Item 6 - 1986 Revision of San Diego Regional Solid Waste Management PlanAGENDA REPORT
CITY OF PO WAY
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
F'RQM:: James L. Bowersox, City Nana
INITThTED BY: Alan D. Archibald, Director of Public, Services/City Engineer(
Patrick Foley, Assistant to the City Manager-:
DATES December 9, 1986
SUBJECT: 1986 Revision of San Diego Regional Solid Waste Management Plan
ABSTRACT:
State law requires that the County's Solid Waste Management Plan bereviewed
and/or revised at least every three years to be consistent with state. policy.
In addition, the Solid Waste Management Plan revision must be approved by the
Board of Supervisors and a.majority of the incorporated cities in the region.
The. Poway City Council has been, requested to approve: the 1986 revision to the
plan, by resolution. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
BACKGROUND:
In San Diego County, the Board of Supervisors is responsible for solid waste
nenagenent and planning. The Board is also responsible for maintaining and.
updating the mandated, Regional Solid Waste Management Plan (SW) in con—
junction with the incorporated cities in the county. The Board of Supervisors
has designated. the County's' Department. of Public Works (DPW).. as the lead
agency for accomplishing this task.
Two Committees participated in the revision process: a Technical. Advisory
Committee comprised of representatives of the solid waste industry and
appropriate management agencies, and a Citizens Advisory Committee comprised
of a representative of each city and each Supervisorial' District.
FINDINGS
The 1986 Revised Plan consists of the following six chapters:
Chapter I - Overview of the Study Area
Effective management of solid waste requires identification of those characteristics
which influence regional solid waste generation and disposal patterns. This
ACTION:
DEC 9 1&& t cv
i
i
San Diego Regional Solid waste- Management plan
Page 2'
Decenber 9, 1986
l
F
Chapter identifies the political and demographic makeup of the -region as
`impacts
it solid waste management.
Cha ter II - storage... Collection, and Transportation
On a day-to-day basis, storage and collection are the solid waste management
functions which Trost immediately and directly affect the lives of the
ni's
residents. This Chapter describes waste storage, collection, and transportation
practices in San Diego County.
Chapter III - Waste :Generation -and Disposal
This Chapter concerns waste generation and disposal in the County. A forecast
of solid waste volumes to the.Year 2000 is included as well as a review of
existing disposal facilities and their anticipated closure dates. Based on
_current generation rates and available landfill capacity, the coastal region
will be without a landfill within 12 years.
Chapter IV' - Enforce xant
Enforcement of solid waste regulat�ons is necessary to ensure; that the Statel's
minimum standards for solid waste storage,,,, collection, and disposal are met..
Enforcement of regulations in San.Diego County is generally satisfactory.,
No significant -problems have been observed in waste collection and disposal
operations.;
The -Plan -calls out the needforthe County and its cities to continue to
review their enforcement and prevention programs, and update them.as necessary.
Chapter V -- Resource Recovery, Processing and. Reuse
This Chapter discusses resource recovery activities in the.region. Currently,
nearly forty conmercial buy-back and voluntary drop-off centers.accept such
recyclable materials as glass, aluminum,; newspaper and ferrous metals.. Three`
cities have also established separate collection programs. An estimated 5a
of the waste generated in the San Diego Region is recycled_
Chapter VI - Finance and Administration
This Chapter'summar zes existing solid waste,.managementresponsibilities and
financing practices within the San Diego Region. It. also describes alternative
organizations and agencies which could be used to met the region's solid waste
needs, should.a change in the existing practices be desirable.,
2 of 2, 3 OFC 9' 1986 11, t 1vt
f
San Diego Regional Solid Waste Management Plan
Page 3
December 9, 19$6'
As of�these Chapters,. an implementation schedule which identifies
t
those items: to be accomplished during the next three -years and management
goals, are contained in the attached. Executive S nuTery (Attachment 1)
RECON MMMATI V
Itis recommended that the City. Council adopt. the attached resolution,
.Attachment 2) approving the 1986 revision to the San Diego Regional Solid
Waste Management Plan. r+
JM :ADA.:PF :pq
Attachments (2)
}
-
I
s=+i}.),).i.t.;::j.a:+.a..:•.•;sr.r•.r.:x•. ,-..,...•-....,qr.r.cx•:x•�snwa,axxnsnrrnnasnnr.+....*..
C
Attachment
1 6 ISIOM OF DI I SOLID
SMM
State law Government Code f 66780): requires that each county prepare a plan
.a addressing solid waste management. issues within: the region.
.
ervi sors i res onsi blZ for sol i d:. waste.
Sane Diego County, the Board of Supervisors p
.In
management and planning in the region and is s. responsible for maintaining' and.
updating the mandatedr Regional Solid` Taste Management Plan (CoS1+IMP) in
conjunction with the incorporated: cities in the regiono- The -board of
Supervisors has designated the County'sDepartment of Public Works (DPW) as
lead agency for accomplishing this, task. `
State law. also requires that the CoSWMP be reviewed. and revised, if
appropriate,, at least every, three. years and revised where necessary to be
. consistent with state, policy. The initial CoSWMP was approved: in. 1977 and
revised i n 1982
On October. 29, 1986 ('29, they County Board of , Supervisors directed DPW to:
transmit the: proposed scope of the revision of ,the 1982' Revised CoSWMP to the
4`
California`Waste Management' Board (CWMB),for approval. This Plan Review Report.
contained input frc all incorporated cities in. the region.: The, Plan Review
Report wasapproved by the.CWMMB on Mar&139 1986.
Two committees participated i n the revs si on process: a Technical, Advisory
Committee, comprised of, representatives of` the solid waste industry and:
appropriate management agencies, and a Citizens Advisory Committee, comprised
t of a representative of each city and each Supervisorial District. DPW met with
Committee: members on a regular basis to review the: progress of the Plan
Revision effort.
The 1986 Revised Plan consists of six chapters which are identified and
summarized below. It also includes an Implementation ora Schedule which i dents fires
those items to be accomplished during the next three years, as well 'as
mianag nt goals that are continuing and long-range, and: a summary of goala
identified in t�:2 previvu_ plan that been acc�hi.shed between 19M and...
r
this Revision..
.. DEC' 9 1986 i
EIM
4 of 23
Discussion of hazardous wastemanagement issues in the region, including:
generation, storage, collection and disposal, are not a part of the 1986
Revised Phan. A separate comprehensive Hazardous Waste Element (HWE) was
prepared andapproved by the Board of Supervisors and a11 incorporated cities
in the Region in 1983 and approved by the State Department of Health Services
on January 13, 1984.
The next revision of the Hazardous Waste Element of the Regional Solid Waste
Management Plan is scheduled to begunin 1987.
of 2 3'
CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY AREA
Effective management of solid waste requires identification of those character-
istics. which influence regional solid waste generation and disposal Patterns-
This
atterns.This Chapter identifiesthe political and demographic makeup of the region as
itimpacts solid waste management.
The County of San Diego continues as the designated regional solid waste
management and planning agency and is responsible for maintaining the
State -mandated Solid Waste Management Plan. Disposal responsibility for the
entire region has been assumed by the County and the City of San Diego since
1975, when the. City of Oceanside ceased landfill operations.
Operational functions and regulatory controls in the unincorporated areas of
the County are administered by the County. County ordinances are enforced by
the Departments of Public Works,. Health Services and Planning and: Land Use.
Enforcement of city ordinances andpolicies is the responsibility of the
individual city. All cities in the region have used their authority to develop
general policies ' governing the storage and collection of solid: waste. Cities
must recognize their responsibility to cooperate with the County in providing
disposal capacity for the waste generated by its citizens and cooperate with
the County in landfillsiting and development efforts.
DEC 9 1986 ITEM 6
3 _®
Both, papulation and per capita generation rates have been increasing fester
982 Revised Plan. This continues a trend identified s
than predicted, in the 1 eneration:
in the first rev, For 'the period of X975 to S9D2, per capita g
r person per years Since then,:
however the. per
remained at about 11 tons Pe pe
creased by nearly 10% per yearso
:, that in 195
capita.generation. rate has increased: waste.
F generated an estimated 1.455 tons of solid
each person
generation on rate is
one: of the. reasons ons for this increase in per capita►' waste g
i ti on: of the last four years which has resulted, i n
they improved economic coed consum tions of goods.
increased: housing starts and overall P
fPORTATIONATI
It h 6E, COLLECTION AND: TRANS
CHAPTERsolid waste. management
on a day-to-day basis, storage : and
collection are the
and' directly affect: the lives of the region `s
foncti'ons which most. immediately a
residents. This Chapter describes
waste storage9 collection and transportation'
practices� in San Diego County:
Storage, told ecti on and transpo
station of solid waste in San. Diego County are
by a variety
of` 1 i'ci es:. and proced�sres. The fundamental acti vit ,es
d
regulated: Po
the: political
accom 1 i shed to the g
are being Peneral satisfacti on of the public,
'However, as with any complex activity*
uri'sdictions
and private industry.:
th
ere: are: always areas that could be improved.
The Revi sed PI an i den es the need' to update County and city solid waste
standards;. and
management ordinances; implement eanent uni forrt� storage -and collection
lens to ensure that adequate serisces are
`nai ntai n collection contingency p E
available during, emergency situations
CHAPTER 111-
forecast, "Tlo�e AN® DISPOSAL
nand disposal in the County. A forecast.
This Chapter concerns �rag.Ce generati o.. included
as: wel as a review of
of solid waste volume
s to the year 2000 is
closure dates. Based on `
exist disposal facilities and their anticipated
current. generation rates and available landfill: capacitys the coastal region
11 be without a landfill within 12 years:.
wi
6 of 23 DEC 9 1986. ITEM,'
. L
7 of 2.3
UE( 9 1986 ITEM
4
Solid caste generation in San Diego continues to increase. Unless social: or
economic circumstances change, the rate of recycling Countywide will probably
remainat existing levels, approximately five percent of total quantities.
generatedin San Diego County. Volume reduction through: resource recovery
g. and
recycling will continue as the primary waste management challenge of this
century.
While landfilling, remains the primary method of disposing of, solid waste in
the County, efforts t® implement. two waste -to -energy projects in the region
the
are underway. Planned operational date for these projects is 1989. These
f'
projects., the North County Recycling: and Energy Recovery Center at *the County's
San Marcos Landfill and. the SANDER: Project at the City of San Diego's, Miramar
Landfi ll , wi 1 l reduce the amount ` of waste to be l andf� l ed, but vti hl not
eliminate the necessity for landfill capacity. Additional landfila capacity
will be needed to accept ash residue, non -processed waste -and waste in excess
of plant capacities.
The Plan identifies the need to site and permit a. least three new landfill
sites in; the region: i n the next: ,five years. The: County' i s currently eval uati ng
sites in the North. County as a fi rst pr. i ori ty to. identify fy a replacement
facility for the recently closed Uonsalll Landfill and provide future capacity
when the San Marcos Landfill closes in 1991. n evaluation of future landfill
sites to serve the, rural East county areas is underway, and' an; additional site
search for the City of San- Diego. is planned'. to identify, a replacement facility ,
for the Miramar Landfi is .
The cities, must work with the County to site and develop necessary solid: waste.
disposal faciaities to responsibly manage. the three million -ton annual: waste
strew—m generated. gay Sass Diego residents.
Additionally, the County and the City of San Di ego will identify and implement
operational and design changes-_ to extend the capacity of existing landfills,
and where possible, explore expansion of existiflg facilities by acquiring
additional property..
p
7 of 2.3
UE( 9 1986 ITEM
t32ttf2323i'ii2ititflitil�tititf2i ` , ._ ..; _,
Kitit�ititatitititititititititi:>ti2iti :Ka - - _ _ - - `
- _ i�iiiliSiSlilClilil1L1j1iNN..Ntti•s
CHAPTER IV ;- ENFORCEMM
Enforcement of solid waste 'regulations is necessary to ensure that. the. State's.
{ minimun: standards. for solid waste storage, collection. and disposal are met.
Enforcement of' regulations in San Diego County is generally sat :sfa dory.. No
significantproblems have been observed in waste: collection and: di posaI
operations
Most complaints receivedL by the various enforcement agencies- in'' San Diego
County, deal: with l i tter and illegal' dumping. Abatement of litter and. i l legal
dumping: can be extremely costly. The Titter, control. programa in, the. C. 'ty, of
Sant Diego. alone currently costs taxpayers ini excess- of one: m11i on dollars
annually. This cost would: be much, greater, if the current: abatement program
was not augmented by comma�nity group volunteers.,. participants in: the County
Probation Department alternative, sentencing program and the generous
participation. of the, trash haulers industry.'
In May,. 1986 the County Board of Supervisors adopted n a new.Summary, Abatement
Ordinance consolidating numerous provisions in- the County Code: that deal with
the; abatement of nuisances,, including litter and illegal dumping. The new
provisions allow the County to abate illegal: dumps on private property and
3 -
i
assess the property owner on property tax bills after,a hearing by a designated
hearing officer.
l More vigorous enforcement of regulations pertaining to litter and: waste s orage.
standards, could help, alleviate some of the litter probl"em6 Increased public.
t education regarding the true cost of littering and illegal dumping is also
necessary.:
The Plaa calls out, the need for. the County and its cities. to continue to review
their enforcement and prevention programs and update them as necessary.
CHAPTER Y - RCE" RECOVERY, PROCESSING AND REUSE
Resource recovery is any process that reclaims energy or, material's from:
municipal solid waste. Recovery of materials: --such as magnetic 'meta s, glass,.
paper, and non-ferrous metals; can be accomplished: by separation; at the: source,,
a
at intermediate. points such as, transfer, stations or at. integrated. processing.,
pants. Material for -which there is no current market or reuse potential can
be,turned into energy by a number of available technologies.;
H
a Of. 23 DEC 9 1986 ITEM
s _
x
titi:ititK.�,r::u+r:i+ta:tuKkir+t:ra,ruusrtrc>irir,tri:trcrtrc>utr:rcr:r2r�r�:.Kr:�wxxH>usu,+uu,;ua►eucu;�� _ ;- _ _ . _ .,;' K_;
stir+r►r,tilt,rui}alislia4rtrilirr:tViiwttUdt�L)itiyt:uiatstuftbtusW;tat,aapt++•� -
®6
This Chapter, discusses resource recovery activities in'the region. Current'y,
nearly forty commercial buy-back and voluntary drop-off centers accept such
recyclable:materials as .glass, aluminum, newspaper and ferrous metals. Three
cities have- also established 'separate collection, programs. An estimated 5%
of the wasfie generated_in the San Diego Regim is recycled.
Efforts. to -implement two waste -to -energy projects in the region: are underway.
The. proposed North County Recycling- and Energy Recovery Center at the County's
San Marcos Landfill will process an estimated 580,000 tons of solid' waste per
Y
year and generate enough energy to serve 409000 homes. The proposed SANDER.
Project, located at the City of San Diego's Miramar Landfi.119has been designed
to process. 68090.00: togas of solid waste per year and. generate enough energy, to
serve 60,000 homes.
The North: County facility has received. all applicable. local land use, and
operating permits and has been issued a solid waste facility permit from2 the.
Cal ifornta; Waste !Management Board. Legal chat ien9gs to the, valid ty of the:
a.
General Plan- designation. and land use permits for the: project have delayed.
start of_ construction. These challenges should. be remedied late this year -and
construction is expected to start early in 1987.
Since the SANDER Project will produce in excess of 50 megawatts: of ea.ectricity,,
It i's classified as: a thermal' power plant requiring; certification by the
California Energy Commiss on (CEC). CEC permitting guidelines require that
al applicable local and. state land'" use: and operating permits and environmental
review requirements be met prior to certification of the project. It is
anticipated that this certification, process will: be completed in 1987.
Successful implementation of these waste -to -energy projects along with_
I' continued' operation of existing regional recycling programs will reduce the
volume of` waste which must be landfilled. - Additional' programs will be
necessary to deal with the growing volume of solid waste which must be managed".
The Phan includes continued support for implementation of the North County and:
SANDER Projects as well as identifying the need to develop other resource..
recovery technologies as appropriate within_ the region.,
9 of 23 DEG 9 1986 1 t t iYi' ti
4^
t O:NNYNNlKWN1flNJflKlt. ♦. - •R . _ „..
-
CHAPTSt YI — R NIS TI
This Chapter, summarizes; existing: solid; waste management responsibilities and
financing practices within the San Diego Regions It also describes a-lternat1ve
gionorganizations and agencies which-could be used to turret the r°s olid waste
needs should a change in the existing practices be desirable.
Al cities and the County for the unincorporated area provide, a variety of
solid; waste, collection: and enforcement services. Funding sources for. these
services; are generally user fees. - Periodic, review ew of col i ecti:on rates allows
s that recovers the costs of these-_services.
for a rate setting process :ces
The Ci y and the County of San Diego are the only agencies currently providing
'i
I
sol i'd waste disposal services. The County's program i s° fu.1'ly fee funded. The
City's. program is funded through a combination of user fees: and general funds.
While adequate for existing, programs, increasing costs for disposal operations,
long - terra maintenance; and, to develop necessary replacement faci;l.iti`es may
require that new fundinq mechanisms be, identified.
i}
Siting future faelit:es whll requires the- cogperative efforts: of the County
and ail 18 cities. A review of existing mechanisms, is necessary to identify
the best organizational' structure and funding; areChanism to, ensure that disposal.capacity
is available: to meet the needs of the region when existing capacity
.; is exhausted.'
Organizational structures available include special districts, Joint power
E authorities,_ community service agencies and sanitation districts, funding
s
mechanisms. include user fees, service fees, -nand: use fees,, special assessment
districts; and gerseral funds.
P
t
DEC 9 1986 1 TE b
10 of= 23
San=RAN
SCHMUIE.j
19874MI
: Couttodas L ®Lud Entit3r 1 — Board 4W sons:
has 1 as'rea ble) S— 2 — • t. Of "Ifs marts
P icy Formation- 3 -of t�ith
4 — i62ais� panties,
5. - emirate
G
ACTION
?�'
®. 3
$ �
C _
Implement plan. P
L. S
L S
C
Review existing.solid waste financin P
g
L
L S.
mechanisms and pe�opose.appropriate changes.
3;
C
Monitor Solid haste Enforcement: Program*
l S-
!
4
C.
Reviewand update sol id waste contingency- P
L -S-
L S:
planting., programs as the need arises
_ a
FtP
5:
1990
Plan: review, and revision..
L S
S S
6;
1987
ConsiderConsidert establ ishment of a joint powers P
L
S S.
Sol Id haste Authority
-'
7
C
Update solid waste, management ordinances. '. P'
L S
L S
z VOi.1R9E,
k IOR
ACTION -
®._ 1,
21 3-
4
1
C
Continue. Implemtentatiow of Board. Policy I=76 P
L,
Solid Waste Disposes., Make,any necessary
recamendations for revision..
2
1990
Reviewconsultant`s recomsendatiow regarding
!
S
gravel -mining at. Sycamore:for,.possible
contract- operation.
3
19901
Investigate: the implementation- of gravel
! S
recovery at -the. Miramar Landfill
4
1987
Investigate- alternative disposal: methods
!
L S,
for used tires.. lm_nl'ement if appropriate
at landfills.
S
C
Continue waste- reduction commmitement `through: P
E, S
!,S S
a;. Publ is information: and education: .
programs;
b. Community action° Programs;
.
c. Support of waste reduction' legislation.
b
C
Assist in separate collection program. P
S`
L, L
implementation as requested.
7
E'
Assist and coordinate volunteer recycling
L
L®S L,S
progrm..
a
1987
Continue implementation of and [forth County P
L S
L; S
Recycling and Energy Recovery project.
9`
1987
Pursue permitting and local review of P
the ER Project.
S
L S
10
C`
Playa and implement. additional volute P
L
L.S S
reduction projects.
e
it
S
s
C
Establish composting pragi as app rfia
L,
L S
ff
LI of 23
DEC 5
i
1986 I T E M 6
TV
BAUM';
TUE
ACUON
H�
1_
Identify and establish sludge recYcling/
S S'. L S
comPosting facility in the. North Coumty.
13
1987
rt- development of alternative •e s
of sewage sludge. disposal and Support devel-
opwnt of wrkets for reclaimed. sludge.
P S. S P` S
14
C
Study technological advances in volume
P L 5 S S.
reduction.
is,1990
Promote, market development for reclaimed
S L L
product.
AND.
ACTION,STORAGE
TIM
ACTION
1 3 S
1
C:
Encourage implementation of improved storage
` S -
concepts during, planning stages for new. or
remodiled development.,
2
1987
Monitor Interior Zone solid waste rural
L
container sites and other facilities. for
efficiency and effectiveness.
an
®.
5
o
1
C
Maintain- right to. designate disposal
P L S L S,
facility as. a condition of collection
franchise or permit issuance.
2.
1987
Study- acquisition of additional: acreage at
P L L S
existing landfil (Borrego:; 0tal+ and
f
1i'
San MS's,
31
1987.-90.
InvestigatAt and implement volume enhance-
L L, S
ment at; existing facilities.: it feasible.
4:
1992
Establish North County and East County,
P L L S
replacement, facilities.
5
1989
Review need for reopening Palomar Transfer
P L S L S
Station as a Solid, waste facility.
S
1988L
Close. MontgomeryDemolition; Landfill.;
7
1987-90
Identify and establish Montgomery Landfill'
S L 5,
replacement facility.
8
1988-94
Identify and establish replacement facility
S L
for Miramar Landfill.;
9
e
Sup rt developmnt of alternative methods:
to landfilling
P L P`.S S
10`
1987
Pursue alternative 4eandl i ng of vehicle
P L L 5
abandonments.
11
1"7-891
Identify. andr establish landfills for -inert.
material and special'. wastes such as
P L ` 5
sludge: and nova -hazardous liquids.:
22
C
Maintain and; revise* the Solid haste
L S S
Allocation Model.
12 of 23' DEC 9 1S96 t t z. `•�.
ACM
AMW ®
®•-.
r+
_-,
13
1S*
Close . ill if lonlationsof
nwining: volume; docs not Indicate additional
capactt.
5.
14
90
Establish ill stOn.
L
S.
'r
15
1987-40
%plaint. activities necessary to bring
in"
L.
S
L;
faelities, on the OpengnVfttot7-
oaapllailm with-, Federal, standards.
f
L
&714W MWER.
TIME
#=on
I
C.
®exel op and; coordinate- anti -litter pmgrans.
L
L S
as requested..
E;
=;
g
C'
Support legislation aimed at reducing P'
1
5
!,` S.
litter.
I'
ON NUMBER,
�,;.
�,
4,` 5
EE
Reliew, LEA Plant and update, or� prepare
L.
S
L: S
_
as necessary.
-
1987
Cities,that. have no made LER. . designations
5;
S:
L. 5
shall `�' soe;
i
Sum=ry of Achiev nts `During 1982-1985
4
� f
NAN'Y - -
�2 1.
Conti nui ng' - Implement Plan.
he
The County and, incorporated cities continue to ill; nt t
and goals- included in the d Sot Waste Management Plan,
pot#cies
includingr pursueincreased recycling and. vol'ume, reduction;
replacement fact 1 i;ties provide ongoing'
identify and establish:
collection. programs,: monitor enforcement programs.?
2.
1982-1985 - Implement Industry, Advisory Committee Proposed by
Sari Diego County Disposal Association.,
A Solid, Waste Industry Coni ttee • was establ i shed in1982. The
feast. quarterly with Department of. Public
committee. meets at
Works staff to review proposed County, solid` waste management
`County s so] id
{
projects.. The Committee is supporti've of the
discussed, in the Plan and implemented in. each
waste programas
t
Ftscal Year's Spending Plan.
3..
1982 - 1985. - Review existing solid. waste financing mechanisms.
and: propose appropriate changes.
Existing; financing: mechanisms are adequate to provide i andf is l°
They w11 need': to be revised
a
disposal and maintenance services..
the costs of future fact 1 i ty repl acement..
to c®ver
4.
Continuing - Monitor Solid Waste Enforcement Program;
-
Solid waste enforcement activities- are generai.1y. adequate:. The:
has adopted uniform nuisanceabatement procedures
t
County recently
which: will result in improved' enforcement of titer and illegal,
dumping regulations in: the unincorporated areas.
5.
Continuing = Review and update solid waste contingency planning
programs as the need arises.
The County and the cities update their Procedures Manual as needed.
The cities also review and update contingency, plans as appropriate.
6.
1982 - 1985 - Plan review and revision.
The. County tautens and revises the Plan as necessary to be
consistent with State law.
?'.
1982 - 1992' - Consider establishment of a joint powers Solid
Waste Authority:
- ».•!?. •`:�:'l rF'r:�".�!f1_����ir'G^+.:,�1ai4;ea���/ t�Y.,'�,' `l ":ti. a
The cdunty and: the City of San'Diego. meet periodically to discuss
:-
solid waste management in: - regione The needy to propose a
Solid haste Authority is reviewed annually. When appropriates
it will bei pursued.
VOLUME REDUCTION
1.
Continuing; - Continue Implementation ntation of Board Policy I-76 - Solid
Waste: Disposal. Make any necessary recommendations- for revision.
The County and many of its cities promotevolume reduction through
their support of the DER and North County Recycling and: Energy
Recovery Center Projects- through support of buy-bask centers,
source separation programs and other community recycli`tag efforts;
and by providing, public information and,educatioa on recycling.
2.
1982 - 1985 - Develop methane recovery programs at landfills.
Methane recovery projects are underway at the County's Donsall,:
Otay. San Marcos and Sycamore Landfills. Recovery projects at
the. City's, Miramar and. Chollas Landfills, are either proposed
or being investigated for feasibility.
30
1.982 - 1985- - Seek contractor(s) for gravel mining; and/or' asphalt
production at. Sycamore.
The preliminary, report for the project indicated, a. depressed
aggregatee market in, San Diego- County,. in abundance, of -material
and relatively low demands Work on the project was suspended:..
The Department of Public Works will review, the ` project in 1990
to determine • whether market conditions are favorable to recommend:
implementation of _ the project.
.
1982 - 1.985 - Promote: the composting of tree trimmings; with `other
materials.
The7 City of San Diego has implemented a chipping program at their
Miramar Landfill.
5,
1982 - 1985 - Investigate slicing-or shredding used tires prior
to landfill disposal or processing..
No economical method of tine shredding exists nor are there markets:
ate: this time for l'Q�yE �uazti.tfes of Used tir*
6.
Continuing - Continue waste reduction programs:
a Public information and education ram. The City and County,
of San Diego- botft contract for public Information and education
programs.
reduce on ro ram}s
b. Community actionro rams . C ni ty waste programs:
Implemented, n. an D ego: my includes bay-back centers,
drop-off bins, thrift stores, door-4o-door c®11ec.tions, mite
15;of 23`
DEC 9 i986. IrTE 6
.>. - :. -.. _ ',�.'•' � .'�r�`/e�' '•�;iAfts.-ate;.
'
f •
office paper recycling, separate collectionprogr fee
exemption for qual,iified: clean up and rec ling parogr .
F.
c. Su rt waste reduction le i sl ati'On. Proposed legislation
ea ng a so waste s rev 'ewe . Legislative positions
are recommended'.
7.
1982 s 1985- _ Assist, in, separate collection program implementation
as.requested. -
Programs have been: cemented in the Cities of Oceans des. Solana
Beach- and. Vista.
80
Continuing - Assist and coordinate volunteer recycling program.
Both he County and City of San Diego have contracts. with private
firms for conducting a pubiic awareness; program to, . encourage
voluntary recyciing.
9.
Continuing - Plan and implement additional volume reduction as
economic, feasibility is determined. _
The County and City, of San Diego continue to investigate, the
feasibil'ity, of implementing, volume reduction technolug.ies. the
4-
City of San Diego's SANDER Project at their Miramar Landfi11
is being reviewed,by the. California. Energy Commission. - The North
County Recycling and Energy Recovery_ Center at, the. San. Marcos
f
Landfi'11 is scheduled for construction in late 1986.
` 10.
1982 - 1992 - Program to encourage. expanded use- of retreaded-
tires and- reclaimed oil.*
A survey of new retail oil outlets is being conducted at, `part
of the county's public information and> education program contract.:
Flyers: have, also been delivered to . major of -1 retailer for
distribution to customers on recycling; locations.
1.
1982 ® 1992 m Establish composting program tw Interior Zone. and
at Sycamore Landfill
San Diego Gas and Electric Company operates: a. chipping, program
at the County's Sycamore Landfill. -
12.
1982 - 1992.- Promote market development for reclaimed products.
The promotion of market development for reclaimed products has
been a problem for local governments with limi ed control over
markets.
130
1,982 - 1992 ® Develop policy for procuring products that are
remanufactured and made of recyclable: materials.
•'
The, County Department of Public Works has discussed with the
Purchasing Department a policy for procuring products made from
recycled material.
F,
f
16. of 23 DEC 9 1986 ITEM
17
RESOURCE RECOVERY
1. 1982 - 1985 - Pursue implementation of SANDER Project.
The SANDER Project is being considered for approval by the
California Energy Commission. The SANDER: Project will be sited
adjacent to the City of San Diego's Miramar Landfill.
2. 1982 1985 Imple€ ent alternative for operation of El Cajon
Resource Recovery -Facility,
The former El Cajon facility was demolished in 1984.
3 1982 1992 Plan and implement resource recovery alternative
in North County.
Construction of the North County Recycling and Energy Recovery
Center is scheduled to begin in late 1986, with operation expected
to begin in 1989.
STORAGE AND: COLLECTION
1. Continuing - Encourage implementation of i°E+roved storage concepts.
The cities and the County are encouraged to implement improved
storage requirements.
. Continuing - Assist cities in waste collection rate analyses
on request.
requested. Na requests
TMs staff assistance is available when
have been received to date.
1982 1985 - Investigate; preparation of model ordinance to facil-
itate uniform solid waste management practices in region.
A model solid waste ordinance was prepared and included in the
1982 Plan Revision. No uniform ordinances have been adopted
because of the differing needs of each jurisdiction.
Continuing - Monitor Local Enforcement Agency Program Compliance
Periodic review of Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) programs is
conducted by the California Waste Management Board.
DISPOSAL
U REGION)
1. 1982 1985 Close North Miramar Landfill and establish West
Miramar.
The Cityof San Diego ceased operations at North Miramar and!
°
established the Nest Miramar facility in 1988.
f 23
•. .:moi s.•'. -
s
2.
1982 - 1985 - Proposed' funding. mechanism for facility acquisition
and completed fill maintenance.
The County's Solid Waste Enterprise Fund: includes funding for
future -facility acquisition and completed fi'11 maintenance.
The City of. San Diego has funds allocated for acquisition of
the DER Project site.
3.
Continuingght to designate dis sal' facility as
- Maintain right g po
a condition. of collection franchise or permit issuance.
County Code Section• 68 5l'1 permits. the County to direct: collected
solid waste to the facility whichbest suits the interests and
needs -of • the County.
z
Under Municipal Code Section 66.01 et seq, which requires the
`
licensing of private haulerso, the: City of San Diego- also can.
regulate where waste collected within their jurisdiction wi"11
3
be disposed, of.
f
4.
1982 - 1992 - Close- 6onsall Landfill
The- 8onsall Landfill: was• closed' in August, 1985.
5.`-
19821 1.985 - Study% acquisition of additional acreage at Otay,
Ramona and Sycamore Landfi-11's.`
The County has an option to purchase additional acreage a$acenf
to the Ramona Landfill.The County, is currently pursuing
applicable operating permits.
6.
1982 - 1992 - Establish North. County replacement facility.
The County has hired a consultant, to, identify candidate landfill
sites in the ftrthl County. Preliminary, sites have. been identified
and will be studied further*
7.
198Z.- 1992 -• Close. Mont®omery - l'ition Landfi'1l'
The Montgomery Landfill is scheduled to be cl'osed'in•1988
8-
Continuing - Maintain and revise the Solid Waste Allocation
Matrix 1
The. Solid Waste Allocation Matrix was reprised for use in this
current revision.
9.
1982 - 2000 - Identify replacementfacility for Miramar and
Montgomery Landfills.
The City of San Diego has, requested that ther County, asl the
regional solid waste- planning and management agency, conduct
a search for potential landfill sites within the City,.,,
DEC 9 1986 [TEM' b
18'. of 2.3
y
i
10..
1982 - -Support development of alternative methods, i -
fill ing.
;x
The County of San Diego continues to review and support development
of alternative methods of solid waste disposal.
INTERIOR.REGION'
1
Continuing - Implement a, financingF structure. for County operated
facilities.
In 1983 the Board of Supervisors directed that operational costs
{
of the Interior Regi on facilities be supported ; by the Solxid Waste
Enterprise Fund.
..t
20
1982 - 1985 - Remove landfill designation from 207 acre Descanso
Property.:
The landfill designation. was removed from the Descanso site.
3.
1982 - 1985 - Replace Descanso -Landfill'
The County is investigating, potential candidate landfill` sites`
in. the East County area to replace the: forayer Descanso landfill:.
4.
Continuing -..Investigate feasibility, for resource recovery.
Nor responses were received.to., a 1993 request for proposaisr to
develop a resource recovery facility in the Interior Zone.,
5'r
Continuing - Monitor Interior Zone solid waste rural container
sites� and other facilities for efficiency and effectiveness.
The Department of Public Works continues to monitor operations
at; its ten. rural container sites..
6
19012 - 1992:- Hodify the Julian and Campo container site operations
by including transfer capability.
Roth sites; continue- to operate as small volume transfer stations.
LITER REDUCTION
L
Continuing - Develop and coordinate anti -litter programs as
requested'.
The County and the cities support community clean-up progr
investigate illegal. dumpingi dumpingand littering. complaims and provide
crews for limited pick-up of litter.
The County has recently adopted uniform_ nuisance abatement
procedures which allow the County, to abate illegal' dumps on
19 at .23
DEC 8 1986 ITEM 6
c i
private property and assess the property` owner.
The City of San Diego provides routine litter and litter, receptacle.
pick up: oni City d property, roadsides, parks and beaches
and participates in the "gip America. Beautiful'* pro ram
20
Continuing - Support legislation aimed at reducing litter.
The County continues to review all proposed, legislation aimed
at reducing litter and supports those: items of legislation as
-
1,
1982 - 1992 - Adoption of comprehensive litter control' ordinance.
The County y and the incorporated
rporated c''ti es in the region have all:
_
adopted litter control ordinances.,
SPECIAL
TASTES
10
1982 - 1985 - Pursue alternative handling of vehicle abandonments.
The County Department of Public storks has worked with the County
Departments of Planning and Land Use. and Health. Services- and
the Sheriff and District Attorney to establ'ish an abandoned vehicle
abatement program. The City of San Diego's Police Department
operates'an abandoned"vehicle program,
2.
1982 - 1.985 - Monitor agriculture waste generation trends and
develop program to mitigate anypr°obl ems.
A
The disposal of agricultural waste in San Diego County is not
a problem at this. time
3.
1982 - 1985 - Cooperate with Federal, State and' local• regulatory
agencies in programs for use of ,sewage sludge residues.
The various sewering agencies in ther County are currently eval-
uatingt alternative uses and disposal methods for sewage sludge.
The County has been participating ft this, effort.. The County
s
is also using sludge in final cover material to better maintain
•
post closurelantin
P g
f 4.
Continuing, - Monitor the disposal- of waste oils.
The County Department of wealth Services (OHS) is responsible
for monitoring waste oil disposal. DHS requires permits for
-
waste oil generators (i.e., service stations) to ensure proper
t
disposal of waste oil.
k:
k
r
r
20 Of 23
DEC 9 7986 ITEM 6
A
10TY,___0
-SAN '
C010-
o
rg ICof
�lfiar= d
Rom 16111)
W52
'23-1W
, .
Ruf!!n Rued. Suite (,�1 Ruffle R;� !
®ice• C!� 9'11 Say E3i�. �;
(614W6407,22 l�191
August
1986
a0.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: PLANNIN
G pNp ENVIRONMENYAL REVIEW BOAR nt Phan
s DECLARATION: Solid �Iaste llana9eli�e
iN0N0 8F NEGATIVE Log Noe 86-ZA-1 .�....
EC(XQ4ENDED Dept.' of Public storks ,.
R County
t -
Solid Waste Division
s
FINDING. has
PERS
ntal Revi Board have a
Envi �ronme ect ori 11 riot
PI anai ng o osed pro3
®f San Diego* act Report
The County al Study and finds that the t, P
ti that an Envinniental IMP
act
. and
examined the Ini procedures for
uant to the San Diego County
si nifeant effect on, the env Winnie
g
re tired puts est- 1t
19830
need not be P P revised Aug
Environmental impact Rwi+►'s
Irwin STUDY sUm+IARY s
r
T DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION. to Management Plan®
PROJECT o s Sol i d teas
he: 1986 revision to the county's ®toted` :cit�es� acid military
The project is t County including the incorporated,
comp 00901-119:
feted andsolid
It covers `the _entire o1.i ei ea and goals Pegai ng
®..The Plan i s both a ..status repo
resewvati ans 1 needs and the potent Al for n
well as a statelr�ent of general p
actio ties, as it describes future dispose
waste+
As such,
ues and technol ogi` es. No ANALYST: Brinton
technQ
N A FIELD C�lECKEQe .
7140MAS BROS m Coo -RQ.. / ,
VIRONNENTA SETT'�NO:
EN cuaient, not Plan.are sed of development
do
e Manage�at Plan is a planning §set forth in the nirommatal
The Solid Wast 1 ici es and goal
Many of the Po es ,otenti al for significant adverse
proposals. ural cooperat$on� .p
to use
do not have t p Those
nature that they, greater i nterg®ver i..1i tter programs etc. •
impact
Teo,
encouraging.deveiop�g ant h impacts relate to'
Of re�y61 edOrecl ai products tend al for sec t.
to ha�ve' the pp ander solid waste niana9
of c es which are wre likely et sited or
Operation of nes` ®r i
p 1 fcil.i ies which are not y ,
the futures donstruction p hose potentia :ode th env r® ntag analysis
facilities.
However•, fo culat ve and i,� P acts and the
i n detail* f wets are speculative - _ � the; Specific :
ed `nate o�n mf. the si gai�f i eance� f � i
pl ann r+gid deter nden
cannon be condu ted, their locational settin
gs. am
formol ati on of
sni;tabl@ oaitgati asur is ePe
ical characteristics
of the sites se
Phys r
21 of 23o DEC 1986 ITEM : 6
A
Log No. 8-ZA-1 2
3
Dept.- of Public Works
Solid Waste Division
{
the facility designs. Of course, prel imi nary siting studies should consider
environmental issues in addition to economic and political factorst Oncez sites
are selected and specific development plans for facilities are submitted..
In-depth project specific environmental analyses are required under State and'
local laws. Each of the specific facilities contained in the revised. County
r plan has either already been evaluated in an independent environmental review or
is now undergoing such a review® An example of the latter is the SANDER project
which is currently being processed for certification by the California Energy
Comm `ssiont
POTENTIALLY`SIGNIFICANT`EFFECTS:
Both sanitary landfills and resource/energy recovery facilities have the
potential for significant adverse environmental impacts® The impacts of
proposed facilities which are either unsited or, unplanned are too speculative to
evaluate. -Potentially significant effects of proposed feel l fl es which are
sited and planned are addressed at the time of facility permitting.: Currently,
existing environmental review- procedures are adequate to assure that adverse
effects wi`11 be evaluated and mitigated prior, to construction and operation.
MITIGATING'MEASURES' PROPOSED OVAPPLICANT
None
REASONS TO.SUPPORT'FINDING OF'NEGATiVE'OECLARATIO
The Solid Waste Management Plan is a planning documents net a net of' development
proposalsg, The impacts of unsited, or unpl'annede facilLities are speculative.
Once specific plans for development are submitted, full environmental review is
conducted as part of the facility permitting process. Thus, no significant
s'
adverse environmental effects are anticipated from adoption of the revised Solid
Waste Plant
NOTEZ This action becomes final upon approval by the appropriate decision-
making body
Additional copies of this Negative Declaration may be obtained at the
Environmental Planning Section, DPLU, 5201 Ruffin Road, San Diego, CA 92123,
A010 A
4
JAMES Cswv CHAGALAO Chat'nan
Planning b Envi ronmenta't Review Board
JCC:JS:sw
cc. G. U n,. Department of Public Works
2� o �3 . DEC 0 1986 ITEM 6`
96�l N r' . r ' r . • , . ,
IRESMUTION
.{ 4
A UTIOT' of THE, CITY CouNCIL of THE C=y of
'�
R1vIA APPRW= THE 1986 rISICK OF THE
,ar
..,E
SAN' Deo F If L SOLID W aw' MAWAG PLAN
the Nejedly-Z'berg-Dills Solid Waste Management and
Reseurc'
Recovery' Act of 19721hereinafter referred to as the IIIZct°, '
requires each coun ty,� in cooperation w�.th affected loca=l juris-
di s, to prepare a c mrprehensive coordinated solid waste
management plan; and
t++tt , , said Act also requires that such plan shall be
consistent with state policy and any appropriate regional or gab-
regional solid, raster manage nt plan; and
1n1HmmS, the County of'San Diego has prepared the 1986
Revision of the San Diego Regional Solid Waste Management Plan in
Conformance with the Act and has st ru tted this 'Revision of the
}
Planto the cities in the region for approval:;
NOW, T�EiYJRE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City,
`
of Poway as. follows:
1. That the aboire recitations are true and correct;
That the 1986 Revision of the San Diego Regional Solid
Waste Managenmt Plan is hereby approved
3' That the objectives set forth in the revision, the method,
and organization for inplementation of the.programs
contained, n the revision, the general procedure for
financing the rem ed programs, and the general
role identified intherevision for the County in
iMlenenting the 26 -wised Plan in an ecca=d cal, and
env' y acceptable manner are hereby approves.
PASSEDAND ADOPTED by the Cites Council of the City of Poway,
State of California, at a regular meet'this day of
}
1986.
Bruce Tarzy, Mayor
ATI ST s
}
i
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
Attachumt 2L
23 of 23
DEC 9, 1986 ITEM 6
/Ohl\
N th Cou
or MY Concerned Citizen's,, Inc.
A Non, Profit, Public- Benefit California Corporation
P.O. Box 2042
San Marcos,. CA 92069
November 26, .986
1986
J
'tip f
City of'Poway
13325 Civic- Center Drive
Poway, CA 92064
-
Dear Mayor. and Cbuncilmembers.
Subject: San Diego> Solie. Waste
Manag
,ement Plan, October
1986
We have- reviewed the -subject plan., We fin(j, that t f, 1.1S to conform to the
Board of Su poli cy (LIx'bibi.t. afld fails to properly deal with
the disposal of solid waste and its associated problams. Thereforet we
urge that you. - ject It in Its premat f0m.
The- p1.an offers no alternative acti-011 o'ther than land filling and burning,.
Recycling is, left to individual. action and no real lf-aefership or, objec--
tives. are, indicatea-,, The lack of r-inthuslasin. for curbside recyclin-1, is
contrary to a national trend.
r
The lan does not evaluate the effects, of t'lle, o (TiB 2020)
.
which, becomes effective Taraizi ry I , 1987. Thisbill-has, provisions for
funding of rec'yclinc, program.,;. If*-- also establisher, Wiininaun compliance
requirements.
The plan also fails to evaluate the CfifeCts of BillAB 3989, which re-
quires incinerator operat.ors rertiove recyclable materials prior toin-
citeration. This. uxould require coordination with the Sander Project..
The .;an Marcos Ig"L,.3o program for the salvage of gI.Iss is. a., Iso no t itien-
tioned.
We feel that - the plan should bs more tLhan a current -status report.. If
this was the purpose, the approval of cities would ncit be req!uired..
Unfortunately', %,e- Wr;tLre not able to secure a copy of the plan through normal.
channels. Th.-ne, prevcnts us frofn ptaseztinq mo- e nomplete backup informs -
tion of the att-ac-hed 11-st of proposals that sbould be propeLrly. evaluated
for possibla inclusion in tha vlaport. During -)le past 2 years we: have
accumaiatc d exteaskve files ars we woald be happy toassist in 'any, possible .1.
way, partiCularly i. -I fur rUi.shintj alternatives tn' burning.
SinoereLy,,
Georcre W. Boase,
Board of Directors
Enclosures
DEC 9 incS TF
PROPOSALS
I.
Solicit bids and proposals from all franchisee` trash haulers for es-
=
tabl.ishing curbside programs. Here, a consultant should be used to
5
coordinate the program and to advise haulers of successful techniques
_
being used nationwide. The program should include the pick up of
r
hazardous waste.
I1.
Solicit bids and. proposals for the recyling of used tires without the
requirement of a,landfill (,See attached "n°.) A presentation was made
on October 30, 1986 by C.E.C'.� Alternative who wants to build a. plant in
California.
III.
Solicit bids and proposal: for the shredding, composting and marketing,
of all garden wastes. Start shredding and composting at the SDG&E
i°
beds, adjacent to the San Marcos landfill now.
IV.
Solicit bids for all other recycable materiels, i.e. newspapers,
miscellaneous paper, plastics, glass, metals,., compost, sludge, etc.
V.
Solicit bids and ro osals from all companies with
P p p proven _waste dis-
posal other than incnera€:ion..
a
[ VI.,
Expedite the mining of methane gas from present landfills. Delays are
resulting in the loss of hundreds ;of thousands of dollars per year.
VII.
Encourage users of free manned and unmanned transfer stations to seq-
regate their waste., Provide self-loading voxes with limited access
f
to discourage. scavengers.}
VIII.
Study the feasability of establishing manned- transfer stations to re--
duce. landfill traffic with its resultant pollution and road wear.
IX.
Consider using the Balancing Fund, established- to help subsidize the
San Marcos Trash-to-Energy plant, for'the necessary funding required
to establish programs, pay consultants, increase staff, etc.
X.
Request all cities and county communities to submit their recyling.
r
plan. If plans are acceptable, provide the necessary leadership and
funding.
-2-
DEC 9 1986 IT E M,
.r= A
ADDITIONAL 2hmORM.�TION
TRASH TO ENERGy
I. Advantage
NCRRA and the Signal Corporationhave submitted proposals. if
t
accepted
the County will be relieved of considerable responsibility for trash
disposal-. NCRRA,
promises bu_t does noL~ guarantee royalties to the County.
.�
IT. Disadvantages
1. Burning discourages, recycling. Paper and plastics rare required to
maintain -combustion without the use of auxiliary' fuel..
2. Burning pollutes the air and is a health risk..:.
3.. Incineration is equal or greater, than other process disposal methods.,
E
4 . Incineration does riot eliminate: the need for landfills.- 20 to 30%
#
ash must be disposed, of. Burning concentrates the metals and the
ash requires special handling and is considered a hazardous waste.
f
5. Because of the Utility Commission rulings and Federal regulations.,
SDG&E must pay almost 3 times more for bio -conversion electricity
thati they do for
purchased electricity from ether utl.ities. The
consumer,_mut. therefore pay more for electricity:
,..�
6. There is not shortage of electricity.. Trash -produced electricitcy,
causes
more air poa,lution than that produced by oil or natural. gas.
7. Trash -to -energy plants requir e large volumes of trashto be efficient.
Centralizing the plant creates
traffic and increases the handling 'cost.
8. Trash plants require large volumes of water.
Because of the high investment costs,, plants must. operate 30 to 50
years to be. cost effectztre,
DIGESTERS` a
I. Advantages
f
r'
1-t Low investment cost.'
2. A number of companies are Willirg to build plants at no ex ense t
taxpayer.. p o the
3. No loss of efficiency for sma11 plants.. Multiple dispersed plants
maximize hauling efficiency and reduce traffic problems
4. There is an almostunlimited requirement for compost in Sart Diego County,
DEC R 1986 ITEM
Y
DIGESTERS
(Cont' d):
S.
The use of compost reduces water requirements for growing. and`xeduces
'
water runoff and soil erosion.
6.
Compost can be safely stored in landfills until.markets are es-
tablished
7.
Proven technology. It has been used to process kitchen garbage
j
disposal and human waste' for years,.
8.
Processing creates a minimum noise and smell, therefore, plants can,..
be located in any industrial or commercial area.
e
9.,
Minimum water useage.
a�
-- 1G.
y
No,air pollution or danger from dioxin.
1.1.
Lower` processing cost than. burning.
IS_. Disadvantage
1.
None, 'if operated in conjunction with -:a curbsdie recycling program,
and recycling process -lines, to assure. low levels of metals and
plastics.
k
y
- - -4-
7
_ - 1
n�jtimrt ' t� ° '�""4Hr����r.�F1 'a'r'�tr,.. •�n} • .. [r � � i. ' ' ,
i j �'1? �r�. T uey,� r � • 4x1 .
` fir-<; � � � i . f -'n . •!� � �"•j a i� �;� �• •t .
a f. ; � i%--£t,v -�.1�� �a � r ". •' <y , cJ° � y'�,�,,rr w • ,� x 1�r .
,
���,� . er ,�� _`i, t+• ..v, �jl��( `fi's`t �ti
1w ._ ��• . `t'i� � ~Z. . � �Lt'}yN�Y���u' r ` �t .. 4�}, _ 't!!�p � . M'�'' - <4� . ,i . .. `�• .. �3•i h�i•n-w:���1', �' �A r� ,.`•�,�
` ^• � � 3..< � Q � � �y a `.
ro
>•. Cl
c3 �j
•i�cl
v4_, Etet
'O � •� � y �'!
O tvp GA �. V p
t/3 'tn 0 N
Q •� p "pA _r..2Ci• a ?' a p a, fl O v v N,
O.� J
_✓ aJ
vQj
1-.14 3O s " ` y av O
4-3
o
CC N
�y Q jaj
C O
1 o
DFP' -.,
•� _n(�j •� W f��1 .-�., W a ✓ � O
s..�+.�l• c'3 p
O ipcl 8j) v
' J 'o --- - cam.v =3
v ou o' O qj SO
a z V- (U v L1'cn a= " . oo C],'+
LZ-- Fav-- oa (U':.
cu cn
t h4
Q
O U
v s-. �, �, -may '� Ste• �y V � ,.� W _ •�• � s,, y t
W3
C1, O
Ot3 c1 I'd �`"".`'•t ':!
sQ s" ccs O Gi vi a`i cC`
�.. o cs.�p; v L v • ..s
°'
V v v
�q"� a,��°' 3 ®n.Qov--,.rte
C) �� a CZ
�_.�
vov�'; F
O oA� � y � � '� '� O v 'o cn
x _a cs -c3 . c sem. V .� sU v� it
�K S
R
..: O
¢� u �-•, C Q j �c�s 0
7a va
51)
V3 00
0 'Con
Qj 000 Q)
Ou. x civ, v� �° G� L1, c, O
V ,� , .� � ^ U ..—.. CTS ,.�. V: `J.•a:r ° i'
Ly �- -� =_
�^ LL a
ate.. •�^ ••%; (/)- v .--. c'S [-` Qr 4q E� v CL'S.- . Q.. i.r C'n
`i' O O aj cr `n y v v ;r O a) 'O t.(con O . ' >.O C].ca;'
�4, � o a� " "'•a a o,�°n o W 4a; �,s3'� � >.
O +-' v v oio cn 'a v - + O �`""' a; sem,Qj
cn
QJ o v IV
64 Cn
_OAp
CUL
O".V3 h CS p bA
a O O
0-0Q
cu
ca.
x
cz -pa9 ��yp.O
�
'
Q O V cn V " tJW C:
IR . z� b0 cn `' cn S�. tn
Q' p u v CJ
wo -0 a N a O
v) u O
Cl.M O
ai�v C DV�Cl. O tvfaO Op O acl.v -0 sO,
.O rs 0 -� O.�Oa;
o �
0 cu
CU o a aQ cn CU o o �„ v
• a
I q,
cuLQ
NIT
00
fn
L
>.�� :
r
G H
Qrlb vi C L . s..
v 4Lly
Qj
dari v C. E CSI' cd ._. v a� c . C pq `-'
44
O ci -0. ci_.d -: V 7771 Q) V C tiO
n
N, C O Ove p v :3y "�V y Q)
ice' bn �,± �, .0 TJ v v v L2..
t -s, -o
--n 0
ca. _
Ov voovv r�zc Qn��
0 o�ovoa�'r2�
,.. - O
rD
D
L In
'.0
R)
51 rr
t
J �
e
� r
C 2 v
O
i
O Niy
C
1.
`s o`J �5
G�
o
6 •'
-
tn
c'�. • O
L J
C u N
i
c 1 :�, � ti-•
- -
C9 ^ C7>
_ Ci.
.7
0
.w.f A... C..
V v t.
u �. €
•
_,
C3:.••
NV o
v a o
n.`
o� o
1
-5 e t`
rD
D
L In
'.0
R)
�
C 2 v
O
O Niy
C
1.
cl N
tn
c'�. • O
�-
^yam
O Q.tq
C9 ^ C7>
-
.7
0
E IS
ry
o\1>,
M� CCCS.
n
n
OF SAID i)IE.iO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
GRANVILLE M. BOWMAN, Director
Building 2, 5555 Overland Avenue
San Diego, California 92123-1295
Telephone: (619) 565-5177
December. 1, 1986
Mr. James Bowersox, City Manager
City.. of Poway
P.O. Box 785
Poway,CA 92064
C
'
-n - 4i.
91986
Dear Mr. Bowersox:
SUBJECT:; 1986 Revision of the San Diego Regional Solid Waste Management Plan
Enclbsed are: minor revisions to the residential collection and disposal ' cost
analysis contained in the Economic Analysis of the Final Draft, 1986 Revision
of the San Diego Regional Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP). as per input
from the City of San Diego.
Specifically, pages A-V'I-I-i i, A -VI -I -iii, A -VI -I -iv, and A -VI -I -v have been
revised. These new pages should be inserted in. the CoSWMP forwarded to you
in October, 1986.
If you have any questions please call` Julia M. Quinn at 565-3532.
Very truly yours,
ROGER. F. WALSH
Chief Deputy Director
RFW:: JMQ: l k
Enclosures
1 k/5-034
DEC; 9 1986; ITEM
•
COUNTY ENGINEER COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONER: COUNTY SURVEYOR. LIQUID WASTE
OFFICES ° OF: =
COUNTY AIRPORTS TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS • FLOOD. CONTROL. SOLID WASTE
-ii:.i7,ita:A.:wGA:J:>u:tiUt)bautcft2)t>:a.a<>:5t5t,t2,:saailit5:.sc5:aueut5t57,t,ta.s.ni5nneufJ.e,etf.e,lr,au..wva J - r -
_
Currently,, cost data for collection and disposalin the San- Diego, Region
is estimated to be
COST PER TON
City of San Diegol Residential
Collection/Disposal $39.04
E -
Pri'va�te Residential Collection -
Average/County of San Diego Disposal $47.40
Various recycling options were. evaluated, and cost per ton figures es 'forthese
i
options were estimated from.information provided by the: Cal ifdrnU
Waste Management- Board, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, existing
curbside, collection and recycl i ngg operations around the State and from!
experience: gained from construction of two community multi?-itembuy-back
recycling centers.
Based on evaluation. of the data -provided, the following cost estimates-
stimateswere
werederived:
s
AVERAGE COST PER TON BASED Off I TON/MONTH
AND 600 TON/MONTH OPERAATION
-100 Ton/Month- 600: 'Ton/ftnth _
Multi -item Separate. Collection -_ [87.23] [35.50
Multi -item. Separate Collection - -
w/Aluminum Buy-back. [45.17] 2.54(profit)
{.p )
Multi-Jtem: Buy-back 043.24]. 4.47`. {profit]
NOTE: [] denotes loss.
The cost information presented shows that; current sol ld waste .collection
and disposal, practices are the.- feast costly alternative. flulti-item:
buy-back recycling: ,
y y g programs offer the most cost effective program when
-compared' to separate -collection. _
x
f=
A -VI -1-i y f:TEiV1
r
Since collection. and disposal of solid wastes wi11 sti l 1 be required
even with recycling of aluminum', glass, newsprint and ferrous material s,
these program costs will continue..
Cost estimate Jeri vati'ons -for current residential solId waste collection
and disposal' and; separatel curbside collection and multi -item buy-back
programs are presented i.n the fol l owing text.
RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND -DISPOSAL COSTS
FOR THE' SAN DIECG 'REGION _
Residentiall solidwaste col lection and disposal costs in the San Diego
Region were. estimated: from information obtained from the City of San
Di:egol program costs,: private sector, monthly rates for collection, and;
County of San Diego disposal program -costs.
Residential and limited conercial refuse pickups i_s provided 'free of
charge' for City of San Diego residents by the City's Refuset Disposal
Division. The cost of residential collection is included in the: City
�
property tax structure. s;
Solid waste collection in the other, incorporated' cities, and the
unincorporated area of "the County,. is provided by private companies..
- Cost. per ton, data was: extrapolated from monthly residential collection
data provided by the industry.-
.City of San Dieq®
l
City of San Diego FY 1985/86 costs for residential collection was
$11,490,066.: A total of 337,900 tons of refuse were collected.; Cost
per toni is, therefore;
$1194902066 337,900 tons = $34.00
A -V1 -1-i i i DF(; 9X985 ITEM,6
r
1
f
f
This figure represents the direct cost including.. amort ti;zed vehicle
replacement plus program: overhead (including 13% General City, pus 8%
}
r
program administrative overhead).,
'
Disposal: costs were also obtained' from the City of San Diego'. Solid; Waste j
Division. The City of San Diego: operates twol landfills. City, of San {
Diego FY 1985186 costs. -for d,isposal'. operations was approximately $5.04
per ton. This. -figure represents direct costs including amortized
veh'i`e' a replacement.. :
Total estimated costs for solid waste collection: and disposal. in the
City of San Diego is,, therefore: -
{
$34.001 per .ton col l esti on
+ 5.04 per ton disposal
$39.04 per ton
San Di ego Regi on
A. review of charges. for residenti'al' refuse collection ln= the other
Incorporated: cities and the County -( see. Table If 1., page II -3) . shows -
-
that the. cost per household per- month for residential trash. pickup by
private col'l'ection firms in the region - indicates that, this is
approximately $6060: per, month, which is $79.20 per year. per: household.
Regionwi de residential trash generation, rate is estimatedto -be 0.76
tons per person per year.
Based on the .1985 projections from the 1980 Census Data, average
household size is 2.65 persons.
Therefore, residential trash generation: per year per household is
0.76 tons per person per year X 2.65 persons, per household
{
2.01 tons per, household per year,
DEC 8.1986 ITE. �
A -VI- 1-111
Approximate cost per 'ton for collection by the private sector, is:.
$790 -per year a 2`.01 tons per household per year.
$39.40 per ton
County of San Diega contract: costs for -landfilling of refuse is $4.00:
per ton=. Total= County Sol id Waste program costs are. $8.00i,per ton,,
incl ud' ng the cost of disposal. -
Total estimated -costs for solid- waste collection' and, disposal in the: -
r
} urban area of the County is therefore:
$39.40 per ton collection.
+ 8.00 per ton Solid: Waste program- incl udi g.
di'sposai
$47..40 per ton
It should be noted that. these disposal costs do not reflect the: costs
of replacing existing facilities. Landfill disposal. costs', shouid.
reflect the cont per ton= of landfill acqui'sirt on . permitting, site
development anal maintenance.
Landfill development costs-havebeen. estimatedi from, data- made available.
by thel� County of Rivers de,: who recently developed ` their, El Sobrante
Landfill and from: County of San Diego research.
To summar. ize,, we estimate that it wouldcost $6:..16 to provide one .ton
of disposal capacity. A discussion ` of landfill development costs
follow.-.t
LANDFILL.DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Acquiisition Costs
Data on property acquisition costs was: obtained from the County`s
.A
Department of Generali Services, Reap Property Division. Average, costs
were estimated to range from- $10,000 per acre in more rural areas to.
DEC 8 1986 1 T ' 6