council and have been determined
to not require additional environmental mitigation; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Report,
previously certified by the County of Orange was
considered prior to approval of this project.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council
hereby finds that: the project, as amended, is within
the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report
previously approved; and the effects of this project,
relating to grading, drainage, circulation, public
services and utilities, were adequately examined in the
Program EIR. The Final EIR is therefore determined to be
adequate to serve as a Program EIR for consideration of
the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, as
amended, and satisfies all requirements of CEQA.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16'
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 1
Resolution No. 91-67
Page 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Tustin City Council held on the 6th day of May, 1991.
CHARLES PUCKETT, Mayor
MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN )
MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex -of f icio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby
certify that the whole number of the members of the City
Council of the City of Tustin is five; that ' the above
and foregoing Resolution No. 91-67 was duly and regularly
introduced, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of
the City Council held on the 6th day of May, 1991, by the
following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
ccresos\91-67.sr
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
1
2
3
4
5
6'
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22`l
23
24
25
26,
27
28
TTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO. 91-65
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA APPROVING OF AMENDMENTS
TO THE ORANGE COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, on January 25, 1989, the Orange County
Board of Supervisors approved the Orange County Hazardous
Waste Management Plan ("Plan"); certified Final Program
Environmental Impact Report No. 490, which was determined
to adequately address all environmental impacts
associated with the adoption of the Plan; and requested
that the City of Tustin review the Plan and Environmental
Impact Report and make a determination whether to approve
or deny the Plan; and
WHEREAS, as recommended by the Planning Commission,
the City Council of the City of Tustin passed and adopted
Resolutions 89-41 and 89-40 on March 20, 1989, approving
the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan and
certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 490; --and on
June 18, 1990, adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1045,
regarding City-wide interim zoning regulations for the
siting of hazardous waste facilities (extended on July
16, 1990); and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Health Services
formally reviewed the Orange County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan but disapproved the Plan as submitted on
November 30, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the County has now prepared and approved
the Amendments to the Orange County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan and has found that Final EIR No. 490 was
adequate to serve as a program EIR for this project; and
WHEREAS, the Amendments to the Orange County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan must be approved by 50
percent of the cities that represent 50 percent of the
urban population in order for the County to be able to
resubmit the revised Plan to the State Department of
Health Services; and
WHEREAS, at the request of the Orange County Board
of Supervisors, the City of Tustin has reviewed the
Amendments to the Orange County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan and determined that the Amendments as
proposed are acceptable; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20'
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 91-65
Page 2
WHEREAS, adoption of the Amendments to the Plan by
the City of Tustin is in accordance with all State laws
and regulations; and
WHEREAS, any proposed hazardous waste facilities are
subject to siting, permitting and environmental review
pursuant to State law and Urgency Ordinance No. 1045;
and approval of the Amendments to the Plan does not
constitute a basis for waiving these requirements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council
hereby approves the Amendments to the Orange County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Tustin City Council held on the 6th day of May, 1991.
CHARLES PUCKETT; Mayor
MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN
CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 91-65
MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby
certify that the whole number of the members of the City
Council of the City of Tustin is ; that the above
and foregoing Resolution No. 91-65 was duly and regularly
introduced, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of
the City Council held on the 6th day of May, 1991, by the
following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
ccresos\91-65.sr
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk