Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - unsigned - 1989-01-10 City Council, Adjourned Regular Meeting Council Chambers Redding, California January 10, 1989 5:18 p.m. The Joint Meeting of the Redding City Council and Redding Planning Commission was called to order by Mayor Johannessen with the following Council Members present: Buffum, Carter, and Fulton. Council Member Dahl was absent. Also present were Planning Commissioners Burrell, Chapin, Gelonek, and Potter, City Manager Christofferson, City Attorney Hays, Planning and Community Development Director Perry, Senior Associate Planner King, and Secretary to the Planning Commission Dent. WORKSHOP - Joint Workshop on the Draft "Shasta County Hazardous Waste Management Plan" (A-050-060-350 & P-150-050-500) Planning Director Perry gave an overview of the purpose of the joint workshop between the City Planning Commission and the City Council. With regard to the draft Shasta County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, he noted that to be discussed were: (1) implications if the City approved the plan, (2) implications if the City denied the plan, and (3) implications if the City took no action. Stating that this meeting was a workshop and not a public hearing, Mr. Perry clarified that a public hearing was held by the Redding Planning Commission at its regular meeting of November 22, 1988, and there was a joint workshop held December 15, 1988, in Anderson with County and City Planning Commissions and some members of the Board of Supervisors in attendance; however, Shasta County had not yet held a public hearing on the plan. Mr. Perry introduced Reed Sato of Downey, Brand, Seymour, and Rohwer, from Sacramento, who had the role of counselor to hazardous-waste violators and was on the Hazardous Waste Committee for the Sacramento Chamber of Commerce. He noted that Mr. Sato would be commenting on the three areas of implications. Mr. Sato reviewed the procedures required by the State Department of Health Services for the submittal and review of a county hazardous-waste-management plan. He reported that once the plan was finalized, it must be approved by the city with the majority of the population within that County. According to Mr. Sato, the City of Redding had a 90-day time frame in which to (1) take no action, (2) approve, or (3) disapprove. He explained that taking no action was the same as approving the plan. If the City disapproved the plan and made recommendations to the County, but the County chose not to make those recommended changes, then the California Department of Health Services had the option of writing the plan for the County of Shasta. Mr. Sato stated that if the City approved the plan, it would be submitted to the State of California, and the State would decide whether or not to give its final blessing. The City would then have 180 days to incorporate the plan. Mr. Sato advised that the City could adopt its own plan but that plan would have to be consistent with the County's plan; the City could adopt aspects of the County plan; or the City could pass ordinances, which also had to be consistent with the County's plan. Mayor Johannessen asked if the County could adopt a plan which, in fact, did not identify any usable sites within the County? Mr. Sato answered yes. Mayor Johannessen then asked if the County should have to act prior to the City's making a final approval of the plan. It was the opinion of the City Attorney that before the City was a draft plan prepared by the County, which did not meet the definition of a final plan since the County had not taken any action on it. Mr. Sato remarked that the contemplation was that the County was saying this was the County's plan that the County believed in and was asking the City to agree with. Continuing, he said the County would have taken a copy of the draft to the State, who would then make comments and decide what was needed in the final plan. He explained that those comments would have to be addressed by the County if the County hoped that the State would approve the final plan. Mayor Johannessen stated that, at this point, there was no plan adopted by the County so the City of Redding had nothing on which to comment. He suggested that the procedure should be that the County proceed with the necessary public hearings and notifications and then the City would get involved, since the City did not have a plan on which to comment until the research had been done. According to the Planning Director, the problem was the County had to start somewhere and they choose to start with the City because they were interested in getting as many comments as possible. Mayor Johannessen questioned how the City could be asked to make a comment unless it was on the procedural basis of any plan when no identification sites have been found. Commissioner Burrell opined that perhaps it was not that they could not make comments on the draft plan, rather he did not think they should take action to approve a plan that was not an adopted plan on the part of the County. Stating that any action on the City's part prior to adoption by the County was premature, he said the 90-day review period should not have started. Commissioner Potter remarked that until some formal approval by the legislation of the County occurred, the City was not legally responsible to comment on the plan. It was determined that the draft plan had been submitted to and reviewed by the California Department of Health Services. Mr. Sato pointed out that the County was faced with a January 31, 1989, dateline for submittal of the waste management plan, which was the time frame in which the City was now operating. Commissioner Burrell noted that there was a deadline, but there was nothing to state that a penalty would be imposed if the plan were not submitted on time. Mr. Sato replied that he was not sure that that was correct. Mr. Perry read specific language from the Tanner Bill regarding the submittal procedures for the hazardous-waste-management plan. Commissioner Burrell state that from what staff had read, it appeared that the County had taken the appropriate steps. Mayor Johannessen asked if the plan had to include sites. Mr. Perry answered that it had to do an inventory. Senior Associate Planner Jim King interjected that the State allowed the inclusion of criteria for sites or specific site areas. Mr. Perry indicated that as lead agency, the City would have to conduct an environmental determination. Council Member Carter asked if the City could identify sites outside the City limits. Answering yes, Mr. Perry pointed out that the sites, however, would have no meaning unless the County approved them. Stating that it appeared that the draft plan identified several sites when the County authorized a negative declaration, Mayor Johannessen asked if any of those sites were checked for suitability. Mr. Perry answered only within the criteria as given to the County by the State. He then clarified that two sites had been identified by the County--a transfer station south of Anderson and a site off Highway 299 East. Mr. Sato said it was his understanding that the County had provided the City with what it felt was a final plan. Mr. Perry commented that the plan had been to the County's Technical Advisory Committee and the Public Work's staff--it had not been before the Board of Supervisors for adoption. Mayor Johannessen replied that he thought he understood what was happening, but he was not sure what the City's part was until there was a plan at which to look. Commissioner Chapin opined that, technically what they had was paper that was written but not reviewed or approved by the Board of Supervisors. He questioned the County's approving a negative declaration for the plan as it existed. Commissioner Potter asked if the City had to respond within the 90 days. Mr. Sato explained that if there were no response or no plan submitted within 90 days (January 31, 1989), the worse that could happen was the State could write the County's plan. After talking with Dick Curry of the County Public Works Department, Mr. Perry said Mr. Curry was willing to conduct the process through the County and then bring it back to the City for review and comments. Stating that she would be more comfortable with that, Council Member Buffum said she felt like the lead agency in someone else's ball game, not that she did not have a park in which to play. The City Attorney stated that new legislation allowed the County to ask for an extension of time. Mr. Perry said Mr. Curry had indicated that the County would be agreeable to a 90-day extension. Mayor Johannessen said he felt the County should act on the plan and then submit it to the City, allowing the City 90 days from the date of submittal on which to act. Commissioner Potter asked if the City should take any active role in the County meetings or was it strictly the County's position. He clarified that his question was whether or not the City's Planning Commission should participate in any joint hearings and/or joint workshop. Mr. Sato replied that he was unable to advise the Commissioners or Council Members regarding that. Commissioner Gelonek said it was her understanding from the joint workshop held in December that the sites had been narrowed down to only one or two that would even be creditable. She asked when that site selection was going to be final. Mr. Perry answered when the Board of Supervisors adopted the plan. Commissioner Gelonek then asked whether they could substantiate with information to eliminate any of the sites on the final plan and could there be no sites selected in the final plan. Mr. Perry responded, theoretically, yes. Council Member Buffum asked whether a final plan with no sites had been tested in court. Mr. Sato stated that it was definitely a court issue. He further commented that he did not think, as of this date, any county had received approval from the Department of Health Services. Mayor Johannessen asked if the County designated sites and they were locally operated, could the toxic material to be dumped at those sites be limited to the community. Answering that he was not sure that was correct, Mr. Sato said in this process he felt the State would have problems with the County's coming up with a plan that said only waste from this County will be allowed in the toxic material dump. The City Attorney indicated that this was the problem that counties and the State were going to come up against, with the State saying this is a statewide problem and everyone will have to get together to solve it; individual counties cannot be islanded from the rest of the State. Council Member Carter determined that the majority of hazardous waste was now going to Kettlemen Hills in Kings County, but that asbestos was going to a private site in Anderson. He further acknowledged that domestic hazardous waste was going in the landfills. Council Member Carter asked if a site were established, would all toxic material from other parts of the State go into that site. The City Attorney answered that it would if the site were of the proper classification. Council Member Carter asked if during the process, the Board of Supervisors would address which material would go where and would that information be available to the City. Mr. Perry explained what he felt the process would be. Nothing that nuclear waste was going outside the State, Council Member Carter asked if that was the long-term proposal. It was clarified that nuclear waste was regulated by the Federal Government and was not classified as hazardous waste--it was in a separate category. It was Mayor Johannessen's understanding that when the hazardous sites had been identified and approved by the State, then anyone could go to the appropriate agency in Sacramento and say he was looking for a site in which to dispose of certain types of items, and the State would then tell that person which site to use. The State could then override the County and allow that particular site to be used for those items. Stating that there was some presumption by the State, Mr. Perry said there was some truth to what Mayor Johannessen was saying. Mr. Sato reported that the County was trying to focus on the State's request, but the legislation was somewhat confusing. He indicated that the State was looking to all counties to see if the State could do a comprehensive "Hazardous Waste Management Plan" and the County was looking at it with the idea of handling only the waste within its own community. The City Attorney advised that the time line for expansion was not as long as first indicated, which was July 31, 1989. He maintained that July 31, 1989, was the date by which the Department of Health Services was to adopt those plans that were submitted. Council Member Buffum asked how critical was the City's position before or after submittal. The City Attorney replied that the plan submitted by the County to the State was the plan on which the State would act. Commissioner Burrell noted that a representative from the Department of Health Services made the specific statement that she did not see any particular problem with the County being late, if they were making a good faith effort in coming up with a plan. Mr. Sato reiterated that the State would have to come up with a plan for the County; the question was whether the State wanted to do that. The Consensus of the Council and the Commission was to wait for the County Board of Supervisors to take action on the plan and obtain an extension. If an extension could not be obtained, the plan would then be referred back to the City. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at the hour of 6:10 p.m., Mayor Johannessen declared the meeting adjourned. APPROVED: ________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk 1-10-89