HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1986-12852 Revised 1~/15/86
RESOLUTION NO. 12852
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE 1986 REVISION TO THE
REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The City Council of the City of Chu~a Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, state law requires that the County's Solid
Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP) be reviewed, and revised if
appropriate, at least every three years and revised when
necessary to be consistent with State policy, and
WHEREAS, San Diego County Department of Public Works
staff has prepared the final draft of the 1986 CoSWMP Revision
with the assistance of a Technical and Citizens Advisory
Committee, which plan is an update of the San Diego Regional
Solid Waste Management Plan 1982-2000 approved by Council in May
of 1982, and
WHEREAS, state law requires that the CoSWMP Revision be
approved by the Board of Supervisors and the majority of
incorporated cities in the region which contain the majority of
the population in the incorporated area, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors approved the revision
in October 1986 and has transmitted said plan for approval to the
incorporated cities of the region, and
WHEREAS, the Engineering staff has reviewed the document
and considers it appropriate for its intended purpose.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED ti~at the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does adopt the 1986 Revision of the San
Diego Regional Solid Waste Management Plan, a copy of which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set
forth in full.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Board of
Supervisors is hereby urged to develop new sites for disposal of
sewage sludge and to also limit the liquid content of the sludge
currently being deposited at the Otay Landfill.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby
directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution to the
Board of Supervisors thereby notifying them of Council's action.
Presented by Approved as to form by
~o~.P. Lip~i~t, Director of Th'omas J. H~on, City Attorney
Public Works/City Engineer
2297a
ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 16th day of.. December
19 .... 86 , by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Councilmembers McCandliss, Cox, Hoore, Nader, Malcolm
NAYES: Councilmembers _ None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers None
ABSENT: Counci lmembers None
...................... ~ he City of Chula Vista
// City Clerk ' /
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chula Vista, California,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of
RESOLUTION NO. 12552
-- ,and that the same has not been amended or repealed
OAT E D
City Clerk
CfiY OF
CHULA .VISI'A
CC-660
1986 REVISION OF SAN DIEGO P. EGIOILRL SOLID ~ )IAI~RGEI~EI(T PUU(
EXECUTIVE SUI~ARY
State law (Government Code § 66780) requires that each county prepare a plan
addressing solid waste management issues within the region.
In San Diego County, the Board of Supervisors is responsible for solid waste
management and planning in the region and is responsible for maintaining and
updating the mandated Regional Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP) in
conjunction with the incorporated cities in the region. The Board of
Supervisors has designated the County's Department of Public Works (DPW) as
lead agency for accomplishing this task.
State law also requires that the CoSWMP be reviewed and revised, if
appropriate, at least every three years and revised where necessary ~o be
consistent with state policy. The initial CoSWMP was approved in 1977 and
revised in 1982.
On October 29, 1985 (29) the County Board of Supervisors directed DPW to
transmit the proposed scope of the revision of the 1982 Revised CoSWMP to the
California Waste Management Board (CWMB) for approval. This Plan Review Report
contained input from all incorporated cities in the region. The Plan Review
Report was approved by the CWMB on March 13, 1986.
Two committees participated in the revision process: a Technical Advisory
Committee, comprised of representatives of the solid waste industry and
appropriate management agencies, and a Citizens Advisory Committee, comprised
of a representative of each city and each Supervisorial District. DPW met with
Committee members on a regular basis to review the progress of the Plan
Revisioneffort.
The 1986 Revised Plan consists of six chapters which are identified and
summarized below. It also includes an Implementation Schedule which identifies
those items to be accomplished during the next three years, as well 'as
management goals that are continuing ~nd~long-Kan~e, and a summary of goals
identified in the previous Plan that have been accomplisneo between 1982 and
-2-
Discussion of hazardous waste management issues in the region, including
generation, storage, collection and disposal, are not a part of the 1986
Revised Plan. A separate comprehensive Hazardous Waste Element (HWE) was
prepared and approved by the Board of Supervisors and all incorporated cities
in the Region in 1983 and approved by the State Department of Health Services
on January 13, 1984.
The next revision of the Hazardous Waste Element of the Regional Solid Waste
Management Plan is scheduled to begin in 1987.
CI&~PllER I - OVERVIEI~ OF lltE SllJDY ARFJ~
Effective management of solid waste requires identification of those character-
istics which influence regional solid waste generation and disposal patterns.
This Chapter identifies the political and demographic makeup of the region as
it impacts solid waste management.
The County of San Diego continues as the designated regional solid waste
management and planning agency and is responsible for maintaining the
State-mandated Solid Waste Management Plan. Disposal responsibility for the
entire region has been assumed by the County and the City of San Diego since
1975, when the City of Oceanside ceased landfill operations.
Operational functions and regulatory controls in the unincorporated areas of
the County are administered by the County. County ordinances are enforced by
the Departments of Public Works, Health Services and Planning and Land Use.
Enforcement of city ordinances and policies is the responsibility of the
individual city. All cities in the region have used their authority to develop
general policies governing the storage and collection of solid waste. Cities
must recognize their responsibility to cooperate with the County in providing
disposal capacity for the waste generated by its citizens and cooperate with
the County in landfill siting and development efforts.
- 3-
Both population and per capita generation rates have been increasing faster
than predicted in the 1982 Revised Plan. This continues a trend identified
in the first revision. For the period of 1975 to 1982, per capita generation
remained at about 1.1 tons per person per year. Since then, however, the per
capita generation rate has increased by nearly 10% per year, so that in 1985
each person generated an estimated 1.455 tons of solid waste.
One of the reasons for this increase in per capita waste generation rate is
the improved economic condition of the last four years which has resulted in
increased housing starts and overall consumption of goods.
CHAPTER II - STORAGE, COLLECTION AND TRANSPORTATION
On a day-to-day basis, storage and collection are the solid waste management
functions which most immediately and directly affect the lives of the region's
residents. This Chapter describes waste storage, collection and transportation
practices in San Diego County.
Storage, collection and transportation of solid waste in San Diego County are
regulated by a variety of policies and procedures. The fundamental activities
are being accomplished to the general satisfaction of the public, the political
jurisdictions and private industry. However, as with any complex activity,
there are always areas that could be improved.
The Revised Plan identifies the need to update County and city solid waste
management ordinances; implement uniform storage and collection standards; and
maintain collection contingency plans to ensure that adequate services are
available during emergency situations.
CIIAPTER III - WASTE GENERATION AND DISPOSAL
This Chapter concerns waste generation and disposal in the County. A forecast
of solid waste volumes to the year 2000 is included as well as a review of
existing disposal facilities and their anticipated closure dates. Based' on
current generation rates and available landfill capacity, the coastal region
will be without a landfill within 12 years.
-4-
Solid waste generation in San Diego continues to increase. Unless social or
economic circumstances change, the rate of recycling Countywide will probably
remain at existing levels, approximately five percent of total quantities
generated in San Diego County. Volume reduction through resource recovery and
recycling will continue as the primary waste management challenge of this
century.
While landfilling remains the primary method of disposing of solid waste in
the County, efforts to implement two waste-to-energy projects in the region
are underway. Planned operational date for these projects is 1989. These
projects, the North County Recycling and Energy Recovery Center at the County's
San Marcos Landfill and the SANDER Project at the City of San Diego's Miramar
Landfill, will reduce the amount of waste to be landfilled, but will not
eliminate the necessity for landfill capacity. Additional landfill capacity
will be needed to accept ash residue, non-processed waste and waste in excess
of plant capacities.
The Plan identifies the need to site and permit at least three new landfill
sites in the region in the next five years. The County is currently evaluating
sites in the North County as a first priority to identify a replacement
facility for the recently closed Bonsall Landfill and provide future capacity
when the San Marcos Landfill closes in 1991. An evaluation of future landfill
sites to serve the rural East county areas is underway, and an additional site
search for the City of San Diego is planned to identify a replacement facility
for the Miramar Landfill.
The cities must work with the County to site and develop necessary solid waste
disposal facilities to responsibly manage the three million ton annual waste
stream generated by San Diego residents.
Additionally, the County and the City of San Diego will identify and implement
operational and design changes to extend the capacity of existing landfills,
and where possible, explore expansion of existing facilities by acquiring
additional property.
- 5 -
cI(ApI~R' IV - ENFORCEMENT
Enforcement of solid waste regulations is necessary to ensure that the State's
minimum standards for solid waste storage, collection and disposal are met.
Enforcement of regulations in San Diego County is generally satisfactory. No
significant problems have been observed in waste collection and disposal
operations.
Most complaints received by the various enforcement agencies in San Diego
County deal with litter and illegal dumping. Abatement of litter and illegal
dumping can be extremely costly. The litter control program in the City of
San Diego alone currently costs taxpayers in excess of one million dollars
annually. This cost would be much greater if the current abatement program
was not augmented by community group volunteers, participants in the County
Probation Department alternative sentencing program and the generous
participation of the trash haulers industry.
In May, 1986 the County Board of Supervisors adopted a new Summary Abatement
Ordinance consolidating numerous provisions in the County Code that deal with
the abatement of nuisances, including litter and illegal dumping. The new
provisions allow the County to abate illegal dumps on private property and
assess the property owner on property tax bills after a hearing by a designated
hearing officer.
More vigorous enforcement of regulations pertaining to litter and waste storage
standards could help alleviate some of the litter problem. Increased public
education regarding the true cost of littering and illegal dumping is also
necessary.
The Plan calls out the need for the County and its cities to continue to review
their enforcement and prevention programs and update them as necessary.
CtlAPTER V - RESOURCE RECOVERY, PROCESSING AND REUSE
Resource recovery is any process that reclaims energy or materials from
municipal solid waste. Recovery of materials such as magnetic metals, glass,
paper, and non-ferrous metals can be accomplished by separation at the source,
at intermediate points such as transfer stations or at integrated processing
plants. Material for which there is no current market or reuse potential can
be turned into energy by a number of available technologies.
-6-
This Chapter discusses resource recovery activities in the region. Currently,
nearly forty commercial buy-back and voluntary drop-off centers accept such
recyclable materials as glass, aluminum, newspaper and ferrous metals. Three
cities have also established separate collection programs. An estimated 5%
of the waste generated in the San Diego Region is recycled.
Efforts to implement two waste-to-energy projects in the region are underway.
The proposed North County Recycling and Energy Recovery Center at the County's
San Marcos Landfill will process an estimated 580,000 tons of solid waste per
year and generate enough energy to serve 40,000 homes. The proposed SANDER
Project, located at the City of San Diego's Miramar Landfill, has been designed
to process 680,000 tons of solid waste per year and generate enough energy to
serve 60,000 homes.
The North County facility has received all applicable local land use and
operating permits and has been issued a solid waste facility permit from the
California Waste Management Board. Legal challenges to the validity of the
General Plan designation and land use permits for the project have delayed
start of construction. These challenges should be remedied late this year and
construction is expected to start early in 1987.
Since the SANDER Project will produce in excess of 50 megawatts of electricity,
it is classified as a thermal power plant requiring certification by the
California Energy Commission (CEC). CEC permitting guidelines require that
all applicable local and state land use and operating permits and environmental
review requirements be met prior to certification of the project. It is
anticipated that this certification process will be completed in 1987.
Successful implementation of these waste-to-energy projects along with
continued operation of existing regional recycling programs will reduce the
volume of waste which must be landfilled. Additional programs will be
necessary to deal with the growing volume of solid waste which must be managed.
The Plan includes continued support for implementation of the North County and
SANDER Projects as well as identifying the need to develop other resource
recovery technologies as appropriate within the region.
-7-
cHAPILK V! - FINANCE AND ADflINISI1U~TION
This Chapter summarizes existing solid waste management responsibilities and
financing practices within the San Diego Region. It also describes alternative
organizations and agencies which could be used to meet the region's solid waste
needs should a change in the existing practices be desirable.
All cities and the County for the unincorporated area provide a variety of
solid waste collection and enforcement services. Funding sources for these
services are generally user fees. Periodic review of collection rates allows
for a rate setting process that recovers the costs of these services.
The City and the County of San Diego are the only agencies currently providing
solid waste disposal services. The County's program is fully fee .funded. The
City's program is funded through a combination of user fees and general funds.
While adequate for existing programs, increasing costs for disposal operations,
long term maintenance and to develop necessary replacement facilities may
require that new funding mechanisms be identified.
Siting future facilities wlll require the cooperative efforts of the County
and all 18 cities. A review of existing mechanisms is necessary to identify
the best organizational structure and funding mechanism to ensure that disposal
capacity is available to meet the needs of the region when existing capacity
is exhausted.
Organizational structures available include special districts, joint power
authorities, community service agencies and sanitation districts; funding
mechanisms include user fees, service fees, land use fees, special assessment
districts and general funds.
I~E¥IS~9 SAR DIEGO REGION S(~ID ~ASTE It~IIAGD~([ ~
I~ATI~ ~
1 ~-~7
~: C ' ~ntinui~ ~t~vity L ' ~d ~tlty 1 - ~a~ of
(as lo~as~a~ ~slble) S - ~ * 2 - ~t of ~blJc
P - ~l?cy Foot,on ~ - ~t of ~al~
5 P~va~ ln~st~
A~I~ R~ TI~ A~ 1 2 3 4 5
I C l~]~nt plan. P L S L
2 C RevJ~ ex~sttn~ so~d ~aste fJnancJn~ P L L
~chanJsms and p~pose app~prJate changes.
3 C ~n~tor Sol ~d ~aste Enfo~ce~nt P~gram. L S L
q C Revt~ and update solid waste contingency P L S L S
planning p~gr~s as the need arises,
5 1990 Plan ~vt~ and revision. P L S S S
6 1987 Consider establts~nt of a Joint ~wers P L S S
~lid Waste Authority.
7 C Update solid waste ~nage~nt ordinances. P L S L S
A~ION ~BER TI~E R~I~ I 2 3 4 5
I C Continue Implantation of ~ard Policy 1-76 P L
- Solid Waste Disposal. ~ke any necessary
rec~endattons for revision.
2 1990 Revt~ consultant's reco~endatton ~gardlng L S
gravel mining at Syca~re for possible
contract operation.
3 1990 Investigate the tmpl~entation of gravel L S
r~overy at the Mira~r Landfill
4 1987 Xnvestlgate alte~attve disposal methods L L S
for used ti~s. Xmple~nt tf app~prtate
at landfills.
S C Continue waste ~ductton c~t~nt though: P L S L,S S
a. Public Info--itOh and ~ucatton .
p~grams;
b. C~untty action p~grams;
c. Support of waste ~duction legislation.
6 C Assist In separate collection p~gram P S L L
t~l~ntatton as r~uested.
7 C Assist and coordinate volunt~r recycling L L,S L,S
p~grams.
8 1~7 Continue lmple~n~tton of and North County P L S L S
R~llng and Enemy Recovery P~Ject.
g 1987 Pu~ue ~lttlng and local review of P S L S
the ~DER P~Ject.
10 C Plan and t~le~nt additional volu~ P L L,S S
~uctton p~Jects.
11 C Establ lsh c~osttng p~grams as app~prlate.. L L S
VOLL~
I~UCTIIX~ 12345
ACTIO~NUM~R TI~E ACTlOX
12 1987 ~denttfy and es~bltsh sludge ~c~11ng/ S S L S
c~ost~ng factllty in the North County.
13 1987 Sup~develo~nt of al~attve~t~s P S S P S
of se~a~ sludge dJsposal and sup~rt devel-
o~nt of mrke~for~cl=t~d ~ludge.
14 C Study technological advances ~n vol~ P L S S S
~duct~on.
15 1990 p~rket develo~nt for ~clat~d S L L
p~uct.
~C~ I 2 3 4 S
~I~ ~R TI~
1 C Encoura~ tmpl~n~tion of improved stora~ L L S
concepts durtn9 planntng s~ges for new or
~el~develo~nt.
2 1987 ~nitor Interior Zone soltd waste rural L
container sites and ot~r facilities for
efficiency and effectiveness.
Ol~ 1 2 3 4 5
R~I~BER TI~ ~I~
1 C ~tntatn right to designate dtsposal P L S L S
facility as a condition of collection
franchise or pe~tt issuance.
g 1987 Study acquisition of additional acreage at P L L S
existing landfills (Bor~go, O~y and
San ~os).
3 1987-90 Investtga~ and implant volu~ enhance- L L S
~nt at existing facilities, tf feasible.
4 1999 Es~bllsh North County and East County P L L S
~plac~nt facilities.
5 X989 Review n~d for ~opentng Paler Transfer P L S L S
Station as a solid waste facility.
6 19~ Close~ntg~ryO~lition Landfill. S L
7 1987-90 Identify and establish ~ntg~ry Landfill S L S
replac~nt facility.
8 19~-94 Identify and establish replac~nt facility S L
for ~tr~r Landfill.
9 C Support develo~nt of alternative~th~s P L P.S S
to landfllltng.
10 1987 Pursue al~ative ~ndltng of vehicle P L L
abando~nts.
11 19B7-89 Identify and es~blish landfills for inert P L L S
m~rial and s~cial wasps such as
slud~ and non-hazard.s liquids.
1~ C ~tn~ln and ~vtse t~ Solid Was~ L S S ,
Allocation ~el.
ACTX0g NI]I~ER ~ ACTZ0# I 2 3 4 S
(c~Unued)
13 19~ Close ~Ga L~ndft11 tf ~lculatt~s of
~ntng vol~ d~s not tndt~ additional
~ct ry. L S
14 19~ [s~bllsh ~a Landft11 expansion. L S
15 1987-90 I~l~nt activities ~ecessary to brln9 L S L
factlltles on t~ ~en Omp Inventory ~nto
c~11an~ ~th F~e~l standa~s.
A~I~ ~ ~ ~I~ 1 2 3 4 5
I C ~vel~ and c~1na~ anti-liter p~grams L L S
as ~uest~.
2 C S~po~ legtslatton at~ at ~uctng P L S P,L S
11tter.
R~l~ ~ TI~ ~ 1 ~ 3 4 5
1 C Revte~ L~ Plans and u~ate or p~paw L S L S
as neces~ry.
2 1987 Clttes that have no mde L~ desolations
s~11 do so.
Summary of Achievements Durtng 1982-1985
I~A~IAGEMENT
1. Continuing - Implement Plan.
The County and incorporated cities continue to implement the
policies and goals included in the Solid Waste Management Plan,
including: pursue increased recycling and volume reduction;
identify and establish replacement facilities; provide ongoing
collection programs; monitor enforcement programs.
2. 1982-1985 Implement Industry Advisory Committee Proposed by
San Diego County Oisposal Association.
A Solid Waste Industry Committee .was established in 1982. The
committee meets at least quarterly with Department of Public
Works staff to review proposed County solid waste management
projects. The Committee is supportive of the County's solid
waste program as discussed in the Plan and implemented in each
Fiscal Year's Spending Plan.
3. 1982 1985 Review existing solid waste financing mechanisms
and propose appropriate changes.
Existing financing mechanisms are adequate to provide landfill
disposal and maintenance services. They will need to be revised
to cover the costs of future facility replacement.
4. Continuing - Monitor Solid Waste Enforcement Program
Solid waste enforcement activities are generally adequate. The
County has recently adopted uniform nuisance abatement procedures
which will result in improved enforcement of litter and illegal
dumping regulations in the unincorporated areas.
5. Continuing - Review and update solid waste contingency planning
programs as the need arises.
ThJ County and the cities update their Procedures Manual as needed.
The cities also review and update contingency plans as appropriate.
6. 1982 - 1985 - Plan review and revision.
The County reviews and revises the Plan as necessary to be
consistent with State law.
7. 1982 - 1992 - Consider establishment of a joint powers Solid
Waste Authority.
The County and the Ctty of San Diego meet periodically to dtscuss
soltd waste management tn-the regton. The need to propose a
Solid Waste Authority ts reviewed annually. When appropriate,
It w111 be pursued.
VOLUME REDUCTION
1. Continuing - Continue Implementation of Board Policy 1-76 - Solid
Waste Disposal. Make any necessary reconeendattons for revision.
The County and many of its cities promote volume reduction through
their support of the SANDER and North County Recycling and Energy
Recovery Center Projects;' through support of buy-back centers,
source separation programs and other community recycling efforts;
and by providing public information and education on recycling.
2. 1982 - 1985 - Develop methane recovery programs at landfills.
Methane recovery projects are underway at the County's Bonsall,
Otay, San Marcos and Sycamore Landfills. Recovery projects at
the City's Miramar and Chollas Landfills are either proposed
or being investigated for feasibility.
3. 1982 - 1985 - Seek contractor{s) for gravel mining and/or asphalt
production at Sycamore. ~"
The preliminary report for the project indicated a depressed
aggregate market in San Diego County, an abundance of material
and relatively low demand. Work on the project was suspended.
The Department of Public Works will review the project in 1990
to determtnewhether market conditions are favorable to recommend
implementation of the project.
4. 1982 - 1985 - Promote the comP°sting of tree trimmings with other
materials.
The City of San Diego has implemented a chipping program at their
Miramar Landfill.
5. 1982 1985 - Investigate slicing or shredding used tires prior
to landfill disposal or processing.
No economical method of tire shredding exists nor are there markets
at this time for large quantities of used tires.
6. Continuing - Continue waste reduction programs:
a. Public information and education program. The City and County
of San Diego both contract for public information and education
programs.
b. Community action programs. Community waste reduction programs
implemented in San Diego County include: buy-back centers,
drop-off bins, thrift stores, door-to-door collections, white
office paper recycling, separate collection programs, fee
exemption for qualified clean up and recycling programs.
c. Support waste reduction legislation. Proposed legislation
dealing with solid waste is reviewed. Legislative positions
are recon=~nded.
7. 1982 - 1985 - Assist in separate collection program implementation
as requested.
Programs have been implemented in the Cities of Oceanside, Solana
Beach and Vista.
8. Continuing - Assist and coordinate volunteer recycling program.
Both the County and City of San Diego have contracts with private
firms for conducting a public awareness program to encourage
voluntary recycling.
9. Continuing - Plan and implement additional volume reduction as
economic feasibility is determined.
The County and City of San Diego continue to investigate the
feasibility of implementing volume reduction technologies. The
City of San Oiego's SANDER Project at their Miramar Landfill
is being reviewed by the California Energy Commission. The North
County Recycling and Energy Recovery Center at the San Marcos
Landfill is scheduled for construction in late 1986.
10. 1982 - 1992 Program to encourage expanded use of retreaded
tires and reclaimed oil.
A survey of new retail oil outlets is being conducted as part
of the County's public information and education program contract.
Flyers have also been delivered to major oil retailers for
distribution to customers on recycling locations.
ll. 1982 - 1992 - Establish composting program in Interior Zone and
at Sycamore Landfill.
San Diego Gas and Electric Company operates a chipping program
at the County's Sycamore Landfill.
12. 1982 - 1992 - Promote market development for reclaimed products.
The promotion of market development for reclaimed products has
been a problem for local governments with limited control over
markets.
13. lg82 lgg2 - Develop policy for procuring products that are
remanufactured and made of recyclable materials.
The County Department of Public Works has discussed with the
Purchasing Department a policy for procuring products made from
recycled material.
RESOURCE RECOVERY
1. 1982 - 1985 - Pursue implementation of SANDER Project.
The SANDER Project is being considered for approval by the
California Energy Commission. The SANDER Project will be sited
adjacent to the City of San Diego's Miramar Landfill.
2. 1982 - 1985 Implement alternative for operation of E1 Cajon
Resource Recovery Facility.
The former E1 Cajon facility was demolished in 1984.
3. 1982 1992 - Plan and implement resource recovery alternative
in North County.
Construction of the North County Recycling and Energy Recovery
Center is scheduled to begin in late 1986, with operation expected
to begin in 1989.
STORAGE AND COLLECTION
1. Continuing - Encourage implementation of improved storage concepts.
~he cities and the County are encouraged to implement improved
storage requirements.
2. Continuing - Assist cities in waste collection rate analyses
on request.
This staff assistance is available when requested. No requests
have been received to date.
3. 1982 - 1985 - Investigate preparation of model ordinance to facil-
itate uniform solid waste management practices in region.
A model solid waste ordinance was prepared and included in the
1982 Plan Revision. No uniform ordinances have been adopted
because of the differing needs of each jurisdiction.
4. Continuing - Monitor Local Enforcement Agency Program Compliance
Periodic review of Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) programs is
conducted by the California Waste Management Board.
DISPOSAL
~ REGION)
1. 1982 1985 - Close North Miramar Landfill and establish West
Miramar.
The City of San Diego ceased operations at North Miramar and
established the West Miramar facility in 1983.
2. 1982 - 1985 - Proposed fundtng mechanism for facility acquisition
and completed ftll maintenance.
The County's Soltd Waste Enterprise Fund Includes fundtng for
future facility acquisition and completed ftll maintenance.
The City of San Dtego has funds allocated for acquisition of
the SANDER Project site.
3. Continuing -Matntatn right to designate disposal factltty as
a condition of collection franchise or permit issuance.
County Code Sectton 68.511 permits the County to dtrect collected
solid waste to the factlity which best suits the interests and
needs of the County.
Under Municipal Code Section 66.0! et seq, which requires the
licensing of private haulers, the City of San Diego also can
regulate where waste collected within their Jurisdiction will
be disposed of.
4. 1982 - 1992 - Close 8onsa11 Landfill
The Bonsall Landfill was closed tn August, 1985.
5. 1982 1985 - Study acquisition of additional acreage at Otay,
Ramona and Sycamore Landfills.
The County has an optton to purchase additional acreage adjacent
to the Ramona Landfill. The County ts currently pursutng
applicable operating permits.
6. 1982 - 1992 - Establish North County replacement facility.
The County has hired a consultant to tdentify candidate landfill
sttes tn the North County. Preliminary sites have been identified
and will be studied further.
7. 1982 - 1992 - Close Montgomery Demolition Landftll
The Nontgomery Landfill is scheduled to be closed in 1988.
8. Continuing - Maintain and revise the Solid Waste Allocation
Matrix 1
The Solid Waste Allocation Matrix was revised for use in this
current revision.
g. 1982 2000 Identify replacement facility for Miramar and
Montgomery Landfills.
The City of San Otego has requested that the County, as the
regional solid waste planning and management agency, conduct
a search for potential landfill sites within the City.
10. 1982 - 2000 - Support development of alternative methods to land-
filling.
The County of San Diego continues to review and support development
of alternative methods of solid waste disposal.
INTERIOR REGION
1. Continuing Implement a financing structure for County operated
facilities.
In 1983 the Board of Supervisors directed that operational costs
of the Interior Region facilities be supported by the Solid Waste
Enterprise Fund.
2. 1982 - 1985 - Remove landfill designation from 207 acre Oescanso
Property.
The landfill designation was removed from the Descanso site.
3. 1982 - 1985 - Replace Oescanso Landfill.
The County is investigating potential candidate landfill sites
in the East County area to replace the former Descanso Landfill.
4. Continuing - Investigate feasibility for resource recovery.
Ho responses were received to a 1983 request for proposals to
develop a resource recovery facility in the Interior Zone.
5. Continuing - Monitor Interior Zone solid waste rural container
sites and other facilities for efficiency and effectiveness.
The Department of Public Works continues to monitor operations
at its ten rural container sites.
6. 1982 - 1992 - Modify the Julian and Campo container site operations
by including transfer capability.
Both sites continue to operate as small volume transfer stations.
LITTER REDUCTION
l. Continuing - Develop and coordinate anti-litter programs as
requested.
The County and the cities support community clean-up programs,
investigate illegal dumping and littering complaints and provide
crews for limited pick-up of litter.
The Count~ has recently adopted uniform nuisance abatement
procedures which allow the County to abate illegal dumps on
private property and assess the property owner.
The City of San Otego provides routine litter and litter receptacle
pick up on City owned property, roadsides, parks and beaches
and participates in the "Keep America Beautiful# pro,ram.
g. Continuing - Support legislation aimed at reducing litter.
The County continues to review all proposed legislation aimed
at reducing litter and supports those items of legislation as
appropriate.
3. 1982 - 1992 - Adoption of comprehensive litter control ordinance.
The County and the incorporated cities in the region have al1
adopted litter control ordinances.
SPECIAL WASTES
l. 1982 - 1985 - Pursue alternative handling of vehicle abandonments.
The County Department of Public Works has worked with the County
Departments of Planning and Land Use and Health Services and
the Sheriff and District Attorney to establish an abandoned vehicle
abatement program. The City of San Diego's Police Department
operates an abandoned vehicle program.
2. 1982 1985 - Monitor agriculture waste generation trends and
develop program to mitigate any problems.
The disposal of agricultural waste in San Diego County is not
a problem at this time.
3. 1982 - 1985 - Cooperate with Federal, State and local regulatory
agencies in programs for use of sewage sludge residues.
The various sewering agencies in the County are currently eval-
uating alternative uses and disposal methods for sewage sludge.
The County has been participating in this effort. The County
is also using sludge in final cover material to better maintain
post closure planting.
4. Continuing - Monitor the disposal of waste oils.
The County Department of Health Services (OHS) is responsible
for monitoring waste o(1 disposal. OHS requires permits for
waste oil generators (i.e., service stations) to ensure proper
disposal of waste otl.
COL NTY [ rr le rQlrQI' I SANII Di : OLaL S Attachment; #3
August 28, 1986
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW BOARD
RECOMMENDED FINDING OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Solid Waste Managenmnt Plan
Log No. 86-ZA-1
County Dept. of Public Works
Solid Waste Division
FINDING:
The County of San Diego, Planning & Environmental Review Board (PERB), has
examined the Initial Study and finds that the proposed project will not have a
significant effect on the environment, and that an Environmental Impact Repor~
need not be prepared pursuant to the San Diego County Procedures for
Environmental Impact Review, revised August 1, 1983.
INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION:
The project is the 1986 revision'to the County's Solid Waste Management Plan.
It covers the entire County including the incorporated cities and military
reservations. The Plan is both a status report of completed and ongoing
activities, as well as a statement of general policies and goals regarding solid
waste. As such, it describes future disposal needs and the potential for new
techniques and technologles.
THOMAS BROS. COORD.: N/A FIELD CHECKED: No ANALYST: Brinton
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
The Solid Waste Management Plan is a planning document, not a set of development'
.proposals. Many of the policies and goals set forth in the Plan are of such a
nature that they do not have the potential for significant adverse environmental
impact (i.e., encouraging greater intergovernmental cooperation, promoting use
of recycled/reclaimed products, developing anti-litter programs, etc.). Those
poltctes which are more likely to have the potential for such impacts relate to'
the future construction and operation of new or expanded solid waste management
facillttes. However, for those potential facilities which are not yet sited or
planned in detail, tmpacts are speculative and in-depth environmental analysis
cannot be conducted. A determination of the significance of impacts and the
formulation of suitable mitigation measures is dependent upon the specific
physical characteristics of the sites selected, their locational settings and
Log No. 86-ZA-! - 2 -
Dept. of Public Works/
Solid Waste Division
the facility designs. Of course, preliminary siting studies should consider
environmental issues in addition to economic and political factors. Once sites
are selected and specific development plans for facilities are submitted "
in-depth project specific environmental analyses are required under State and
local laws. Each of the specific facilities contained in the revised County
plan has either already been evaluated in an independent environmental review or
is now undergoing such a review. An example of the latter is the SANDER project
which is currently being processed for certification by the California Energy
CommissionJ
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT'EFFECTS:
Both sanitary landfills and resource/energy recovery facilities have the
potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. The impacts of
proposed facilities which are either unsited or unplanned are too speculative to
evaluate. Potentially significant effects of proposed facilities which are
sited and planned are addressed at the time of facility permitting. Currently
existing environmental review procedures are adequate to assure that adverse
effects will be evaluated and mitigated prior to construction and operation.
MITIGATING'MEASURES'PROPOSED By APPLICANT~
None.
REASONS TOSUPPORT'FINDING OF'NEGATIVE'DECLARATION:
The Solid Waste Management Plan is a planning document, not a set of development
proposals. The impacts of unsited or unplanned facilities are speculative.
Once specific plans for development are submitted, full environmental review is
conducted as part of the facility permitting process. Thus, no significant
adverse environmental effects are anticipated from adoption of the revised Solid
Waste Plan.
NOTE: This action becomes final upon approval by the appropriate decision-
making body.
Additional copies of this Negative Declaration may be obtained at the
Environmental Planning Section, DPLU, 5201Ruffin Road, San Diego, CA 92123.
JAMES C. CHAGALA, ~hairman
Planning & Environmental Board
JCC:JD:SV
cc: G.ff. Bowman, Department of Public Works
t North County Concerned Citizens, Inc.
A Non Profit, Public Benefit California Corporation
P.O. BOX 2042, San Marcos, CA 92069
Nove~d~er 2b, 1986
City of Chula Vista
276 4th Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Subject: San Diego Solid Waste
Management Plan, October
31, 1986
We have reviewed the :subject plan. We fil]d that it fails to conform to the
Board of Supervisors policy (Exhibit A), and fails to properly deal with
the disposal of solid waste and its associated problems. Therefore, we
urge that you reject it in J ts present
The plan offers no alternative action other than ].and filling and burning.
Recycling is left to individual action and no real !e~.dership ~r objec-
tives are indicated. The lack of eni~husiasm for curbside recycling is
contrary to a national trend.
The plan does not evaluate the effects of the "Bottle Bill", (AB 2020)
which becomes effective January ].~ 19S7. T!}Js bill has provisions for
funding of recycling progzams. It also establishes minin~um compliance
requirements.
The plan also fails to evaluate the effects of Bill AB 3989, which re-
quires incinerator operators remove recyclable ,naterials prior to in-
cineration. This would require coordination with the Sander Project.
The San Marcos Igloo program for the salvage of glass is al so not men-
tioned.
We feel that the plan should be more tk~n a current-status report. If
this was the purpose, the approval of cities ~,oul~. not be re~uii~ed.
Unfortunately, we were not able to secure a copy of the plan through normal
channels. Time prevents us from presen~il.,g more complete backup informa-
tion of the attached list of propozals that should b_~ properly evaluated
for possible inclusion in the report. During the past 2 years we have
accumulate~ extensive files and we w~u].d be happy to assist in any possible
way, particularly in furnishing alternatives to burning.
Sincerely,
~ ~/~ (~[ 'George ~. Boa se
~l /~'3 ~ ~'< l.~oard of Directors
Enclosures ~
PROPOSALS
I. Solicit bids and proposals from all franchised trash haulers for es-
tablishing curbside programs. Here, a consultant should be used to
coordinate the program and to advise haulers of successful techniques
being used nationwide. The program should include the pick up of
hazardous waste.
II. Solicit bids and proposals for the recyling of used tires without the
requirement of a landfill. (See attached "A".) A presentation was made
on October 30, 1986 by C.E.C. Alternative who wants to build a plant in
Califoznia.
III. Solicit bids and proposals for the shredding, composting and marketing
of all garden wastes. Start shredding and composting at the SDG&E
beds, adjacent to the San Marcos landfill now.
IV. Solicit bids for all other rccycable materials, i.e. newspapers,
miscellaneous paper, plastics, qlass, metals, compost, sludge, etc.
V. Solicit bids and proposals from all companies with proven waste dis-
posal other than incineration.
VI. Expedite the mining of methane gas ~rom present landfills. Delays are
resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
VII. Eacourage users o~! free manned ~nd ~nmanned trausfer stations to seg-
regate their waste. Pz~v]de self-loading boxes with li~nited access
to discourage scavengers.
VIII. Study the feasability ot es~.ab]i~bing manu~d t£ansfer stations to re-
duce landfill traffic with its resultant pollution and road wear.
IX. Consider using the Balancing Fund, established to help subsidize the
San Marcos Trash-to-Energy Plant, for the necessary funding required
to establish programs, pay consulta~ts, increase staff, etc.
X. Request all cities and county communities to submit their recyling
plan. If plans are acceptable, provide the necessary leadership and
funding.
-2-
AD D.I T__ip~_A _l _ _I? ~_j' 9_R_'.~? I O____NN
TRASH TO ENERGY
I. Advanta~_q
NCRRA and the Signal Corporation have submitted proposals. If accepted
the County will be relieved of considerable responsibility for trash
disposal. NCRRA promises but does not ~uarantee royalties to the County.
II. Disadvantages
1. Burning discourages recycling. Paper and plastics are required to
maintain combustion without the use of auxiliary fuel.
2. Burning pollutes the air an~[ Js a health risk.
3. Incineration is equal or greater th~n other process disposal methods.
4. Incineration does not eliminate the need for landfills. 20 to 30%
ash must be disposed of. Burning concentrates the metals and the
ash requires s~>ecJal handling and Js considered a hazardous waste.
5. Because o~ the Utility Co,mn%ss%on rulings and Federal regulations,
SDG&E must ~ay almost 3 times more for bio-coDversJon electricity
~}~an t~ey dc for purc~ase~ e]ecuricity ~,3,~ other uti] %ties. The
c~nsu~er mi/st the~ef~re pay more for electricity.
6. There is not s~:ortage of e!ectrf, c}ts.~ ]?rash-produced electricity
caus(~s Inore dir poi. Jut%on tba~ theft pro~bced by o~] or natural gas.
7. Trash-to-energy plants require large volumes of trash to be efficient.
Centralizing the plant creates traffic and increases the handling cost.
8. Trash plants reqaJre large vol,tunes of water.
9. Because of the high investment costs, plants must operate 30 to 50
yea~:~ to be cost effective.
DIGESTERS
I. Advantage~
1. Low investment C(~St.
2. A number of companies a~e wJlJJng ~,) build plants at no expense to the
taxpayer.
3. No loss of ef~]icienc¥ for small plants. Multiple dispersed plants
maximize hauling e~fic].ency and red,ice traffic problems.
4. There is an almost unlimited requirement for compost in San Diego County.
DIGESTERS (Cont'd)
5. The use of compost reduces water requirements for growing and reduces
water runoff and soil erosion.
6. Compost can be safely stored in landfills until markets are es-
tablished.
7. Proven technology. It has been used to process kitchen garbage
disposal and human waste for years.
8. Processing creates a minimum noise and smell, therefore, plants can
be located in any industrial or commercial area.
9. Minimum water useage.
10. No air pollution or danger from dioxin.
11. Lower processing cost than burning.
II. Disadvantage
1. None, if operated in cc,n3unct~cn with a c~rbsdie recycling program
and recycling process-lines, to a~sure low levels of metals ~nd
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 28
Meeting Date 12/16/86
ITEM TITLE: a. Public Hearing: On the 1986 Revision of the San Diego
Regional Solid Waste Management Plan
b. Resolution~,<~ Adoption of the 1986 revision to the
Regional Solid Waste Management Plan~////
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works/City Engineer
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~[ (4/Sths Vote: Yes No__)
State law requires that the County's Solid Waste Management Plan {CoSWMP) "be
reviewed, and revised if appropriate, at least every three years and revised
when necessary to be consistent with State policy."
The San Diego County, Department of Public Works staff has prepared the final
draft of the 1986 CoSWMP Revision with the assistance of a Technical and
Citizens Advisory Committee. This plan is ~n update of the San Diego Regional
Solid Waste Management Plan 1982-2000 approved by Council in May of 1982.
State law requires that the CoSWMP Revision be approved by the Board of
Supervisors and the majority of incorporated cities in the region which
contain the majority of the population in the incorporated area. The Board of
Supervisors approved the revision in October 1986 and has transmitted it for
approval to the incorporated cities of the region.
City Engineering staff has reviewed the document and considers it appropriate
for its intended purpose. County staff representatives will be present at the
meeting to answer Council's questions concerning the plan.
RECOMblENDATION: That Council:
1. Hold a public hearing to consider the adoption of the Regional Solid Waste
Management Plan - 1986 Revision.
2. Approve the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan 1986-2000.
3. Urge the County Board of Supervisors to develop new sites for disposal of
sewage sludge and to also significantly reduce liquid content of the sludge
currently being deposited at the Otay Landfill.
4. Direct the City Clerk to formally notify the Board of Supervisors of the
Council's action.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
Page 2, Item 28
Meeting Date~6
DISCUSSION:
The Nejedly-Z'berg-Dills Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of
1972 requires that each county, in cooperation with the affected local
jurisdictions, prepare a comprehensive solid waste management plan. It
further requires that the plan must be consistent with state policy and any
appropriate regional or subregional solid waste management plan. The County
of San Diego, Department of Public Works has prepared the 1986 Revision to the
San Diego Regional Solid Waste Management Plan in conformance with the above
Act and has submitted the revision for approval by the cities in the region.
The plan serves as status report on the general condition of solid waste
collection and disposal within the County. It also provides projections of
future needs County-wide and enumerates a variety of alternatives which could
be used to serve those future needs. The plan leaves the County and each of
the cities within the County-wide latitude as to how to conduct their own
solid waste management programs. The plan generally provides the basic
information necessary to enable agencies within the County to collectively
maintain efficient and effective programs to service the entire County's
future needs.
Hazardous waste issues are not included in the 1986 revision of the Regional
Solid Waste Management Plan. These areas are now covered by the Regional
Hazardous Waste Element (HWE) which was approved by the County and
incorporated cities in 1983 and is scheduled for revision in 1987.
The attached summary prepared by County staff describes the general content of
the regional plan and mentions the primary areas where changes and/or
additions have been made as compared to the 1982 revision of the plan.
A budgeted project with future impact on the City of Chula Vista is the
relocation of the San Diego Gas & Electric transmission lines at the Sycamore
Landfill {north of Mission Gorge Road near City of Santee). The project
budgeted for FY 1986-87, will result in increased landfill capacity at that
site which would have the impact of extending the life of the Otay Landfill by
5 years.
Two waste-to-energy plants are being proposed in the San Diego region: one at
the City of San Diego Miramar Landfill and one at the County's San Marcos
Landfill. The San Marcos Landfill facility has received all applicable local
land use and operating permits and a solid waste facility permit from the
State. However, the validity of the General Plan designation and land use
permits for the project have been legally challenged and thus the start of
construction delayed.
Chapter 6 discusses the financing and organization currently utilized to carry
out the regional plan. Various alternatives for both financing and
organization are discussed but no specific changes or proposals are
recommended for implementation. It should be noted that the County is
currently evaluating landfill replacement sites in the North and East County.
A fee increase will be required to finance acquisition and development of the
selected sites.
Page 3, Item 28
Meeting Date~6
The ~evised 1986 Regional Solid Waste Management Plan discusses the current
issue of sewage sludge transportation and disposal in Chapter V, pages 12 and
26. Currently the Otay Landfill is the only landfill which is allowed by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board to accept sludge for disposal. However,
recently enacted federal and state laws may impact continued disposal at the
site due to concerns about the high moisture content in the sludge and
possible infiltration of groundwater by this liquid.
The Plan identifies options for sludge disposal and management and strategies
for implementing same. It also indicates that various agencies in the County
are currently investigating short-range and long-range alternatives for the
safe disposal of sewage sludge. The implementation schedule, page 9, shows
the period of 1987-89 for identifying and establishing landfills for inert
materials and special wastes such as sludge and non-hazardous liquids.
On December 9, 1986, the County Board of Supervisors approved a plan which
will initiate studies for developing new sites for sludge disposal as well as
for investigating alternative long-term uses for the sludge.
FISCAL IMPACT: No immediate fiscal impacts upon the City are anticipated.
However, an increase in the user fee is anticipated at the Otay landfill as
well as other County landfills to finance replacement of the North and East
County landfills.
WPC 2499E
~'by the City Council of
Chula Vista, California
, Dated /~-~ -/g' m~''~'~