HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06181991 - 1.63 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
1-063 -
FROM:
Hazardous Materials Commission Costa
.; '•,.
June 18, 1991 County
DATE: sT�couN`�
ACTION TAKEN IN RESPONSE TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST
SUBJECT: TO ESTABLISH A PROCESS FOR REVIEWING CITY HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE COUNTY'S PLAN.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Acknowledge receipt of Guidelines established by the Hazardous Materials Commission regarding the review
of city and County Hazardous Waste Management Plans.
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to the "Tanner Act' enacted in 1986, the County developed a Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
This Plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors as well as the majority of the incorporated cities in Contra
Costa County. In February of 1990 the State Department of Health Services approved the County s Plan.
The Tanner .Act requires cities to take one of three actions within 180 days from receiving notification of the
State approval of a county Plan: (1) Adopt a city hazardous waste plan that is consistent with the county plan;
(2) Incorporate applicable portions of the county plan into the city general plan; or (3) Enact an ordinance
requiring decisions to be consistent with the county plan. Although the majority of cities in Contra Costa County
are implementing options (2) or (3),five cities have indicated they are developing their own city hazardous waste
management,plan.
The Tanner Act requires city plans to be"consistent' with the county plan. The law also provides that a city plan
can establish more"stringent' siting criteria than those in a county plan. However, the law does not state who
is to make the determination that a city plan is or is not consistent with the county plan.
On October 10, 1990, the Board of Supervisors requested the Hazardous Materials Commission to (1) establish
a procedure to conduct a public hearing on a city Hazardous Waste Management Plan and make
recommendations regarding consistency of that plan with the County s state-approved Hazardous Waste
Management Plan, and (2) provide comments and recommendations to the City Council and Board of
Supervisors on any inconsistencies between such plans.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: V/ YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): t�
ACTION OF BOARD ON 41 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
y I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
--)(UNANIMOUS(ABSENT AND CORRECT WPYOF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES:_ NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT:— ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: County Administrator ATTESTED /- + /1 4?/
Health Services Director PHIL BAT ELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Community Development Director SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Counsel
Executive Assistant, Hazardous Materials Commission
BY DEPUTY
M382 (10/88)
After much discussion at both the subcommittee and full Commission levels, on March 27,
1991,the Hazardous Materials Commission adopted"Guidelines for Addressing City-County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan Consistency Issues:' These Guidelines establish the
Commissiorf s policy for responding to requests concerning the hazardous waste management
plan. As stated in the Guidelines, the Commission concluded that decisions regarding city
hazardous waste management plans,including decisions concerning consistency between city
plans and the County Plan, is the responsibility of the cities. The Commission also
concluded that the role of the Commission is to advise cities, the public and other interested
parties on the development, interpretation and implementation of the County Plan. Under
the Guidelines, the Commission may also.consider a city s request, which is authorized by
the city council, to review its hazardous waste management plan.
The Commission believes that a potential conflict regarding whether a city plan is consistent
with a county plan is a result of ambiguities in state law and, therefore, can affect all
jurisdictions. Therefore, the Commission believes that the most appropriate mechanism to
resolve these differences is the state appeals process established by the Tanner Act.
The Commission recommends that the Guidelines, which establish a process for the
Commission to consider and respond to requests to review and comment on city hazardous
waste plans, be received by the Board of Supervisors.