Res 91-035RESOLUTION NO. 91-035
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 89-112, adopted July 11, 1989, the
City Council of the City of Poway approved the San Diego County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan dated May 1989 (the Plan); and
WHEREAS, the Plan was submitted to the State Department of
Health Services for approval as required by Assembly Bill 2948
(Tanner, 1986), the State law authorizing the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Health Services has
disapproved the Plan on the basis of the "fair share"language it
includes; and
WHEREAS, it is proposed that the section of that Plan which
deals with Fair Share Policies be amended as described on
Attachment 1; and
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report adopted prior
to the approval of the May 1989 San Diego County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan adequately describes all potential impacts of the
amended Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF POWAY AS FOLLOWS:
That the amended plan is approved and should be resubmitted to
the State Department of Health Services for approval as
provided for in Assembly Bill 2595 (Tanner, 1990).
PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway,
california, this 16th day of April, 1991
ATTEST:
Wahlsten, City Clerk
Lth, Mayor
Resolution No. 91-035
Page 2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
I, Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk of the City of Poway, do
hereby certify, under the penalty of perjury, that the foregoing
Resolution, No. 91-03~ , was duly adopted by the City Council at
a meeting of said city Council held on the 16th day of
April , 1991, and that it was so adopted by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
EMERY, HIGGINSON, MCINTYRE, SNESKO, GOLDSMITH
Ma. rjorie XK. Wahlsten, City Clerk
City o~oway
REPORTXHAZAMEND.RES
Resolution No.
Page 3
91-035
ATTACHMENT
EXISTING FAIR SHARE POLICIES
1. Every county and city in the region will accept responsibility for thc management of hazardous wastes in an
amount proportionate to thc huTardous wastes generated in thc county and city.
2. Each county shall meet its obligation in managing hazardous wastes cithcr by siting facilities ~o treat and
dispose of hazardous waste or by entering into intergovernmental agreements with other counties to site
facilities.
3. The Southern California HaTardous Waste Management Authority (Authority) encourages thc siting of
treatment facilities in counties where there is a substantial unmet need for the type of treatment which a facility
would provide. The Authority will consider the relative risk of waste typo and treatment methodology in the.
fair share allocation of facilities.
4. The minimum fair shat9 .responsibility for each county shall be go have some combination of facilities sited
· within the county, and intergovernmental agreements with other counties -- which will equal the county's off-
site ba~'ardous waste generation.
5. The maximum fair share responsibility for each county will be to have facilities sited within the county that
equal the .off-site waste generation of the count)'. The county may choose to site facilities in excess of that
Thc Authority'will assist and suppor~ local government siting Of facilities consistent with the first fly6 f:~ir
share principles through thc rcgional action plan. The Authority will support local governments in their local
land usc decisions which are consistent with thc fair share principles.
7. Fair share determination is dynamic and will change based on economic growth, progress in waste
minimization, technological advancement, and progress in siting new facilities. The fair-share determination
for each county shall be made annually by the Authority ba~ed on thc most recent generation data and
projections, and whenever a new facility is sited or an existing one expanded or restricted.
PROPOSED ADDITION TO FAIR SI1ARE POLICIES
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 ha:,ardous waste management capacity for the specific hazardous waste which the facility would
have handled in another California county.
A county can reject a proposed haTardous 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 capacit~ does not exist in the county, or effective interjurisdictional agreements do not exist, a jurisdictlon
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 non-viable, except in cases in which the jurisdiction
demonstrates that there are appreciably increased public health and/or environmental risks associated with the
proposed facility.
The 'fair share" language contained in this plan is only operative in conjunction with effective interjurisdictional
county agreements.