Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES CC 1989 530 1989 0118RESOLUTION NO. 89 -530 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOORPARK ADOPTING THE VENTURA COUNTY AND INCORPORATED CITIES HAZARDOUS WASTF MANAGEMENT PLAN (CHWMP) WHEREAS, the safe and responsible management of hazardous waste is one of the most important environmental problems facing the State and local jurisdictions at the present time; and WHEREAS, effective management of hazardous waste is critical to the protection of public health, the environment, and economic growth; and WHEREAS, if environmentally sound hazardous waste facilities are not available to effectively manage the hazardous waste produced by industry, economic activity will be hampered and cannot prosper, public health and the environment will be threatened by increased illegal disposal, and the use of outmoded disposal practices will continue; and WHEREAS, effective management of hazardous waste requires expanded and strengthened programs for source reduction, recycling, and onsite treatment, as preferable to siting of new land disposal facilities; and WHEREAS, all local communities in the state must be willing to share the burden of hazardous waste management and that all local governments shall consider the feasibility and appropriateness of identifying suitable sites for treatment and disposal facilities within the CHWMP; WHEREAS, after providing public notice, a legal public hearing on this matter was held by the Moorpark City Council in the Council Chambers on January 18, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Moorpark City Council has considered all written and oral testimony, and has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as prepared and certified by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Moorpark City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR before taking action on the CHWMP; and FINALLY BE IT RESOLVED that the Moorpark City Council takes the following actions: 1. Adopts a policy to carry out all applicable and feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR (Pages 45 through 62, Table 9) within the City of Moorpark's jurisdiction and authority. Resolution No. 89- 530 Page 2 2. Adopts the Proposed Findings regarding the significant environmental effects identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the CHWMP (Attachment 1); 3. Approves the Revised Draft CHWMP as the Final CHWMP. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of January, 1989 Eloise Brown, Mayor ATTEST: �2 1-�,L Richard Hare, City Clerk 1101.res ELOISE BROWN Mayor BERNARDO M. PEREZ Mayor Pro Tern CLINT HARPER, Ph. D. Councilmember PAUL LAWRASON Councilmember SCOTT MONTGOMERY Councilmember RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer MOORPARK STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF VENTURA ) SS. CITY OF MOORPARK ) I, Richard Hare, City Clerk of the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. 89 -530 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a meeting held on the 18th day of __January 1989, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Harper, Lawrason, Montgomery, Perez, Mayor Brown. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 24th day of January , 1989. Richard Hare City Clerk (Seal) 74A Mnnrnark Avani is Mnnrnark (:alifnrnin 4gf171 (Pnsi si9 -6864 ••.• ••. EI• FINDINGS, V• 9 E OF / STA-TEMENr OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RE1GARDING TIE SIGNIFICAM En=, / • I = / PRO= AITERMATIV�S IDENTI= IN I VENTURA COUNTY AND INCORPORATED Cr= HAZARDOUS r STE NANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL / I• • REPORT (Reference Sections 15091 - 15093 of the California (Environmental Quality Act Guidelines) The Moorpark following: City Council hereby adopts and approves the The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was certified by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors on November 15, 1988. The FEIR identifies the following significant environmental effects of the proposed plan (page 45 - 62 FEIR): A. Water Resources: potentially significant impacts if facilities are located within a 500 year floodplain or within proximity of sensitive uses, i.e. flora and fauna habitat and populated areas; and if i operiy sealed abandoned wells are in the vicinity of underground storage; unknown site specific impacts with regard to protection of drinking water, water recharge areas, and soil permeability. B. Air Quality: Potentially significant impacts with respect to effective by State agencies for wind patterns, traffic JnM7Aments, odors and vehicular emissions; unknown site specific impacts with respect to cunLilative impacts and transportation control measures and specific on -site mitigation for air Pyni ions. C. Geology and Soils: potentially significant impacts with respect to facility siting in high ground water areas. D. Biological Resources: Potentially significant impacts with respect to facilities locating in proximity to "Blueline" streams and channels. E. Mineral Resources: unknown potentially significant impacts with respect to facilities locating near mineral deposits. F. Farmland Resources: Unknown potentially significant impacts with respect to incinerator siting in proximity to food craps. G. Scenic Resources: Unknown potentially significant inacts with respect to site specific i pacts and proximity to scenic resources. H. Cultural Resuirces: unknown potentially significant impacts with respect to facility siting near paleontological or cultural resa�urnes . I. lard Use: unknown potentially significant inpacts with respect to facility siting and lard use coupatibility and consistency with local general plans and ordinances. J. Transportation: Potentially significant impacts with respect to facility siting and traffic patterns and adequacy of emergency services. K. Solid Waste and Sanitation: Unknown potentially significant inacts with respect to facility siting and wastewater treatment capabilities. L. Emergency Services: Unknown potentially significant inpacts if facilities are sited within areas of inadequate emergency services. M. Flooding and Drainacxe: Potentially significant inpacts with respect to facility siting within 500 year flood plain. N. Seismology: Unknown potential project specific impact with respect to facility design and ear�ake hazards and tsunamis, seiches and storm surges. O. Noise: Potentially significant impact with respect to facility siting near noise sensitive uses. P. Economic and Social: Unla-mown potential project specific impact with respect to facility siting and effects on property value and socioeccn mic and public service impacts. The following findings, Statements of Facts, and Stat Tent of Overriding Considerations are set forth to address the requirerents of Sections 15091 through 15093 of the California Ennvirnrme_ntal Quality Act (C EQA) Guidelines for all of the above listed potential inpacts. I. Significant Effects and Mitigations within the Jurisdiction and Authority of the City of A. Significant Effects Identified: Table 9 of the FEIR on page 45 through 62 identifies possible impacts and significant environmental effects. The following discussion relates to significant impacts A through P including all subparts. B. Finding Regarding Significant Effects: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the plan which avoid or substantially lessen the the significant environmental effects as identified in the FEIR and identified in Section I.A. C. Statement of Facts Supporting Findinus: (1) The City (or County) has adopted a policy to carry out all feasible mitigation measures within its authority and jurisdiction. (2) The Final Envirmnental Fact Report (FEIR) is not intended to provide definitive information on all impacts and mitigation measures for siting hazardous waste facilities. The FEIR is part of a tiered approach to assessing the potential impacts that could result from the adoption of the CHWMP. Because the adoption of the CHWMP will not in and of itself, result in the siting of hazardous waste facilities in Ventura County, project specific adverse impacts cannot be evaluated within the scope of the FEIR. The assessment of site specific impacts will be an element considered during the permit process for individual facilities as they are proposed (Page 5 FEIR). (3) Because it cannot be estimated with certainty which types of facilities may be proposed or where they may be located, potential impacts and mitigation measures presented in the FEIR will necessarily be very general and non -site specific. The discussion of Project Mitigation Measures suggests a variety of mitigation measures. Although this section of the environmental document is not mandated under C,E)QA, by introducing this discussion early in the process future project proponents can incorporate some of these general mitigation measures into their proposal or redesign the project to facilitate the permitting and envirarmiental review process (Page 117 FEIR). (4) The FEIR has been prepared for the CSiMP and not for a specific project. The CIOW itself acts as mitigation to many of the present problems regarding the management of waste. Ti3E Cl�W contains more than siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; its goals and reoaatnendatiansI if adhered to , will reduce the need for hazardous waste facilities in general (Page 117 FEIR). II. Significant Effects and Mitigations within the Jurisdiction of Another A. Sicmificant Effects Identified: Many of the significant effects identified within the FEIR and in Section I, above, are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. Specifically, these significant effects are: Water Resources numbers la - le, 2a - 2b, 3a - 3b, 4, 6c, 9; Air Quality numbers 1 - 4, (5 - 8 and all subparts for city jurisdictions) ; Geology and Soils numbers la - lb; Transportation numbers 1, 3e, 3f, ( 5a for City jurisdictions) 6; Solid Waste Sanitation numbers 2a - 2b; Flooding and Drainage numbers 1 and 2; Seismology mmibers la and lc; (References are to Table 9 of FEIR pages 45 - 62) III. B. Findings Regarding Significant Effects: Changes or alterations which can be incorporated into the project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects are within the responsibility of another public agency and jurisdiction. All applicable proposed mitigations measures should be adopted by responsible agencies when considering site specific proposals. C. Statement of Facts Supporting Findi _Ms; The mitigation measures identified for the above significant effects must be carried out by an agency other than the City (or County) under the current regulatory structure. Significant Effects which Cannot be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels. A. Significant Effects Identified: Some significant effects identified in the Final EIR may not be mitigated to less than significant levels even with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures which substantially lessen the environmental effects. Specifically, these significant effects are summarized in Table 9, pages 45 - 62 and are identified as follows: Water Resources - numbers lb and le, 2b, 4,6a,6b,6d,11a,11b; Air Quality - numbers 1 - 8; Geology and Soils - number 2a; Biological Resources - numbers 3a and 3b; Mineral Resources - numbers 2a and 2b; Farmland Resources - number 2; Scenic Resources - numbers 1 and 2; Cultural Resauroes - numbers la - lc; Land Use - numbers 1 and 2 and all subparts; Transportation - numbers 1, 2c, 3e, 3g ,4a,4b,5a,5b,6,8a,8b,8c,9a,9b; Solid Waste and Sanitation - member 2b; &Prcrency Services - number 2a, 2b, 3 ; Flooding and Drainage - numbers 1 and 4b; Seismology - numbers lb,lc,2a,2b; Noise - number la Eeonanic and Social - numbers 1 and 2. 2d, 3a,3b,3d, No further mitigation is identified in the Final EIR to reduce the above significant effects to less than significant levels. B. Findings Regarding Significant Effects and Project Alternatives: Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the FEIR. C. Statement of Facts Supporting FindijM of Infeasibility of Project Alternatives 1. The CHWMP addresses additional topics not presently required under the statutes. An alternative plan, limited to discussion of only those topics required in the legislation, would be less effective in protecting the public and the environment from improper management of hazardous waste and materials. 2. Under the "no project" alternative, the CHWMP would neither be prepared nor implemented. This would result in a less organized approach to siting hazardous waste facilities and less consideration of existing programs for management of hazardous waste. Environmentally, the "no project" alternative has greater potential negative impacts on the environment than preparation of a CHWMP. 3. Two other alternatives are identified in the FEIR. One suggests more restrictive siting criteria for new industry which may locate in the County, the other suggests more restrictive siting criteria for siting convercial treatment, recycling and disposal facilities. The former alternative is not economically feasible nor environmentally sound as it would ccapletely prohibit siting omwn urban services such as dry cleaners, electronics firms, gas stations. etc. 'There is no conclusive evidence available for identifying more restrictive siting criteria, as suggested in the latter alternative. More specific criteria can be developed, as directed by the siting criteria contained in the CHWMP, with a specific facility proposal. IV. Findings Under Section 15902 of the CDQA Guidelines The Moorpark City Council has determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable after consideration of the above findings (Section 15901 of the CEQA Guidelines) are actable due to the following overriding concerns. V. Statevent, of Overriding Consideration: THE FEIR indicates the CH&T could have a significant effect on the envirormtient which cannot be reduced to less than significant levels for: Water Reso ms - number lb and le, 2b, 4,6a,6b,6d,11a,1lb; Air 4uality - number 1 - 8; GeoloM and Soils - number 2a; Biological Resources - numbers 3a and 3b; Mineral Resources - numbers 2a and 2b; Farmland Resources - number 2; Scenic Resources - number 1 and 2; Cultural Resources - numbers la - lc; land Use - numbers 1 and 2 and all subparts; Transportation - numbers 1, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3d, 3e, 3g, 4a, 5a, 5b, 6, 8a, 8b, 8c, 9a, 9b; Solid Waste and Sanitation - number 2b Emergency Services - number 2a, 2b, 3; Flooding and Drainage - numbers 1 and 4b; Seismology - numbers lb, lr_, 2a, 2b; Noise - number la Economic is and Social - numbers 1 and 2. The FEIR expresses uncertainty because of the speculative nature of the CHRMP with respect to facility siting. Certainty as to the effectiveness of the suggested mitigation measures can only be evaluated in conjunction with a site specific proposal. Therefore, some of the potential impacts from the Plan's adoption are not considered to be reduced to a less Phan significant level. The specific reasons to support approval of the proposed project and outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects are as follows. A. Denial of the Plan and Associated FEIR Would Not Mitigate anv of the Identified Facts, and Would Increase the Severity of Some. If the CMW is denied, the County and cities would be in a position of siting facilities based upon present General Plans, zoning ordinances and existing State Law `Ihe Plan and associated FEIR bring together local, regional, and Statewide requirements and policies for siting needed hazardous waste facilities in areas least likely to cause environmental problems. In addition to the siting criteria presented in the Plan, mitigation measures are included in the FEIR which are based upon the General Plan, other planning documents, and local ordinances. These are identified as program or project specific mitigation. The CHWKP siting criteria also requires consist&& y with General Plans, Local Coastal Plans, and local ordinances. This is considered an improvement to the existing situation where the County and cities generally have no local siting criteria and policies for siting hazardous waste facilities. 2. Adoption of the Plan by Cities and County will Assure Ccnylianoe with State Law. Section 25135 et seq. Article 3.5, Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code authorizes Counties to prepare Hazardous Waste Management Plans. The contents of these plans are specified in the Health and safety Code and Department of Health Services Guidelines. lacking a CHWMP, the County and cities would have to rely on exist m general Plans and the hazardous waste section of the County Solid Waste Management Plan which do not satisfy present requirements. 3. Adoption of the Plan by the Cities and Canty will Clearly Indicate Policies and Programs for Effective and Safe Hazardous Waste Managettw. nt. The Plan provides a system of analyzing Present and Projected hazardous waste volumes and determining local needs for facilities in addition to pramting waste reduction. The reocamendaticns of the plan, if adopted and implemented, will reduce the County and city dependency on offsite ccauercial facilities. Additionally, siting of facilities, such as a transfer statical and household hazardous waste collection facilities, will provide a convenient way for businesses and residents to safely and legally recycle and dispose of hazardous waste.