Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 1992/12/14negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Hazardous Waste Management Plan Implementing Ordinance and Amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the Chula Vista General Plan PROJECT LOCATION: PROJECT APPLICANT City-wide City of Chula Vista CASE NUMBER: IS 93-14 A. Project Setting The proposed Hazardous Waste Management Plan Implementing Ordinance and amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the Chula Vista General Plan would be applied city-wide, therefore there is no specific site within the city which corresponds to the proposed project. B. Project Description The proposed project consists of the Hazardous Waste Management Plan Implementing Ordinance and associated revisions to the recently amended Public Facilities Element of the Chula Vista General Plan. These proposed amendments to the City's Zoning ordinance, and the Chula Vista General Plan, incorporate provisions for the management of hazardous waste facilities as required by State Law, and are intended to comprise the City's regulatory provisions regarding hazardous waste management and hazardous waste facilities. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The proposed project consists of amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan to clarify previously adopted hazardous waste policies, and Zoning Ordinance amendments to establish a Conditional Use Permit process to implement the General Plan's provisions pertaining to the siting and permitting of proposed hazardous waste facilities. Implementation of the proposed project, city-wide, will ensure that proposed hazardous waste facilities are safely sited, and compatible with underlying land use designations and zoning, as well as surrounding land uses. city of Chula vista planning department environmental review section ~vr, ~~ CJiULA VLSTA D. Comvliance with Threshold/Standards Policies 1. Fire/EMS The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85$ of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75~ of the cases. The proposed project is exempt from this Threshold Policy, as the project is comprised of policy and regulatory provisoins, and not a specific development proposal for which a measure of Fire/EMS response would otherwise apply. 2. Police The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that police units must respond to 84~ of the Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.1 k of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project is exempt from this Threshold Policy, as the project is comprised "of policy and regulatory provisions, and not a specific development proposal for which a measure of Police response would otherwise apply. 3. Traffic The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of I-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this policy. The proposed project is exempt from this Threshold Policy, as the project is comprised of policy and regulatory provisions, and not a specific development proposal for which a measurement of direct traffic impacts would apply. 4. Parks/Recreation The Threshold/Standards Policy for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/1,000 population. The proposed project is ~t~~/ -.~ ~r City of Chula viets pianninp dspsrtmsnt CITY ~ environmental review section . CHULA VISTA -3- exempt from this Threshold Policy, as the project is comprised of policy and regulatory provisions, and not a specific development proposal for which a measurement of parks and recreational impacts would apply. 5. Drainage The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provided necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project is exempt from this Threshold Policy, as the project is comprised of policy and regulatory provisions, and not a specific development proposal for which a measurement of drainage impacts would apply. Sewer The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project is exempt from this Threshold Policy, as the project is comprised of policy and regulatory provisions, and not a specific development proposal for which a measurement of sewer impacts would apply. 7. Water The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and construction. The proposed project is exempt from this Threshold Policy, as the project is comprised of policy and regulatory provisions, and not a specific development proposal for which a measurement of water impacts would apply. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An initial study (IS 93-14) conducted by the City of Chula vista determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will not be required. A Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. city of chute vl~te plennlnp dspsrtment ---__ envlronmsntal review section «~/ -..~ ~~r CITYn' OF CHULA VIS7A -4- The following impacts have been determined to be less than significant: Land Use Adoption of the Implementing Ordinance and amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the City General Plan would not create direct land use impacts. Together, the Implementing Ordinance and General Plan amendments provide policy clarification and direction regarding the planning, siting, and permitting review of proposed hazardous waste facilities and, therefore, do not relate to a specific geographic site or project. Indirect land use impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project are the potential for future land use compatibility impacts associated with the siting and operation of hazardous waste facilities within the City. Indirect land use compatibility impacts could occur between future, proposed hazardous waste facilities and other types of land uses, particularly sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors include residential land uses, as well as uses associated with immobile populations, such as congregate care facilities, schools, hospitals and jails which could not easily be mobilized for evacuation in the event of upset conditions. The amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan clarify previously adopted hazardous waste policies pertaining to the siting and permitting of hazardous waste facilities. These policies will ensure that proposed facilities are safely sited and compatible with underlying land use designations and zoning, as well as surrounding land uses. The Implementing Ordinance establishes a process which would ensure that potential land use impacts associated with proposed facilities are considered and that the "General Areas" policies, siting criteria and "fair share" principles of the General Plan and the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan are complied with. Therefore, through compliance with the criteria set forth in the Public Facilities Element of the Chula Vista General Plan, and adherence to the conditional use permit procedures outlined in the Implementing Ordinance, the City will ensure that potential land use impacts associated with future applications for hazardous waste facilities are adequately addressed and analyzed. Therefore, land use impacts are deemed to be less than significant. city of Chula vlata plenniny dapartmrnt snvlronmental ravlaw a~ctlon «~/ ~~r CITY OF CHULA VISTA -5- Risk of Uoset Potential risk of upset impacts could occur if hazardous waste facilities are not appropriately sited relative to sensitive receptors and immobile populations, and with respect to the protection of environmental resources. Implementation of the proposed project would reduce potential risk of upset impacts caused by inadequate planning and siting of such facilities by setting forth appropriate criteria for storage, transportation, disposal, and siting associated with hazardous waste facilities and businesses generating such wastes. Releases of hazardous materials or waste via air, land, or water exposure pathways could occur during upset conditions, such as an earthquake or other natural disaster. The potential prevention of risk of upset impacts associated with geotechnical conditions require compliance with federal, state, and local agencies. Locally, site feasibility and suitability issues are regulated through compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC), Chula Vista Grading Ordinance, and Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance which requires that a geotechnical report be prepared prior to any grading or development. Site feasibility and suitability will be further addressed by the siting criteria contained in the amended General Plan Public Facilities Element. At the state level, releases to groundwater resources are regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Suspected releases to groundwater would require site specific analysis to determine appropriate mitigation and remediation. In addition, site specific environmental review for any proposed hazardous waste facility would be required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to address potential risk of upset impacts on a case by case basis. Risk of upset impacts could also occur through releases and spills during the transport of hazardous waste or hazardous materials to and from hazardous waste facilities, and the businesses using such materials and generating such wastes. Risk of upset impacts associated with traffic safety can be mitigated by compliance with Federal, State, .and local agency routing requirements and other appropriate conditions of use. Appropriate traffic safety standards are discussed further under "Transportation/Circulation." These requirements shall be ensured through the adoption of the Implementing Ordinance and amendments to the General Plan. The County of San Diego Hazardous Materials Management Division (HMMD) mandates that emergency response plans be Clty of Chula vista planning department snvlronmsntal rsrl~w s~ctlon ~~tr, ~r Litttt OF CHUTA VISTA -6- implemented for hazardous waste facilities. Presently, emergency releases of hazardous materials into the environment are handled jointly by the Chula Vista Fire Department and the County Hazardous Materials Management Division (HMMD) through a mutual aid agreement. The proposed project will require intimate involvement of HMMD in the local management of hazardous materials and wastes, and in the siting and permitting of proposed hazardous waste facilities. Implementation of the proposed project would reduce potential risk of upset impacts by setting forth appropriate criteria for the comprehensive management of hazardous materials and wastes, the siting and permitting of hazardous waste facilities, and the licensing review of businesses using such materials and generating such wastes. With compliance to the criteria established through the amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan, and through processes set forth in the Implementing Ordinance, as well as to federal, state, and local regulatory criteria already in place, risk of upset impacts are deemed to be below a level of significance. Transportation/Circulation The transportation of hazardous waste is regulated by Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). State and local laws require that producers, transporters, and receivers of hazardous waste materials follow specific monitoring and tracking procedures and enlist specific emergency response systems in case of a hazardous material or waste release during transport. The State Department of Health Services (DHS) is in charge of tracking hazardous waste through the State in accordance with the Federal manifest system. DHS requires that transporters have valid vehicle registration with their agency, and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) annually inspects each vehicle for compliance with the California Vehicle Code. The CHP also determines whether the construction, design, equipment, and safety features of the vehicles are in compliance with the standards established by the DHS for the safe transportation of hazardous wastes. Federal routing regulations state that a vehicle containing hazardous materials must be operated over routes which do not traverse heavily populated areas, places where crowds of people assemble, tunnels, narrow streets, or alleys. State routing regulations specify that transportation be limited to clty o} Chula vlats plannlny department ----_ environmental review section ~~rr/ --~. ~_/~/~~` Ct ~ CHU1A VISTA -~- State or interstate highways offering the least overall transit time and that vehicles transporting hazardous materials may use highways providing necessary access to local pickup or delivery points, consistent with safe vehicle operation. The CHP has the authority to determine routing requirements, safe stopping places and inspection stops for the transportation of hazardous wastes. The Federal, State, and local regulations already in place provide the regulatory framework for addressing potential traffic safety impacts. Project-specific analysis should be conducted for a proposed hazardous waste facility site, however, to determine if the surrounding circulation network can safely and adequately handle the potential traffic safety impacts associated with the transport of hazardous waste. As set forth in the proposed Implementing Ordinance and amendments to the General Plan, a traffic study will be required for any future, proposed hazardous waste facilities in order to comprehensively address compliance with the criteria established in the General Plan for the safe transportation of wastes. By requiring compliance to the criteria and process set forth by amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan, and by the Implementing Ordinance, as well as the existing federal, state and local regulations already in place, future transportation/circulation impacts associated with future applications for hazardous waste facilities will be adequately addressed and analyzed. Transportation/circulation impacts are therefore, at this time, deemed to be below a level of significance. Public Services/Facilities Because the proposed project is not site specific, it is difficult to ascertain direct impacts to public services and facilities, at this time. However, the Implementing Ordinance and amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan set forth criteria to ensure that potential, future impacts to public services and facilities associated with future applications for hazardous waste facilities are addressed and analyzed. Emergency situations associated with the release of hazardous waste or materials into the environment require specially trained personnel capable of containing the release and preventing human exposure, as well as releases into the environment. The County Hazardous Materials Management Division (HMMD) currently provides hazardous materials emergency response capabilities to the City, in association «r/ clty of Chula vlata~` pianninq department _" environmental review section . CHULA VISTA -8- F G with a mutual Department. aid agreement with the Chula Vista Fire As such, impacts to public services and facilities within the City and to special districts would be positive in that the establishment of planning and siting criteria would ensure that hazardous waste facilities are located in areas where adequate public services and facilities are available and are capable of being provided in the future. Therefore, potential public services and facilities impacts are deemed to be below a level of significance. Human Health The criteria set forth in the amendments to the General Plan Public Facilities Element and the Implementing Ordinance are directed at ensuring the accountability of hazardous waste facilities within the City, and the encouragement of safe treatment and disposal practices. In addition, the proposed project will ensure the adequate training of facility employees and safe work practices. Therefore, potential human health impacts are deemed to be below a level of significance. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects The proposed project is not associated with any significant environmental impacts, therefore no further mitigation is necessary. With compliance to the criteria set forth in the proposed Implementing ordinance and amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan, potential environmental impacts will be below a level of significance. Mandatory Findings of Significance Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. 1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. c~tY of Chula vlets p~ennlnq dspertmsnt ----__. environmental review section ~«// --... r~!~r CI !~ CHULA VISTA -9- Implementation of the proposed project will ensure that potential impacts to fish or wildlife species through an accidental release of hazardous waste or materials will be reduced through compliance with the Implementing Ordinance and General Plan amendments, as well as the federal, state, and local regulations. Therefore, the proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environment, adversely affect fish or wildlife species, or eliminate cultural or paleontological resources. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The proposed project will strengthen long-term environmental goals associated with effective hazardous waste management planning, and the appropriate siting, permitting and operation of hazardous waste facilities, through the establishment of local policies and criteria. Therefore, both short-term and long-term environmental goals will be maintained. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The proposed project is not anticipated to have cumulative impacts. Adoption of the Implementing Ordinance and associated amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan will provide appropriate siting criteria to ensure that cumulative hazardous waste management impacts are reduced to a level below significance. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial, adverse effects on human beings, either directly'or indirectly. The protection of human health will be upheld through the adoption of the Implementing Ordinance and associated documents. Human health will- be protected through compliance with the criteria set forth by the proposed project. city of chute vl~ts planning department environmental review section «~/ --~ r~r CIn' OF CHULA V15TA -10- H. Consultation Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Engineering Hal Rosenberg, Engineering Garry Williams, Planning Ken Larsen, Building & Housing Carol Gove, Fire Department Cptn. Keith Hawkins, Police Marti Schmidt, Parks & Rec. Maryann Miller, Planning Ed Batchelder, Planning Chula Vista Elem. School District: Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva References California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code 21000 et.seq) and the State EIR Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations et.seq). Chula Vista, City of, 1987. "Municipal Code Chula Vista, City of, 1989a. General Plan Update. Chula vista, City of, 1989b. General Plan Update EIR. County of San Diego, 1989. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Hazardous Waste Management Plan. County of San Diego, 1989 Plan. Initial Studv: Hazardous Waste Management This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, and reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the_ Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91910. ~.~ a~ c .12~~ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR city of Chula vista plennlny department -~--~- snvlronmsntal rsvl~w stctlon ~`~~/ --•~ ~~ ~~~ CIN OF ChULA VISTA f„~x .7~~ ~"k,_ '4~ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 12/15/92 TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of AB939 Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) Resolution No. Approving the SRRE and HHWE and Authorizing that Both Documents (As Amended) be Forwarded to the County of San Diego for Inclusion in the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan SUBMITTED BY: Principal Management Assistant Snyder Conservation Coordinator REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No % ) BACRGROUND: The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) required that all cities and counties prepare formal plans aimed at wastestream diversion goals of 25$ by 1995 and 50$ by the year 2000. Specifically, cities are required to adopt two "elements," one addressing source reduction, recycling and composting programs (SRRE), and the other addressing the elimination of illegal disposal of household toxins (HHWE). Once adopted, the city "elements" are to be forwarded to the County for inclusion in a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). Failure to comply with the preparation of a plan and achievement of the wastestream reduction goals may leave a jurisdiction subject to State-imposed fines of up to $10,000 per day. The law required that two public hearings be held prior to adoption of both documents. The first public hearing requirement was met when the preliminary documents were accepted at the City Council's regular meetings of 11/19/91 (SRRE) and 12/17/91 (HHWE). At that time, staff was directed to accept public comment during the designated period, address CEQA requirements, and return to Council for adoption of the final set of documents when appropriate. This public hearing completes the second requirement and allows Council to consider adoption of the plans to be forwarded to the County for inclusion along with 18 other jurisdictions in the Countywide plan. The original documents total more than 200 pages and, therefore, are not being included in this report but are available in the City Manager's office upon request. For Council's convenience, Executive Summaries of the original documents are included in Attachments A and B. Attachment C includes items received subsequent to Council's 1991 action and constitutes recommended amendments to the original documents now being considered for adoption. Page 2, Item Meeting Date 12/15/92 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution approving the SRRE and HHWE (original and amendments), subject to changes required by subsequent legislation and updated information, and authorizing both documents be forwarded to the County of San Diego for inclusion in the Countywide Integrated waste Management Plan. BOARD/COMMISSION RSCOMMENDATION: The Resource Conservation Commission will review and discuss this report at its 12/14/92 meeting. A verbal report of the Commission's comments and actions will be presented at the public hearing. Minutes can be forwarded to the Council when available if so requested. As was the practice with the draft documents, copies of the report have also been provided for information to the Growth Management Oversight Committee and the Chula Vista 21 Subcommittee. DISCUSSION: As noted during the previous public hearings, the planning process for meeting the goals set by AB939 is volatile and dynamic, although the goals (and penalties) are fixed. Since the law was passed in 1989, the SRRE and HHWE documents as originally envisioned by AB939 have been continually affected by legislative changes and interpretation, economic conditions, public input and program needs. The remainder of this report will describe the significant changes that have taken place since this issue was last visited by the Council, as well as the documents being recommended for adoption at this time. Sionificant Events Since December 1991 Staff has received public and agency input, conducted CEQA evaluation of the documents, and moved forward on individual program components in the past year. Additionally, there has been legislative activity which has affected the AB939 planning process as well as local mandates which have influenced the City's program planning. PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS The general public was given opportunities at three public hearings to provide comments on the City of Chula Vista's SRRE and HHWE. Staff was also available to accept oral and written comments through January 24, 1992 as authorized by Council. No substantive comments were received from citizens of Chula Vista regarding these specific documents. Comments received from the general public at a regional (SANDAG) public hearing on 1/24/92 did not impact or pertain to Chula Vista's plans. Page 3, item xeetinq Date 12/15/92 The SRRE and HHWE were distributed to adjoining jurisdictions for comments on how Chula Viata's plans were seen to impact other cities, if at all. Comments received from the cities of San Diego, National City and Imperial Beach indicated no concern and reiterated the need for cities to continue to approach the waste reduction and household hazardous waste problems within a regional context. Finally, comments were received from the staff of the State agency, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) as required by AB939. Those comments are included in Attachment C which amends the original documents. The comments are provided for an individual jurisdiction to act upon in adoption of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan which is not required for San Diego County until 1994 (or later, depending on the promulgation of State regulations.) Briefly, the CIWMB staff had no comments on the HHWE and recommended adoption "as is." Regarding the SRRE, CIWMB staff concluded that the programs and schedules within the draft documents adequately fulfilled the requirements of AB939 and the CIWMB's regulations and guidelines for preparing the document. The majority of the comments related to the waste generation and composition component of the SRRE which was prepared on a regional basis by the County since the disposal system is maintained regionally. The use of historical waste generation data and the choice of sampling methodology was of concern to the CIWMB staff. It was recommended that the waste composition and quantity data be revised in the Countywide plan to comply with State standards. The County is presently conducting a solid waste generation study for all cities within the County and it is planned that the results will be able to address this concern. The remaining comments by the State staff were minor in nature and are addressed in the addendum to the draft SRRE also included in Attachment C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the SRRE and HHWE are categorically exempt under class 6, section 15306 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines since the proposed project will not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. When the SRRE and HHWE are adopted by Council, City staff will file the appropriate Notice of Exemption as procedurally required. Page 4, item Meeting Date 12/15/92 LEGISLATIVE CHANGES During the past year there have been two significant Assembly bills enacted which have affected the A8939 planning process as originally established. AB2494 changes the formula of the wastestream reduction from diversion-based to disposal-based. This amendment was favorable to all cities in San Diego County where the disposal system is operated countywide. Ultimately it lessens the financial and administrative burden originally placed on cities to document the amount of source reduction and diversion taking place before the intended wastestream reaches the possible point of disposal. Instead, emphasis will be placed on measuring the amount of material entering the landfill system, documenting jurisdiction of origin, and monitoring expected reductions for goal attainment. What this change means to the SRRE as a planning document is that future guidelines and regulations will need to be promulgated in order to implement this shift. Adoption of the SRRE at this time needs to leave flexibility for such changes. Another legislative change was the enactment of AB2292 which recognized that the CIWMB's implementing regulations for AB939 were not finalized. This Assembly bill sets a county's submittal date for the countywide plan at 18 months following acceptance of the CIWMB regulations by the State's Office of Administrative Law. It does not, however, change the goal deadlines of 258 diversion by 1995 and 508 by the year 2000. For San Diego County and the City of Chula Vista, this change means that review and adoption of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) will take place after the originally required date of January 1,1994. Finally, a critically important legislative mandate was imposed during the past year by the County of San Diego. The Mandatory Recycling Ordinance was adopted by the Board of Supervisors to ban (on a graduated timetable) receipt of certain recyclable materials at the County's landfills. Cities using the landfills (directly or through designated haulers) are subject to load checks and fines if illegal materials are found entering, unless cities adopt and enforce local mandatory source separation ordinances. The County's Mandatory Ordinance is noted in the SRRE, however the City's adoption of a local ordinance took place in January 1992. PROGRAM ACTIVITY Council is aware that the City has continued to move forward on the implementation of individual recycling programs which are important and needed to meet the 258 and 508 diversion goals, as well as the County and the City's mandatory source separation requirements. In the past year the City has also received two awards for outstanding Page 5, Item Meeting Date 12/15/92 leadership as a governmental agency implementing recycling programs. Two new grants were received: 1) a Recycling Technical Assistance Program (TAP) grant from the County for $11,400 which is being used for outreach and technical assistance setting up recycling programs in businesses, offices, restaurants and the construction industry, and 2) a State grant of $25,050 for the RAD Project, focusing on household hazardous waste and recycling education in the community and school systems. The City is also emphasizing public education in enforcing the Mandatory Ordinance, an activity that has gained a lot of momentum in the past year. The groundwork is being laid for future programs in multi-family residential recycling by conducting a study of 60 local apartment complexes and working with property owners to identify and resolve problems with multi-family recycling programs. And, of course, the City has ongoing and seasonal programs such as the single-family residential curbside program, Christmas tree recycling, and beach clean-up program. Conclusion The original documents of the SRRE and HHWE (provided here in Executive Summary form in Attachments A and B) outline programs currently underway or needed in order to meet goals. The proposed amendment to the original documents is reflected in Attachment C which contains letters and suggested page revisions which are germane to the original documents. Together they represent the up- to-date status of the City of Chula Vista's plans for source reduction, recycling, composting and household hazardous waste programs. It is timely to adopt both the SRRE and the HHWE as amended, subject to future legislative changes and updated information. Once adopted, the documents will be forwarded to the County of San Diego to be included in the Countywide plan which will then require approval by a majority of the cities with a majority of the population. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact as a result of the recommended action to adopt the SRRE and HHWE. The fiscal impact of individual programs is and will continue to be addressed either in the annual budget cycle or midyear as the programs are brought forward. The ongoing administrative cost of planning, implementing and monitoring future programs is also addressed during the City's annual budget cycle. The fiscal impact of not moving forward on the SRRE is the possibility of State-imposed fines of up to $10,000 per day. 'ACHMENT A: SRRE ERECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a summary of the Source Reduction on Recycling Element (SRRE) prepared for the City of Chula Vista by Camp Dresser & McKee, Ina (CDM) dated October 1991. The report is divided into the following ten sections: 1.0 Statement of Goals and Objectives 2.0 Initial Solid Waste Generation Study 3.0 Source Reduction Component 4.0 Recycling Component 5.0 Composting Component 6.0 Special Waste Component 7.0 Education and Public Information Component 8.0 Facility Capacity Component 9.0 Funding Component 10.0 Integration Component 1.0 STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES This section provides a brief overview of the regulatory background that relates to the SRRE, as well as the goals and objectives of each component program that will help the City of Chula Vista meet the mandated 25 and 50 percent diversion required by State Assembly Bill 939 and comply with the county mandatory recycling ordinance. Refer to Table ES-1 for a summary of component goals. The short-term objectives of Chula Vista's source reduction program are to educate the public about source reduction activities and to modify city procurement policies. The medium-term objective is to encourage source reduction behavior through the use of public information and business outreach programs, economic incentives and rate structure modifications, point-of-purchase signage, as well as the promotion of source reduction legislation. nos.os~rc-corrnvctnnJ,vsucxinwvsr.rrn, ES-1 Table ES-1 CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUMMARY OF COMPONENT GOALS COMPONENT PROGRAM WASTESTREAM REDUCTION Short-Term (199 Medium-Term (2000) Source Reduction 1 2 Recycling Residential Commercial/Industrial 6 10 11 15 Composting 8 21 Special Waste 0 1 TOTAL 25 50 2209.053-7C{:Orf/121CFIUUVST/CHUTAVSf.PNL FS-2 The city's short-term recycling objective u to divert 49 percent of the readily recyclable material that is currently being disposed, primarily through the implementation of mandatory recycling programs for each land use sector in compliance with the San Diego County mandatory recycling ordinance. The city's medium-term recycling objective is to capture 80 percent of the readily recyclable material that is currently being disposed. The city has also laid out some objectives for developing markets for recyclable material, including establishing a local waste exchange clearinghouse, attracting recycling firms to the south bay and promoting the purchase of recycled materials by the public and private sectors. The city's short-term composting objective is to remove at least 30 percent of the industrial, commercial and residential yard and wood waste stream. The medium-term composting objective is to remove at least 79 percent of the industrial, commercial and residential yard and wood waste stream. The city will also provide market development assistance for compost and mulch and will use these products in city parks and open space areas. The objective of Chula Vista's special waste program are to comply with the county mandatory recycling ordinance, ensure proper handling and disposal (including adequate disposal capacity), and where feasible minimize, reuse and recycle all special wastes generated within the jurisdiction. More specifically, the short-term objectives include continuing the recycling of asphalt and composting of sewage sludge, continued sponsoring of citywide garage sales and community cleanups, and encouraging the use of retreaded tires. 2.0 INITIAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION STUDY The Solid Waste Generation Study is divided into three subsections and includes descriptive information about the City of Chula Vista, current solid waste practices, current and projected solid waste quantities, and disposal stream composition data. zzov.asa-TCCOrravcttvt.nvsncxuiwvsr.r~. ES-3 The City of Chula Vista contracts with Laidlaw Waste Systems to provide solid waste collection and disposal services for all residential, commercial, industrial and other waste generators within the city limits. The waste material is hauled to the Otay Landfill located in southwestern San Diego County, east of Interstate 805 and north of Otay Valley Road. The landfill is owned by San Diego County and operated by Herzog Contracting Corporation. Diversion practices in 1990 in the City of Chula Vista included all material that is picked up by the residential curbside program, taken to drop-off and buy-back centers, donated to nonprofit organizations for recycling or reuse, and salvaged by scrap dealers. The estimated diversion through recycling activities is approximately 2442.6 tons per year for a total recycling rate of 1.3 percent. In addition, Chula Vista's residential curbside recycling program, which began in 1991, diverted an average of 274 tons of recyclables per month between February and June, 1991. Although there aze no composting facilities within the jurisdiction, the city's sewage sludge is being composted on Fiesta Island, diverting 11,315 tons of material away from disposal. In 1990, source reduction, recycling, and composting activities provided the City of Chula Vista with a diversion rate of approximately 7.2 percent. The determination of a per capita solid waste generation rate provides a numerical value which can be applied to population increases to project future solid waste quantities. The City of Chula Vista has a base year waste disposal of 7.3 pounds per capita per day. Waste disposal projections (without increasing diversion rates) for the short- and medium-term planning periods are provided in Table FS-2. Quantitative field analysis methodology was used to characterize the waste categories and waste types generated by the City of Chula Vista. The results of the waste sampling aze provided in Table ES-3. zzo9.oss-racorrnvcxvtwvsricxuiwvsr.rxi. ES-4 1 Table ES-2 CTfY OF CHULA VISTA POPULATION AND SOLID WASTE DLSPOSAL PROJECTIONS YEAR POPULATION' WASTE QUANTITY (TONS/YEAR) 1990 135,163 180,071 1991 137,863 183,668 1992 140,563 187,265 1993 143,263 190,862 1994 145,963 194,459 1995 148,663 198,056 1996 150,691 200,758 1997 152,719 203,460 1998 154,747 206,162 1999 156,775 208,863 2000 158,803 211,565 2001 160,211 213,441 2002 161,619 215,317 2003 163,027 217,193 2004 164,435 219,069 2005 165,843 220,944 2006 167,253 222,822 The San Diego Association of Governments Series 7 forecasts for 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2006 were revised specifically for preparation of the San Diego County Source Reduction and Recycling Elements,. This revision incorporates 1990 census figures, series 7 growth rates and current trends in housing completions. zzo9.oss-TCCOrrnvcxutwvsricxutwvsr.rxL ES-5 Table FS-3 CITY OF CHULA VISTA SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION SUMMARY Waste Component San Marcos Sycamore Otay Miramar Total Percertt (96) Cardboard 0.0 0.0 12006.3 10.2 12016.5 6.7 Newspaper 0.0 0.0 8133.6 4.5 8138.1 4.5 Mixed Paper 0.0 0.0 11585.1 9.2 11594.3 6.4 HB Ledger 0.0 0.0 2578.6 1.4 2580.1 1.4 Glass 0.0 0.0 4748.2 4.3 4752.5 2.6 Film Plastic 0.0 0.0 3565.4 2.6 3568.0 2.0 Hard Plastic 0.0 0.0 4357.7 2.9 4360.6 2.4 Diapers 0.0 0.0 3809.4 0.0 3809.4 2.1 Other Misc.* 0.0 0.0 58744.2 29.0 58773.1 32.7 Tin Cans 0.0 0.0 2175.1 0.0 2175.1 1.2 Aluminum Cans 0.0 0.0 401.3 0.5 401.6 0.2 Yard Waste 0.9 117.7 31162.2 18.1 31298.1 17.4 Wood Waste 0.7 26.9 ]7418.2 11.3 17456.3 9.7 Concrete 0.6 25.0 1133.4 33.9 1192.4 0.7 Asphalt 0.1 2.9 59.8 2.1 64.8 0.0 Dirt/Rock/Sand 0.9 129.0 3113.4 73.4 3315.9 1.8 Roofmg 0.1 44.8 652.5 0.6 697.9 0.4 Drywall 0.2 22.1 457.6 1.2 481.0 0.3 M(~~ixed WastNatton 2.4 454.9 12476.0 90.6 13023.5 7.2 Special Wastes 0.0 0.0 286.2 0.0 286.2 0.2 Total 6.0 823.4 178866.2 295.9 179991.4 100.0 "Other Misc." category is equivalent to 'non-ferrous", 'natural" and "synthetic textiles", "organics", 'residuals", "putrescibles", 'salvage/composite" and "inert materials" categories. nag.oss-TCCOrrnvcxtnwvsricxut.nvsr.rrvt. FS-6 3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION COMPONENT Source reduction progruns typically focus on: • reducing use of non-recyclable materials • replacing disposable with reusable materials • reducing packaging • reducing amount of yard waste generated • purchasing repairable products and recycled products • increasing the efficiency of the use of materials Source reduction program alternatives were evaluated according to the following criteria: • Effectiveness in reduction of waste • Hazards created • Ability to accommodate change • Consequences on the waste (i.e. shifts) • Whether can be implemented in short- and medium-term planning periods. • Need for expanding building facilities • Consistency with local conditions • Institutional bamers to implementation • Estimate of costs • Availability of end uses of diverted materials The program and implementation schedule in Table ES-4 is recommended for the City of Chula Vista. 2209.053-TC-COrr/171CH173J~VS7/CHUTAVS7.PNL ES-7 s 4.0 RECYCLING COMPONENT 4.1 PRIORTfY WASTE TYPES The general waste categories that will be tazgeted as part of Chula Vista's recycling program aze paper, plastic, glass, metal, construction debris, and yazd waste. The targeted percentages for recovery for the short- and medium-term objectives are to remove 49 percent of the materials identified for recycling by 1995 and 80 percent by the yeaz 2000. 4.2 The City of Chula Vista has had a citywide residential curbside collection program since February, 1991 (a pilot program started in 1989). Current participation rates aze approximately 82 percent of all the single family and multi-family households that receive curbside solid waste collection. Material recovery has averaged 274 tons per month. The city's internal office recycling program diverted over 17,000 pounds of recyclables between July and September, 1991. The city has a number of ongoing recycling , programs for the various land use sectors in the city. Current city programs for the residential sector include annual citywide garage sales, quarterly community clean-ups in targeted neighborhoods, and an extensive public information campaign, a block captain program, and curbside collection of recyclables. Ongoing programs targeted for the commercial and industrial sector include the development of a business recycling data base, targeting of businesses for the development of office source reduction programs, (business recycling outreach program), and the recycling of asphalt and composting of yard waste from city operations. The I Love a Clean San Diego group has developed an disseminated a school curriculum which addresses recycling, source reduction and composting. This group also offers a hot line service which anyone in the county may call with recycling questions. The city has been 2209.053-TC-COlT/12/Ck[ULAVST/CHUTAVSi.PNL ES-8 ~. participating on a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of key county and city staffs (from all over the county) and solid waste consultants. The TAC was formed to address countywide solid waste issues and meets twice a month. 4.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Alternative recycling programs were evaluated according to the same criteria listed for source reduction alternatives. The alternatives and issues evaluated included: • Source separation • Residential curbside collection • Drop-off centers • Buy-back centers • Scheduled collection • Central processing facilities • Materials recovery facilities - low technology - medium technology - high technology • Marketing of recyclables Another approach at addressing the requirements of AB 939 is through the development of a regional MRF, that would be operated in conjunction with the Prison Industry Authority (PIA). The PIA proposes a 1000 ton per day waste recycle energy plant that would use inmate labor from the Donovan Correctional Facility. The goal of this program is multifaceted. The inmates would separate recyclable materials from the mixed municipal solid wastestream. The organic fraction of the wastestream, in turn, would be used to produce electricity and steam using biogas produced through anaerobic digestion. In segregating the recyclables fmm the remainder of the wastestream, the PIA proposed using a series of mechanical and handsorting operations that would allow for the separation of paper, glass, aluminum, plastic, ferrous metal, wood, and related 7109.053-TC-COir/12/CHUfAVST/CHULAVST.PNL F..S-9 materials. The organic, or non-recyclable portion of the solid waste stream, would be anaerobically digested, in conjunction with sewage generated by the prison. This process would provide steam and electrical energy for the prison facilities, as well as the availability of electricity for sale to local utility users. This project is only in the formative stages and the impact that the PIA program will have on the overall SRRE approach, in terms of scope and time of implementation, must still be identified. 4.4 PROGRAM SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION The backbone of Chula Vista's short-term recycling program is the planned implementation of mandatory recycling for all land use sectors (single family residential, multi-family residential, industrial and commercial/public uses) according to the schedule established by the San Diego County mandatory recycling ordinance. The details for each of these programs are still under evaluation by the city. Chula Vista will also establish a business recycling outreach program, a waste exchange program, and a backyazd composting program. The city's in-house office recycling program will be expanded. The city's recycling program also includes the encouragement of recycling companies to locate their operations within the city and an extensive public information nd education campaign. A comprehensive listing of the various aspects of Chula Vista's recycling program and a schedule for implementation aze provided in Tables ES-5 and ES-6. In addition, the County of San Diego is planning an extensive public information campaign in conjunction with implementation of the County Mandatory Recycling Ordinance. 4.5 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION The programs and implementation listed in Tables FS-5 and ES-6 aze recommended for Chula Vista to achieve the mandated diversion goals. nog.oss-rc-crorrnvctnn.~vsricxinwvsr.rr~n, FS-10 Table ESQ CITY OF CHULA VISTA SOURCE REDUCTION COMPONENT SHORT-TERM IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Activity Completion Dau 1. Information and Public Education Continue civic tenor source reduction/recycling program Ongoing Consumer public education program Ongoing Continue business recycling outreach program Ongoing Implement pointof-purchase eignage 2. City Leadership Lobby for stau legislation Ongoing Develop and implement city procurement ordinance June 1992 3. Rate Structure Modifications Evaluate variable can rate program December 1993 Sponsor community cleanups and citywide garage sale Quarterly/annually 4. Technical Assistance Apply for TAP Grant for waste exchange program and continuing business recycling outreach and civic center recycling programs October 1991 Develop and implement city wasu exchange progrem or establish cooperation with area program June 1992 Implement backyard composting program November 1991 6. Monitorine Establish business Soutce Reduction/Recycling database October 1991 Medium-Term activitic will be established based upon the result of the programs and activitiu conducted during the short-arm period. Y109.053-TCCOr('/ 12/CHULV V S'r/CHI71.A V ST. F+f1I, F$-11 t Tabk ES-5 CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECYCLING COMPONENT SHORT-TERM IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Activity Projected Date 1. Citv Mandatory Recvcline Ordinance Ordinance drafted November 1991 Ordinance enacted March 1, 1992 2. Residenrial Rccvclin¢ Proerams Implement backyard composting pilot program November 1991 Continue block captain program Ongoing Continue to promote and expand single family curbside collection of Ongoing recyclables Decision on type of RFP for collection/composting of yard waste November 1991 Issue RFP for residential yard waste collection March 1992 Residential yard waste contract award July 1992 Enforcement of yard waste collection program January 1993 Determine approach to multi-family residential recycling program January 1992 Multi-family recycling contract award (if appropriate) July 1992 Implement multi-family recycling program (enforce mandatory recycling) July 1, 1993 Continue to sponsor community cleanups Quarterly Continue to sponsor citywide garage sale Annually Begin enforcement of mandatory single family recycling March 1992 nog.oss-rccrotrnzicxuuvsrrctnn.AVSr.Prn. ES-12 Table ESS (con't) CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECYCLING COMPONENT SHORT-TERM IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Activity Projetxed Date 3. CommeroiaUOfficc Recycline Programs Apply for county TAP grant to continue city office ruycling and October 1991 business outreach programs Continue to expand city office program and business outreach Ongoing program Develop a recycling data base Ongoing Determine approach to commercial recycling program January 1992 Commercial recycling wntract award (if appropriate) July 1992 Begin enforocment of mandatory commercial recycling ]uly 1993 Begin enforcement of mandatory industrial recycling October 1992 Establish waste exchange program June 1992 4. Draft a recvcline design ordinance for space allocation January 1992 nog.osJ-rc-corrnvcHUUVSVC~ttutwvsr.Pxt, ES-13 Tabk ES-6 CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECYCLING COMPONENT MEDIUM-TERM IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Activity Projected Dak 1. CommereieUOffice and Industrial Recycline Proert[ms Evaluate existing pmgttun effectiveness lone 1995 Evaluate possible equipmenUprogram changes July 1995 2. Residential Curbside Multi-Material Recvclin¢ Proerams Evaluatc existing program effectiveness May 1995 Evaluate poasiblc program changes May 1995 3. Pilot Multi-Family Recvcline Proeram Evaluate multi-family recycling program effectiveness January 1996 Evaluate possible program changes ]anuary 1996 4. Materials Recovery Facility Evaluate city's success in attracting MRFs to the area and evaluate May 1995 the need for additional facilities 5. Transfer Facility Consider cooperation with county transfer facilities (currently in the July 1995 planning procus) 6. Education and Public Information Assess effectiveness of information program January ]995 Modify informational materials in combination with programmatic Ongoing changes nag.oss-rc-corrnzicttut.AVSricxvlwvsr.rrrl, FS-14 4.5 MONITORING AND EVALUATION In order to assess the effectiveness of a residential recycling program, it is essential to gather and evaluate a variety of operational data. The key items to be monitored are: • Set-out rates • Participation rates • Recovery quantities • Materials capture rates • Compliance with processing specifications (e.g. level of contamination, minimum quantities) • Vehicle performance and collection • Costs and revenues In the short-term, the commercial and industrial recycling programs will be basgd on voluntary participation with guidance and direction from city staff. When mandatory recycling goes into effect, businesses may still be allowed [o make their own recycling arrangements with permitted haulers. Therefore, in order to assess the effectiveness of a commercial/industrial recycling program, it is essential to work closely with the business community in establishing and measuring program effectiveness. The items that can be monitored include: • Material capture rates (number of trailer pulls and tonnage records) • Periodic commercial/industrial establishment surveys (e.g., in conjunction with business license renewals, as the city recently began to require) • Commercial waste stream audits nog.oss-rc-corrnvcxuuvsriceuuvsr.rrn, ES-15 4 5.0 COMPOSTING COMPONENT 5.1 According the 1990 waste characterization study, approximately 27 percent of Chula Vista's disposal stream is composed of yazd and wood wastes. The city does not have a comprehensive yard and wood waste composting program at the present time. The Chula Vista Public Works Department is mulching yazd waste from city parks and public green open spaces. Some mulching also occurs at the Otay Landfill where Chula Vista's yard waste is disposed, but it is not known how much of Chula Vista's yazd waste is being mulched. In addition, sewage sludge from Chula Vista is being composted on Fiesta Island (see Section 6.0 of this Executive Summary). 5.2 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Composting alternatives were evaluated according to the criteria listed for source reduction alternatives. The alternatives evaluated included: • Waste storage/collection - source separation/collection - commingled collection - mechanical separation - mixed solid waste composting • Feedstocks - high carbon/low moisture - high nitrogen/high moisture Y109.053-7C-COIT/12/CHUUVST/CHUUVSt.PNL ES-16 ~. • Composting technologies - preprocessing - aerated static pile - in-vessel - windrow/static pile • Program scale - local - subregional - regional • Marketing and distribution - local - bulk sales to wholesalers - turnkey contract 5.3 PROGRAM SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION The selection of a composting program has been based upon the objectives previously defined; consideration of existing conditions in Chula Vista; the requirements of the county mandatory recycling ordinance; and the need to maintain program flexibility. The composting programs and implementation schedules planned for the City of Chula Vista are presented in Tables ES-7 and ES-8. 5.4 MONITORING AND EVALUATION The monitoring of the composting program will be closely linked with the recycling program and parameters will be similar. nog.oss-rc-corrnvc~ttm.~vsricxuuvsr.rrri. ES-17 Y 6.0 SPECIAL WASTE COMPONENT 6.1 TARGETED MATERIALS AND ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION Special wastes aze materials that require special handling or disposal because of physical, chemical, or biological characteristics. Most of this material cannot be diverted and will continue to be disposed in an environmentally sound manner (e.g. asbestos, street sweepings, and infectious waste). Septic tank pumpings and incinerator ash aze not generated in Chula Vista. Auto bodies and grease trap pumpings aze already being diverted. Only those special waste types with feasible new diversion alternatives were evaluated. These include sewage sludge (existing diversion), white goods/bulky items, construction/demolition debris, and used tires. 6.1.1 SEWAGE SLUDGE The San Diego County Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Facility (Metro) is responsible for treating and disposing of Chula Vista's sewage sludge. Digested sludge from the Metro facility is air dried at Fiesta Island in Mission Bay. The dried sludge is shipped to a private contractor, Corona Chino Farms. Chula Vista's sewage sludge generation is estimated at 11,315 tons per year, for which Chula Vista has taken existing diversion credit. 6.1.2 USED TIRES Used tires create a number of problems when buried in landfills. Alternatives available for used fire diversion include incineration, retreading, and crumb rubber uses. However, due to air quality problems, potential health hazards and the lack of end uses, none of these alternatives aze currently considered viable for the diversion of significant quantities of tires away from landfill disposal. The city will reevaluate these alternatives at the medium-term planning stage. 2209.053-TClO1T/12/CHUTAVSr/CHULAVST.PNL ES-18 ,. Table ES-7 CITY OF CHULA VISTA COMPOSTING COMPONENT SHORT-TERM Il~IPLIII4ENTATION SCHEDULE ACTIVITY PROJECTED DATE 1. Continuous Composting of Sewage Sludge. Ongoing 2. Draft City Recycling/Composting Ordinance and November 1991 City Procurement Ordinance. 3. Backyard Composting Program a. Implement pilot program. November 1991 b. Expand program. 1992-1995 4. Residential Yard Waste Collection/Composting Program a. RFP decision. November 1991 b. Issue request for proposals. November 1991 c. Begin public education. December 1991 d. Begin greens collection. January 1992 e. Enforce mandatory yard waste separation. January 1993 5. Commercial/Industrial Composting a. Continue business outreach program. Ongoing b. Begin enforcement of mandatory industrial recycling/composting. October 1992 c. Determine whether to issue an RFP for commercial recycling/composting. November 1991 d. Issue RFP April 1992 e. Begin enforcement of mandatory commercial recycling/composting. July 1993 6. Eastlake Composting Facility Pilot Program Ongoing 7. Compost Marketing a. Continue to use compost on city-owned parks, golf course and landscaped azeas. Ongoing b. Assist composting contractors in identifying end use markets in Chula Vista and in pursing those markets. 1992-1994 zzov.os3-rc-corsnvcxuiwvsrrcr~uuvsr.m.~, ES-19 x Table ES-8 CHULA VISTA COMPOSTING COMPONENT MEDIUM-TERM Il~IPLII~IENTATION SCHEDULE ACTIVITY PROJECTED DATE 1. Evaluate Effectiveness of Residential, Industrial January 1995 and Commercial Composting Programs 2. Modify Programs as Needed to Improve June 1995 Effectiveness, Including Public Information Materials/Methods 3. Expand Programs to Include Other Organic 1995-1999 Wastes (e.g., food waste) and Other End Uses (e.g., farm uses) 4. Continue to Expand End Use Markets for the 1995-1999 Compost 5. Require Large Scale Planned Developments in the 1995-1999 City to Provide Internal Yard Waste Collection/Composting and Use Own Compost 6. Consider Participation in Sub-Regional and Ongoing Regional Composting Programs 7. Continue Composting of Sewage Sludge Ongoing nog.oss-rc-corrnviceuuvsvcxviwvsr.a~. E$-20 6.1.3 WHITE GOODS/BULKY TTEMS White goods include items such as refrigerators, atr conditions, washers, dryers and other bulky appliances. Under the County Mandatory Recycling Ordinance, these are tazgeted materials for recycling in the residential and commercial sector. The City of Chula Vista will continue to sponsor annual citywide garage sales and quarterly community cleanups. The city will also include information about options for the sale or donation of used items as part of its public education program. 6.1.4 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS The major options for this special waste category include the reuse and recycling of concrete, asphalt, dirt, rock, sand, land clearing brush, and scrap metal. These materials aze tazgeted for industrial recycling under the county mandatory recycling ordinance. The major methods of asphalt recycling are cold or hot recycling. Concrete, sand, rock, dirt and metal recovered from construction and demolition activities can be reused as subgrade material. Land clearing brush can be mulched or composted. There will be more economic incentives to take clean construction land demolition material to private recyclers as landfill tipping fees increase. 6.2 PROGRAM SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION The selection of a special waste program has been based upon the objectives defined in Section 3.0 of this Executive Summary. The special waste program and schedule planned for Chula Vista are summarized in Table ES-9. nov.oss-rccon•nzicnuuvsricxuuvsr.Pxc ES-21 9 7.0 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION 7.1 EXISTING CONDTITONS The City of Chula Vista has amulti-faceted education and public information program that includes flyers, brochures, a recycling hot line, media releases and interviews, and public presentations. The city is beginning its business outreach and backyard composting programs with associated fliers and contacts through working with the local chamber of commerce and local gazden clubs. The I Love a Clean San Diego organization also has ongoing public education and information programs. 7.2 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES The best overall strategy is a comprehensive mix of techniques that includes: Public Education • Direct mailing of brochures and newsletters to city residents and businesses. • Canvassing at stores and residences door-to-door. • Targeted brochures to households whose first language is not English. • Public service announcements on local television and radio stations. • Community leader presentations at civic, neighborhood, church, social service and business organisation meetings. • Information booths at shopping malls and community events. • Recycling classes and field trips as part of school curriculum for grades one through 12. • Speaker's bureau of experts, public officials, and other informed persons that would be available to make presentations on recycling. 2209.053-TCLOIT/12/C}il11AVST/CHUTAVSf.FNL ES-22 Promotions and Events • Promote a recycling day or recycling week. • Sponsor recycling contests among schools, youth groups, civic groups or neighborhoods. • Recycling awards to individuals, neighborhoods, businesses and community organisations. • Encourage Christmas tree recycling or use of live trees. • Hold specific material recycling drives and citywide garage sales. • Obtain celebrity spokespersons. • Continue to offer a reduced recycling service fee to senior citizens and low income households. • Continue to run block captain program. Publicityand Reminders • Advertisements in newspapers, on billboards and buses, in grocery stores and community centers. • Canvassing at stores and residences door-to-door. • Press releases and interviews for articles in local newspapers and magazines and local news television broadcasts. • Posters, bumper stickers. • Caps, buttons, t-shirts. • Point-of-purchase signage. • Messages on shopping bags. • Notices on utility bills. • Telephone surveys. nov.oss-rc-corrnvcxmwvsvcxuuvsr.Pxi, ES-23 • Radio and television public service announcements shared among neighboring cities. • Participation in local TV and radio talk shows. 7.3 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of the public education/information program should begin within the fast month of each recycling program phase or approach. It is recommended that the city initiate each program with an extensive four month education campaign in which newsletters and brochures are sent to explain the programs. It is also recommended that the city hold several public discussions in which residents come to voice their opinions about the programs. Tables FS-10 and ES-11 outline the proposed tasks and schedules for short- and medium-term implementation of Chula Vista's education and public information programs. 7.4 MONITORING AND EVALUATION Monitoring and evaluation of the public information program will be closely linked with monitoring of other program components and will particularly focus on: • Public awareness • Participation rates • Material capture rates • Buyback center receipts and expenditures nog.oss-rccorrnvcxutwvsricxu~wvsr.rxi. ES-24 M1. TABLE ES-9 CITY OF CHULA VLSTA Special Waste Component Implementation Schedule Activity Projected Date Short-Term Task 1. Enforce County Mandatory Recycling Ordimnce (includes some special wastes) a. Single family residential March 1992 b. Industrial October 1992 c. Multi-family July 1993 residential /commercial 2. Continue private sector reporting Ongoing requirements for special wastes 3. Continue to sponsor annual citywide Ongoing garage sales and quarterly community clean-ups 4. Investigate second use markets for used April 1992 tires, demolition waste, rubber and grease [tap pumpings as part of the city's business outreach and waste exchange program. 5. Continue to recycle asphalt from city street demolition/maintenance Ongoing 6. Encourage the siting of additional January 1994 construction demolition recyclers in the city. Medium-Term Task 1. Evaluate special waste diversion January 1995 progress 2. Evaluate private sector reporting January 1995 methods 3. Consider a cocomposting program January 1995 (yard waste end sewage sludge) 4. Evaluate business outreach and waste January 1995 exchange programs 2209.053-TC-COff/12/CHIIlwVS7/CHIIIaVST.FNL ES-25 Table ES-10 City of Chula Vista EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION SHORT-TERM Il1IPI,EMENTATION SCHEDULE Activity 1. Mandatory Recvclin¢ Program-Specific Activities Promote Backyard Composting Follow-up Public Information and Workshops Promote Yard Waste Collection Program Follow-up Public Information and Workshops Promote Commercial Recycling Promote Multi-Family Recycling 12. ~ 2. 3 Follow-up Public Information and Workshops (Commercial and Multi-Family) Promote Industrial Recycling Follow-up Public Information and Workshops General Public Education Newsletters and Direct Mailing Public Service Announcements Promote School Curriculum Changes Community Speaking Engagements Develop Non-English Materials and Announcements Promotions and Events Continue Special Rates for Seniors and Low Income Households Recycling Events Citywide Garage Sale Christmas Tree Recycling Program Competitions and Awards General Publicity and Reminders Develop and Conduct Community Survey News Releases Radio, TV, Newspaper and Magazine Interview and Ads Projected Dale November 1991 December 1991 November 1992 February 1993 Ongoing May 1993 August 1993 Ongoing November 1992 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing March 1992 Ongoing Yearly August January Yearly 1992, 1994 Ongoing Ongoing YI09.053-TC-COrr/12/CHUUVST/CHUIwVSr.PNI. ES-26 4: Table ES-11 City of Cbula Vista EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION COMPONENT MEDIUM-TERM IIKPI,EMENTATION SCHEDULE 1 2. Projected Date Public Education Evaluate and update material for public distribution Ongoing Medium-term program kick-off and existing program effectiveness update August, 1995 Promotions and Events Evaluate and update yearly promotion events Yearly Target-group programs going 3. Publicity and Reminders Recirculate community surveys 1996, 1998 Radio and television public service amouncements and features Evaluate staffing requirements Ongoing 1995 nog.oss-rccrorrnzicxvtwvsrictttnwvsr.rt+t ES-27 8.0 FACILITY CAPACITY The City of Chula Vista currently disposes of most of its municipal solid waste at the Otay Landfill, which can be divided into the Otay Landfill and the Otay Annex Landfill. The county of San Diego expects to submit a closure plan for these landfills during the latter part of 1991, although the actual closures of these landfills are not expected to occur during the SRRE planning period. The cities realize the importance of minimizing the quantity of solid waste deposited in the county's landfills in order to extend the life of the facilities. Towards addressing the potential future usefulness of the existing landfills, the county is proposing to expand the San Marcos Landfill and the Ramona Landfill. 9.0 FUNDING COMPONENT This section covers typical component facility costs and program funding alternatives available to the city. The capital and annual operating costs associated with the various SRRE components are estimated in Table ES-12. Funds for future SRRE programs will come from any or a combination of the following sources: • Recycling surcharge at disposal facilities in the form of tipping fee increases • Establish residential recycling surcharge fees for collection • Commercial/industrial recycling service fees • Variable rate structure • Business license fees • County and state grants • Market development and materials revenue nog.oss-TC-corrnvcxuiwvsricxmwvsr.rr+i. ES-28 1 n ~ ~ ~ O 8 p 8 O O O O ~D F U N ~O ~ h N oo ~ N .N. ~ ...i ~ 6 9 fA d 9 fA 4 9 ~ ~ H 'fl C C C ~.., O O p 00 - ~ C Y 8 p ~ ~ p Q N . f 1 C l l CY [/1 W U] F ~ C7 o z ~~ a r ° $ ~ . Q~ C ~ g o g ~ c ~ ., E ~ ds ~ ~' sae ~ ~ ~-° ~' ~~ ~ °' ~ U .a F ~ ~ .c va in R E" ...az ~ ~ " ~ r~ o ~ h ~ 8 .~ ~ 'y O N ~ ~ ~ ~' Q ~ U 69 t ~ 6 9 'C 6 9 fA aJ C7 a ~ ~ O ~ N . F Q C p ~ C ° ~- a ~ _ Vj U ;-.. L ry ~ ~ u. ~ h 4 h m ~ ~I O N ~S. p ~ ~ ~ ~Va ~ 0 3 a+ "" C .~ ' N ~y td "o C .. + ~ ~ ~ UOU ~ a a~ ~ E u d .~ 2 _<` N 3 T9 Y .~ 2 j e x •. O .~ u 6 >. 9 ~_ L u ^~A S^ L O E 0 u 4 T T 6 .` u 0 2 N The City of Chula Vista is presently supporting all of its current programs related to recycling through franchise fees which are passed on as user fees, county grants and redevelopment funds. Similar mechanisms which utilize existing rate structures to the extent possible will be implemented by the city to support programs for the short-term through 1995. The city does not intend to build and operate its own recycling equipment and facilities but expects the private sector to provide equipment and facilities through a competitive bid or free market process. Several regional issues, such as the county's plans for building transfer stations in the South County and providing central regionally-based facilities, preclude a complete analysis of all the funding alternatives available to the City. The participation of several cities within a subregional area and the unincorporated county under a joint powers agreement (IPA) is one of these regional issues that could be considered. The feasibility analysis for any capital facilities will require an economic evaluation and assessment of the funding mechanisms dependent upon the structure of the JPA. 10.0 INTEGRATION COMPONENT The development and selection of alternatives for a source reduction and recycling program were based on an evaluation of existing practices and conditions, and the projected growth and needs of the city. Chula Vista's goal is to have an integrated solid waste management system capable of meeting both state-mandated reduction goals and the needs of its citizens in the most environmentally sound, efficient, and cost effective manner. This section presents the results of the evaluations conducted for the SRRE, summarizes the technologies and programs selected, and presents the schedule for program implementation. Targeted programs are shown in Table ES-13. nog.oss-rc-corrnvcxuiwvsnctnnwvsr.arri FS-30 ,. i _~ 0 ~ ,~ 3 ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~g ~ ~~:~~ o ]~ ~ ~ ~ -y ~~. 7~a~~~~ ~ ' ~ ~~ °~~~~~~ 8 ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~'~~~ ~5 ~, p~ &~ e 8 e e!e!L~~~ pGp ~ G 2~y 9~423}.~ ~ 71 E u i n S w ~ ~ 3 ~ S 7! S .~ ° Y *~ ~ C a ~S~ ~6p ~ ~ ~ $ .6 ~ 9 E o ~ ~ 5 ~s ~ 2~ ~ .~T GGG Q$~ 7 p N 3 ' ~ ~~~ W o y E ~ ~g l ~ ~ `~ ~ ~pj 2 5 g :a „~ e e ~ S.Ed ~y ~ ~ ~ :a 8 C s n . L' .~ E c,~ ~ 98 ~~~~~ $.F~~~3g ~ 8 ~ ~g ~ alb .~e Fgg ~jR c Y.5 E yy55 E6 ~, yp qqq ~ ~` .r3 ~fi .a '3 5 '~ Y >+~ 2 g ann Syys s 5 6 ' ~ s s ~~~ ~s e'~<. ~= o Cee '2 ~ } g'~ ~ .fi :p ~' Q }fi! P"~ ~ .r y ~ U ~ E$ ~ V 1. ?.7~w.n ~~ DSu .......... . d <U oo~uS~ E n~S~i ~~ ~ .~ c.+ G~ . . . ... .......... .. ~ '~' G ~ L ~ ~ .6 P7 0~~~3 a/ ca~~k'3~~~~ ~ ~ l YY,~bg gg $~~~ ~~ ~'6~~' ~E ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~r:~a ~~ $z~°xo~s i~~~3 ......... ............... O u ~~ ~ N Z ~~~... yF ~ C r ~ ,'{ F 30©iQ 4, " c ~ y S ~ ~ .i y g a L~ e S 'g ~ ~ ~ !y [ ~ ~ ~ o e. o.s~ r ~ s $ ~~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~~~ ~ Y ~ 'L ~ E a7 p ~ ~ 'a ~ ~ 2 u'~~~u @ . . a.° . .v . ~~' 8v ~u . . . 9 O w~'93 `o . . mm ~~iw c . .. . <~ Z .~ ~ g r ~~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~.~~ =s~ .Y ~ e~ ~ EE ~~ G ~ ~ . ,C X ~~ g5 6 6 ~ .~.fi~~~ per" rC O GC`. `'{~ .~ '~ ; y .~' a .fi ~ y8 $ ~zpp9 ~ fi 'q ~ C p $ ~ i 's$ 9~ V 0i F' `O u7 $$$$ ~~ .6 .fi _r E~ ;6 j E ~8 7QQ! E Y~ ~0~9 r' ~ ~ ~ ~ o. ~~ ~ W ~ yp L fi ~ ~~ :g ~Y s e ~ ~ ~~ S EE E~ ~~ g c y ° ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ g~ ~~ _ ~ ~°g ~ $ ~ 6 .~'~ .~ ~ 3 ~ 9 a. 3 .~ ~ E aE 9 ~ ~ .6 9 2 8 ~ 2 ~ ~''8 e .~ 3 ~ .F s .g .o ~~& .. . g~U .. .. 33~~~~~~'a~' . .. . . ~~a~ . . ~~~~~5~~~~~~ .. . . . . :~ ~~ $ &~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ y ~ ~ .Q ~ ~ _ . ~~~r ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~' r3m U ~ ... ..... . . ~ 3 g O V Y vi Z' e ~ ^ C ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ e 5 ~ a ~ ~ .n v~ ~~ Z ~° ~~~~~$~ ,3 ~~ s ~. p i ~ ~¢~~~~S~~~W a ~ s` ~ 7 ~ a s ~+~~ u V °' € ~ 3~ ysy .5 : E a i .F Z 2 .~ tl g Y € g' .~ y < u eG $ R ~ r~ y 6 ~ ° 2 F,¢ ~ 5 fi °s ~ .5~ ` $ E yC ~ i~ g R m gg 6~~ ~~3 5 ~~ g ~. '~ 3 ~ s ~ Y ~ $ea~~~~ .4 ~~ h; ~ ~ . ...... .. ~ .... . og ~ ]Q9~ y O u ~ . e ,~~~ ~n ATTACHMENT B: HHWE INTRODUCTION This Household Hazardous Waste Element (FIIiWE) has been prepared to comply with California AB 939 requirements. HHWEs of countywide integrated waste management plans specify how each City or unincorporated area (Cotmty) will safely collect, recycle, treat and dispose of household hazardous waste (HHW) generated by households in that jurisdiction within short-term (1991-1995) and medium-term (1996-2000) planning periods. Chula Vista is offered participation in the San Diego Regional Household Hazardous Materials Program (Program) by the County of San Diego Waste Management Department at direct no cost to the City. The Program has existed since 1985 and is a joint effort between the County of San Diego and the City of San Diego, administered by the San Diego County Department of Health Services (DHS). The Program includes HHW collection and education and public information. The County of San Diego offers Chula Vista participation in this Program because the City disposes of its solid waste at County landfills and indirectly pays for part of the Program through tipping fees, a portion of which pay for the County of San Diego's HHW program. Because the County receives money for the Program from Chula Vista through the tipping fees, the County is responsible for describing how it will safely collect, recycle, treat and dispose of household hazardous waste (HI~V~ generated by households in Chula Vista. Therefore, the County's HHWE is attached as Appendu A to fulfill the specific requirements of the element for Chula Vista, and additional information specific to the City's goals and objectives, existing conditions, program alternatives and selection, implementation schedule, moniwring and evaluation, and funding are described below. Based on data from a recent waste composition study (1990), a total of 1,590,053 tons of residential waste is disposed each year at landfills within the county. Of this waste, uo9-mrvnn~we 1 .~ 95,849 tons are from Chula Vista's residential wastestream. According to results of an EPA study conducted in Marin County, California and New Orleans, Louisiana, approximately 0.4 percent of household (residential) waste is hazardous. Applying this percentage to the City's residential wastestream, approximately 6,360 tons of HHW are disposed each year in San Diego County, 383 tons (6 percent) of which are from Chula Vista's residential wastestream. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Consistent with the overall Program goal, Chula Vista's goal is to prevent illegal disposal of HHW. To achieve this goal, the City has specified objectives for the respective planning periods. SHORT-TERM OBJECTIVES (1991-19951 The short-term City-specific objectives include • Utilize/advertise permanent facilities in San Diego County. • Continue in-house and County-supplied education and public information programs. MEDIUM-TERM OBJECTIVES (1996-2000) The medium-term City-specific objectives include • Continue in-house and County-supplied education and public information programs. no~i uuanv~cxvnn+we 2 ERISTAIG CONDITIONS Appropriate Technologies, a permanent collection center in Chula Vista, offers adrop-off service Monday through Saturday for residents who fast obtain a 'control number" (for tracking) from the DHS hotline service. They offer spick-up service for handicapped residents. The facility makes arrar-gements to pick up the HHW at the handicapped individuals' homes once they have obtained their'omtrol number' from the DHS Hotline Service. Appropriate Technologies is permitted to operate as a treatment, storage, and disposal (T'SD) facility. Chula Vista utilizes the education and public information services offered by the Program, as well as distributing informational flyers which have been developed in-house (See Appendrz B). In addition, residents are encouraged to participate in any of the additional collection events offered countywide through the Program. Table 1 shows a schedule of the Program's collection events for fiscal year 1991-92. PROGRAM SELECTION In addition to using the two existing permanent facilities, one of which is located in the City of Chula Vista, the City plans to utilize most of the Program components offered by the County. These include six future permanent facilities throughout the county and education and public information services which are already paid for by the City through tipping fees paid at the County landfills. The City will also continue to disseminate information on proper disposal and use of non-toxic alternatives which is developed in- house. uo¢~tianrn~cxvnn+we 3 PROGRAM II1~LEMENTATION Additional permanent collection facility implementation dates and locations will be determined by the County (see Section 5.0, Appendix A). Education and public information will continue to be administered by the County. MONITORING AND EVALUATION Monitoring and evaluation will be conducted by the County as described in Appendix A. Chula Vista will be responsible for an annual City participation rate in the Program according to its percent of HI-IW determined to be disposed of illegally in county landfills. Table 2 shows an estimate of the tonnage of HHW disposed at landfills in the county by jurisdiction and the percent of the total tonnage of HHW disposed by each jurisdiction. FUNDING The Program is paid for through tipping fees Chula Vista residents pay at solid waste landfills in the County of San Diego. uo9-n~~atw~cxvnnn~~ 4 ATTACHMENT C: Amendments to SRRE & HHWE December 15, 1992 County of San Diego Department of Public Works Solid Waste Division 5555 Overland Avenue, M.S. 0383 San Diego, CA 92123-1295 RE: City of Chula Vista, SRRE and HHWE This will transmit the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) adopted by the City of Chula Vista in compliance with AB939. The draft SRRE and HHWE, which were distributed to the County in December 1991 are hereby amended with the enclosed attachment comprised of the following material: 1) Letter from Camp Dresser & McBee Inc. re: State Staff Comments of the Preliminary Draft SRRE (June 23, 1992) 2) Letter from California Integrated Waste Management Board re: Board Comments on the SRRE and HHWE (June 2, 1992) 3) City of Chula Vista Memorandum re: Revisions to Potential Development Data (November 30, 1992) These documents, as amended, are being forwarded to the County at this time for inclusion in the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan subject to future legislative changes and updated information. The City of Chula Vista will continue to actively work with the AB939 Technical Advisory Committee, CIWMB staff, and with surrounding jurisdictions to assure that the programs and facilities chosen for implementing the goals of AB939 meet the needs of the residents of Chula Vista and allow for regional cooperation. Sincerely, John D. Goss City Manager ,. City of Chula Vista SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELffi~N'P HOUSEHOLD HASARDOIIS WASTE ELE!ffi~1'P December 1992 prinud w Recycled Paper CDM BnWOnmenfal engineers, saennsrs, planners, 8 management consultants June 23, 1992 City Manager's Office 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Attn: Stephanie Popek Snyder Principal Management Assistant G .P DRESSER & McKEE INC. 430 NorM Vineyaro, Suile 310 Ontario, C:alaomia 91764 71I 986-6611 Subject: State's Staff Comments of the Preliminary Draft Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) Dear Ms. Snyder: Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) has been meeting regularly with the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) staff and County of San Diego staff regarding CIWMB comments on the preliminary draft SRRE and HHWE for the jurisdictions within San Diego County. CIWMB staff have no comments on the HHWEs for cities within San Diego County and this document may be adopted as written. Regarding the SRRE documents, CIWMB staff concluded that the programs and schedules within the preliminary draft documents adequately fulfill the requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Act (IWMA) and the CIWMB's regulations and guidelines for preparing the SRREs. The majority of CIWMB comments relate to the waste generation and composition portion of each SRRE since historical waste generation data information was used in preparing the preliminary draft SRREs. CIWMB staff recommended that the final SRRE dtcuments be provided with revised waste composition and waste quantities which comply with the state's standards. The CIWMB commented that this revised waste characterization study be performed prior to adoption of the fmai document. The County of San Diego is now in the process of conducting a solid waste generation study for the cities within the county. This study is estimated to be completed in mid-summer 1992, after which, all SRRE documents will be AMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. Stephanie Popek Snyder City of Chula Vista Page 2 tentatively finalized for inclusion in the County Integrated Waste Management Plan {CIWMP). The rema;n;ng comments for each city's document were minor in nature and CIWMB staff recommends that an addendum be written to address these comments. The addendum includes city specific, CIWMB, and Task ForcelCitizen comments, although, typographical and grammatical errors are not included. Each city within the County of San Diego should proceed forwazd with adoption of the document as a fatal draft, with the inclusion of the addendum. If adoption has already occurred you may wish to submit this addendum as an information item to your City Council. As mentioned previously, all comments in the addendum will be included in the consolidation of the SRRE documents for inclusion in the CIWMP. Your city will have an opportunity to adopt the final plan at that time. If there aze any questions or comments, please contact either your team Ieader, Lewis Laine, or myself. Very truly yours, CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. 1.'." Robert A. Hawfield, r. Project Manager cc: Lewis Laine, CDM Reed Bennett, County of San Diego, Solid Waste Division John Nuffer, California Integrated Waste Management Board Steve Sachs, San Diego Association of Governments Attachments: • Addendum • Annual Waste Generation Estimates for 1990, 1995, and 2000 -Under current conditions and after SRRE implementation • Table 8-3 -Revised Waste Disposal Capacity CITY OF CHULA VISTA SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT ADDENDUM JUNE 23, 1992 This Addendum serves as a supplement, which will incorporate the changes and corrections, to the preliminary draft Sowce Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) for the City of Chula Vista, dated November, 1991, submitted by CDM. The program and implementation schedules, as outlined in the preliminary draft SRRE, meet the state's guidelines and requirements. The majority of the comments received from the State addressed the need for more accurate waste composition data for each jurisdiction. The County of San Diego is in the process of gathering this data, which will be incorporated into the Final SRRE. According to the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (IWMA), each city is required to review and respond to comments made by the public regarding the proposed Source Reduction and Recycling Element and the Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) This document incorporates the waste quantities and waste composition data which includes the random survey data diversion quantities for commerciaUindustrial services for the base year of 1990. An updated waste characterization study is being performed by the county which addresses the comments from the CIWMB. In addition, comments from the Local Task Force, Citizens Advisory Committee, and Technical Advisory Committee are included. 1 ,~ CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD CONIlVIENTS inittat So 'd Waste Generation Studv Wasu quantities composition will be revised afar the wasu characterization study is completed by the County of San Diego. These quantities will be incorporated into the County Inugrated Wasu Management Plan (CIWMP), which will be completed early 1993. The County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Solid Wasu Division has access to exunsive regional data on wasu composition in San Diego County. A customized ScaleWare data sysum was installed and now operaus at each landfill, except for the Borrego Landfill. This sysum automatically generaus reports on quantities disposed by truck type. This data, in conjunction with hauler surveys, makes it possible for each city in the county to estimau the specific characurization of it's wasustream. The County of San Diego will refine the ScaleWare data sysum to provide weight records by jurisdiction and the projection of wasu quantities and composition which will be based on a city by city analysis of weight records and revised wasu characurization data. Waste Diverted Comment: Pages 2-13 (Diversion Practices): Please provide data from the recently completed diversion survey. Also, please report diverted material by weight, wasu caugory and wasu type and by source of generation. Response: The attached revised tables for 1990, 1995 and 2000 incorporau the random survey results of existing diversion quantities for commercial and industrial establishments. These tables do not reflect modified wasu 2 quantity or waste composition data, which will be included in the final SRRE document after completion of the waste characterization study conducted by the County of San Diego. Comments on Other Comgpnents of SR_R_E Comment: Please include in this component a solid waste facilities need projection estimate which estimates the additional disposal capacity, in cubic yazds per yeaz, needed to accommodate anticipated solid waste generation within the city fora 15-year period... Response: Table 8-3 attached, reflects disposal capacity needs for the city in cubic yazds per yeaz, assuming successful implementation of SRRE goals. Comment: At some point in the planning process, the city should set limits, levels or thresholds for the criteria identified in the Recycling Component... Response: This comment has been noted by the city and will be addressed in the final SRRE for incorporation into the County Integrated Waste Management Plan. LOCAL TASK FORCE AND ADVISORY COM]vII1TEES CONIl~IENTS This Addendum includes public comments received at two public hearings, one of which was required by IWMA in order to adopt the waste management plan. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)/Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting was held on January 17,1992 and a regional SANDAG hearing held on January 24, 1992. The Local Task Force (SANDAG) hearing held on January 24, 1992 served as the first public hearing for all the San Diego Region's city plans. Comments received at the TAC/CAC meeting 3 and SANDAG hearing are addressed in this Addendum, and will be considered in the preparation of the Final SRRE. The following are the comments from the TAC/CAC and LTF, and responses to their respective comments. These comments have covered all sections of the SRRE document, and the changes which aze recommended will be incorporated in the final SRI2E. These are referenced and listed below. Comment: There seems to be a large variation between jurisdictions of the percentages of waste diverted from the landfills. Response: The documented percentages of waste diverted from the landfills and quantities recycled by each jurisdiction is a result of the specific recycling programs provided by each city and their respective differences. Frequency of curbside collection may vary from weekly to bi-weekly, and the types of recyclables collected also varies from city to city. Some curbside collection programs serve only residents (single and multi-family), and others may also serve businesses. The level of participation pracficed by the participants is also a factor in diversion rates. Additionally, there exists a different level of commercial or industrial development in each city, which would influence the waste composition and diversion rates. Comment: How is backyazd composting going to be approached? Response: The City of San Diego plans on implementing a pilot backyard composting program in conjunction with their hauler and the County of San Diego. Some cities within the county have similaz programs and others will pursue 4 a strong public education campaign which presents the advantages of backyard composting and recycling of yard and wood wastes. Comment: Cities must work with local businesses to promote voluntary recycling in order to eventually impose mandatory recycling. Also, requirements to be in compliance with the recycling programs by businesses should not be a condition of obtaining a business license. Response: Mandating compliance of recycling programs as a condition to obtain a business license will be a solution considered by many of the jurisdictions. However, businesses will initially be encouraged to develop their own recycling and waste diversion plans voluntarily, before further action will be considered by the cities. Comment: Should recyclables be collected by one truck and the material sorted by a second truck, and should the method of recycling be decided upon regionally or locally, ether than mandated by the County? Response: The materials recycled should be kept consistent regionally, but the decision for the method of recycling should be made at the city level. Each city currently has the authority to decide the method of collection, provided designated recyclables are not taken to the landfill. Comment: (From the Environmental Health Coalition) Source reduction is mandated by the State as the highest priority of diversion in AB 939, yet the actual percentages documented do not account for a substantial percentage of diversion for each city. Response: There appears to be a need for better defined source reduction activities identified by the State in order for more reliable quantification of source 5 reduction. Cities could take the initiative of implementing additional source reduction activities, and then add these documented diversion quantities to the SRRE. However, it is anticipated that source reduction will not result in a significant percentage of waste reduction. Comment: (From the Environmental Health Coalition) Source reduction quantified by each city is not adequate and it is suggested that a Source Reduction Task Force be formed in order to implement source reduction programs. Response: This may be taken into consideration by each city. Comment: The Sierra Club made three points and are as follows: a. The quantity of waste going into the landfills needs to decrease, b. More defined categories of waste produce, not identified in the SRRE as recyclables, need to be diverted from the landfills and recycled, and; c. The responsibility of recycling should remain with the individual Response: The City concurs with these comments Comment: (From the Polystyrene Packaging Coalition) Polystyrene should replace 'styrofoam" and be added to the list of projected waste quantities to be diverted and recycled. Response: The City concurs with the comment, although quantifying the amount of polystyrene diverted from the Ltndfill may be difficult. 6 ,. Comment: The State should be encouraged to reduce the restrictive regulations which have been mandated for composting facilities. This effort should be done by the TAC and CAC. Response: This action will be considered and decided by the CAC/TAC and the LTF. Comment: Waste composition data for each jurisdiction is not adequate and the-data needs to be further broken down, especially the miscellaneous category. Response: The County will be conducting more detailed waste composition studies, which is estimated to be completed mid-summer 1992. This study will be incorporated into each city's SRRE and submitted for inclusion in the CIWMP required to be adopted by 1994. 7 CITY OF CHULA VISTA 1990 WASTE GENERATION COMPOSITION FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS DISPOSED DNERTED GENERATED DNERTED WEIGHT OoNS) % WEIGHT Rp+sl % WEIGHT Rp~1 % % PAPER CARDBOARD 12,017 62% 12,719 6.8% 24,736 12.7% 6.8% NEWSPAPER 8,138 12% 67 0.0% 8,205 12% 0.0% MDCED PAPER 11,594 6.0% 907 02% 11,901 6.1% 02% HG LEDGER 2,580 1.3% 0 0.0% 2580 1.3% 0.0% COMPUTER 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% O.b% PLASTIC FILM PLASTIC 9,566 1.8% 1 0.0% 9,569 1.8% 0.0% HARD PLASTIC 4,361 22% 22 0.0% 4,983 29% 0.0% GLASS 4,753 2.4% 130 0.1% 4.883 2.5% 0.1% METALS TIN CANS 2,175 1.1% 0 D.0% 2,175 1.1% 0.0% ALUMINUM CANS 402 02% 139 0.1% 541 0.3% 0.1% MISC. METALS 0 O.D% 36 0.0% 96 0.0% 0.0% YARD WASTE 31,298 16.1% 0 0.0% 31,295 16.1% 0.0% WOOD WASTE 17,456 9.0% 0 0.0% 17,456 9.0% 0.0% CONSTRUCTION CONCRETE 1,192 0.6% D 0.0% 1,192 0.6% 0.0% ASPHALT 65 0.0% 0 0.0% 65 0.0% 0.0% DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 3,316 1.7% 0 0.0% 3,316 1.7% 0.0% ROOFING 698 0.4% 0 0.0% 896 0.4% 0.0% DRYWALL 481 02% 0 0.0% 461 02% 0.0% MO:ED 13,024 6.7% 0 0.0% 13,024 6.7% 0.0% OTHER DIAPERS 3,809 2.0% 0 0.0% 9,809 2.0% 0.0% MISCELLANEOUS 58,773 90.3% S 0.0% 58,778 30.3% 0.0% SPECIAL WASTES 286 0.1% 645 0.3% 931 0.5% 0.3% TOTALS 179,986 14,071 1P4,057 7.3% TONS DNERSION SOURCE REDUCTION 0 0.0% RECYCLING 19,426 8.9% COMPOSTING 0 0.0% SPECIAL WASTE 615 OA% 11,071 7.396 REMOVAL OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL PROM RECYCLABLE WASTE STREAM 18.9% REMOVAL OF WOOD AND YARD WASTE FROM WOOD AND YARD WASTE STREAM 0.0% ~. CHLVST2.W01 CITY OF CHULA VISTA 1895 WASTE GENERATION COMPOSf110N FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS WITFI SRRE IMPLEMENTED DISPOSED DNERTED GENERATED DNERTED WEIGHT Ror+sl % WEIGHT (RM6i % WEKiHT T~ % % PAPER CARDBOARD 13,015 62% ~ 19,991 6.7% 27,006 7.7% 6.6% NEWSPAPER 4,847 23% 4,040 1.9% 9,867 4.5% 1.9% MIXED PAPER 7,134 3.4% 5,765 27% 12,690 6.4% 2.7% HG LEDGER 1,514 0.7% 1,261 0.6% 2,794 1.1% 0.8% COMPUTER 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% PLASTIC FILM PLASTIC 2,094 1.0% 1,772 0.8% 3,666 20% 0.696 HARD PLASTIC 2,583 12% 2,165 1.0% 1,746 2.1% 1.0% GLASS 2,929 1.1% 2,359 1.1% 5,269 2.6% 1.1% METALS TIN CANS 1,276 0.6% 1,060 0.5% 2,356 12% 0.5% ALUMINUM CANS 213 0.1% 373 0.2% 566 02% 02% MISC. METALS 39 0.0% 0 0.0% 39 0.0% 0.0% YARD WASTE 23,059 11.0% 10,839 52% 33,696 172% 52% WOOD WASTE 12,861 6.1% 6,046 2.9% 18,906 9.6% 2.9% CONSTRUCTION CONCRETE 699 0.3% 592 0.3% 1,291 0.7% 0.3% ASPHALT 38 0.0% 32 0.0% 70 0.0% 0.0% DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 1,945 0.9% 1,616 0.8% 3,591 1.6% 0.8% ROOFING 756 0.4% 0 0.0% 756 0.4% 0.0% DRYWALL 521 02% 0 0.0% 521 0.3% 0.0% MIXED 14,106 6.7% 0 0.0% 14,106 72% 0.0% OTHER DIAPERS 2,476 12% 1,650 0.8% 4,125 2.1% O.B% MISCELLANEOUS 56,935 27.1% 6,726 92% 63,661 32.3% 32% SPECIAL WASTES 310 0.1% 699 0.3% 1,008 0276 0.3% TOTALS 148,134 61,045 210,179 26.9% TONS DNERSION SOURCE REDUCTION 1,650 O.B% RECYCLING 41 A11 19A% COMPOSTING 16,665 6.0% SPECIAL WASTE 69B 0.3% 61,045 29.0% REMOVAL OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL FROM RECYCLABLE WASTE STREAM 524% REMOVAL OF WOOD AND YARD WASTE FROM WOOD AND YARD WASTE STREAM 32.0% •. CHLVST2.W01 CITY OF CHULA VISTA 2000 WASTE GENERATION COMPOS1110N FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS WITH SRRE IIiPLEMENTED DISPOSED DNERTED GENERATED DNEFRED WEIGHT t~ x wEwHr ~ x wEIGHr r~ x x PAPER CARDBOARD 13,550 62% 14,341 6.8% 27,M1 7.7% 6.8% NEWSPAPER 1,602 0.7% 7,676 9.5% 9,178 4.5% 9.5% MDCED PAPER 2519 12% 10,793 5.0% 19,312 6.4% 5.0% HG LEDGER 484 02% 2402 1.1% 2688 1.4% 1.1% COMPUTER D 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% PLASTIC FILM PLASTIC 670 0.9% 3,323 1.5% 9,992 20% 1.5% HARD PLASTIC 644 0.1% 4,059 1.9% 1,963 24% 1A96 GLASS 1,036 0.5% 4,424 20% 5,462 2.6% 2.0% METALS TIN CANS 408 02% 2,025 0.8% 2,433 12% 0.9% ALUMINUM CANS 219 0.1% 966 02% 605 02% 02% MISC. METALS 40 0.0% 0 D.0% 40 0.0% 0.0% YARD WASTE 5,499 25% 29,509 13.6% 35,009 17.2% 13.8% WOOD WASTE 3,067 1.1% 16,459 7.8% 1D,526 9.8% 7.6% CONSTRUCTION CONCRETE 223 0.1% 1,110 0.5% 1,933 0.7% 0.5% ASPHALT 12 D.0% 80 0.0% 73 0.0% 0.0% DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 622 0.3% 3,067 1.4% 9,709 1.8% 1.4% ROOFING 781 0.4% 0 D.0% 781 0.4% 0.0% DRYWALL 538 02% 0 0.0% 538 0.3% 0.0% MOCED 14,568 6.7% 0 0.0% 14,568 72% 0.0% OTHER DIAPERS 1,078 0.5% 9,182 1.5% 4,261 2/% 1.5% MISCELLANEOUS 58,732 27.0% 7,015 32% 65,747 32.3% 32% SPECIAL WASTES 391 02% 699 0.3% 1,090 02% 0.3% TOTALS 106,837 110,449 217,286 50.8% TONS DNERSION SOURCE REDUCTION 3,182 1.5% RECYCLING 80,601 27.9% COMPOSTING 45.968 212% SPECAL WASTE 699 0.3% 110,449 50.8% REMOVAL OF RECYCLABLE MATEAIAL FROM RECYCLABLE WASTE STREAM 73.6% REMOVAL OF WOOD AND YARD WASTE FROM WOOD AND YARD WASTE STREAM d1.3'A CHLV5T2W01 TABLE 8-3 CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISPOSAL CAPACITY NEIDS ANALYSES EAR DISPOSAL QUANTITY' (TONS) CAPACITY NEEDS= (CY) CAPACITY NEEDS CUMULATIVE (CY) 1990 179,986 359,972 359,972 1991 183,582 367,164 727,136 1992 174,595 349,190 1,076,326 1993 164,763 329,526 1,405,852 1994 157,185 314,370 1,720,222 1995 149,134 298,268 2,018,490 1996 138,226 276,452 2,294,942 1997 127,601 255,202 2,550,144 1998 117,842 235,684 2,785,828 1999 114,970 229,940 3,015,768 2000 106,837 213,674 3,229,442 2001 107,784 215,568 3,445,010 2002 108,731 217,462 3,662,472 2003 109,678 219,356 3,881,828 2004 110,636 221,272 4,103,100 2005 111,583 223,166 4,326,266 2006 112,531 225,062 4,551,328 'Incorporates projected reduction in the wastestteam from recycling activities 2Assumes 1000 pounds per cubic yard in-place density STATE OF CAI~FORNIA CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD seoo ~i center Orir< Sacramento, Califomie 95826 Stephanie Snyder Principal Management Assistant City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Pete Wilson, Go.emor June 2, 1992 RE: Board Comments on Preliminary Draft eourc• Reduction and Recycling Element (SAKE)- and Household Hazardous waste Elemeat (SBWE) Dear Ms. Snyder: Please find below comments by staff of the California Integrated waste Management Board (the Board) on the Preliminary Draft Source Reduction and Recycling Element (BARE) and Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) prepared for the City of Chula Vista. Staff reviewed the Elements for compliance with Public Resources Code (PAC) Section 40000 et seq. and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Chapter 9, Planning Guidelines and Procedures for Reviewing and Revising Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans (The Guidelines). Those comments which reference the PRC or CCR pertain to mandatory requirements and should be fully addressed in the final SRRE. Comments which request clarification, additional information, or definition of terms should also be addressed in the final Element. Other comments or recommendations are provided for your consideration. Staff found the HHWE to be acceptable and have no comments on this document. Comments on the SRRE are provided below. These comments generally refer to issues which are common to most jurisdictions in San Diego County. They focus on the initial Solid Waste Generation Study (SWGS). Comments on Initial Solid waste lianeration Btudy 8ummarp of Commeata Staff found the SWGS to be insufficient in terms of providing the data and information required by CCR Section 18722 (Solid Waste Generation Studies--General Requirements) and CCR Section 18724 (Additional Requirements and Guidelines for the Initial Solid Waste Generation Study). Specifically, the SWGS requires more precise information on the composition, quantities and diversion of waste for the City. Also, it is unclear that the information presented in the SWGS constitutes a representative determination of the solid wastes generated, diverted and disposed within and by the City as required by CCR Section 18722(h)(2)(A). Y - PMfOd tNi Recyeled PlPef City of Chula Vista SRRE & HHWE Review June 2, 1992 Page 2 lethodology of 8WG8 Paged 2-31 (Methods IIsed For Solid Wast• Characterisation): This section describes the methodology which was used to determine the quantity and composition of solid waste disposed by the City. The methodology involved two separate activities. First, a hauler survey was conducted to determine how much total waste, in tons, was being disposed by the City at County landfills. The second activity involved identifying and allocating waste disposed by sector based upon truck type. Please explain how this methodology and associated assumptions provides a solid waste generation study which is representative of all residential, commercial, industrial and other sources of generation within the City, as required by CCR Section 18722 (h) (2) (A) , Please describe the sampling methodology for the waste sorts which were conducted at local landfills to characterize the City's waste stream. The description should include the number of samples collected, the approximate weight of the samples, and how the data specific to the City was disaggregated from the regional data, as required by CCR Sections 18722(f)(5), 18722(h) and 18724(b). Please provide an outline of the system which the City will use to gather data on the quantities and composition of solid waste generated, diverted and disposed as required by CCR Section 18722(0). Waste Generated Please identify in the SWGS the solid waste generated, by waste category and type, as required by CCR Section 18722(j), Page 2-10 (Public Services and IItilities): Please note that the base amount of solid waste from which diversion levels are calculated should not include sludge, according to PRC Section 41781(b)(5). With the passage of AB 1520 (Sher, 1991), the Board has until July 1, 1992 to determine if sludge will qualify for diversion credit. Since sludge may count toward diVErS10A In the future, the Clty should identify sludge generation in its initial solid waste generation study, as required by CCR Section 18724(d), but not include it in the waste generation equation contained in CCR Section 187229(g)(2). Pages 2-26 E 2-29 (per Capita Solid Wasts Generation Rated): The estimated future solid waste disposal quantities for the City were based on an estimated present disposal rate of 7.3 pounds per person per day. Please explain the methodology and assumptions used to produce this estimate so that it represents all residential, City of Chula Vista SRRE & HHWE Review June 2, 1992 Page 3 commercial, industrial and other sources of waste generation in the City, as required by CCR Section 18722(h). Waste Disposed The waste disposal information contained in Tables 2-8 and 2-9 does not identify the waste categories and types that are required by CCR Section 18722(j). Please disaggregate the "Glass", "Hard Plastic", and "Mixed Construction" categories into the required waste types. It is noted on Table 2-9 that the ^Other Misc." category represents 32.7 percent of the disposed waste and contains multiple waste categories and types, such as "non-ferrous" metals, "inert materials", and "natural" and "synthetic textiles." This approach to waste characterization limits the City's ability to identify and target waste types with diversion potential. For example, the City cannot count for diversion those waste types contained in the "Other Misc." category because those waste types have not been "identified" in the SWGS, as required by CCR Section 18724(d). Specifically, the City cannot count materials such as tires, food waste, or non-ferrous metals. Waste Diverted Pages 2-13 (Diversion Practices): Please provide data from the recently completed diversion survey. Also, please report diverted material by weight, by waste category and waste type, and by source of generation within the City as required by CCR Section 18722(1). Page 2-23: Table 2-4 lists 4.8 tons of "Organic (food wastes)" as being commercially recycled. This category should also be listed on other tables throughout the SRRE to claim it for diversion credit. Comments On Other Components of the SRRE Disposal Facility Capacity Component Please include in this component a solid waste facilities need projection which estimates the additional disposal capacity, in cubic yards per year, needed to accommodate anticipated solid waste generation within the City foz a 15-year period commencing in 1991, as required by CCR Section 18744(b). The ^Disposal Capacity Needs Analysis" included in the City's SRRE is for the County of San Diego. ,. City of Chula Vista SRRE & HHWE Review June 2, 1992 Page 4 Monitoring and Evaluation of Programs Before program monitoring begins, the City should set limits, levels, or thresholds for the criteria identified in the Recycling Component. Without such specific quantitative standards, progress toward the component objectives and overall diversion goals may be difficult to track. If you have questions, please call me at (91G) 255-2555, or John Nuffer, at (916) 255-2310. Sincerely, Judith J. Friedman, Manager Local Assistance Branch, South Section Planning & Assistance Division cc: Jack Doyle, Chairman, LTF Robert A. Hawfield, Jr., Project Manager, CDM Reed Bennett, San Diego County Public Works Department ,. November 30, 1992 TO: Lance Fry, Assistant Plnnner FROM: Stephanie Snyder, Principal Management Assistant SUBJECT: SRRE Review- Revisions to Potential Development Data Thank you for your suggested changes to the data and format of Table 2-3 (page 2-8) of the Draft SRRE you reviewed in November 1991. At that time, you provided corrected dwelling unit counts and a revised, more detailed, format. Your comment was that a more detailed inventory may better serve the program planning needs in the long run. You also felt it was helpful to have information on current commercial and industrial projects in Chula Vista and their status relative to the development approval process. As you know from our recent discussions, the legislation regarding requirements for implementing AB939 have been changing in the past year since your recommendations were made. In addition, the deadline for the submittal of the Countywide plan (which will incorporate Chula Vista's SRRE) has been extended beyond the January 1994 date. Because of these changes, I am recommending to the City Council that the SRRE be adopted with a few amendments, subject to future legislation and updated information. I am including this memo as part of the attachment which will go on to the County. It will serve as a reminder to check the need to update the potential development data at the time the Countywide plan is recommended for adoption, if it is determined that data of this nature (in the format you have suggested) is still important to the SRRE for recycling program planning purposes.