Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1977/11/22 Item 13CITY OF CHULA VISTA COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. I3 For meeting of 11/22/77 ITEM TITLE Resolution#8900: Approving San Diego County Regional Solid Waste Management Plan SUBMITTED BY City Manager ~.=- ITEM EXPLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES_ NO X } The San Diego Regional Solid Waste Management Plan 1976-2000 is the product and requirement of the 1972 Nejedly/Z'berg/Dills Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act, which re- quired the State to establish and maintain comprehensive State solid waste management and resource recovery policies and programs. The legislation specified the primary responsibility for solid waste management and planning should rest with local government. In addition, primary responsibility for developing a plan rests with the County in that they were responsible for developing a waste management program for this region. (Exhibit I attached is a summary of San Diego Regional Solid Waste Management Plan, prepared by the County; and Exhibit II is comments by Dick Chase, Chula Vista's representative on the Finance & Organization Steering Committee.) In compliance with State statutes, the San Diego Board of Supervisors and the San Diego City Council entered into an agreement to form a City/County Solid lJaste Management Task Farce. In addition, both bodies appointed two advisory groups to assist the Task Force. The Solid Waste Advisory Group was composed of 15 members representing the general public, public agencies, the private sector and various interested groups. The Technical Advisory Committee was composed of members representing the Comprehensive Planning Organization, the Comprehensive Health Plan- ning Association, and the San Diego County Disposal Association. In addition, a Finance & Organization Steering Committee was established, and representatives from various cities in the County, C.P.O., and the County Board of Supervisors were members. Chula Vista was represented on this Committee by Dick Chase, Sr., of the Chula Vista Sanitary Service. The Chula Vista City Council is now asked to formally approve and concur in a solid waste management plan that has evolved over the last 4 years. In adopting the resolution, you would be approving the plan and concurring in the following significant aspects of that plan: continued on Supplemental Page 2 rviirn,~-n ~nniDii~ Agreement Resolution X Ordinance_ Plat_ Notification List_ Other X - I & II ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on FINANCIAL IMPACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION P,dopt Resolution BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION COUNCIL ACTION A P P R O V E D by the City C rninci.l ci Chula Via~~~., Cz.:'_i'~~_~nia Da.i;e~ ~~__~~.-..77............_. Supplemental Page 2 Item No. 13 Meeting of 11/22/77 A. Objectives Set Forth in the Plan The objectives "provide a system for managing the generation, storage, collection, transporta- tion, reuse and disposal of solid waste in an economical manner which protects the public health and welfare, conserves natural resources and energy, minimizes littering and illegal dumping, and generally enhances the environment." The objectives are further refined into short, medium, and long term goals that are intended to meet the overall goals. B. Methods and Organization for Implementation of the Programs Contained in the Plan The methods for implementing programs contained in the plan are by no means definitive, nor has any real new organization been envisioned that would take responsibility for implementa- tion. The long delay in completing a solid waste management plan for this County resulted from serious differences of opinion between the County Board of Supervisors and the San Diego City Council relating to responsibility for implementation of the plan. The State legislation which required adoption of a plan probably envisioned greater centralization of responsibility for control and implementation than the San Diego regional proposed plan has provided. The City of San Diego has steadfastly refused, for various reasons, to relinquish their control over solid waste management in that city. As a consequence, the proposed plan leaves the County and each of the cities within the County basically free to control their own solid waste management programs, with the State Solid Waste Management Board exercising broad auth- ority in selecting sites suitable for the establishment of facilities for the conversion of solid waste into energy, synthetic fuels and other recovery methods where State financial assistance is to be provided. C. Financing Methods The plan does not propose financing methods much different than those existing at present, although the County, by recent action of the Board of Supervisors, has shifted much of the cost of operating disposal plants to the user rather than by taxation. The costs in the foreseeable future for the cities of San Diego and Oceanside will continue to be financed through a combination of dump fees and general fund monies. The plan does not really address the future costs or methods of financing resource recovery systems, although the County Department of Sanitation and Flood Control will continue to monitor State and Federal legis- lation concerning financing methods. D. Chula Vista's Role in Implementing Cooperative Effort for Solid Waste Management The planned disposal capacity for the City of Chula Vista, at least through 1995, permits continued control by the City of all solid waste activities within our boundaries. It does not, however, include any specific provision for a resource recovery facility in our area. The County Board of Supervisors and the City Council of San Diego have formally approved the plan as proposed. In order for State participation in the SCURRP (Harbor Drive Project), a regionally approved plan must be submitted to the State Solid Waste Management Board December 15, 1977 and, further, the Attorney General has threatened if a plan is not re- ceived by that date, judicial relief would be sought. In addition to the City of San Diego's approval, six other San Diego County cities must approve the plan before it can be submitted to the State. It is our belief that the plan, while far from perfect, by reason of a series of compromises, is a step in the right direction and should be approved. There is little in the plan that would have any adverse impact upon the City and, while the plan may not really accomplish a great deal toward the management of solid waste on a regional basis, it does represent a collection of valuable data and provides a vehicle for greater cooperation on a voluntary basis of all local agencies within the County. • ° (, ~ ~ POLICY ISSUE SLP4D7ARY EXHIBIT I FOR THE SAN DIEGO REGIONAL SOLID {+lASTE DMINAGEMENT PLAN The significant elements of the San Diego Regional Solid waste Management Plan include the following provisions: 1. Solid {9aste Collection. Each city will retain control of solid waste collection within its own jurisdiction. The County will retain responsibility £or collection management for the unincorporated areas of the County. 2. Disposal. The cities of San Diego and Oceanside will continue to operate disposal sites r•rithin their respective jurisdictions. The County of San Diego will be responsible for all solid rvaste disposal facilities within the County. Between the present and 1983, it is proposed that additional landfill capacity be obtained through the establishment of a north coastal landfill, replacements for the existing Bonsall, Oceanside, South Chollas, and North Miramar sites. 3. Resource Recovery. 1'he County will emphasize a shift from sanitary landfilling, as the primary means of disposal, to im~rlementation of major resource recovery systems. The County Department of Sanitation and Flood Control will assume responsibility for implementation and control of all resource recovery facilities. It will carry out the existing program for demonstration of a 200 ton-per-day facility in E1 Cajon, and will expand resource recovery efforts to include an S00-ton-per-day processing/transfer facility in Ure north coastal area and a major resource recovery facility to serve the metropolitan area, if outside funding can be obtained. Also proposed are a facility to replace the Jamacha landfill and additional facilities as they become feasiUle. 4. Advisory Bady. T}re County Board of Supervisors will consider the establishment of a solid waste advisory committee to advise the Board on solid waste regulatory standards, facility plans, financing, and other solid waste issues affecting the County. S. Financing. No change is proposed in the financing mechanisms for the solid waste activities of incorporated cities. Significant changes in County solid waste financing is, however, proposed. All direct and indirect costs and minor improvements of County Coastal Region solid waste facilities will be supported Uy duntpirg fees. Purchases of real property and major capital improvements which add to property value will continue to be financed Uy general fund revenues. Interior Region solid haste disposal system costs will be supported by a combination of Land Use Fees and general tax revenues. G. Enforcement Programs. The solid waste enforcement program presented in the Plan is consistent with the actions taken by the County Board of Superi~isors and City Councils pursuant to AB 2}39. I ` 2 7. Litter Control. The County twill assume responsibility for regional coordination of litter control activities. ACounty-appointed Regional Litter Coordinator twill coordinate with area cities anti-litter efforts by local citizens and community organizations, encourage volunteer litter clean-up and anti-litter educational activities, seek Federal and State funding for litter control programs, and promote enforcement of litter laws. S. Waste Reduction. The County will establish progrvns for reducing solid tivaste generation through public education and volunteer community action and by supporting legislation aimed at reducing the quantity of waste being generated. EXHIBIT II CHULA VISTA SANITARY SERVICE, INC. 311 F Street Post Office Box 967 Chula Vista, California 92012 (714) 427-7700 November 14, 1977 Mr. Gene Asmus City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca, 92010 Dear Mr. Asmus: :,Cf. The following information and comments are offered in response to your verbal request for comment on the San Diego Regional Solid Waste Management Plan: 1. The County of San Diego and .the City of San Diego have for- mally approved the plan. 2. In resolution 77-88, Oct, 20, 1977, (copy attached)the State Solid LVaste Management Board notified the City and County of San Diego that (a), state participation in the SCURRP (Harbor Drive) project is conditioned on submittal of a regional plan by December 15, 1977, and (b ),judicial relief would be sought by the Attorney General if the adopted plan is not received by that date. 3. Our comments relative to the plan are attached, This opportunity to assist in your review of the plan is appreciated. Please let us know if you desire additional information or clarifica- tion. Yours truly, r' D ck F. Chase Sr. L ~~ ~'- CHULA VISTA SANITARY SERVICE, INC. atth: (2) SAN DIEGO REGIOATAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSIDERATIONS General: In our opinion, the October 7, 1977 version of the subject plan falls short of achieving the overall goal of the plan, as outlined on Page II-1, in that it fails to provide a substantial program for effectively coor- dinating solid waste disposal activities, eliminating duplication of effort, and taking full economic advantage of combined disposal operations. These deficiencies exist as a result of the failure of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the San Diego City Council to reach agreement on a reasonable division of authority and responsibility for a joint pro- gram. The plan does make provision for possible future mitigation of these de- ficiencies, (Item 10, Page II-27), but we have little confidence that early agreement will be reached. Approval Resolution: Outlined below are our comments on the individual factors that city governing bodies are asked to consider when taking a stand on the plan: Objectives: In our opinion, the outlined objectives include all of the major issues that should be included. Implementation Methods: The programs for planning, enforcement, generation reduction, storage, collection, transportation, and litter reduction are considered acceptable. The program for resource recovery should be more specific for areas outside the service areas of planned facilities. The program for disposal management fails to take advantage of sub- stantial cost reductions that could result from regionally managed operations. Financing Methods: The broad plans that include the use of property tax and other governmental funds to support planning, administration, litter control, and similar activities is considered appropriate, but we feel that user-fees or other forms of service-oriented charges should be imposed to cover the costs of all types of solid waste opera- tions activities, including the ammortization of facility costs. The recommendation for maximum utilization of user fees is based on our belief (1 ). that direct charges for services performed result in fair apportionment of costs and (2). self-supported operations provide adequate records that may be utilized in determing the economic feasibility of future re- source recovery projects. Role of the City of Chula Vista: The plan includes planned disposal capacity for the City of Chula Vista at least through 1995. The plan permits continuing control, by the City of Chula Vista, of all solid waste activities within the City. The plan does not include specific provision for resource recovery facilities in the Chula Vista area. City of Chula Vista Decision: It would appear that the decision facing your City Council is whether supporting or rejecting the plan will put the City of Chula Vista in the better position to influence future developments. STATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD ' RESOLUTION 77-g8 DESIGNATING FINAL SELECTION OF PROJECTS ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERTIMENT CODE SECTION 66786, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO r10TIFY THE LEGIS].ATURE OF SUCH FINAL SELECTIOTd WHEREAS, Section 66786 of the California Government Code requires the State Solid Waste Management Board to select not later than July 1, 1977, ors or more sites that are suitable for the establishment of facilities for the comrersion of solid waste into energy, synthetic fuels, and for the recovery of materials which can be operational b,~ January 1, 1981; and WHEREAS, the State Solid Waste Management Board has considered written and verbal testimony presented by site propor~ nts at the Board meeting of June 10, 1977; arn3 WHEREAS, by Resolution 77-61, adopted June 21~, 1977, the State Solid Waste Management Board selected sites proposed by (listed in alp}rabatical order) the City of Alameda, the Central Contra Costa Sanitation District, Humboldt County, the County Sanitation District of Ins Angeles, the City of Sacramento, the County of San Bernardino (Colton site), the County of San Bernardino (Fontana site), the City of San Diego, the City and County o£ San Francisco, the City of San Jose, the Ventura, Regional County Sanitation District, and the k~stern Refuse Hauling, Inc., for further consideration by the Board of the adequacy of their conformance with the criteria of fiction 66786 of the California Government Code for eventual recommendation to the legislature in l~cembsr 1977; arri WHEREAS, further consideration of the above sites was provisional upon the project sponsor's suhnittal o£ supplementary information by October 1, 1977 as well as upon other conditions included in the Board's SB 1395 Advisory Committees report accompanvine Resolution 77-61; and k~rIEREAS, the supplementary information sutmitted has been reviewed by staff and by the SB 1395 Advisory Committee composed of representatives of the State Solid Waste Management Board, Air Resources Board, California Pollution Control Financing Authority, State Water Resources Control Board' aryl State Energy Resources Conservation aril Development Commission; and WHEREAS, the Counties of San Diego and Los Ar~eles and their incorporated cities have failed to submit to the Board adopted county solid waste management plans as required by Government Code Section 66780 ; NOW, TdEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the State Solid Waste Manage- ment Board finds a demonstrated n:.ed for solid waste-to-energy projects, and that the projects nominated sho~.a merit in meeting that need; arri BE IT FURTYfE[t RESOLVED that the State Solid Waste t;anagerr:nt Board selects the projects proposed by (listed in alphabetical order) the City of Alameda, the Central Contra Costa Sanitation District, Humboldt County, the County Sanitation District of Los Angeles, the City of San Diego, arzi the City Page 2 Resolution 77-g$ and County of San Francisco to be included in the funding plan aryl recommendation to be sutmitted to the legislature in accordance with fiction 66786 of the (',ervernment Code of the State of Californian provided that each of the identified projects fulfills the corrlitions listed in the attached committee report; and BE IT FURTf{ER RESOLVED that the remaining six projects not now selected under SB 1395 have merit and potential for erg ray conversion, ark that the Board recognizes the efforts by proponents of (listed in alphabetical order) the City of Sacramento, the County of San Bernardino (Colton and Fontana sites), the City of San Jose, the Ventura Regional County Sanitation District, and Western Refuse Hauling, Inc., and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVID that the State Solid Waste tanagement Board wi]1 consider these projects for fhnding under provisions of ~ 650; and BE IT FURTH~? RESOLVID that the State Solid S~7aste Management Board staff is directed to develop a long-term financing and implementation program t© allow phased construction and operation of the projects selected, as well as projects which may reach the implementation stage at a later date; aryl BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED that the Executive Officer notify the Legislature and site proponents of the State Solid Waste Management Board's action regarding Section 66786 of the Goverment Code; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVID that the selection of the City of San Diego arrd the Ips Angeles County Sanitation District proposals are each conditior~d on the presentation to the Board by Decem'rsr 15, 1977} of adopted county solid waste management plans; and BE IT F[1??THER RESOLVID that if by December 15, 1977, adopted San Diego County and Los Angeles County Solid l'daste h^.anagement Plans have not been presented to the Board, the F:~ct;tive Officer is directed to inform the legislature that the proposal associated V;ith th°_ county or counties having no such plan is not selected Uy the Board; and BE IT FURTHID RESOLVID that the Executive Officer is authorized to reiquest the Attorney Ge:~eral to seex judicial relief should an adopted San Diego County Solid Waste Management Plan not be presented to the Board by. L~cember 15, 19'77. C~2TIFICATION Tn!e undersigned Executive 0£ficer of the State Solid Y!aste Management Board does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a resolu- tiion duly and regular],y adopted at a meeting of the State Solid Waste Management Board held on October 20-1/ 1977. Dated: ~C~ 2 ~ ~g~T Alt~rt A. Marino COC~fITTEF.' REPORT ACID RECOMMIIJDATIOi.S Z. Introduction At its June 23-24, 1977, meeting, the SS4T~ selected 12 refuse-to-energy projects for further consideration. Project proponents were asked to supply additional information on their projects by October 1, 1977. The committee and Board staff have reviewed this information, and, based on lthe criteria set by the committee's June 23 report, recommend projects ,for inclusion in the Board's report to the Legislature as required by SB 1395 by December 31, 1977. II. Pro,iect Recommendation After reviewing all available data on the nominated projects, the committee and staff recommend that the following projects be forwarded to the Legislature. These projects most consistently meet the criteria set by Wovernment Code Section 66786 (SB 1395). However, the committee and staff recommend that certain conditions should be fulfilled for each recommended project as described below: it of Alameda: Successful demonstration of final feasibility through he BASWNIP Phase II study. central Contra Costa Sanitation District: Successful demonstration that ufficient wastes will be committed to the project. ~Iumboldt County: Resolution of uncertainties connected with the supply of Vtoodwaste, the definition of energy revenue escalation, aid the involvement q£ the private sector waste management industx^,~. bounty Sanitation District of Los Angeles: Completion of a detailed 'easibility investigation, ti•,hich ans:aers the technical and marketing uncertainties still existing. Qity of San DiePO: Adoption of the cou:ay solid waste management plan; evelopment of alternative concept proposed by Ke1co~Teledyne to the Same level of detail as the Phase II-A report for the Southern California urban Resource Recovery Project, if this alternative concept is actively pursued, itv and County of San Francisco: Successful demonstration of final easibility through the BAS'ivT:P Phase II study. , General conditions to be met by all recommended projects: 1{. Resolution o£ the problem of required disposal sites and procedures ', for residual ash. Class I disposal sites mey be required for much of residual material generated by energy projects, ?~. Recognition of the desirability and compatibility of source separation programs with the overall operation of the project, 31. Demonstration of actions required for coarpliance with local air pollution control strategics. -~ jThe abovementioned projects. have indicated a wide range of state support '(financial and otherwise) desired. The report to the Legislature in !December 1977 should as a minimum, include the following items: Reasonable schedules for implementation of most projects extend beyond January 1, 1981. More realistic target dates for operation should be provided by the Legislature. Ftr11 utilization of Government Code Section 68046 (SB 650) funds for planning, engineering, and startup for these projects; expansion of this funding source, if needed. State financial underwriting of extra air emission control measures necessary to achieve permits to construct and operate. '~ Construction loan (low-interest) program for public agencies. The Board staff will continue to work with project proponents to assist in Ithe development of adequate information and the removal of institutional barriers to project implementation. The Board recognizes that these projects represent a very wide range of iproven feasibility and project development, as follows: Ventura Regional County Sanitation District: Significant progress in study; needs better definition of markets, cannot proceed without I significant construction grants. '~ City of Sacramento: Preliminary study completed; markets not well defined. Joint Powers Agreement needed before study can begin. Strong local support from City Council. '~ Western Refuse Hauling, Inc.: Concept for small scale combustion units is attractive; project needs much better definition of total engineering concept, costs, and markets. County of San Bernardino-Fontana Site: Proposed study not yet started. Federal ER.DA decision expected Vrithin two to three months. '~ City of San Jose: Study just begun. Concept proposal not yet defined. IVTo cost data. (' County of San Bernardino-Colton Site: Project report completed. County intends to develop Further data to see if cost effective feasibility can be demonstrated.