Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-01-10; City Council; 12980 Part III; Palomar Transfer StationTable 4-5 Continued Traffic Condition Summary for Transfer Station Site Access Roads (Collection Vehicles Impact) 1992 Site Current LOS* Access (where Road available) Current Vehicles per day Maximum Additional Vehicles per day** Escondido ES-1 ES-2 Washington Avenue (entrance) Centre City Parkway (north of Washington) Centre City Parkway (south of Washington) Washington Avenue (east of site) Mission Road (entrance) Mission Avenue Washington- Avenue NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 14,000 10,000 10,000 14,000 20,000 23,000 14,000 465 92 160 160 456 183 183 Encinitas E-l El Camino Real (entrance) El Camino Real (north or Olivenhain) El Camino Real (south of Olivenhain) Encinitas Blvd (west of El Camino Real) Encinitas Blvd (east of El Camino Real) NA NA NA NA NA 15,900 15,900 15,900 28,000 28,000 294 15 280 118 44 Carlsbad C-l/ C-2 Palomar Airport Road (entrance) Palomar Airport Road (west of site) Palomar Airport Road (east of site) Interstate 5 (north of Palomar Airport Road) Interstate 5 (south of Palomar Airport Road D D D C C 10,000 10,000 10,000 132,000 132,000 222 155 33 111 44 *See Table 4-4 * * Accounts for vehicle roundtrips JOB:89001Wilm3 4-13 Table 4-5 Continued Traffic Condition Summary for Transfer Station Site Access Roads (Collection Vehicles Impact) 1992 Site Current LOS* Access (where Road available) Current Vehicles per day Maximum Additional Vehicles per day* * Carlsbad (continued) C-3 C-4/ C-5 Vista V-l/ V-2 El Camino Real (entrance) El Camino Real (north of site) El Camino Real (south of site) Palomar Airport Road Palomar Airport Road (entrance) Palomar Airport Road (west of El Camino Real) El Camino Real (north of Palomar Airport Road) El Camino Real (south of Palomar Airport Road) Sycamore Avenue (entrance) Highway 78 D D D D D D D D D D 25,000 25,000 25,000 10,000 11,800 11,800 25,000 25,000 22,000 79,000 148 49 98 49 148 49 49 49 228 205 *See Table 4-4 ** Accounts for vehicle roundtrips JOB:89001Wilm3 4-14 Table 4-5 Continued Traffic Condition Summary for Transfer Station Site Access Roads (Transfer Trailer Impact) 1992 Site Fallbrook F-l F-2 Oceanside O-l O-2 Carlsbad C-l/C-2 C-3 C-4/C-5 Vista V-l/V-2 San Marcos SM-l/SM-2 SM-3 Access Road Pala Road Interstate 15 Pala Road Interstate 15 Mission Ave El Camino Real Oceanside El Camino Real Palomar Airport Road Interstate 15 El Camino Real Palomar Airport Road Palomar Airport Road Sycamore Avenue Questhaven Road Rancho Santa Fe San Marcos Blvd. Via Vera Cruz San Marcos Blvd. Current LOS* (where available) D A D A NA NA NA NA D C NA D D D D C C NA C Current Vehicles per day 4,200 43,000 4,200 43,000 40,000 17,500 25,000 17,500 10,000 132,000 25,000 11,800 11,800 22,000 4,000 27,000 32,000 9,000 32,000 Maximum Additional Vehicles per day** 14 14 14 14 44 44 44 44 26 26 26 26 26 28 14 14 14 14 14 *See Table 4-4 * * Accounts for vehicle roundtrips 89001Arnl2 4-15 Table 4-5 Continued Traffic Condition Summary for Transfer Station Site Access Roads (Transfer Trailer Impact) 1992 Site Access Road Current LOS* (where available) Current Vehicles per day Maximum Additional Vehicles per day** Escondido ES-1 ES-2 Washington Avenue Mission Road Nordhal Road NA NA NA 14,000 20,000 32,900 54 54 54 Knrinifas E-l El Camino Real Olivenhain NA NA 15,900 13,000 34 34 *See Table 4-4 * * Accounts for vehicle roundtrips 89001Arnl2 4- 16 North Foussat Street, which peaks from 7 to 8 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m., provides good access to the Mission Avenue site, and there are no foreseeable problems here. Mission Avenue, however is at peak capacity all day. There are four traffic signals in the vicinity of the proposed site which cause traffic jams. The additional transfer station traffic would worsen that traffic flow. Also, the Mission Avenue-El Camino Real intersection is very busy and additional vehicles would cause delays. The level-of-service on Oceanside Boulevard is good and there is no foreseeable significant impact there. The road is being widened to six lanes, which increases the capacity but hinders left turns and site access. A traffic signal intersection would be necessary at the intersection of Oceanside Boulevard and the transfer station access road. Also, industrial development at or near the proposed site location is likely. The College Avenue-Highway 78 intersection is very busy due to a signal interchange at Vista. Traffic there is at peak all day, and is especially heavy between 2 and 6 p.m. This interchange should be avoided. Carlsbad The proposed transfer station sites in Carlsbad are located on Palomar Airport Road (C-l, C-2, C-4, and C-5) and El Camino Real (C-3), and both are prime arterials (prime arterials carry the largest volume of traffic within a city, with the exception of freeways). A transfer station would add an estimated 125 (year 1992) to 375 (year 2010) vehicles per day. These roads are the best suited in the city for collection and transfer vehicles. Palomar Airport Road carries between 20,000 and 32,000 vehicles-per-day (average 22,000), while El Camino Real carries 25,000 vehicles per day. The impact of the collection and transfer vehicles would be greatest on Palomar Airport Road east of El Camino Real. Palomar Airport Road is narrow, has only one eastbound lane and two westbound lanes on this section, and is in very poor structural condition (level-of-service "D" or "E" at peak periods). The El Camino Real/Palo mar Airport Road intersection is in very poor condition, and could experience structural damage from the loads imposed by the transfer trailers. Widening the roads and adding access roads would reduce the impact of the additional transfer station traffic. Additional lanes would be necessary on Palomar Airport Road east of Yarrow Drive. Because Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real are designated JOB:89001-4 12/12/89 4-17 prime arterials, direct driveway access to the site is not permitted along either road. Access roads would thus be necessary for any of the proposed Carlsbad sites, and would have to be at least 2,600 feet from the nearest intersection. Development in the region includes a rapidly growing industrial complex on the south side of Palomar Airport Road, east of El Camino Real. This development could affect sites C-4 and C-5. Sites C-l, C-2, and C-3 are not affected by this development. i Escondido The two proposed transfer station sites in Escondido, ES-2 and ES-1, are located, respectively, on Mission Road between Washington and Nordahl and on Washington Avenue between Metcalf and Rock Springs. The proposed transfer station would add an estimated 265 (year 1992) to 640 (year 2010) vehicles per day to roadways. The current volume on Mission is 20,000 vehicles per day and on Washington is 14,000 vehicles per day. These volumes are over the standard capacity for collector streets. The peak volumes occur between 7 and 8 a.m.; noon and 1 p.m.; and 3:30 and 5:30 p.m. Turn outlets (left and right) in advance of the transfer station driveway would alleviate traffic back-ups during these times. There are two future development projects which could impact traffic flow. The first is a raised concrete median which is being planned for Mission Road. The other is the U.S. Post Office Central Branch, which is under study for construction on Mission Avenue immediately east of Highway 78. Other factors affecting traffic flow are truck weight limits. Trucks on Lincoln Parkway and Lincoln Avenue, between Ash and Broadway, are restricted to three tons or less. Trucks are prohibited on 9th Avenue between Highway 15 and Valley Parkway. Vista The two sites in Vista are located on Sycamore Avenue. A transfer station would add an estimated 130 (year 1992) to 285 (year 2010) vehicles per day. Sycamore currently carries 22,000 vehicles per day, with a level-of-service of D. Level-of-service improves to "B" at Highway 78. The area near the Sycamore-78 intersection consists of commercial development, with some apartments. Transfer vehicles could increase congestion at this intersection. The JOB:89001-4 12/12/89 4-18 city is planning to widen Sycamore and repair the freeway access ramps, which are now at level-of-service "3" at the 4 to 6 p.m. peak. A one million square foot auto mall is being planned for the north side of the interchange which will increase traffic significantly. There is also a large quarry along the Sycamore southbound lanes. The projected traffic flow along Sycamore is 40,000 vehicles per day, decreasing the level-of-service to "F". This will occur at the completion of development. Sycamore and Business Park Drive currently carry traffic from Palomar Airport Road to Highway 78. These roads have 7 percent grades, which could hinder truck acceleration. Business Park Drive currently handles 24,000 vehicles-per-day, but will improve to level-of-service "C" if Melrose is connected. Possible mitigations include extra left turn lanes at the Sycamore-Highway 78 intersection. Two suggested routes for transfer vehicles are La Mirada to Poinsettia, which is not projected to reach capacity, and Sycamore to Melrose. San Marcos There are three proposed locations in San Marcos: two on Questhaven Road west of Elfin Forest Road (SM-1 and SM-2) and one on Via Vera Cruz at Linda Vista Drive (SM-3). A transfer station would add an estimated 70 (year 1992) to 250 (year 2010) vehicles per day. However, there would be a net decrease in solid waste vehicle traff ice, since many vehicles now going to the San Marcos Landfill will be going to new transfer stations elsewhere. Questhaven Road is currently a collector street, but is slated for upgrade to a major arterial to accommodate future traffic volumes. It carries 4,000 vehicles per day and is projected to handle-30,000 vehicles per day at city buildout (in the year 2020), operating at level-of-service "D." Via Vera Cruz is also a four-lane collector street currently carrying 9,000 vehicles per day. The San Marcos sites will also be serviced by Grand Avenue, San Marcos Boulevard, and Rancho Santa Fe. Grand Avenue is currently operating at 7,000 vehicles per day and is expected to increase to 11,000 vehicles per day at level-of-service "B." The Rancho Santa Fe intersection, however, is currently congested and could cause traffic back-up during peak hours. Rancho Santa Fe, the main route from the Questhaven sites, carries from 23,000 to 27,000 vehicles per day at level-of-service "B" and "C," and is projected to handle 33,000 to 45,000 vehicles per day, at level-of-service "C" and "D." JOB:89001-4 12/12/89 4-19 San Marcos Boulevard,- which connects Rancho Santa Fe and Via Vera Cruz to highway 78, currently operates at 26,000 to 32,000 vehicles per day, and is projected to increase to 40,000 to 50,000 vehicles per day at build-out, with a level-of -service of "D." Rancho Santa F Road is prepared to be classified as a Prime Arterial in the Questhaven area in order to handle projected capacities. The added volume of the transfer trailers will not be significant, but due to local topographic conditions, auxiliary lanes for trucks will be necessary to improve traffic flow. The Encinitas site (E-l) is located on El Camino Real immediately south of Olivehain. A transfer station will add an estimated 170 (year 1992) to 305 (year 2010) vehicles per day. El Camino Real is currently a prime arterial. The northbound direction serves a commercial district, with many unsynchronized traffic signals. These signals could cause some congestion. The southbound direction is not very congested; however, it is a busy truck route. El Camino Real at Olivenhain is projected to carry 55,000 vehicles per day at a level-of -service of "F." The added volume of the transfer station related traffic would worsen this already poor level-of -service. A possible method of improving the level-of-service along El Camino Real is synchronizing the traffic signals near Olivenhain. Future development includes the Leucadia extension and Olivenhain development. The 680/Leucadia extension will connect Leucadia to Olivenhain Road. This will provide a direct connection between 1-5 and Olivenhain. JOB:89001-4 12/12/89 4-20 COLLECTION VEHICLES TO TRANSFER STATION TRANSFER TRAILERS FROM TRANSFER STATION TO LANDFILL Percentages indicate percent of collection vehicles assumed to use associated access road. (May not add to 100% due to use of minor alternate routes not indicated.) COLLECTION AND TRANSFEF VEHICLE ROUTES FALLBROOK AREA NORTH COUNTY TRANSFER STATIC S'TING PROGRAM CKMHllL LA027601.A1.00 4-21 COLLECTION VEHICLES TO TRANSFER STATION TRANSFER TRAILERS FROM ^ TRANSFER STATION TO LANDFIL^| Percentages indicate percent of collection vehicles assumed to use associated access road. (May not add to 100% due to use of minor alternate routes not indicated.) FIGURE 4-2 COLLECTION AND TRANSF VEHICLE ROUTES FALLBROOK AREA NORTH COUNTY TRANSFER STATION S'TING PROGRAM LAO27601.A1.00 CKMHILL- 4-22 COLLECTION VEHICLES TO TRANSFER STATION TRANSFER TRAILERS FROM TRANSFER STATION TO LANDFILL Percentages indicate percent of collection vehicles assumed to use associated access road. (May not add to 100% due to use of minor alternate routes not indicated.) LAO27601.A1.00 4 -23 FIGURE 4-3 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER VEHICLE ROUTES CITY OF ESCONDIDO \ NORTH COUNTY TRANSFER STATIC \ SITING PROGRAM - Cfa'.HILL- COLLECTION VEHICLES TO TRANSFER STATION TRANSFER TRAILERS FROM TRANSFER STATION TO LANDFILL Percentages indicate percent of collection vehicles assumed to use associated access road. (May not add to 100% due to use of minor alternate routes not indicated.) FIGURE 4-4 , COLLECTION AND TRANSFEF VEHICLE ROUTES CITY OF ESCONDIDO \ NORTH COUNTY TRANSFER STATION \. SITING PROGRAM LAO27601.A1.00 •CKMHILL- 4-24 COLLECTION VEHICLES TO TRANSFER STATION TRANSFER TRAILERS FROM TRANSFER STATION TO LANDFILL Percentages indicate percent oi collection vehicles assumed to use associated access road. (May not add to 100% due to use of minor alternate routes not indicated.) «^^-/r \ '"> K-\ ,-.y Ms i x- "." ?i ( 22 \( \ j «* / (. ^ \MARCOS^ \/x ' -N- NOTE: Rancho Santa Fe Road and Questhaven Road, both shown as collection vehicle and transfer trailer routes, intersect 3000 feet west of the area shown on this map. < /" --7• ^'•T , y FIGURE 4-5 'CX1- COLLECTION AND TRANSFER VEHICLE ROUTES CITY OF SAN MARCOS NORTH COUNTY TRANSFER .STATION SITING PROGRAM LAO27601.A1.00 4-25 -N-22 V ^^x J s- N~^// J s / .r"^ 1 \i^' r \s 1.- 1^- *s COLLECTION VEHICLES TO TRANSFER STATION TRANSFER TRAILERS FROM TRANSFER STATION TO LANDFILL Percentages indicate percent of collection vehicles assumed to use associated access road. (May not add to 100% due to use of minor alternate routes not indicated.) / \ /' 1-2 ./ tfX FIGURE 4-6 LA027601.A1.00 £*" COLLECTION AND TRANSFER VEHICLE ROUTES CITY OF SAN MARCOS NORTH COUNTY TRANSTER-STATION ,„,,„„„ SITING PROGRAM &5JHILL A -26 COLLECTION VEHICLES TO TRANSFER STATION TRANSFER TRAILERS FROM TRANSFER STATION TO LANDFILL Percentages indicate percent of collection vehicles assumed to use associated access road. (May not add to 100% due to use of minor alternate routes not indicated.) LAO27601 A1 00 \sip/ FIGURE 4-7 17 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER VEHICLE ROUTES CITY OF VISTA NORTH COUNTY TRANSFEP STATIC SITING PROGRA.V •CWIHIU.- 4-27 CARLSBAD CARLSBAD./ COLLECTION VEHICLES TO TRANSFER STATION CARLSBAD c TRANSFER TRAILERS FROM TRANSFER STATION TO LANDFILL FIGURE 4-8 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER VEHICLE ROUTES CITY OF CARLSBAD Percentages indicate percent of collection vehicles assumed to use associated access road. (May not add to 100% due to use of minor alternate routes not indicated.) NORTH COUNTY TRANSFER STATION SITING PROGRAM LA027601.A1.00 CKMHllL- 4-28 COLLECTION VEHICLES TO TRANSFER STATION TRANSFER TRAILERS FROM TRANSFER STATION TO LANDFILL Percentages indicate percent of collection vehicles assumed to use associated access road. (May not add to 100% due to use of minor alternate routes not indicated.) v—•/ \ FIGURE 4-9 COLLECTION AND TRANSFER VEHICLE ROUTES CITY OF CARLSBAD NORTH COUNTY TRANSFER STATION SITING PROGRAM LAO27601.A1.00 •CHMHIU.- 4-29 COLLECTION VEHICLES TO TRANSFER STATION TRANSFER TRAILERS FROM TRANSFER STATION TO LANDFILL Percentages indicate percent of collection vehicles assumed to use associated access road. (May not add to 100% due to use of minor alternate routes not indicated.) ••r.\d». 24 i\ V- ._._\n _,- . | \ i LAO27601.A1.00 FIGURE 4-10 ^r COLLECTION AND TRANSFER VEHICLE ROUTES CITY OF CARLSBAD NORTH COUNTY TRANSFER STATION SITING PROGRAM CKMHIU. 4-30 4-31 Table 4-6 - Commercial Collection Haul Costs (1989) Collection Area San Dieguito Carlsbad Oceanside Vista San Marcos Escondido Fallbrook Waste Handled By Commercial Collectors (TPY) 74,000 56,000 92,000 58,000 30,000 116,000 27,000 Estimated Haul Distance (Miles) 8 12 17 11 8 14 35 Haul Time To San Marcos Landfill (Roundtrip) 0.67 hours 0.96 hours 1.0 hour 0.76 hours 0.66 hours 0.93 hours 1.87 hours Total Annual Cost* 443,000 484,000 821,560 397,000 179,000 967,000 450,000 * Based on an assumed average $8.93 per ton-hour cost for direct haul vehicles. 89001Wilm 4-35 Table 4-7 "Estimated Miles from Waste Centroids to Potential Transfer Station Site (1989) Fallbrook F-l F-2 Oceanside O-l 0-2 Carlsbad C-l C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 Vista V-l V-2 San Marcos SM-1 SM-2 SM-3 Escondido ES-1 ES-2 Encinitas E-l Miles 10 9 3 2 5 5 2 3 4. 4 4 6 7 2 1 1 6 Haul Time To Potential Transfer Station Site (Hours) 0.44 0.4 0.26 0.16 0.4 0.4 0.16 0.26 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.48 0.56 0.16 0.08 0.08 0.48 Total Annual Cost* 106,000 97,000 214,000 132,000 200,000 200,000 80,000 130,000 160,000 166,000 166,000 129,000 150,000 43,000 83,000 83,000 318,000 * Based on an assumed average $8.93 per ton-hour cost for haul vehicles. 4-36 89001Wilm2 4.4 RECYCLING 4.4.1 Introduction The proposed transfer station could be important components of waste reduction activities for the cities and unincorporated portions of the North San Diego County. This section Experience has shown that materials recovery can be effectively combined with transfer station operations. Depending on the size, location, and surrounding wasteshed, several types of recovery options can be incorporated into the design and operation of a transfer station. These options range from simple processes such as baling and storage of recyclables to the installation of sophisticated sorting and cleaning equipment that targets specific portions of a region's waste stream. The purpose of this section is to describe the types of approaches which could be applie'd to North San Diego County transfer facilities. In developing the recovery options, several assumptions have been made. They are: 1) The materials recovery portion of the San Marcos WTE project is not considered. 2) The transfer stations will be sized to receive all waste from the study area, less 20 percent which will be recycled by source separation programs. 3) The options described will have the capacity to divert approximately 10 percent of the tonnage entering the transfer system. 4) There will be no permit restrictions that will inhibit materials recovery activities at the transfer sites. 4.4.2 Description of Materials Recovery Options The current study has demonstrated that the transfer stations serving North San Diego County will range in size from 300 tons per day (TPD) to over 1,200 TPD using the year 2000 as the base planning year. By the year 2010 the range of daily tonnage figures cold increase dramatically to 465 TPD and over 1,800 TPD. A management decision will have to be made as to the degree of project phasing that is desirable. The options presented below use the base year tonnage figures projected for the year 2000. Accordingly, recycling options appropriate for three different sizes are presented. Option 1 is applicable to facilities sized around 300 TPD. Option 2 applies to operations transferring JOB:89001-4 12/12/89 4-37 around 800 TPD and Option 3 is for use with the large 1,200+ TPD stations. All options assume that the mix of-residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional wastes are similar at all transfer sites. 4.4.2.1 Option 1 This option has the lowest installation cost and is fairly modest in both its implementation and recovery goals. Directed towards sites with around 300 TPD of capacity, it primarily serves as a baling and holding area for regional source separation programs. It can serve as an accumulation area for recovery programs aimed at small retail and manufacturing firms, and can be a central receiving/unloading site for source separated curbside materials. Space requirements for this option range from 3,000 to 10,000 square feet. Exact requirements are determined by specific recovery program operating logistics such as the number of recycling trucks, volume of recyclables, degree of market preparation, number of cities utilizing the transfer site. This option is more applicable for near-term 1992 planning purposes. As the time frame lengthens, the number of sites handling this tonnage range decreases and disappears by 2010. 4.4.2.3 Option 2 The implementation of this option is directed towards transfer sites ranging in size around 800 TPD. Throughout the time frame of the study this size site frequently occurs. A wide variety of recovery activities can be pursued and can be tailored to impact specific subwaste streams. In addition to providing the recycling services of Option 1, this size site could also provide a place to separate commingled source separated materials from programs in residential, commercial, and industrial waste streams. These subwaste streams could be further tapped via the inclusion of a down- scaled materials recovery facility (i.e., a "mini-MRF") at this size site. The transfer site could act as a quality control point in the preparation of the recyclable materials for shipment to market. The site could also act to aggregate shipment tonnages so that the individual programs could obtain higher prices for their materials. This concept could be brought up to the Southern California Roundtable of which the County is an active participating member. JOB:89001-4 12/12/89 4-38 In addition, yard waste and demolition and construction waste could also be diverted from disposal. With regards to yard waste this would yield measurable savings in transfer costs as this material does not pack well in transfer trailers. Similarly, demolition materials tend to overweight trailers as well as being extremely rough on the transfer equipment. The implementation of the components of this option would require a faiiiy high degree of coordination between the County, the participating cities and the disposal companies that serviced the wasteshed. Approximately fifteen percent of the labor and facilities of the site would be engaged in recovery activities. 4.4.2.4 Option 3 The focus of this option is on the sites which will be handling somewhere in the range of 1,200 TPD. Although this daily tonnage is not seen until the 2010 time frame (except at the Escondido site) the details of this option should be kept in mind when planning for the ultimate transfer system. This size range allows for the implementation of the most aggressive and comprehensive recovery system. Option 3 incorporates all the recovery elements outlined in Options 1 and 2 plus extensive expansions incorporated via a full scale MRF. The 1,200+ TPD waste stream allows the implementation of a comprehensive materials recovery facility. These facilities are designed to recovery fifteen to thirty percent of incoming wastes by using combinations of mechanical and (sometimes) hand- sorting to separate materials into useful commodities or end-products. In the application envisioned for the transfer sites the facility would have the capability of processing commingled recyclables, yard and demolition waste, and sort mixed waste into recoverable fractions. The processing, baling, and cleaning equipment would be cross- utilized for all aspects of the recovery programs. The MRF would reduce labor costs associated with the hand-separation of commingled loads and can effectively process higher daily throughput tonnages. Depending on the design of the facility it can recover any or all of the following: paper (news, cardboard, mixed grades), polyethylene sheet plastics, aluminum cans, wood, inerts, and compostable items in addition to the materials separated from the source separated commingled stream. The potential exists to take the recovered plastic portion and produce pellets which can be sold directly to manufacturing firms. Certain portions of the paper could also be directed to specific mill uses. Finally, the significant tonnage levels recovered from the MRF can be combined with the source separated tonnages to command a top dollar in prime secondary materials markets. JOB:89001-4 12/12/89 4-39 This option impacts the-entire waste stream and has the capability to target all types of waste generators. When fully implemented it would be a state-of-the-art operation as it would be a completely integrated approach to waste recovery, transfer, and disposal. 4.4.2.5 Summary of Interaction of City Recycling Programs with Transfer System Providing that the full scale transfer system is implemented at six of seven sites, then several significant beneficial effects can be expected. The major impact would be a strong tendency to produce a regionalization of the various recycling programs being pursued through San Diego County. Utilization of transfer sites could benefit both public and private sector programs. Franchising and flow .Control issues would be clearly delineaced for both cities and their respective disposal c npanies. The six or seven site configuration provides a convenient siting access to a majority of the County and hence could be economically utilized by on-going and planned source separation programs. The regionalization trend would also be beneficial in implementing programs in a coordinated manner that would be nonduplicative and would maintain a balance of local control without loss of individual program community characteristics. Further, a balance between MRF and source separated approaches would be technically developed resulting in an optimal percent recovery with a phased approach. The results of this approach could be used to meet the recycling goals set by the passage of AB 939. Finally, a coordination of sales of recyclables that were processed at the transfer sites could produce sizable market advantages in both dollars received as well as access to prime secondary materials outlets. 4.5 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE 4.5.1 Introduction: Hazardous Waste in Municipal Solid Waste Toxics are present in any municipal solid waste stream, put there by householders, businesses, and governmental agencies. In North San Diego County, there have already been toxic clean-up days for household hazardous wastes. Yet these unacceptable wastes still find their way into the trash. Hazardous waste found in solid waste at waste management facilities, including transfer stations, is of increased public and regulatory concern. Federal law allows businesses to dispose of small amounts of hazardous materials as solid waste, and exempts households from hazardous waste regulations. Under California law, however, there is no exemption or threshold quantity allowing small amounts of hazardous materials to be disposed as solid waste; even the small JOB:89001-4 12/12/89 4-40 amounts of hazardous residue that may be found in nearly empty containers of consumer products, such as hair spray or caustic drain opener, cannot legally be disposed as solid waste. "Designated" and "special" wastes, which are less dangerous than hazardous wastes but share some of their characteristics, also fall under disposal restrictions. As management requirements for these wastes are similar to those for hazardous materials, this section refers to hazardous, designated, and special wastes collectively as hazardous wastes. The responsibility for preventing contamination of solid waste fails primarily on those companies or public agencies that manage solid waste. Regulatory requirements regarding hazardous wastes disposed as solid waste are still evolving. Landfill operators are required to provide for closure of facilities and post-closure maintenance, including monitoring groundwater for contaminated leachate. Under the California Code of Regulations, landfill operators must spot-check incoming loads of solid waste for hazardous materials. They are also granted generator status so they can store any hazardous wastes found for up to 90 days, before transporting them to a hazardous waste facility by a licensed hauler. In order to recoup disposal costs, the landfill operator may take legal action against an identified party responsible for the improper disposal. The regulations in this area, however, have not yet been fully developed, and questions regarding the number of loads that must be checked and the role of transfer facilities remain unanswered. Transfer stations can serve, and already are serving in other locales, as a focal point for implementing measures to reduce toxics in the waste stream. Such a facility may be used in two ways: first, as a screening or check point to detect and remove unacceptable toxics, called waste acceptance control; and second, as a facility to receive and store household hazardous waste prior to proper disposal. These two types of programs are discussed below. 4.5.2 Waste Acceptance Control Procedures used to minimize entry of hazardous waste into the solid waste stream, and to detect and remove those hazardous wastes that do enter solid waste, may be categorized as waste acceptance control. While regulatory requirements for waste acceptance control remain undefined, developing a program to minimize the amount of hazardous waste in the solid waste stream should be pursued in order to reduce potential for environmental contamination, injury to sanitation workers, and future liability. The developing a waste acceptance control program (WACP) is least complex where JOB:89001-4 12/12/89 4-41 collection, transfer, and disposal of solid waste is handled by a single entity, either a private firm or a public agency. If several entities are involved in solid waste management, establishment of a program is more complex. Where a mixture of public agencies and private firms is involved as in North San Diego County, a WACP may require contractual agreements. This section summarizes the generic components of a comprehensive WACP carried out at a transfer facility, with the cooperation and support of private waste haulers and public agencies. A WACP has the following goals: To encourage the proper disposal of hazardous, designated, and other prohibited wastes; To reduce the quantity of prohibited wastes that enter the municipal solid wa~.te stream; To ensure proper management of hazardous wastes that are delivered to solid waste facilities; To identify generators who place hazardous wastes in the solid waste stream, and require them to assume responsibility for proper hazardous waste management; and • To provide for effective enforcement against recalcitrant generators. Meeting these goals requires the joint efforts of waste collectors, transfer facilities, landfill operators, and public agencies charged with enforcement responsibilities. Information on the nature and sources of hazardous wastes improperly disposed (which can be gathered during collection and disposal of solid waste as part of the initial stages of program implementation) will help improve the effectiveness of the WACP. Finally, a successful WACP depends on the availability of proper modes of hazardous waste disposal, such as household hazardous waste collection programs, facilities for small businesses, and public awareness of the laws restricting hazardous waste disposal. 4.5.2.1 Elements of a Waste Acceptance Control Program Preventing codisposal of solid and hazardous wastes requires that a complex of activities be carried out by solid waste haulers and management facilities, as well as public agencies, including some agencies that normally have no direct role in solid waste JOB:89001-4 12/12/89 4-42 management. A comprehensive program emphasizes education and provision of alternative, safe disposal options as preventative measures, combined with surveillance of solid waste and removal of improperly disposed of hazardous wastes. The basic elements of a WACP implemented by solid waste facilities are summarized below. Site security: Measures to prevent inadvertent or intentional illegal dumping include: • Control structures (gates, fences, walls) Signs indicating that hazardous materials cannot be accepted Guards to monitor facility Employee training in facility security Identification of permissible and nonpermissible wastes: While waste characterization at solid waste facilities will be performed as part of a WACP, ultimate responsibility for determining the acceptability of a given waste falls on the party seeking to dispose of the waste. The following are activities that would be carried out by the solid waste facility. Definition of wastes that are permissible (e.g. noncontaminated household and commercial refuse, nonhazardous industrial waste, demolition wastes, empty and dried household hazardous waste containers) Definition of impermissible wastes (i.e. hazardous, designated, infectious, liquid, and septic tank wastes, dead animals or animal parts) • Determination of acceptability of wastes: response to customer inquiries surveillance of incoming wastes questioning of facility customers by trained staff • inspection of wastes on a random basis (including physical assessment/review of labels, and further chemical characterization as needed, using methods such as the HAZCAT technique developed by the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration). JOB:89001-4 12/12/89 4-43 Public education and training of collection personnel: As a new program, the WACP will require dissemination of information to both the public and to solid waste collectors regarding proper waste disposal and management. Government agencies would have an important role in providing general public education regarding hazardous waste disposal restrictions and options for proper disposal, through "hotlines," public meetings, and other means. Solid waste facility operators would provide information and training specific to the WACP, including: Notification of customers, including commercial haulers, collection services, government agencies, and households. This could be a separate notification or could be included in regular billing. It would include information such as a description of hazardous and other prohibited wastes, disposal regulations, and the institution of the WACP. Rerponse to customer phone inquiries regarding particular wastes or referral to public agencies that may already provide such information. Posting of signs at waste management facilities regarding disposal prohibitions and waste container decals, particularly for debris boxes. Training programs for major waste generators, haulers, and collection companies. In particular, waste collection personnel must be given training on the objectives of the WACP, inspection of residential, commercial and industrial wastes prior to collection in order to spot improperly disposed of materials, and response to incidents of Improper disposal, such as notification of the customer or the appropriate enforcement agency. Training of collection workers could be combined with surveys of collection routes by WACP staff. Site surveillance at waste management facilities; The WACP would include surveillance of incoming solid waste to detect any hazardous wastes and allow for its removal. The uncompacted waste stream (public dumping and debris box loads) is a logical initial focus for surveillance, because these wastes tend to contain a higher proportion of hazardous materials than residential and commercial compacted wastes, and they are more easily inspected for hazardous materials. If the generator or hauler is present when prohibited wastes are discovered, the transfer station hazardous waste management staff would explain to the person delivering the wastes that hazardous materials cannot be accepted, and direct the generator or hauler JOB:89001-4 12/12/89 4-44 to proper facilities. If the generator/hauler is not present, the prohibited wastes would be stored on-site, pending identification, if possible, of the responsible party, and proper management of the wastes by a licensed hauler. Surveillance for hazardous wastes would include the following: Establishment of multiple control points at the transfer facility for waste load checking. The location of control points will depend on transfer station design and activities, but would likely include the scalehouse, public waste disposal areas, transfer station tipping floor and loading bay, and recycling areas. Training transfer station personnel to question customers (e.g. at the scalehouse), visually inspect loads as needed, and observe, recognize, and respond to the presence of hazardous wastes in solid waste during waste unloading operations at public dumping areas and on the tipping floor. • Random selection of waste loads to be dumped in an accessible location for careful inspection for hazardous wastes. Information collected on these loads may include the name of hauling firm or vehicle identification; address, phone number, and type of business or other waste source, if known; types and amounts of prohibited waste; and other pertinent information. Obtaining cooperation from customers: Some persons or companies delivering wastes to the transfer station may refuse to take responsibility for their hazardous wastes, or may repeatedly attempt to dispose of hazardous materials as solid waste. Obtaining the cooperation of such customers is an important deterrence for other waste generators. Where a generator who has improperly disposed of hazardous waste can be identified (e.g. by addresses on envelopes, invoices or packages found within the contaminated load), the WACP staff will attempt to obtain cooperation from the generator, through telephone calls and letters, site visits, and referral of the case to appropriate public enforcement agencies. Records may be kept of generators who repeatedly attempt to dispose of hazardous materials as solid waste, and, in such cases waste loads received from these generators can be subject to increased surveillance. California law allows for recovery of civil damages to cover the cost of proper waste management. Handling, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes found in solid wastes: When hazardous materials are found mixed with solid wastes, these materials must be managed properly by the transfer station, whether or not the transfer station or the JOB:89001-4 12/12/89 4-45 generator accepts ultimate responsibility for the wastes. Hazardous materials must be packaged and stored in- accordance with California regulations, and removed from the site for transport to a hazardous waste facility by a licensed hauler. Transfer station employees encountering or handling hazardous materials must be provided with adequate protection. Options and requirements for handling and storage of hazardous wastes falls under regulation by the Department of Health Services, the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Details of these regulatory requirement- are determined on a case-by-case basis. On-site hazardous war -- handling activities will include: Classification of hazardous materials. Segregation of wastes according to chemical compatibility (for example, acid and alkaline materials are not chemically compatible and must be segregated.) Lab-packing hazardous wastes, i.e. placing compatible wastes in their original containers into steel drums with enough absorbent material to soak up any leakage. Absorbent material must be compatible wi'.h the wastes, and the drums are subject to state and federal regulatory requirements. Some wastes, such as latex paint, may be bulked, i.e. poured out of their original containers into steel drums, then mixed with absorbent materials. Other wastes, in particular waste oil, may be stored in approved tanks pending removal for recycling. These and other cost-saving options will depend on site-specific regulatory requirements and permits. Storage of drummed wastes in a safe manner, including segregation of incompatible materials, pending removal by a licensed hauler. Storage facilities designed for small amounts of hazardous wastes are manufactured by several companies and come in a variety of capacities. Training of workers in the safe handling of hazardous materials, emergency response, and use of appropriate safety equipment. • Clean-up and packaging of spilled hazardous wastes, and decontamination of the spill site. JOB:89001-4 12/12/89 4-46 4.5.2.2 WACP Personnel Needs Establishment of a "WACP will require a limited number of dedicated personnel with specific training in hazardous waste regulation, identification, and management. In addition, transfer station personnel whose regular duties mainly concern solid wastes will also play an important role in WACP implementation, including limited emergency response. Personnel requirements include: Program Manager: implements WACP revises program as required by changes in facility operations or in regulatory requirements develops and implements emergency response procedures • Program specialists: assist the Program Manager in implementing the WACP maintain WACP records, including information on incidents of improper disposal, waste surveillance, employee training Program technicians; assist Program Manager and specialists supervise surveillance and inspection of wastes entering transfer facilities assist in packaging and storage of improperly disposed wastes pending removal from the site by a licensed hauler Transfer station work crews: WACP personnel listed above would be responsible for training transfer station workers to safely respond to and handle of hazardous materials they encounter. Regular transfer station personnel have an opportunity to examine the waste stream for prohibited wastes at various control points throughout the facility: Scalehouse weigh masters can check incoming loads for hazardous materials (although tarps and overlying wastes may cover offending materials), and question drivers about waste content. Equipment operators, cleanup crews, and other transfer station personnel view unloading of vehicles in public dumping areas and the tipping floor, and may be trained to watch for potentially hazardous wastes and segregate them from other wastes. JOB:89001-4 12/12/89 4-47 Government agency role in waste acceptance control; Information gathered by public agencies in be used to make the WACP more effective. The data management system maintained by the County under AB 2185/2187 will reveal potential commercial and industrial hazardous waste generators. This information can be used to identify companies that may be likely to mix hazardous with solid wastes, allowing for extra efforts to contact these generators regarding establishment of the WACP, and identify waste loads for particular scrutiny. In addition, investigation of illegal dumping complaints (e.g. in vacant lots), toxics emergencies, and Fire Code inspections, may help identify generators who would be likely to place hazardous materials in the solid waste stream. Such activities could lead to prosecution of criminal activity by the District Attorney if the offender can be identified. 4.5.3 Providing Alternative Disposal Options for Household Hazardous Wastes As a means of protecting human health and tlie environment, the success of the WACP depends on the availabi-lity of alternate, safe disposal options. If these options are not made available, households and small businesses that are now the major contributors of hazardous materials to the solid waste stream will find other unsafe disposal options, such as sewerage. In San Diego County, public agencies have already taken a major role in hazardous waste management, and these functions are often synergistic with the role of the WACP. These activities include information and hazardous waste collection programs for households and small businesses. Transfer stations can become an important part of overall local efforts to improve hazardous waste management by households and small businesses. First, the implementa- tion of the WACP, particularly if its public information aspects are emphasized and are carried out "at the can" (i.e. through residential billings and trash-can stickers, and by sanitation workers who find hazardous materials in solid wastes), will itself perform an important educational role. Second, a transfer station with a WACP in place is an ideal site for household hazardous waste collection. The equipment, storage facilities, and trained personnel will already be available, and householders cleaning out garages and storage rooms would be able to dispose of accumulated debris safely and conveniently in one location. State permitting requirements for household hazardous waste collection programs are in a state of flux. It is likely that a program would require a permit. Establishment of a facility for wastes generated by small businesses would involve more comprehensive and stringent permitting requirements than a household facility. JOB:89001-4 12/12/89 4-48 Waste identification and packaging requirements for a household collection program would be similar to those for a WACP. The amount of personnel time and storage space needed would be increased. Personnel requirements would depend on how the program is structured; e.g., whether household hazardous wastes are accepted daily, on weekends only, or on a monthly or quarterly basis. Annual collection projects typically find that about 1 percent of households in the service area participate, and that the average household brings enough waste to fill 40 percent of a 55-gallon lab-packed drum. However, more frequent programs collect more waste; for example, the City of Palo Alto holds quarterly programs that each attract roughly 1 percent of the city's households, with participation continuing to increase. Disposal costs typically range from $200 to $300 per drum, depending on quantity. Costs can be reduced by bulking wastes; recycling waste oil, solvents, and many paints, and minimal on-site treatment, such as acid neutralization. These activities will involve more extensive permitting and regulation. Storage facilities may be specially designed and built for hazardous wastes collected by the WACP and household program. These facilities would include segregated storage areas for incompatible wastes, and safety features such as explosion-proof lighting, fire protection equipment, and security measures against improper entry. Alternately, prefabricated storage buildings specially designed for such programs can be purchased or possibly leased from several manufacturers. These structures come in a variety of sizes and can be customized according to the needs of the program; trained collection program staff can also be provided. Program costs may be most easily recouped through tipping-fee surcharges. Charging for disposal of hazardous wastes at transfer facilities may discourage proper disposal. Because household hazardous waste collection efforts in San Diego County are already quite extensive, programs instituted at transfer stations should be carefully integrated into the existing matrix. Costs for personnel, storage, disposal, and advertising will affect and be affected by existing efforts. An important aspect of a household hazardous waste collection program is public information and advertising. This information could be included along with WACP information in bills or other mailings to households. In addition, newspaper articles, radio shows and public service announcements can be used to advertise the program. Public information for collection programs may be modeled after fliers and brochures prepared for the many collection programs already operating in California. Again, public education for household hazardous waste programs established at transfer stations would be most effective if coordinated with existing collection programs in the area. JOB:89001-4 12/12/89 4-49 4.6 PERMITS REQUIRED TO SITE AND OPERATE TRANSFER FACILITIES A number of state and local agencies regulate management of solid and hazardous wastes, and as part of their regulatory powers may require permits for facility operations. Other agencies may not directly regulate facilities, but may comment on permit-related documents, such as environmental assessments. Solid waste transfer stations fair under different regulations fan household hazardous waste facilities, and require different permits. This section discusses permit requirements, first for solid waste transfer facilities, and second for household hazardous waste collection facilities. 4.6.1 Permits Required For Solid Waste Transfer Facilities 4.6.1.1 Solid Waste Facilities Permit State law regarding solid waste facility permits recently changed as a result of the passage of A3 939. The following description covers the current practices prior to this new law. The California Waste Management Board (CWMB) is the state agency charged with primary regulatory oversight regarding solid waste. This agency requires transfer station proponents to obtain a Solid Waste Facilities Permit from CWMB before beginning facility operations. The CWMB designates a Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) to receive and process permit applications, and to draft the proposed permit. CWMB then determines whether to concur with issuance of the draft permit, object to issuance, or require corrections of permit deficiencies. Thus, the role of CWMB is primarily one of oversight; however, all Solid Waste Facilities Permits must be approved by the state board. In San Diego County, the designated LEA is the County Department of Health Services Division of Environmental Health Services. As provided under state law, the division would require a transfer station proponent, as part of the permit application, to: • Provide a Report of Station Information describing the facility in enough detail to allow permit conditions to be set; JOB:89001-4 12/12/89 4 - 50 Obtain a General Plan consistency designation and Conditional Use Permit, or Major Use Permit, as required by the local planning agency, which in turn would almost certainly require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and Obtain certain specialized permits required by other agencies, such as the Army Corps of Engineer's 404 permit for facilities impacting wetlands within the Corps' jurisdiction. California law requires, for a solid waste facility proposed prior to January 1, 1990, that the proponent certify facility consistency with the County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP). Under AB 939, after this date new facilities must be consistent with the County Integrated Waste Management Plan (CoIWMP). As the CoIWMP will not be in place for some time after January 1990, the law is unclear regarding waste management plan consistency; however, the CoSWMP consistency requirement may remain in force until the CoIWMP is in place. The San Diego County agency with primary jurisdiction over solid waste management planning is the Department of Public Works Solid Waste Division. Each Solid Waste Facilities Permit contains conditions carefully designed to meet local concerns, such as traffic, odor, litter, noise, health effects, and any impacts and mitigation identified in the EIR. It should be noted that adequate sizing of facilities to provide for future growth or additional technology is important. Significant changes in transfer station operations, such as annual waste tonnage handled, can trigger a permit revision process, including preparation of a new EIR. Once the facility is in operation, the Division would carry out monthly inspections for compliance with state solid waste handling standards. 4.6.1.2 Conditional or Major Use Permit In order to construct a transfer station, the facility proponent must obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or Major Use Permit (MUP) from the planning agency with jurisdiction over the proposed site. The facility would also be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, which requires preparation of an EIR or issuance of a negative declaration of significant impacts by the planning agency. Establishment of a transfer station would almost certainly require the full environmental review and public comment of an EIR. JOB:89001-4 12/12/89 4-51 Facilities located in unincorporated areas would fall under the jurisdiction of the San Diego County Planning- Department. The department's major concerns would include traffic, noise, ' ir emissions, presence of hazardous materials, neighborhood compatibility, and possible site-specific issues such as wildlife and slope stability. The department recommends that project proponents participate in a pre-application meeting at the department in order to go over permit requirements, important issues such as environmental impacts, and other pertinent information. The department charges both private and public-sector entities $100 per hour per staff person for this service, and recommends one to two planning department staff members (an environmental analyst and/or planner) and one to two staff members from the public works department. Department staff indicated that a transfer station built within its jurisdiction probably would not be issued a CUP. Instead, the Department would require a MUP. There is no county zoning designation for solid waste facilities, and a MUP would override existing zoning and the need for a finding of consistency with the General Plan. Issuance of a MUP, however, would entail thoroughgoing analysis of potential impacts, including effects on surrounding zoning. 4.6.1.3 Air Pollution Cr vtrol Permits A transfer station would potentially generate nuisance dust and odors, and one operating a household hazardous waste collection program may potentially emit chemical fumes as well. These emissions fall under the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Rules 50 and 51. Any treatment of hazardous wastes on-site may possibly fall under Rule 59. Under these regulations, the APCD would require a transfer station to obtain two permitting documents: an Authority to Construct and an Authority to Operate. To obtain an Authority to Construct, a proponent must submit plans for the APCD to review. If the A^CD determines that the proposed facility will likely meet air quality standards, it sends the proponent an Authority to Construct letter, which sets forth conditions required for construction. In the case of a transfer station, required air pollution control equipment would likely include fans and blowers to draw air into a baghouse system to trap dust, and potentially a carbon filtration system or afterburner to control odors. The air quality standards applied by the APCD are quite stringent; the particular conditions applied to a transfer facility would depend on site-specific concerns, such as proximity to sensitive receptors. If toxic air emissions are a potential problem, a simple screening health risk assessment may be required, but it is not likely that a full risk assessment would be necessary. JOB:89001-4 12/12/89 4-52 After the fac.Mity is built, the APCD would issue a temporary start-up authorization to allow for facility shakedown. Following a successful post-construction compliance inspection and testing, the APCD would issue an Authority to Operate. 4.6.1.4 Water Quality Control Permits The Region 9 Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates projects that may potentially impact on surface and groundwater resources in San Diego County. For a solid waste disposal site, the RWQCB issues a Waste Discharge Permit requiring best management practices to prevent water contamination. For a transfer station, the board at minimum would require the proponent to submit a project description, in order to determine whether a permit is required. This description should be quite concise, as the board is required to charge a fee if review of the description exceeds one hour of staff time. RWQCB staff indicates that for a transfer station, because of minimal potential impact on water sources, a permit would probably not be required. Instead, this agency would probably limit its activities to an oversight role, in particular submitting comments on the EIR. The presence of a household hazardous waste collection site may increase the RWQCB's concern and involvement in the proposed project. 4.6.2 Order of Permitting Process For Solid Waste Facilities The permitting process for solid waste facilities is described in detail in CWMB's Permit Desk Manual. This document includes a flow chart depicting the timing and order for obtaining the necessary permits. Because the Solid Waste Facilities Permit is the governing permit for transfer stations, it incorporates by reference other permitting documents, such as the land use permit and mitigation described in the EIR. As a result, most other permits and related documents must be completed before the solid waste permit, while a few (such as those required for household hazardous waste collection) may be obtained concurrently. This means that expeditious permitting begins with those documents that involve a long permitting process, in particular the land use permit and accompanying EI7>. Depending on site- specific concerns, such as wildlife and wetlands, specialized permits may be required by agencies such as the California Department of Fish and Game and the Army Corps of Engineers. These specialized documents may take two or three years to obtain, but it is unlikely that any will be needed for the sites discussed in this report. JOB:89001-4 12/12/89 4-53 4.6.3 Permitting for Household Hazardous Waste Collection Household hazardous waste collection is regulated at the state level by the California Department of Health Services (DHS). According to Department staff, permitting policies for household hazardous waste collection are in flux. At this time, one-time and pilot collection projects are generally issued a variance, whereas permanent facilities require a hazardous waste facilities operating permit. The Department may develop a streamlined permit process to expedite establishment of household hazardous waste facilities. In San Diego County, the Division of Hazardous Materials Management within the Environmental Health Services Division of the County Department of Health Services has the authority to permit facilities, such as household hazardous waste collection sites. This agency would require an operating permit for any facility that: Generates any hazardous waste Has an underground storage tank for waste oil or similar materials Stores hazardous wastes over 500 pounds of a solid hazardous waste or 55 gallons of a liquid; any reportable quantity of an extremely hazardous waste (as listed in Title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations Parts 300 and 355, Appendix A: "reportable quantity" varies by substance) any amount of a carcinogen T':iese conditions mean that a household hazardous waste facility would require an operating permit. In particular, the facility would accept generator status for household hazardous wastes collected, and for any hazardous wastes found in solid waste through the Waste Acceptance Control Program, if the actual generator cannot be identified. The Division's major concerns would be proper management of wastes and adequate training of workers handling hazardous materials. Any treatment, such as acils neutralization or bulking of paint and solvents, would entail extra permit conditions. In addition to any conditions that may be developed during the permitting process, the Division would perform an annual inspection of the site. This inspection would be in lieu of inspection by the state DHS. Should problems arise that are outside the Division's powers, the Division would call upon DHS. JOB:89001-4 12/12/89 4-54 Permit requirements, from other agencies for a household hazardous waste collection facility have been noted above. These would include additional requirements in permits or comments regarding the transfer facility issued by the APCD and the RWQCB to control emissions to air and water. If household hazardous waste management is limited to lab-packing of wastes, these requirements would likely be minimal. On-site treatment, while holding down disposal costs, would increase potential emissions and the possibility' of spills or other accidents and therefore intensify the need for regulatory scrutiny. JOB-.89001-4 12/12/89 . 4-55 ^v;. Revised San Diego Regional So I id Waste Management Pla§ t pjan BOARD OF SUPERVH86RS vCHM BRIAN P, BILBRAY;.. Ul STRICT 1VCHM GEORGE F. BAitE>;^r:]9i;sTRiCT'2SUSAN GoLDiNGy •LEON L , W i LL i AMS,JOHN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ^:GRANVILLE M. BOWMAN, DIRECTOR ' REVISED 1986 GRANVILLE M. BOWMAN DIRECTOR (619) 894-2212 (LOCATION CODE 76O» (Enimtg nf jian DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 5555 OVERLAND AVE. SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123-1295 COUNTY ENGINEER COUNTY AIRPORTS COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONER TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS COUNTY SURVEYOR FLOOD CONTROLLIQUID WASTE SOLID WASTE CREDITS The following Department of Public Works team prepared this Plan: Roger F. Walsh John S. Burke Sharon J. Reid Julia M. Quinn Robert T. Allen Frank A. Mulligan Eric L. Swanson Jeff Swiney Zohreh Omidvar Chief Deputy Director Deputy Director Deputy Director Environmental Management Specialist Chief, Solid Waste Operations Senior Civil Engineer Senior Civil Engineer Administrative Assistant II Junior Civil Engineer III Special staff: thanks go to the Department of Public Works' secretarial Jan Bourgeois Jan Bull is Sharon Ming Administrative Secretary III Administrative Secretary II Administrative Secretary II GRANVILLE M. BOWMAN, Director Department of Public Works GMB:JMQ:scm TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SUMMARY 1 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 9 CHAPTER I - OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY AREA 1-1 Agencies Involved In Solid Waste 1-1 Population Trends 1-2 Solid Waste Characteristics 1-3 Summary 1-3 CHAPTER II - STORAGE, COLLECTION AND TRANSPORTATION II-l Solid Waste Storage II-l Solid Waste Collection 11-5 Transfer System in the Interior Region 11-10 Contingency Plan 11-18 Summary 11-20 CHAPTER III - WASTE GENERATION AND DISPOSAL III-l Waste Generation III-l Waste Disposal II1-8 Existing Disposal Facilities III-9 Future Disposal Needs for the San Diego Region 111-10 Proposed New Facilities III-34 Completed Landfills III-39 Contingency Plans 111-41 Summary II1-42 CHAPTER IV - ENFORCEMENT Components of a Solid Waste Local Enforcement Program IV-1 Litter Control IV-7 Summary IV-12 CHAPTER V - RESOURCE RECOVERY, PROCESSING AND REUSE V-l Recycling V-l Waste-to-Energy V-l4 Waste-to-Energy in San Diego County V-16 Summary V-26 CHAPTER VI - FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION VI-1 Organizations Responsible for Solid Waste Management VI-1 Funding Sources for Solid Waste Programs VI-5 Capital and Operational Costs VI-7 Summary VI-11 Summary of Achievements During 1982 - 1985 MANAGEMENT 1. Continuing - Implement Plan. The County and incorporated cities continue to implement the policies and goals included in the Solid Waste Management Plan, including: pursue increased recycling and volume reduction; identify and establish replacement facilities; provide ongoing collection programs; monitor enforcement programs. 2. 1982 - 1985 - Implement Industry Advisory Committee Proposed by San Diego County Disposal Association. A Solid Waste Industry Committee was established in 1982. The committee meets at least quarterly with Department of Public Works staff to review proposed County solid waste management projects. The Committee is supportive of the County's solid waste program as discussed in the Plan and implemented in each Fiscal Year's Spending Plan. 3. 1982 - 1985 - Review existing solid waste financing mechanisms and propose appropriate changes. Existing financing mechanisms are adequate to provide landfill disposal and maintenance services. They will need to be revised to cover the costs of future facility replacement. 4. Continuing - Monitor Solid Waste Enforcement Program Solid waste enforcement activities are generally adequate. The County has recently adopted uniform nuisance abatement procedures which will result in improved enforcement of litter and illegal dumping regulations in the unincorporated areas. 5. Continuing - Review and update solid waste contingency planning programs as the need arises. 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 reviews and revises the Plan as necessary to be consistent with State law. 7. 1982 - 1992 - Consider establishment of a joint powers Solid Waste Authority. The County and the City of San Diego meet periodically to discuss solid waste management in the region. The need to propose a Solid Waste Authority is reviewed annually. When appropriate, it will be pursued. VOLUME REDUCTION 1. Continuing - Continue Implementation of Board Policy 1-76 - Solid Waste Disposal. Make any necessary recommendations for revision. The County and many of its cities promote volume reduction through their support of the SANDER and North County Recycling and Energy Recovery Center Projects;, through support of buy-back centers, source separation programs and other community recycling efforts; and by providing public information and education on recycling. 2. 1982 - 1985 - Develop methane recovery programs at landfills. fiathane recovery projects are underway at the County's Bonsai 1, Otay, San Marcos and Sycamore Landfills. Recovery projects at the City's Miramar and Chollas Landfills are either proposed or being investigated for feasibility. 3. 1982 - 1985 - Seek contractor(s) for gravel mining and/or asphalt production at Sycamore. The preliminary report for the project indicated a depressed aggregate market in San Diego County, an abundance of material and relatively low demand. Work on the project was suspended. The Department of Public Works will review the project in 1990 to determine whether market conditions are favorable to recommend implementation of the project. 4. 1982 - 1985 - Promote the composting of tree trimmings with other materials. The City of San Diego has implemented a chipping program at their Miramar Landfill. 5. 1982 - 1985 - Investigate slicing or shredding used tires prior to landfill disposal or processing. No economical method of tire shredding exists nor are there markets at this time for large quantities of used tires. 6. Continuing - Continue waste reduction programs: a. Public information and education program. The City and County of San Diego both contract for public information and education programs. b. Community action programs. Community waste reduction programs implemented in San Diego County include: buy-back centers, drop-off bins, thrift stores, door-to-door collections, white office paper recycling, separate collection programs, fee exemption for qualified clean up and recycling programs. c. Support waste reduction legislation. Proposed legislation dealing with solid waste is reviewed. Legislative positions are recommended. 7. 1982 - 1985 - Assist in separate collection program implementation as requested. Programs have been implemented in the cities of Oceanside, Sol ana Beach and Vista. 8. Continuing - Assist and coordinate volunteer recycling program. Both the County and City of San Diego have contracts with private firms for conducting a public awareness program to encourage voluntary recycling. 9. Continuing - Plan and implement additional volume reduction as economic feasibility is determined. The County and City of San Diego continue to investigate the feasibility of implementing volume reduction technologies. The City of San Diego's SANDER Project at their Miramar Landfill is being reviewed by the California Energy Commission. The North County Recycling and Energy Recovery Center at the San Marcos Landfill is scheduled for construction in late 1986. 10. 1982 - 1992 - Program to encourage expanded use of retreaded tires and reclaimed oil. A survey of new retail oil outlets is being conducted as part of the County's public information and education program contract. Flyers have also been delivered to major oil retailers for distribution to customers on recycling locations. 11. 1982 - 1992 - Establish composting program in Interior Zone and at Sycamore Landfi11. San Diego Gas and Electric Company operates a chipping program at the County's Sycamore Landfill. 12. 1982 - 1992 - Promote market development for reclaimed products. The promotion of market development for reclaimed products has been a problem for local governments with limited control over markets. 13. 1982 - 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. RESOURCE RECOVERY 1. 1982 - 1985 - Pursue implementation of SANDER Project. The SANDER Project is being considered for approval by the California Energy Commission. The SANDER Project will be sited adjacent to the City of San Diego's Miramar Landfill. 2. 1982 - 1985 - Implement alternative for operation of 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 improved storage concepts. The cities and the County are encouraged to implement improved storage requirements. 2. Continuing - Assist cities in waste collection rate analyses on request. This staff assistance is available when requested. No requests have been received to date. 3. 1982 - 1985 - Investigate preparation of model ordinance to facil- itate uniform solid waste management practices in region. A model solid waste ordinance was prepared and included in the 1982 Plan Revision. No uniform ordinances have been adopted because of the differing needs of each jurisdiction. 4. Continuing - Monitor Local Enforcement Agency Program Compliance Periodic review of Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) programs is conducted by the California Waste Management Board. DISPOSAL (URBAN REGION) 1. 1982 - 1985 - Close North Miramar Landfill and establish West Miramar. The City of San Diego ceased operations at North Miramar and established the West Miramar facility in 1983. 2. 1982 - 1985 - Proposed funding mechanism for facility acquisition and completed fill maintenance. The County's Solid Waste Enterprise Fund includes funding for future facility acquisition and completed fill maintenance. The City of San Diego has funds allocated for acquisition of the SANDER Project site. 3. Continuing - Maintain right to designate disposal facility as a condition of collection franchise or permit issuance. County Code Section 68.511 permits the County to direct collected solid waste to the facility which best suits the interests and needs of the County. Under Municipal Code Section 66.01 et seq., which requires the licensing of private haulers, the City of San Diego also can regulate where waste collected within their jurisdiction will be disposed of. 4. 1982 - 1992 - Close Bonsai 1 Landfill The Bonsall Landfill was closed in August, 1985. 5. 1982 - 1985 - Study acquisition of additional acreage at Otay, Ramona and Sycamore Landfills. The County has an option to purchase additional acreage adjacent 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 North County. Preliminary sites have been identified and will be studied further. 7. 1982 - 1992 - Close Montgomery Demolition Landfill The Montgomery Landfill is scheduled to be closed in 1988. 8. Continuing - Maintain and revise the Solid Waste Allocation Matrix 1 The Solid Waste Allocation Matrix was revised for use in this current revision. 9. 1982 - 2000 - Identify replacement facility for Miramar and Montgomery Landfills. The City of San Diego has requested that the County, as the regional solid waste planning and management agency, conduct a search for potential landfill sites within the City. 10. 1982 - 2000 - Support development of alternative methods to land- filling. The County of San Diego continues to review and support development of alternative methods of solid waste disposal. INTERIOR REGION 1. Continuing - Implement a financing structure for County operated facilities. In 1983 the Board of Supervisors directed that operational costs of the Interior Region facilities be supported by the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. 2. 1982 - 1985 - Remove landfill designation from 207 acre 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 former Descanso Landfill. 4. Continuing - Investigate feasibility for resource recovery. No responses were received to a 1983 request for proposals to develop a resource recovery facility in the Interior Zone. 5. Continuing - Monitor Interior Zone solid waste rural container sites and other facilities for efficiency and effectiveness. The Department of Public Works continues to monitor operations at its ten rural container sites. 6. 1982 - 1992 - Modify the Julian and Campo container site operations by including transfer capability. Both sites continue to operate as small volume transfer stations. LITTER REDUCTION 1. Continuing - Develop and coordinate anti-litter programs as requested. The County and the cities support community clean-up programs, investigate illegal dumping and littering complaints and provide crews for limited pickup of litter. The County has recently adopted uniform nuisance abatement procedures which allow the County to abate illegal dumps on private property and assess the property owner. The City of San Diego provides routine litter and litter receptacle pick-up on City-owned property, roadsides, parks and beaches and participates in the "Keep America Beautiful" program. 2. Continuing - Support legislation aimed at reducing litter. The County continues to review all proposed legislation aimed at reducing litter and supports those items of legislation as appropriate. 3. 1982 - 1992 - Adoption of comprehensive litter control ordinance. The County and the incorporated cities in the region have all adopted litter control ordinances. SPECIAL WASTES 1. 1982 - 1985 - Pursue alternative handling of vehicle abandonments. The County Department of Public Works has worked with the County Departments of Planning and Land Use and Health Services and the Sheriff and District Attorney to establish an abandoned vehicle abatement program. The City of San Diego's Police Department operates an abandoned vehicle program. 2. 1982 - 1985 - Monitor agriculture waste generation trends and develop program to mitigate any problems. The disposal of agricultural waste in San Diego County is not a problem at this time. 3. 1982 - 1985 - Cooperate with federal, state and local regulatory agencies in programs for use of sewage sludge residues. The various sewering agencies in the County are currently eval- uating alternative uses and disposal methods for sewage sludge. The County has been participating in this effort. The County is also using sludge in final cover material to better maintain post-closure planting. 4. Continuing - Monitor the disposal of waste oils. The County Department of Health Services (DHS) is responsible for monitoring waste oil disposal. DHS requires permits for waste oil generators (i.e., service stations) to ensure properdisposal of waste oil. H v REVISED SAM DIEGO REGION SOLID HASTE MANAGEMENT PLAH IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 1987-2007 Legend: C » Continuing Activity (as long as we are responsible) L - Lead Entity 1 - Board of Supervisors S - Support 2 - Department of Public WorksP * Policy Formation 3 - Department of Health Services 4 - Municipalities 5 - Private Industry MANAGEMENT ACTION NUMBER 1 2 3 4 5 6 VOLUME REDUCTION ACTION NUMBER 1 10 11 TIME ACTION C Implement plan. C Review existing solid waste financingmechanisms and propose appropriate changes. C Monitor Solid Waste Enforcement Program. C Review and update solid waste contingencyplanning programs as the need arises. 1990 Plan review and revision. 1987 Consider establishment of a joint powersSolid Waste Authority. C Update solid waste management ordinances. TIME ACTION C Continue Implementation of Board Policy 1-76 - Solid Waste Disposal. Make any necessary recommendations for revision. 1990 Review consultant's recommendation regarding gravel mining at Sycamore for possible contract operation. 1990 Investigate the implementation of gravel recovery at the Miramar Landfill 1987 Investigate alternative disposal methods for used tires. Implement if appropriate at landfills. C Continue waste reduction commitment through: a. Public information and education programs; b. Community action programs; c. Support of waste reduction legislation. C Assist in separate collection program implementation as requested. C Assist and coordinate volunteer recycling programs. 1987 Continue implementation of North County Recycling and Energy Recovery Project. 1987 Pursue permitting and local review of the SANDER Project. C Plan and implement additional volume reduction projects. C Establish composting programs as appropriate. J. P P P P P P _1 P P P P P P 2 L L L L L L L 2 L L L L S L L S L L 1 1 S L L S L S L S S S S L 1 1 L L S US L L,S S L L L,S L J> S S S S S S J5 S S S S L US S S S S VOLUME REDUCTION ACTION NUMBER (continued) 12 13 14 15 STORAGE AND COLLECTION ACTION NUMBER 1 -• •••• TIME 1987 1987 C 1990 TIME c ACTION 1 Identify and establish sludge recycling/ composting facility in the North County. Support development of alternative methods P of sewage sludge disposal and support devel-opment of markets for reclaimed sludge. Study technological advances in volume Preduction. Promote market development for reclaimedproducts. ACTION I Encourage implementation of improved storage 2 S S L S 2 L 3 4 S L S P S S L 3 4 L 5 S S S L 5 S DISPOSAL ACTION NUMBER 1987 TIME 1987 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1987-90 1992 1989 1988 1987-90 1988-94 C 1987 1987-89 12 concepts during planning stages for new or remodeled development. Monitor Interior Zone solid waste rural container sites and other facilities for efficiency and effectiveness. ACTION Maintain right to designate disposalfacility as a condition of collectionfranchise or permit issuance. Study acquisition of additional acreage atexisting landfills (Borrego, Otay andSan Marcos). Investigate and implement volume enhance-ment at existing facilities, if feasible. Establish North County and East County replacement facilities. Review need for reopening Palomar TransferStation as a solid waste facility. Close Montgomery Demolition Landfill. Identify and establish Montgomery Landfillreplacement facility. Identify and establish replacement facilityfor Miramar Landfill. Support development of alternative methodsto landfilling. Pursue alternative handling of vehicleabandonments. Identify and establish landfills for inertmaterial and special wastes such assludge and non-hazardous liquids. Maintain and revise the Solid WasteAllocation Model. J. P P P P P P P 2 L L L L L S S S L L L 3 ± S L L L L S L L L L P,S L L j> S S S S S S S S S 10 DISPOSAL ACTION NUMBER (continued) 13 14 15 LITTER REDUCTION ACTION NUMBER 1 ENFORCEMENT ACTION NUMBER TIME ACTION 1988 Close Ramona Landfill 1f recalculations of remaining volume does not Indicate additional capacity. 1988-90 Establish Ramona Landfill expansion. 1987-90 Implement activities necessary to bring facilities on the Open Dump Inventory into compliance with Federal standards. TIME ACTION C Develop and coordinate anti-litter programsas requested. C Support legislation aimed at reducinglitter. TIME ACTION C Review LEA Plans and update or prepare as necessary. 1987 Cities that have no made LEA designations shall do so. L S L S L S L 1 1 1 1 I L L S P L S P,L S L S L S S S L S 11 CHAPTER I OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY AREA Effective management of solid wastes requires identification of those characteristics which influence regional solid waste generation and disposal patterns. This Chapter identifies the political and demographic makeup of the region as it impacts solid waste management. AGENCIES INVOLVED IN SOLID WASTE MATTERS In San Diego County, a number of governmental agencies have overlapping jurisdictions in the field of solid waste management. As indicated in the State Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972, local governments have the primary responsibility for solid waste management subject to the regulatory authority of other agencies and boards in specific aspects of enforcement. The County is the designated regional planning and management agency. It is responsible for maintaining the State-mandated Solid Waste Manage- ment Plan. All solid waste planning, operational functions and regulatory controls in the unincorporated areas of the county are also administered by the County. All of the cities have used their authority to develop general policies governing the storage and collection of municipal refuse. Disposal responsibility has been assumed by the County and City of San Diego since the closure of the last municipal landfill in Oceanside in 1975. Cities must recognize their responsibility to provide disposal capacity for the waste generated by its citizens. Enforcement of city ordinances and policies is the responsibility of the individual city. County ordinances are enforced by the Solid Waste Section of the Department of Public Works and the Department of Health Services. 1-1 The San Diego Air Pollution Control District is responsible for monitoring air quality and enforcing air quality requirements established by the State of California Air Resources Board and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is responsible for maintaining the quality of coastal, surface and groundwater in the region. The RWQCB must approve proposed solid waste disposal sites to ensure that pollution of water resources does not occur. San Diego Association of Governments coordinates general planning efforts for the region. The County's Regional Solid Waste Management Plan must be reviewed by this agency. The County's Department of Health Services (DHS) acts as lead agency in hazardous waste matters, as well as enforcing health-related standards and regulations. DHS permits all solid waste facilities in the region and inspects them regularly to ensure permitting compliance. It also serves as the Local Enforcement Agency for health-related matters for the 18 cities and the County. POPULATION TRENDS Population and Demography The population of San Diego County increased from 1,357,800 in 1970 to more than 1,861,800 in 1980, a gain of over 37% and to over 2,166,000 in 1985, a gain of over 16%. This growth rate is higher than that pro- jected in the 1982 Plan. Population projections forecast an increase to 2,700,000 by the year 2000. This is an increase of 35,600 new residents each year through the year 2000. Approximately 38% of this annual increase is expected from births. The remaining 62% increase comes from people moving into the 1-2 County. New residents are expected to concentrate in and around the suburban cities and communities in the North County area and in the South Bay area. A discussion of specific growth trends appears in the Appendix A-I-1. SOLID HASTE CHARACTERISTICS The quantity of solid waste generated in the region has been steadily increasing. For the period of 1975 to 1982, per capita generation remained at about 1.1 tons per person per year. Since then, however, the per capita generation rate has increased by nearly 10% per year, so that in 1985 each person generated an estimated 1.455 tons of solid waste. Increases in the overall per capita generation rate are mostly attributed to increases in the residential and demolition waste categories. This reflects the increased construction activity and improved economic conditions noted in the region since the early 1980's. A discussion of projected waste generation in the County appears in Chapter III, GENERATION AND DISPOSAL. The character of the waste generated in the area has changed slightly since the 1970's. In 1970, plastics comprised 2.0% of collected wastes; in the 1980's, plastics make up nearly 8.0% of the waste stream. Efforts in aluminum recycling brought with it a reduction in ferrous metal cans used for soft drinks and replaced them with all aluminum cans. SUMMARY San Diego County is a large and physically diversified area with a mild climate. The area's economic base is heavily dependent upon trade, government and tourism, all relatively "clean" industries. 1-3 Both population and per capita waste generation rates have been Increasing faster than predicted In the 1982 Revised Plan. This continues a trend Identified In the first revision. The improved economic conditions of the last four years have resulted in increased housing starts and overall consumption of goods, hence the increase In per capita waste generation rates. The County of San Diego has adopted a policy to promote alternatives to landfill disposal (see Board of Supervisors' Policy 1-76 in Appendix B). Volume reduction methods such as recycling centers and separate collection programs have been established by numerous civic, religious, charitable and commercial groups. Municipally sponsored separate collection programs have been established in several jurisdictions. Others are planned. Additionally, energy recovery systems are being pursued by the County of San Diego at the San Marcos Landfill and by the City of San Diego at the Miramar Landfill. These projects are expected to be operational by the end of this decade. 1-4 CHAPTER II STORAGE, COLLECTION AND TRANSPORTATION This chapter describes waste storage, collection and transportation practices in San Diego County. For purposes of solid waste management, San Diego County is divided into the urban and interior regions. (See Figure II-l.) The densely populated urban area contains approximately 95% of the population within the western third of the County. This area is comprised of 18 incorporated cities and the urban and suburban unincorporated area. The unincorporated and rural interior region occupies approximately 65% of the County's land area and contains less than 5% of the population. SOLID HASTE STORAGE On-site storage of solid waste includes all facilities, enclosures and containers used to hold waste until they are taken for disposal. ON-SITE STORAGE STANDARDS As shown in Table II-l, all local jurisdictions in the region have regu- lations governing storage of household garbage and refuse. There is no uniformity from community to community. Three cities in San Diego County presently regulate on-site waste storage to a greater extent than specifications for storage containers: Coronado requires that waste matter and receptacles be kept on the owner's premises at all times in a location approved by a Sanitary Inspector. Storage must not present an unsightly appearance. El Cajon requires minimum size enclosures for both cans and commercial bins which must be adequately screened from public view and the adjoining property. II-l FIGURE tl-l SAN DIEGO REGION SOLID HASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM II-2 Sgg .— *^ ^w Lu2 _ <t 1 3£ ^p £^ p- Ot/» U LU _j z oa 2 2^C ^_ ^_ ^"" ^P ^i LU LUO _J IS) Oiii jj OS 00 ^M35^lj •13C5o te» LM N4 J COI-H • H fy%iz3 2 •J ^0I— I LUea os _ t- F SSS >• fc> M og- ^_ Q- SS •3 hi*1 t^ ^» ^fCJ T^ 5* o"• — i >— i 59 OfLUQJJ 5 O. — LU •S M — 1 :_} oo § Q 1— 1 h-CJ1-4a M Q(J33 •"O Ccu 0)\ cu ^• i- c C c/» S- O) O O t-t^^f *r* "^ O4-> 4-> 4J CC+JCCOOO oo oo'o'o'ocucu cu en cu eu cj ej o 4->^^ ^— ^O ^— ^— — i -* ^_ •— i— ••— ,— >, >> 0o ocoo o i- J- t/> a.U O •M-O O O O CU VI •X^ ^J ^,) ^J |" ^^ ^^ ^^> ^1 ^*) CO t3 ^^ (O SM t* ^ ^J $M ^D T3 ^Z ^~OOOCOCCOJH- 4-* 4^ 4^ (U +•* CO <O O*O tQ *O "O fO ?*I 3^ *|—^3 ^3 ^3 "r* ^3 | i ^J C C C M C C C£££2££iS •r™ »^ CO CO >. >, ^ t. 0) r^ S- S- •r- O X. 1- O O4^ 4-J IO 4-^ 4^ 4^ =J 0 t— 300^ ^ ^; ^ -2 £. 4-> I— 4-> 4J •— «—•r- O *r~ ••— O O O U O 000 Moo o cu t-H o in o 10 in |— i*s» v0 vo r^^Tj r«^ go oS- 4->u. L. >i >i >> >^ O ^3CD CU CU CU Ll. CU»— ,_,_,- CT i— i— i— r— -0 C ^C ^C ^C ^C *^ *O(O ^~ •» «k M * Q_ t» JD JD XI XJ XI <C 333 3 3 O. MO O O O O >> (0 O 0 0 0 0 Oin in vo in r-. in "SS "°" >a 4J CO CO TJ -i- O C «O<O ^* ^J (~ O 4^f^ (O CO "'^ *r~co <o c ST ro c H *3 S- i— 0<o xc o cu •— c O (_> O Q LU LU c co o 4-* 4J0 0 fH ^"^ f^ f*" 0 0o o >^ >J ^ ^o o4-* 4-* (O 10 ^3 ^3c c r— ^~ CO CO +? +? r— 2—•r" «r- => => ^ ^14-> 4->•^ •*- O O o oO CO i£> in ^i^ fVI«~^ tvi ^> ^tcu ai ^~ ^^^^ ^c M A X) XI 3 3 O 0 o o co co x:o cuCOo •i— (O "O *^*C i-o cuo a.co Eii i t— i c c0 0•r~ *rm +-> 4-> O O Ccu cu o •— 1— +J O O 0 CJ CJ CU1^^ >>>>•—S- fc- 0 O 0 U4"^ 4^ rtS <o >i T3 ^3 1"ceo<O fO 4-* ^^ ^^ lO1 1 "K3c c c 5 ^ ^ >> >> TT 11 4J +•> 1^^* fy ^ ^r fc.o o o o o o Q> Q) 9) ^_* r« fHBo o oo o o in m in i-H «-H CM vo (O VO ^> ^*>cu cu^— r— ^— r™ ^C ^C A *k X) XI XI 333 O O U in in in co co co >> cu •*-> <JoS- i— fl3 f n co CO Ccu c os: o •!-E 4->(O CU (O—I _l z x:1/r •fci C^ i- 0 <**x 4-*o.C C E0 0 CU o o <U CU r~ i— r— «O "0*00 O O CUa. (• SHo o cu4^ 4^ E<O fO O^D ^D Wc c« « T- CQ >> ^ J_ •r- O = 0 ^i f^4J i— •r- O O O G\ ^3 00 O to oo >^o ^•B f™" ^5 A X) XJ 3 3 O O o m TJ- co cuT5 I/Ic >><T3 <acu S0 O0 0- o •r- ocup« r— Oo a. o T™c32 ^^. O4^toTJC i CUX 1—"$; 4^ •r- O V) CUX H^ >^CU ^™ ^^ «k X> 3 Oin in ^"^o >»O5 4->eu ••-•i- CJQ — ' c fOoo ^^CMOL. i-O OOcucu r-r—"l/> OO J-CJOCU ^M*^^ ^^ l»L-(nOocuo.4^ Q} I/) <O O C•^ C <Oecus-root—St-i —1c s.o ocu fMoo mocom vor«!f^ EOOS-+JLu J_o-oLUCUOl•oc•r-10 0. S-<e O-CO I— oin in•a- ^~, ^^+jc3O CO • J c oo cu •M r—0 OCU CJ ^™ ^%o s.o o >> <o ^_ ^^o c4-> (O(o z: c cro O2 Z s- s.o o4^ 4-*o ocu cu r™~ r~o o CJ CJ o invo en V£5 |xl o inCO •r>* XI X) 3 3 CJ CJ 0 0in in o mco »a- COooS- (0 CUZ CU c cro eaoo oo ^^ C M0 S-•i- O o ocu cu t— r- COO O t.o o cu >> t-I- CO Oo cu o. 4-> CU COro co c•o e ro C ttl S-•ool—S t-_ic ^ eg s_o 0cu f*m O CJ in ooo m vo r^i— i E0 0 S- 4->u. u O T3Lu CUen X3 C•w— <ara s-o. s- oO. I/) 1— "* 0in in r* O CUca rocro *ooo eo•r" Ocu ^—oo >^J^o (0 c s £_ o ocu ^~oo o VO x» 3 CJ 0 Lf) o ro CO •r- > VOoo1 1— 1 vo TT-3 The City of San Diego regulates placement of containers as well as their type and condition. In addition, waste storage in mobile home parks, bakeries, restaurants, hospitals, ships and aircraft and organized camps throughout the region is regulated under the State's Health and Safety Code and Administrative Code. These regulations are enforced by the local Department of Health Services and include length of storage and type of storage containers. Almost all residential refuse is currently collected from the street, curb or alley. Municipal ordinances require storage of solid waste away from public view prior to collection day. With the increasing use of bulk containers and mechanized collection by generators of large volumes of wastes, the suitability and accessibility of storage space has become critical. For example, in some of the older sections of the San Diego metropolitan area, commercial developers did not consider the need for adequate on-site storage facilities. Owners of businesses built on small lots frequently find that many storage areas are inadequate in size, poorly located on the property, in full view of or encroaching upon the public right-of-way and adjacent properties, and not readily accessible- to collection vehicles. These conditions exist to some degree in most communities throughout the County. In recognition of the need to correct these deficiencies, Section 17313, Title 14, Division 7 (1975) of the California Administrative Code provides that: "The design of any new, substantially remodeled or expanded building or other facility shall provide for proper storage or handling which will accommodate the solid waste loading anticipated and which will allow for efficient and safe waste removal or collection. The design shall demonstrate to local land use and building permit issuing authorities that it includes the required provisions." II-4 the planning and/or building departments of each city in the region and the County should incorporate provisions in their codes which ensure compliance with these standards. STORAGE CONTAINERS FOR MANUAL COLLECTION Requirements for storage containers for municipal refuse are contained in Title 14 of the state statutes and various local ordinances. They specify type, size, weight, and placement of containers for pick-up. STORAGE CONTAINERS FOR MECHANIZED COLLECTION Mechanized waste collection is an efficient and cost-effective means of serving large residential complexes and commercial and industrial establishments. Since large portable bins and drop boxes are emptied mechanically, they must be specially constructed. They are designed to prevent spillage or leakage during on-site storage or transport. They are corrosion resistant, easily cleaned, and designed to facilitate removal of the refuse by gravity or by mechanical means. Currently, mechanical waste collection is found in the City of Imperial Beach and at Camp Pendleton, and by private bin haulers throughout the County for large residential, commercial and industrial establishments. SOLID HASTE COLLECTION Solid waste collection in the urban region of San Diego County is permitted through a variety of practices. Each of the 18 incorporated cities maintains responsibility for management of refuse collection. The County of San Diego regulates collection in the unincorporated suburban and rural communities. In most incorporated areas of San Diego County, collection of solid waste is performed by franchise or contract. As shown on Table 11-2, residential and commercial solid waste is collected under exclusive II-5 franchise or contract in 13 of the 18 incorporated cities. In the cities of Encinitas, Poway, Santee and Sol ana Beach, and the unincorporated areas of the County, waste is collected by any number of firms licensed by the applicable jurisdiction. Collection fees vary. Only the City of San Diego operates its own collection system, providing weekly collection to city residents and small commercial establishments. Additionally, the City issues licenses to collectors of large residential complexes and commercial and industrial wastes. In the unincorporated area, the County requires that any person wishing to provide solid waste collection service obtain a permit. Permits, issued by the Department of Public Works, are available in 29 solid waste permit areas. For convenience, these permit areas are shown on Figure II-2 and coincide with the sub-regional census tract boundaries. A list of licensed haulers and their collection service areas are included in Table II-3. The County issues three types of permits: COLLECTOR "A" PERMITS - Requires the permit holder to provide weekly residential and commercial service in the permit area. COLLECTOR "B" PERMITS - Limits and requires the permit holder to provide 20 cubic yard or larger, drop box commercial service only within permit areas. TRANSPORTER PERMITS - Required for permit holders who provide collection service in an incorporated city and/or by government contract and who transport said solid waste through the unincorporated areas of the County for final disposal at a County landfill. Collected wastes are transported to one of the five landfills operated by the County of San Diego or the Miramar Landfill operated by the City of San Diego. The County designates the disposal site as a condition of issuance of a collector or transporter permit as provided in the County's Solid Waste Ordinance. Specific information on the landfills is contained in Chapter III, Generation and Disposal. II-6 TABLE I1-2 WASTE COLLECTION CONTRACT/FRANCHISE HOLDERS JURISDICTION CARLSBAD CHULA VISTA CORONADO DEL MAR EL CAJON ENCINITAS ESCONDIOO IMPERIAL BEACH LA MESA LEMON GROVE NATIONAL CITY OCEANSIDE POHAY SAN DIEGO CITY SAN DIEGO COMITY SAN MARCOS SANTEE SOLANA BEACH VISTA PERIOD 5 years, renewable annually 5 year contract with options 6 year contract Indefinite, with Performance Standards & Right to Cancel for any reason on six months written notice 8/1/85 through 8/1/91 with1 year automatic extension CURRENTLY EMPLOYS THE COUNTY 6 years, renewable annually 5 year contract with three 5 year options 5 year contract 5 year contract 10 year contract 5 year contract 1 year, renewable 1 year, renewable 1 year, renewable 5 year with renewable option CURRENTLY EMPLOYS THE COUNTY CURRENTLY EMPLOYS THE COUNTY 5 year with renewable option NAME Coast Waste Management, Inc. Chula Vista Sanitary Svc., Inc. (GSX) Reliable Disposal Company (EDCO) Coast Waste Management, Inc. Universal Refuse Removal Co. Inc.(Waste Management, Inc.) SYSTEM Escondido Disposal, Inc. Imperial Beach Disposal (GSX) La Mesa Disposal (EDCO) EDCO Disposal Corporation EDCO Disposal Corporation Oceanside Disposal Company (Waste Management, Inc.) Unlimited number of firms Unlimited number of firms Unlimited number of firms Mashburn Sanitation Company (SWS) SYSTEM SYSTEM Vista Sanitation Company (SWS) MILITARY COLLECTION Solid waste collection at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base In Oceanside and at the Navy facilities in the cities of San Diego, Coronado and National City is performed by private contractors. Collection frequency varies from a minimum of once a week for educational complexes and small office buildings, to daily at officer and enlisted personnel clubs and messes and other food distribution outlets. Average collection frequency at Camp Pendleton is three times per week, and four times per week at the Naval District facilities. II-7 SOLID HASTE COLLECTION PERMIT AREAS II-8 TABLE II-3 LICENSED COLLECTORS AND SERVICE AREAS IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA COLLECTOR Oceanslde Disposal Inland Disposal Coast Waste Management North County Disposal Solid Waste Services, Inc. B & J Waste Removal San Diego Disposal, Co. American Trash Services All American DisposalServices OLD, Inc. EDCO Disposal/dba: Thomas & Sons, Fallbrook Refuse GSX/dba:San1-Ta1ner, Mlkkelson Escondldo Disposal Jamul Services Mountain Empire Trucking Co. Pacific Disposal, Inc. Universal Refuse Removal Co. Western Waste Industries Yates Debris Box Services Scoring Equipment Bennle Ploclch(Bennie's Trash Disposal) United Disposal Services TOWN/CITY/AREA MAP REFERENCE NUMBER 14, 42. 44. 46 46, 49. 50 41, 42, 43 41, 42, 43 North San Diego. Cardiff. Enclnltas,Solana Beach, Oceanslde. Fall brook Fa11 brook, Pauma, Palomar-Julian San Marcos, Cardiff, Enclnltas, Sol anaBeach, Carlsbad San Marcos, Enclnltas, Sol ana Beach,Carlsbad North San Diego, Poway, Escondldo,San Marcos, Cardiff, Enclnltas, SolanaBeach, Carlsbad, Fallbrook, Vista. ValleyCenter, Pauma Palomar-Julian, Anza, Borrego Springs Spring Valley. Casa de Oro, El Cajon,Santee Sweetwater, Jamul, Spring Valley, Casa de Oro Jamul, Spring Valley. El Cajon. 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, Santee, Lakeside, Harblson-Crest-Dehesa, 37, 38, 39, 51, 52 Alpine, Ramona, Laguna-P1ne Valley, Mountain Empire Sweetwater, South Bay, Jamul, Spring 20, 22, 30, 31, 34, Valley, El Cajon. Lakeside. Harbison- 36. 37. 38, 39, 50,Crest-Dehesa, Alpine, Ramona, Palomar- 51, 52, 53, 54Julian, Laguna-Plne Valley, Mountain Empire,Anza, Borrego Springs 14, 15, 40, 41, 42. 43, 46, 47, 48, 49 50. 53. 54 31, 34, 35 20, 30, 31 National City, Spring Valley, Casa deOro, Sweetwater, Fallbrook, El Cajon 4, 20, 31, 34, 36 Spring Valley, Casa de Oro, Chula Vista, 31. 20, 21, 22, 42,Sweetwater, South Bay, Solana Beach, 15Enclnltas, Cardiff, Poway Escondldo Bonlta, Jamul, Casa de Oro Laguna-P1ne Valley, Mountain Empire Enclnltas, Sol ana Beach Spring Valley, Casa de Oro, El Cajon,Santee, Lakeside, Harblson-Crest-Dehesa Jamul. Spring Valley, Casa de Oro,El Cajon, Lakeside. Harblson-Crest-Dehesa. Santee. Alpine Fallbrook El Cajon. Santee, Lakeside, Harblson-Crest-Dehesa Valley Center El Cajon, Santee, Lakeside,Harblson-Crest-Dehesa, Alpine 40 20, 30. 31 51, 52 42 31, 34, 35, 36, 37 30. 31. 34. 35. 36, 37. 38 46 34, 35. 36. 37 48 34, 35, 36, 37. 38 11-9 COLLECTION FREQUENCIES Seventeen cities and the unincorporated area of the County require basic residential waste collection once a week. Imperial Beach requires twice a week collection. Solid waste collection service is mandatory in eleven of the eighteen cities (See Table II-l). Collection service is not mandatory in the suburban and rural unincorporated area. Residents and commercial establishments may subscribe for collection service from permitted firms or they may transport waste to appropriate facilities themselves. Under certain conditions, particularly in inner-city areas, dense population and inadequate storage space often combine to require more frequent collection service than that normally provided. The City of San Diego licenses private haulers to provide more frequent services to those contracting for such services. TRANSFER SYSTEM IN THE INTERIOR REGION In the interior region, the County of San Diego operates a transfer system comprised of ten rural container stations where area residents may deposit their refuse. The system was designed in 1971 in response to legislation prohibiting the continued burning of solid waste by public agencies. The transfer stations accept residential waste only. Commercial waste and residential waste collected by licensed haulers in the interior region are not accepted at these transfer stations. The ten facilities are located at: Barrett Junction, Boulevard, Campo, Julian, Ocotillo Wells, Vallecito, Palomar Mountain, Ranchita, Sunshine Summit, and Viejas. The Viejas facility replaces the closed Descanso facility. Specific information on the facilities follows. 11-10 BARRETT JUNCTION BIK SITE INFORMATION 1. Location: '*•«* *<*• of «arrett like Road. % arile north of HOT 94. 2. Day: Friday through Monday Hours: 8;00 AM to S;00 PM 3. Property Size: «•» Acres Facility Size: 0.96 Acre 4. Tons/Day: » V Service Life: «/» 5. Dally Vehicle Total: 56 (January 1986) ifeefcend Vehicle Total: SAT-JO, am-tz 6. Personnel: County Attendant. Contractor to service and clem ilU. _ 7. Equipment: 18-6 Yd3 BUS. z - so Td3 Roll -Of ft _ 8. Owned: '**•*• *"*> _ Acquisition Cost: ttso/Tear. Paid Quarterly 9. Leased: Wl/75 _ Expiration of Lease: */W90 _ 10. Date Opened: Fcbrwry 1976 (Facility Peralt Review FT 1990-91) 11. CUMB Penrit Wo.: 37-AA-200 (Facility Pemlt Revlev FT 196S-86) : 12. S.U.P. No.: COHCNTS: *> aoMd Tuesdty. Hednesd*y. Thursday. Thanksgiving. ChrlstMS. Hew Tear's. Neaorlal Day. July 4th. and Labor Day. 2) Tons/Day was obtained fraa Tons/Month of January 1966 divided by nwber of working days for this Bin Site. Revised 5/86 BOULEVARD BIN SITE INFORMATION 1. Location: OK HOT ao. H •»« wast of McCain Valley toad 2. Day: Friday through Monday _ Hours: 8:00 AH to S:00 PM 3. Property Size: «.zs Acres _ Facility Size: 1.14 Acres 4. Tons/Day: 4.3 T/O Service Life: K/A 5. Dally Vehicle Total: 57 (March 1986) Weekend Vehicle Total: SAT-IB, 6. Personnel: County Attendant. Contractor to service and clean «1te 7. Equipment: 19-6 Td» »ins. 20 - 40 Td» tell-Offs 8. Owned: frivau Party _ Acquisition Cost: W 9. Leased: 1/um _ Expiration of Lease: 7/lW 10. Date Opened: January 1973 _ 11. CUNB Permit No.: 37-AA-20Z (Facility Penitt Review FT 1986-87) 12. S.U.P. No.: p7?-37? _ U*t<JIIJ>: 1) Closed Tuesday. Mednesday. Thursday. Thanksgiving. Chrlsteas. New Tear's. Heawrlal Day. July 4th. and Labor Day. Z) Tons/Day was obtained fraa Tons/Month of March 1986. divided fcy the nuater of working days for this Bin Site. Revised 5/86 -11-11 CANTO BIH SITE IKFORHATIOM 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. U- 12. Location: t^ttrnm Springs Hot* (HKY S-l) % rtlt no'rthwest of Caaeron Comers Day: Friday through Monday Hours: «:00 AM to 5:00 IH Property Size: 6.11 Acres Facility Sire: Q.7S Acres Tons/Day:s.o T/D Service Life:K/A Dally Vehicle Total: as (April 1986) Weekend Vehicle Total: SAT-24. sun-ie Personnel: County Attendant. Contractor to service and clean site. Equipment: _28 - 6 Yd3 Sins. 2 - SO Yd* Roll-Of ft Owned: County Owned (it «f S/«6) Leased: Acquisition Cost: Expiration of Lease: 3/avt6 Date Opened: Jtmnry »73 _ CHHB Peniit Mo.: 37-M-M3 (FtcfUty fenrit «erl«« FT W87-M)——~—^~~~— S.U.P. Mo.: P7a'368 _ COMMENTS: Revised 5/86 Tuesday. Wednesday. Thursday. Thanksgiving. Christmas. New Year's. Memorial Day. July 4th. and Labor Day. 2) Tons/Day MS obtained fro- Tons/Month of April 1986 divided by iiuaber of •ortlng days for this Bin Site. JULIAN BIN SITE INFORMATION 1. 2. Location: East end of Pleasant View Drive 7 Days HOWS:24 Hours *> Acres Facility Size: Sendee Life: Acres "/A 3. Property Size: 4. Tons/Day: *-Q T/n 5. 6. Personnel: County Attendant. Contractor to service and clean site. Equipment: No Vehicle Mo Vehicle Dally Vehicle Total: Counts Taken Weekend Vehicle Total: Count* Taken 7. 8. 9. 15 - 6 Yd3 Bins and 3 - SO Yd3 Roll-Offs Owned: Bureau of Land Management Leased: '/s/tt Acquisition Cost: $1.67/Mooth Expiration of Lease: 7/4/93 10. Date Opened: February 1973 11. OMB Penrit Mo.: 12. S.O.P. No.: 37-AA-i04 (Feclltty renrft Review FY 1989-90) CONNENTS: '> Closed Thanksgiving ChrlstMS. New Year's. Hoaorlal Day. July 4th. and Labor Oay. 2) Tons/Day was obtained from average of Tons/Month (Fran July 198S to March 1986) divided by nunber of working days for this lln Site (270). Revised 5/86 11-12 OCOTILLO WELLS BIH SITE 1HPORWTION 1. Location: North «1de of County Airport it Ocottllo Hells 2. Day: 7 Day* ___ Hours: ?4 3. Property Size: <>•» *=™ Facility Size: <»•» **» 4. Tons/Day: o.« T/» Service Life: «/* Mo Vehicle He Vehicle 5. Dally Vehicle Total: CM"** Taken Weekend Vehicle Total: count* Tafcen 6. Personnel: Contractor to service and clean ttte. 7. Equipment: « - « "3 ""' 8. Owned: County of So Diego Acquisition Cost: <so/Moiit> 9. Leased: Ainiart Property Expiration of Lease: Ho temlmtloB d«u 10. Date Opened: Jmmry »73 11. CWHB Per«1t No.: »7-**-»5 (Ficlllty Pemlt Review Pf 1988-89) 12. S.U.P. Ho.: nz-3» 1' Tons/Dty MS obulncd frai avenge Tons/Month for period of July 198S - Kirch 1986 divided by 270 working d«ys. Revised 5/86 PALOHAR NOUNTAIN BIH SITE INFORMATION 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Location: •>•** 6rid€ *7 C$-7) near 81rc Day: 7 °«y* Property Size: 3-° Aere« Tons/Day: 2.1 T/o Ho Vehicle Dally Vehicle Total: Counts Taken Personnel: Contractor to service and Equipment: 12 - 6 Td* tin* Ouned: «-S. Forest Service Leased: V23/72 Date Opened: Jwuary 1973 * Hill Hours: 24 Hours Facility Size: o.s Service Life: H/A Weekend Vehicle Total: clean site. Acquisition Cost: W Expiration of Lease: Acre* Ho Vehicle ' Counts Tilr»n .00 VIS/92 11. CHNB Penrit Ho.: 37-AA-«K (Feclltty hnrit Review FT 1989-90} 12. S.U.P. No.: COfffCNTS: 1) ToMsAtay we <*U1«*d fro. avertge Tonj/Jtonth for period of line Moths (July 1985 - Ntrch 1986) by 270 days. Revised 5/86 11-13 RANCHITA BIK SITE INFORMATION 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Location: Nortk *14* <* NMtciiM Valley toad Oar: 7 °»»* Property Size: 1.3 Acres Tons/Day: 1.8 T/o Daily Vehicle Total: Counts Taken Personnel: Contractor to service EouliMent: iz Bins Owned: Private Party Leased: 7/15/72 Date Opened: January 1973 OMB Permit No.: 37-AA-M7 (Facility S.U.P. Ite.: P72-371 Hours: 2« Hours Facility Size: o.S Acre Service Life: N/A Ho VehicleWeekend Vehicle Total: Counts Taken and clean site. Acquisition Cost: SlS.oo Month Expiration of Lease: 7/J4/87 Peralt Review FT 1987-88) COrfCNTS: 1) Tons/Day MS obtained fron average-Tons/Month for period of Nine Months (July 198S - March 1986} by Z70 days. Revised 5/86 SUNSHINE SUNUT BIN SITE INFORMATION 1. Location: Southxest «H« *f HUT 79. 1% ariles south of Sunshine Suarit. 2. Day: 7 ^^ Hours: u Hours 3. Property Size: ls-« *«»« Facility Size: Q 4. Tons/Day: »•« T/° Service Life: «/» MA 5. Dally Vehicle Total: Counts Taken Weekend Vehicle Total: comt* Taken 6. Personnel: Contractor to Service and Clean Site 7. Equipment: u - 6 Td3 Bias 8. Owned: Private Party Acquisition Cost: tliS.OO/Monto 9. Leased: ii/2«/7Q Expiration of Lease: 11/30/90 10. Date Opened: January 1973 11. CMC Per«1t NO.: 37-AA.2M (Acuity P«r«1t Review FY 198W7) 12. S.W.P. No.: P72-369 COrtOTS: 1) Tons/Day MS obtained from average Tons/Ho for period of nine Booths (July 198S - March 1986) by Z70 days. Revised 5/86 11-14 YALLECITO _ ~ " BIK SITE INFORHATTOH 1. Location: On HUT S-2. 4 arfles northwest of Aqua Calient* Hot Spring. 2. Day: 7 Day* Hours: 3. Property Size: i.« Acres Facility Size: .4? Acre 4. Tons/Day: 0.9 T^n Service Life: K/A No Vehicle •„ ._„.._ 5. Daily Vehicle Total: counts Taken Weekend Vehicle Total: co^ts Taken 6. Personnel: Contractor to service and clean site. 7. Equipment: « - « »3 il«i County of San Diego8. Owned: Parks and Recreation Acquisition Cost: to.oo 9. Leased: 4/15/77 Expiration of Lease: 12/31/99 10. Date Opened: January 1973 11. CWMB Permit No.: 37-AA-209 fF.riHty Penlt Review Ft 198S-86) 12. S.U.P. Ho.: P72-323 COmENTS: » Tons/Dir MX obUined froa average Tons/Month for period of nine Maths (July 1985 - torch 1986) by 270 <Uys. Revised 5/86 VIEJAS BIH SITE IMFDRWTION 1_ Location: CM*«H touch tort. 1 alle south of laterstite «. _ pay: Friday through Momliy Hours: 8:00 AH to 5:00 PH 3. Property Size: "Acres Facility Size: *•* 4. Tons/Day: 31T/B Service Life: */* 5. Daily Vehicle Total: J« Weekend Vehicle Total: SAT . 97. sun - 45 6. Personnel: Co«"ty Attendant. Contractor to service ««d clem site. 7. Equipoent: a - t M3 n«s. 3 - s Td> toll-Offs 8. Owned: County of Sm 01 ey Acquisition Cost: «8.ZM 9. Leased: _ "/A _ Expiration of Lease: */* 10. Date Opened: August. 1986 11. CWMB Penrft »O.: 37-AA-103 (facility Per.1t Review R 1991-92) 12. S.U.P. Ho.: M4-076 _ COrtCKTS: 1) Closed Tuesday. Wednesday. Thursday. Thanksgiving. Christaas. New Tear's. Day. July 4th. Labor Day. 2) Tons/Day was obtained from average Tons/Honth for Oescanso for period of July 1965 March 19M. divided by 270 working days. Revised 5/86 11-15 DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES While the container site represents a disposal facility to the back County resident who uses it, it is more accurately a transfer station for the temporary storage waste pending its transfer to a sanitary landfill for permanent disposal. Each site accommodates between five and 26 six-cubic-yard steel refuse bins along a loading dock. Where the need exists, large drop-boxes known as 'drag-ons' for bulky items have been placed at several of the container sites. Some bins have hinged lids intended to control the breeding of flies and other vectors, to limit fire hazards and to protect the contents from rain. All sites are fenced to contain blowing litter. The Julian, Ocotillo Wells, Vallecito, Palomar Mountain, Ranchita and Sunshine Summit sites are unattended and open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The four higher volume sites (Barrett Junction, Boulevard, Campo and Viejas) have attendants and are open four days a week (Friday through Monday) from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The sites are intended for use only by local residents and tourists. No commercial waste is allowed. No fees are collected at these transfer station facilities and operational costs are supported by the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund as directed by the Board of Supervisors. (See discussion in Chapter VI, Finance and Administration). The County is concerned with the large quantities of plant material waste being generated in the interior region. The County's Department of Public Works will implement a brush chipping program at two of the interior region container sites during 1987, Julian and Viejas. In order to make the chipping operation successful, it may be necessary to provide a full-time attendant and limit hours at the Julian site. This should result in a substantial reduction in the waste volume that must be transported to a landfill for disposal and will produce a mulch product that will be made available to parks and school districts for landscaping purposes. 11-16 The Solid Waste Section will monitor the chipping program and will evaluate the necessity for changing operations at the sites. COLLECTION FREQUENCIES The County of San Diego contracts with private collection firms for collection and transport of waste deposited at the interior region container stations. Frequency of collection depends on the needs of each site but is required at least once a week. Tables II-4 and II-5 contain information on collection frequency at the container stations. TABLE II-4 RURAL CONTAINER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL INFORMATION (UNLIMITED HOUR SITES) Container Collection Frequency* Site (times per week) Ocotillo Wells Vallecito Julian Ranchita Sunshine Summit Palomar Mountain 1 1 5 2 2 2 Contracted Transporter OLD Inc. OLD Inc. .OLD Inc. OLD Inc. OLD Inc. OLD Inc. Disposal Site Borrego Springs Borrego Springs Ramona Borrego Springs Ramona Ramona TABLE II-5 RURAL CONTAINER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL INFORMATION (LIMITED HOUR SITES) Container Collection Frequency* Site (times per week) Boulevard Campo Barrett Junction Oescanso 2 2 2 5 *May vary subject to seasonal demands Contracted Transporter All American All American All American All American Disposal Site Sycamore Sycamore Sycamore/Otay Sycamore 11-17 CONTINGENCY PLANS To protect the public's health, safety and welfare, it is essential that solid waste services continue in emergency situations. If collection is not performed on a regular basis, wastes accumulate, exceed storage capacity and create both a nuisance and a health hazard. Spoilage of putrescibles in uncollected waste can attract vectors and rodents which further endangers public health. Interruptions of regular service may result from extensive plant or equipment breakdowns, fuel shortages, labor disputes, natural disasters or civil disturbances. Since many of these occurrences are unpredictable or unpreventable, all responsible agencies, both public and private, have developed contingency plans which provide for safe waste collection in the event that regular service patterns are disrupted. Labor Disputes All collection services in San Diego County are performed under contract by private industry with the exception of the City of San Diego. Some of the contracts contain "strike clauses" which provide some relief in the event of a work stoppage. Some cities have stipulated in their contracts the right of the city to take over and operate the hauler's collection equipment in the event of a work stoppage. Additionally, management personnel of the collection companies indicate that they would assume collection duties themselves or with replacement personnel. The City of San Diego, which operates its own collection system, has a no-strike provision in the City's Charter. In the event of a strike, the City would utilize supervisory personnel and temporary help to offset the impact of a city strike or could contract for collection services. Additionally, while all routes would be maintained, they would be at a reduced frequency. 11-18 Fuel Shortages Refuse collection fleet operations are considered emergency services. Under the Federal Emergency Fuel Allocation Program, they are entitled to receive 100 percent of their needs from available supplies. Entitle- ment does not guarantee availability, as was the case in 1973 when there was not enough fuel available to provide full allocations in all instances. At that time, the San Diego County Disposal Association developed a mutual assistance program which achieved measurable success in meeting the shortage. The program worked to achieve maximum fuel conservation within its members' individual collection routes by consolidating several routes. In some instances, a company would service customers on another company's routes to reduce overlap in areas services by several haulers. Some collectors have taken steps to have add-itional fuel storage at their facilities. One collector has stored 43 days of fuel to offset the impact of a fuel shortage. Equipment Breakdown Most collection organizations, both public and private, maintain swing vehicles to minimize the impact of equipment breakdowns. The City of San Diego maintains at least one swing vehicle for every ten regular collection trucks./ Both the City and County of San Diego require all private collection operators to have adequate access to collection vehicles as a prerequisite to licensing. This ensures that collection service can be maintained through overtime work using a swing vehicle if one vehicle is out of service. Since each vehicle must also meet certain performance and safety standards prior to licensing, the potential for breakdown and service disruption is reduced. 11-19 Disasters Major disasters such as earthquakes, floods, fires and even possible military attacks could cause large-scale disruption of collection services. In the event of major disasters, most cities have indicated that top priority would be given to preserving life and property. The handling of solid waste would take a lower priority, but would be done to the extent possible. SUWARY Storage and collection of solid waste in San Diego County are regulated by a variety of policies and procedures. The fundamental activities are being accomplished to the general satisfaction of the public, the political jurisdictions and private industry. Certain aspects of storage and collection need improvement. During the period of this Revision: 1. The County of San Diego and the cities will update their solid waste management ordinances. 2. The County of San Diego and the City of San Diego will continue to designate the disposal site as a condition of permit approval. 3. The County of San Diego will operate a chipping program at the Julian and Viejas container sites and determine the feasibility of expanding the program. 4. The County of San Diego will review volumes at the rural container sites and make changes in site hours and operation when necessary. 5. The County of San Diego will work with the solid waste industry to improve regional collection standards and practices. 11-20 6. The County of San Diego and the cities will work to implement uniform storage and collection standards via the land use and building permit issuance process. 7. The County of San Diego, the cities and the San Diego County Disposal Association will maintain solid waste collection contingency plans to ensure that adequate services are available during emergency situations. 8. The County of San Diego will assist the cities in collection rate analysis on request. 11-21 CHAPTER III HASTE GENERATION AND DISPOSAL Our affluent society generates more and more solid waste each year. Disposal of this discarded debris of human living has always been an expensive and difficult task. The mountains of refuse continue to grow, particularly in urban areas. Landfilling of waste remains the primary method of waste disposal. Our limited landfill capacity is rapidly diminishing with the steadily increasing volumes of waste generated. As volume reduction methods are refined and implemented, the increasing volumes of waste which must be disposed of at landfills may be reduced. Landfills, however, will still be needed to accept waste which cannot be recycled, or cannot be processed at resource recovery facilities including the residue and ash from these facilities. The purposes of this chapter are: to analyze the current generation trends for solid waste in San Diego County; to discuss existing disposal facilities in the region; to forecast future volumes of solid waste through the year 2000; to identify a physical system for meeting the waste disposal needs of San Diego County residents; and to discuss on-going maintenance of completed landfills. WASTE GENERATION In general, the amount of municipal solid waste generated in any given geographic area is a function of the number of residents, the types of dwelling units, the number of workers, the types of commercial and industrial establishments, the level of activity of construction (and demolition), and the number of recycling activities and recovery programs. III-l The quantity of solid waste generated in San Diego County has been steadily increasing. Table III-l shows the tonnage received at all City and County of San Diego landfills from 1975 to 1985. For the period of 1975 to 1982, per capita generation remained at about 1.1 tons per person per year. Since then, however, the per capita generation rate has increased by nearly 10% per year, so that in 1985 each person generated an estimated 1.455 tons of solid waste. Waste generation has been increasing more than predicted in the 1982 Revised Plan. Increases in the per capita generation rates of residential and demolition wastes appear responsible for the increased overall rates and may be indicative of the more prosperous economic conditions experienced in the region during the last four years. TABLE III-l TOTAL TONNAGE RECEIVED AT COUNTY AND CITY LANDFILLS PER CAPITA TRASH CALENDAR GENERATION YEAR POPULATION1 TONNAGE? RATE 1975 1,559,505 1,664,000 1.067 1976 1,619,900 1,757,000 1.084 1977 1,656,800 1,813,000 1.094 1978 1,738,000 1,934,000 1.113 1979 1,769,000 2,023,793 1.144 1980 1,869,100 1,995,000 1.067 1981 1,895,700 2,047,000 1.080 1982 1,944,000 2,152,000 1.106 1983 1,988,621 2,377,000 1.195 1984 2,040,888 2,685,000 1.316 1985 2,083,373 3,031,000 1.455 ^Population estimates as of January 1 of each calendar year (San Diego Association of Governments). ^Tonnage figures are from the City of San Diego Refuse Disposal Division and the County of San Diego Solid Waste Section and are averaged from two successive years. III-2 Table 111-2 shows the projected distribution by jurisdiction of waste generated in the San Diego Region. The values were calculated from estimated population and waste generation factors based on actual tonnage received at landfills operated by the City and County of San Diego. TABLE II1-2 HASTE GENERATION BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Population1 Tonnage2 Carlsbad 44,567 64,400 Chula Vista 90,283 131,362 Coronado 19,751 28,738 Del Mar 5,115 7,442 El Cajon 80,102 116,548Encinitas^ Escondido 75,792 110,278 Imperial Beach 24,567 35,745 La Mesa 52,156 75,887 Lemon Grove 21,646 31,495 National City 51,162 ' 74,441 Oceanside 91,769 133,524 Poway 35,966 52,331 San Diego 971,587 1,413,659 San Marcos 19,815 28,831 Santee 49,524 72,057 Sol ana Beach^ Vista 43,431 63,192 Unincorporated 406.140 590,934 TOTAL REGION 2,083,373 3,031,000 1January 1, 1985 (San Diego Association of Governments) 2Based on per capita generation rate of 1.445 tons per person per year (estimated from actual tonnage received at City of San Diego and County landfills) 3Encinitas and Solana Beach incorporated in 1986. Totals included in unincorporated figures. III-3 WASTE COMPOSITION ANALYSIS Table III-3 contains results of a waste composition study conducted in San Diego in March, 1982. Fifteen 200-1b. samples were taken at each of two landfills, Miramar and Otay. The samples were chosen at random and represent both residential and commercial waste sources. Combining both the sampling at Miramar and at Otay yields a total of 30 samples, of which 22 were residential and 8 were commercial in origin. Samples were not chosen from citizen haulers because they were not weighed or recorded prior to entry into the landfills. The results from each of the landfills sampled were analyzed separately as well as on a combined basis. Analysis was also performed within each of the three waste sources, on a residential, commercial and combined basis. The splits between residential and commercial trucks were random, and resulted from the selection procedure described in Appendix A-III-1. The drivers were surveyed to determine the origin of the truckload. TABLE II1-3 HASTE STREAM ANALYSIS COMPONENT FACTIONS OF COMBINED SAMPLES MIRAMAR AND OTAY LANDFILLS - MARCH, 1982 (A17 Values in Percent) COMBINED RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL COMPONENT MEAN MEAN MEAN NEWSPRINT 10.46 10.89 9.28 CORRUGATED CARDBOARD 6.88 6.04 9.20 OTHER PAPER 28.16 24.37 38.56 PLASTICS 6.36 6.55 5.85 YARD WASTES 12.33 14.80 5.51 OTHER COMBUSTIBLES 19.91 20.62 17.96 FERN'S 4.61 4.30 5.48 ALL m 0.98 0.96 1.03 GLA 8.85 9.51 7.03 OTHER NON- COMBUSTIBLES 1.36 1.81 0.14 III-4 GENERATION TRENDS Population growth rates and trends are evaluated by the County to ensure that adequate facilities will be available to service the region. The San Diego Association of Governments, SANDAG, is the regional agency which provides population data to its member agencies, including all eighteen incorporated cities and the County of San Diego. SANDAG, in cooperation with its member agencies, has developed a growth forecast model to be used for a myriad of planning activities, including solid waste facility planning. The Solid Waste Allocation Model (SWAM) is discussed in the Appendix (A-III-2). The model is based on current population, local growth policies and a set of assumptions regarding such external growth influencing factors as national economic conditions, federal and state tax rates, state finance policies and trends in fertility and mortality. Since the external factors are beyond the control of local decision makers, population growth projections and hence waste generation, have differed from actual growth rates experienced. The model and generation data are updated as necessary to produce revised forecasts. The following tables depict population projections and solid waste generation projections by three major categories of waste: residential; employment, which includes commercial, institutional, agriculture, industrial and sludge; and demolition, which includes construction. Table III-4 depicts projected waste generation quantities based on SANDAG's most recent growth forecasts, the Series VI population pro- jections. Waste generation rates reflect actual waste quantities disposed at the region's landfills during calendar year 1984. The associated per capita trash generation rates for the years 1980, 1985, 1995, and 2000 are 1.31, 1.31, 1.31, 1.32 respectively. III-5 TABLE III-4 POPULATION AND TONS OF WASTE BY CATEGORIES (Quantities in Millions) Series VI Forecast of Population with Adjustment to Waste Generation Rate to Allow Model to Match Actual 1984 Trash Generation YEAR 1985 1990 1995 2000 POPULATION 2.098 2.335 2.527 2.699 RESIDENTIAL 1.448 1.619 1.762 1.890 EMPLOYMENT 0.825 0.930 1.015 1.093 TONSDEMOLITION 0.472 0.515 0.546 0.572 m. 2.745 3.064 3.322 3.554 Table III-5 depicts projected generation based on Series VI population forecasts (as in Table III-4). Generation rates in all categories are increased by a multiplicative factor of 1.133 to allow the model to match the actual 1985 quantities disposed at the region's landfills. Actual quantities received in 1985 were approximately 11% greater than the quantities projected using actual 1984 data (Table III-5). The associated per capita trash generation rates for the years 1980, 1985, 1995, and 2000 are 1.45, 1.49, 1.49, 1.49 respectively. TABLE III-5 POPULATION AND TONS OF HASTE BY CATEGORIES (Quantities in Millions) Forecast of Series VI Population with Adjustment to Waste Generation Rates to Allow Model to Match Actual 1985 Trash Generation YEAR 1985 1990 1995 2000 POPULATION 2.098 2.335 2.527 2.699 RESIDENTIAL 1.602 1.834 1.966 2.141 TONSEMPLOYMENT 0.899 1.054 1.150 1.238 TONSDEMOLITION 0.539 0.583 0.619 0.648 TONSTOTAL 3.040 3.471 3.765 4.027 III-6 Table II1-6 shows conditions similar to those described in Table II1-5 with the exception that an annual 2.6% per capita trash generation increase was applied over the period between 1985 to 2000. This 2.6% annual per capita increase has been noted historically by both the City and County of San Diego. If this trend should be realized, tonnages in the year 2000 will be nearly 45% greater than those noted in Table III-5. The associated per capita trash generation rates for the years 1980, 1985, 1995, and 2000 are 1.44, 1.66, 1.89, 2.15 respectively. It should be noted that a 2.6% annual per'capita trash generation increase cannot go on forever, as it is limited by the ability of humans to consume goods. However, if one uses the ranges of trash generation as defined by Table III-5 (low end) and Table II1-6 (high end), one should be able to make reasonable estimates of the trash generation in San Diego County over the next 15 years and therefore estimate our future facility needs. TABLE II1-6 POPULATION AND TONS OF WASTE BY CATEGORIES (Quantities in Millions) Forecast of Series VI Population with Adjustment to Waste Generation Rate to Allow Model to Match Actual 1985 Trash Generation and with Increasing Annual Per Capita Trash Generation Rate YEAR POPULATION 1985 2.098 1990 2.335 1995 2.527 2000 2.699 TONS RESIDENTIAL 1.602 2.057 2.541 3.099 TONS EMPLOYMENT 0.899 1.178 1.459 1.791 TONS DEMOLITION 0.539 0.653 0.786 0.937 TONS TOTAL 3.040 3.888 4.786 5.828 III-7 HASTE DISPOSAL For centuries refuse was disposed of by dumping it on the nearest patch of land preferably out of sight and smell. When it became too voluminous or too offensive, it was reduced by open burning. Federal legislation banned open burning dumps in 1970. Today, waste disposal operations in San Diego County are sanitary landfills. Sanitary landfilling,. in which cover material is applied to deposited waste at the close of each operating day, was begun by the City of San Diego in 1951 and by the County in 1954. In a typical disposal operation the native soil material is removed, leaving a "hole" or "cell" which is filled up with trash. Cut/fill slope ratios are 3 or 4 to 1. The trash is then compacted to an in place density of 1200 Ibs. per cubic yard and a 6-inch layer of soil material is placed on top of the trash daily. One to two feet of intermediate cover material is applied as the operator completes work in the "cell" being filled with trash. Three feet of final cover is placed on the completed fill. The County and City of San Diego continually review existing operations at each disposal site to determine if improved operational and design changes to the staged development plan or acquisition of additional acreage to expand existing sites could be made which would enable extended use of the sites. For example, modifying the height and slopes of active working areas in the landfills or increasing in place density of compacted trash could increase site capacity. Disposal operations in the County are generally satisfactory. Sites are inspected on a regular basis by the Local Enforcement Agency to ensure compliance with state minimum standards. Any noted violations are corrected. Noted operational problems include litter blowing at the sites and inadequate cover material. Portable wind screens have been placed III-8 at several facilities to catch blowing litter. Personnel at the sites are also employed to pick up litter both at the sites and on access roads. Often the amount of native soil cover material at a landfill site is limited and, hence, limits the volume of trash which can be buried there. Research has resulted in the development of a foam substitute for traditional soil cover. Recent changes in state performance standards are allowing the use of foam as a substitute for traditional soil cover. This material has been used in Europe and has been tested at the Otay Landfill. It offers several advantages: 1) cost appears competitive with soil; 2) foam cover requires little or no space between layers of fill, allowing more trash to be deposited at a site; 3) effectiveness as a vector deterrent appears the same as soil cover. EXISTING DISPOSAL FACILITIES There are currently nine landfills in San Diego County: five are owned by the County of San Diego; two are owned by the City of San Diego; and two are owned by the United States Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton. One of the City of San Diego's landfills accepts only demolition wastes. The County's landfills have been operated by a private contractor since March 1, 1982. The City's landfills are operated by City employees. The two landfills located at the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base are operated by a private contractor. A third landfill at Camp Pendleton, currently undergoing final permit processing, will also be operated under private contract. The Navy does not operate any landfills. Instead, waste generated at their numerous facilities located in the City of San Diego, Coronado and National City are disposed of at the City of San Diego's Miramar Landfill. 111-9 [BLANK PAGE] The following information on the nine landfill disposal facilities in the County was current at the time this revision was prepared. All currently operating landfills in the County with the exception of the City's Montgomery facility are classified as Class II (old system) or Class III under the new system contained in Title 23. This classification allows only for the deposition of non-hazardous residential, commercial and industrial wastes. The City's Montgomery Landfill, which accepts only inert demolition wastes, is classified as a Class III (old system) or unclassified under the new system. FUTURE DISPOSAL NEEDS FOR THE SAN DIEGO REGION To evaluate the adequacy of existing landfill facilities it is necessary to compare their remaining capacities with the expected future volumes of waste and volume reduction methods that may be implemented in the next 15 years. Information on remaining landfill capacities is obtained from the City of San Diego and the County. This information is used as input data for the Solid Waste Allocation Model (SWAM). SWAM then projects wastesheds for various solid waste facilities based on the assumptions in the model. A complete discussion of the basic assumptions used in this model is included in the Appendix (A-III-3). In brief, SWAM takes population predictions based on growth plans and actual census data, identifies existing facilities and establishes the least haul time to assign trash from its area of generation to a particular disposal facility. Using projected remaining facility capacities and predicted waste generation volumes, SWAM identifies closing dates for facilities. SWAM then reroutes the annual volume of trash to remaining or newly identified facilities. In order to project future disposal needs for the San Diego region, a number of "scenarios" were developed. These conditions were 111-10 BORREGO LANDFILL The Borrego Landfill is located In the Interior Region. It serves the sparsely populated high desert area in eastern San Diego County. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 LOCATION H mile south of the east end of Pala Canyon Road DAY Tuesday thru Saturday HOURS 7:00 AN to 2:00 PM 42.04 Acres 28 T/D (260 days/yr) LANDFILL SIZE SERVICE LIFE _ 21 Acres 2005 [2] PROPERTY TONS/DAY REMAINING VOLUME 510.000 Yd3/306.000 tons DAILY VEHICLE TOTAL 11 (Oct. 1985) WEEKEND VEHICLE TOTAL Sat. 22 (Oct.l98S) PERSONNEL Contractor's EQUIPMENT Contractor's OWNED County of San Diego LEASED N/A ACQUISITION COST N/A EXPIRATION OF LEASE N/A DATE OPENED Jan. 1973 (Opened as burning site in 1960) RWQCB PERMIT NO. 72-10 CWMB PERMIT NO. 37-AA-006 (Facility Permit Review FY 1987-88) S.U.P. NO. P72-85 METHANE MONITOR SYS None LEACHATE MONITOR SYS None COMMENTS: [1] Closed Thanksgiving. Christmas, New Year's. Memo Hal Day. July 4th. Labor Day. [2] Assumed annual trash Increase - 5X Revised 5/86 BORREGO j\ SPRINGS RO aORRESO VALLEY RD. PEG LEG RO. I 11-11 fl oouicoc§ \-^ / I - <£. ». .-r x ,i-'.A!*V«. r\'. •'> : •'UVi:/?/-'«^\Jz?' ^' ky^r / 111-12 OTAY LANDFILL The Otay Landfill Is located on the southslde of the City of Chula Vista, serving the cities of Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, National City and San Diego. The site accommodates a variety of special wastes including sludges, cleanings from wastewater treatment facilities, cannery wastes, wastes from the kelp harvesting and processing industry, and slaughterhaouse wastes. 1. LOCATION 2. DAY 3. PROPERTY 4. TONS/DAY Otay Valley Road. 1 mile 7 Days 515.64 Acres 1380 T/0 east of HWY 805 HOURS 7:00-4:30 Mon-Frl, 7:30-4:00 Sat LANDFILL SIZE 294 Acres SERVICE LIFE 1999 [2] & Sun 5. REMAINING VOLUME 25.800.000 Yd3 /15.480.000 tons •• 6. DAILY VEHICLE TOTAL 360 (Oct. 1985) WEEKEND VEHICLE TOTAL Sat-820. Sun-650 (Oct 1985) 7. PERSONNEL County Fee CoTlec&r. Contractor's Operating Personnel 8. EQUIPMENT Contractor's ' 9. OWNED 417.03 Acres. County.of San Diego 10. LEASED 98.6 Acres 2/19/77 SD City ACQUISITION COST $1.129.197.64 EXPIRATION OF LEASE 2/18/92 11. DATE OPENED February 1966 12. RWQCB PERMIT NO. 74-44 13. CWMB PERMIT NO. 37-AA-OG9 (Facility Remit Review FY1986-87) 14. S.U.P. NO. P72-89 a C.U.P PCC-72-1 In Place LEACHATE MONITOR SYS15. METHANE MONITOR SYS 16. METHANE EXTRACTION SYSTEM In Place Proposed to be In place by Fall. 1986. COMMENTS: Revised 5/86 [1] Closed Thanksgiving. Christmas, New Year's [2] Assuming worst case of 'Do Nothing' situation and average annual trash increase of SI. OT*r 111-12 111-14 RAHONA LANDFILL Located In a highly agricultural area, the Ramona Landfill receives-the special wastes of the surrounding poultry Industry. The site regularly receives egg wastes, poultry residue and, on occasion, large amounts of dead poultry during heat waves and various epidemics. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. LOCATION Pamo Road. Ramona DAY Tuesday thru Sunday HOURS 8:00 AM to 4:00 PN PROPERTY TONS/DAY 80 Acres US (for 340 days per year) LANDFILL SIZE SERVICE LIFE _ [3] 37 Acres 1988 [2] F31 REMAINING VOLUME 104.000 Y<j3/62.400 tons DAILY VEHICLE TOTAL 37 (March.1986) WEEKEND VEHICLE TOTAL Sat-200. Sun-ISO (March 1986) PERSONNEL County Fee Collector. Contractor's Operating Personnel . EQUIPMENT Contractor's • OWNED County of San Diego LEASED ACQUISITION COST $1.033.50 N/A EXPIRATION OF LEASE N/A DATE OPENED Oct. 1969 (opened as burning site. 1948) RWQCB PERMIT NO. 70-R14 CWMB PERMIT NO. S.U.P. NO. 37-AA-OQ5 (Facility Permit Review FY 1988-89) Not required as land use predated area's 1nrln<1on In a County«w1da toning district METHANE MONITOR SYS in Place LEACHATE MONITOR SYS In Place COMMENTS: CU Closed Thanksgiving, Christmas, Hew Year's, memorial Day. July 4th. Labor Day. [2] Assuming worst case of 'Do Nothing* situation and average annual trash Increase of St. [3] With the adven-t of aerial photography analysis. It Is apparent that previous volume capacity calculations were grossly understated. With the staged development plan changes proposed for the Ramona site, It would appear there Is 1n excess of 10 years of remaining capacity available at the Ramona Landfill. Revised 5/86 T HAVERFORO RO. 111-15 111-16 SAN MARCOS LANDFILL The San Marcos Landfill is underlain with intrusive granite rock. Original geologic studies predicted a dearth of soil cover available from the site, severely limiting its capacity. Actual operating experience has identified the ability to rip more cover from the site than originally predicted. Assuming that the site continues to operate under current conditions, it is expected to reach capacity in 1991. Plans are currently underway for the construction of a waste-to-energy plant that would begin operation in 1989. It is expected that the plant will process about 580,000 t/yr. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. LOCATION DAY PROPERTY TONS/DAY REMAINING Questhaven 7 Days 201.45 2020 VOLUME Road, Acres 7,000 San » .000 Marcos Y<j3 74,200 HOURS 7:00 to LANDFILL SIZE SERVICE LIFE ,000 tons 4:30 Mon-Frl. 95 Acres 7:30 to 4:00 Sat & Sun 1991 [2] 6. DAILY VEHICLE TOTAL 570 (Sept.. 1985) WEEKEND VEHICLE TOTAL Sat-800.Sun-420 (Sept. 1985) Contractor's 7. PERSONNEL 8. EQUIPMENT 9. OWNED County of San Diego 10. LEASED 11. DATE OPENED County - 2 Fee Collectors. Contractor's Personnel ACQUISITION COST $2.319.414.11 H/A EXPIRATION OF LEASE H/A June. 1979 12. RWQCB PERMIT NO. 13. CWNB PERMIT NO. 78-78 37-AA-008 (Facility Remit Review FY 1985-86) 14. S.U.P. NO.P77-4S (PC 77-733) LEACHATE MONITOR SYS In Place Proposed to be In place by Fall. 1986 15. METHANE MONITOR SYS In Place 16. Methane Extraction System _ COMMENTS: C^ Closed Thanksgiving. Christmas. New Year's [2] Assuming worst case of 'Do Nothing* situation and average annual trash Increase * St. Also Includes additional 2.200.000 Yd3 (above original Staged Development Plan) available - . from changing ultimate slope from 3:1 to 2:1. using 15' benches Instead of 30* benches.Revised 5/86 111-17 ni-ie SYCAMORE LANDFILL The Sycamore Landfill Is located within the City" of San Diego, near the dty of Santee. Major portions of the landfill were acquired from the Federal Government as part of the Camp Elliot Land Disposal Program. Plans are currently underway to move SDG&E power lines close to the northerly boundary of the landfill site. This power line move would greatly increase the available volume at the site. 1. LOCATION 2. DAY 3. PROPERTY 4. TONS/DAY 14494 Mast Blvd.. Santee 7 Days >. 531.96 Acres 1010 HOURS 7:00 to 4:30 (MON-FRI). 7:30 to 4:00 LANDFILL SIZE 393 Acres SERVICE LIFE 1997 [3] (SAT & SUN) 486.166.07 5. REMAINING VOLUME 26,400.000yd»•/15.OOP,OOP tons 6. DAILY VEHICLE TOTAL 350 (March, 1986) WEEKEND VEHICLE TOTAL SAT-830. SON-S20 (March. 1986) 7. PERSONNEL County - 1 Fee Collector t Contractor's Operating Personnel 8. EQUIPMENT Contractor's f 9. OWNED 503.36 Acres/County of San Diego 10. LEASED 28.5 Acres 4/18/78 (Navy) 11 12. RWQCB PERMIT NO. 13. CWMB PERMIT NO. S.U.P. ACQUISITION COST _ EXPIRATION OF LEASE 4/17/88 w/5 year option until 1993 DATE OPENED August 1962 76-40 37-SSS-015 (Facility Permit Review FT 1986-87) 14 15 NO. C.U.P. 6066/plus amendments METHANE MONITOR SYS None LEACHATE MONITOR SYS In Place Proposed to be in place by Fall. 198616. METHANE EXTRACTION SYSTEM _^____ COMMENTS: ^ closed Thanksgiving. Christmas. New Year's [2] Composting operation lease to SGO&E in effect since 1982 [3] Assuring worst case of "Do Nothing* situation and average annual trash increase of 5t; with trash transferred from the North County area upon closure of the San Marcos Landfill. Revised 5/86 111-19- i SYCAMORE LEGEND i •• •• Property Line «•»•• Landfill Limits 111-20- WEST MIRAMAR LANDFILL The- West Mlramar Landfill Is the-primary disposal site for the Citv of San Diego generated municipal solid waste. The site also receives refuse material from Naval installations in the metropolitan area. The site is typical of the sandy-clay, cobble materials found in the Kearny Mesa area. Approximately 35,600,000 cubic yards of disposal volume is anticipated allowing the site to be operated for a period of12 years total. F Ul 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11, 12 13 14. 15. LOCATION Mercury Street Northerly of Clalremont Mesa Blvd. In the City of San D1eoo DAY 7 Days HOURS 7:00 to 4:30 (Mon-FrD; 7;30-4:30 (Sat & Sun! LANDFILL SIZE SERVICE LIFE PROPERTY TONS/DAY 870 Acres 5.000 Weekdays 807 Acres 19951 REMAINING VOLUME 29.400.000 Yd3 (3/86) 17.640.000 tons DAILY VEHICLE TOTAL 1.400 WEEKEND VEHICLE TOTAL SAT-2.000. sun-l.600 PERSONNEL 1 Manager. 5 S.uperv1sors, 18 Operators. 9 Custodians. 9 Fee Collectors EQUIPMENT 9 Dozers. 3 Scrapers. 2 Water Trucks. 2 Graders OWNED U.S. Navy LEASED July 27. 1982 ACQUISITION COST N/A - Renewable Lease EXPIRATION OF LEASE July 26. 2007(+2"ve —™^— -: DATE OPENED April 1983 RWQCB PERMIT NO. 82-13 CWMB PERMIT NO. 37-33-002 S.U.P.NO.N/A METHANE MONITOR SYSU-S^JIavy Facilities LEACHATE MONITOR SYSe Phase I. Hod 4B COMMENTS:* SAT-2.200. SUN-1,000 (1) Closed Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, Easter CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD. 111-21 o CM O< V)oa.en5 HW a.<5 O Q I- i 3to o oc 2 <n IU < HO a. >at —. oo 1 Ss U. O >- H U 2Z«w 111-22 MONTGOMERY LANDFILL The Montgomery Landfill receives only Inert demolition type materials generated In the metropolitan San Diego area. The site Is In the Kearny Mesa area at the easterly end of the Montgomery Field runway and Is typical of the geologic strata of that area. Concrete and asphalt materials are stockpiled on site and are spread and covered at Intervals consistent with Incoming earthen cover materials. The usable life .of the facility Is dependent upon variable economic conditions, and Is estimated to be 14 years total. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 LOCATION .Calle Fortunada Westerly of Ruffln Road and Northerly of Aero Drive DAY 5 Days per Week HOURS 8:00 AM to 3:30 PM PROPERTY TONS/DAY 40 Acres 300 ± LANDFILL SIZE SERVICE LIFE 40 Acres 1988 REMAINING VOLUME 273.0QJ * (3/86) DAILY VEHICLE TOTAL 60 PERSONNEL WEEKEND VEHICLE TOTAL N/A 1 Operator, 1 Fee Collector EQUIPMENT 1 Dozer OWNED Cfty of San Diego . LEASED N/A ACQUISITION COST N/A EXPIRATION OF LEASE N/A . DATE OPENED 1974 RWQCB PERMIT NO. CWMB PERMIT NO. . S.U.P. NO. N/A 72-10 37-SS-003 METHANE MONITOR SYS None LEACHATE MONITOR SYS None COMMENTS:(1) Closed Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving. Christmas, New Years, Martin Luther King Day, Washington's Birthday, Easter, Memorial Day. July 4 AERO OR. 111-23 3 s •** is Mi § i I 3 c« ,— — O i o —J_i^ i *? n^ 111-24 LAS PULGAS LANDFILL The Las Pulgas Landfill, which 1s centrally located on the United States Marine Corps (USMC) Base, Camp Pendleton, receives Group 2 and 3 non-hazardous solid wastes. Presently, the Las Pulgas Landfill receives solid waste from the southern portion of the Base, because the Box Canyon Landfill was recently closed. Landfill handling and disposal operations are conducted by a private contractor. Underlying soil associations found In the vicinity of the landfill are the same as those found near the San Onofre Landfill, i,e., the Las Flores - Huerhuero and Gavlota - Hambrlght Associations. However, soil types differ, the major one found 1n the area of the landfill being the Huerhuero loam. Approximately 2,800,000 cubic yards of disposal volume 1s anticipated allowing the site to be operated for a period of 39 years. 1. LOCATION 1.1 Miles North of Pulgas Road and Basil one Road Intersection. 2. DAY Monday through Friday 3. PROPERTY 125,000 ± Acres 4. TONS/DAY 200± « HOURS 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM LANDFILL SIZE 43 Acres SERVICE LIFE 2010 5. REMAINING VOLUME 2.600.000 Yd 3 6. DAILY VEHICLE TOTAL N/A 7. PERSONNEL 1 Operator (contractor's WEEKEND VEHICLE TOTAL N/A personnel ) 8. EQUIPMENT 1 dozer (contractor's equipment) 9. OWNED United States Marine Corps 10. LEASED N/A ACQUISITION COST N/A EXPIRATION OF LEASE N/A 11. DATE OPENED March, 1971 12. RWQCB PERMIT NO. None 13. CWHB PERMIT NO. None 14. S.U.P. NO. None 15. METHANE MONITOR SYS None LEACHATE MONITOR SYS In Place (1976) COMMENTS: Closed Saturday. Sunday, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's, President's Day, July'4th. Memorial Day. and Labor Day. Revised 5/86 III-2S SAN ONOFRE LANDFILL The San Onofre Landfill receives Group 2 and 3 non-hazardous solid waste generated 1n the northwestern portion of the United States Marine Corps (USMC) Base, Camp Pendleton. Underlying soil types found 1n the vicinity of the landfill are Las Flores loamy fine sand, Elder shaly fine sandy loam, Gavlota fine sandy loam and Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand. Approximately 483,000 cubic yards of disposal volume Is anticipated allowing the site to be operated for a period of 20 years. Landfill handling and disposal operations are conducted by a private contractor. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. LOCATION 2.7 Biles East of the Basilone Sate on the North side of Basilone Road DAY Monday through Friday HOURS 7:30 AN to 4:00 PN 125.000 * Acres.PROPERTY TONS/DAY REMAINING VOLUME 15 LANDFILL SIZE SERVICE LIFE 22.7 Acres 1994 217.350 Yd3 N/ADAILY VEHICLE TOTAL PERSONNEL 1 Operator (contractor's personnel) EQUIPMENT 1 dozer (contractor's equipment) OWNED United States Marine Corps. WEEKEND VEHICLE TOTAL N/A ACQUISITION COST H/A LEASED DATE OPENED RWQCB PERMIT NO. None CWMB PERMIT NO. None S.U.P. NO. None EXPIRATION OF LEASE N/A METHANE MONITOR SYS None LEACHATE MONITOR SYS In Place (1976) COMMENTS: Closed Saturday, Sunday. Thanksgiving. Christinas. New Year's. President's Day. July 4th, Memorial Day. and Labor Day. Revised 5/86 111-26 YSIDORA BASIN LANDFILL The Ysldora Basin Landfill 1s planned for receiving non-hazardous and Inert solid waste generated In the southern portion of the United States Marine Corps Base (USMC), Camp Pendleton. The Ysldora Basin Landfill will replace the closed Box Canyon Landfill. Landfill handling and disposal operations are conducted by a private contractor. This site 1s characteristic of the fine sandy-clay loam soils found in the coastal plain section. Approximately 12,000,000 cubic yards of disposal volume is anticipated allowing the site to be operated for a period of 160 years. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 1.2 Biles southeasterly of VaM»nHff HnnlavarrfLOCATION DAY Monday through Ft-Mav HOURS 7:30 AM to 4:00 PN PROPERTY TONS/DAY REMAINING VOLUME 125.000 ± Acres 74 ± LANDFILL SIZE SERVICE LIFE ISO Acres 2099 12.000.000 Yd3 DAILY VEHICLE TOTAL N/A PERSONNEL 1 operator*(contractor's personnel) EQUIPMENT 1 dozer (contractor's equipment) OWNED WEEKEND VEHICLE TOTAL N/A United States Marine Corps LEASED N/A DATE OPENED RWQCB PERMIT NO. CWMB PERMIT NO. S.U.P. NO. ACQUISITION COST N/A EXPIRATION OF LEASE N/A N/A METHANE MONITOR SYS None LEACHATE MONITOR SYS COMMENTS: Closed Saturday. Sunday, Thanksgiving. Christmas. New Year's. President's Day, July 4th. Memorial Day. and Labor Day. Revised 5/86 (ACCESS ROAO) 111-27 ?w\v,> / - x / •"•• < •;-{4 < • -:•-, iW^i''^'.(IV: ,". \\-r( . > , n. \ ,V 'W programmed into the model. For each different set of conditions, SWAM then predicted future landfill disposal capacity through the year 2000. Projections beyond the year 2000 were calculated manually. The assumptions used in each scenario are included as Appendix A-III-3. The rate of increase in trash received has increased significantly in the past 2 to 3 years. This results in a greater volume of remaining capacity being used annually. An analysis of the various "scenarios" revealed that we will need new disposal facilities in the near future based on projected population and trash generation. A summary of the scenarios evaluated is contained in the following discussion. SCENARIO NUMBER 1 - "Do Nothing" This scenario assumes a worst case situation in which no new facilities are added to the region's existing solid waste disposal system. Per capita waste generation rates increase by 2.6% annually, a trend which has been noted over the last 13 years. In this scenario there are no remaining landfills in San Diego County after the year 1998. The projected closure dates for this "do nothing" alternative are: **Miramar Landfill: 1995 Montgomery Landfill: 1987 Otay Landfill: 1998 ***Ramona Landfill 1988 *San Marcos Landfill: 1991 Sycamore Landfill 1997 *Upon closure of the San Marcos Landfill, trash is transferred to the Sycamore Landfill. **The method of computing average refuse density and daily capacity depletion differ between the City and the County causing site life predictions to vary. City landfill closure dates occur 1 year earlier than County estimates. ***With the advent of aerial photography analysis, it is apparent that previous volume capacity calculations were grossly understated. With the staged development plan changes proposed for the Ramona site, it would appear there is in excess of 10 years of remaining capacity available at the Ramona Landfill. 111-29 SCENARIO NUMBER 2 - 10% Volume Reduction This scenario also assumes that no new facilities are added to the existing disposal system. However, the annual per capita generation rate increase assumes a 10% reduction in the volume of waste that would normally be landfilled through an active regionwide recycling program. In this scenario there are no remaining landfills in San Diego County after the year 2000. The projected closure dates for this 10% volume reduction scenario are: **Miramar Landfill: 1997 Montgomery Landfill: 1987 Otay Landfill: 2000 ***Ramona Landfill: 1988 *San Marcos Landfill: 1992 Sycamore Landfill: 1998 SCENARIO NUMBER 3 - Volume Enhancement at Existing Facilities This scenario, like the two previous ones, assumes that no new facilities are added to the region's existing solid waste disposal system and that per capita generation rates increase by 2.6% annually. In this scenario, additional volume is added to the Sycamore Landfill by relocating the power lines which currently traverse the site, thus adding approximately 41 million cubic yards of capacity. This extends the service life of the Sycamore Landfill 6 years and the Otay Landfill 5 years because Sycamore is accepting nearly all of the County's trash. Additionally, the planned expansion of the Ramona Landfill comes on line, adding 2.2 million cubic yards of capacity, and approximately 15 years of service life to this facility. *Upon closure of the San Marcos Landfill, trash is transferred to the Sycamore Landfill. **The method of computing average refuse density and daily capacity depletion differ between the City and the County causing site life predictions to vary. City landfill closure dates occur 1 year earlier than County estimates. ***With the advent of aerial photography analysis, it is apparent that previous volume capacity calculations were grossly understated. With the staged development plan changes proposed for the Ramona site, it would appear there is in excess of 10 years of remaining capacity available at the Ramona Landfill. in-.in In this scenario there are no remaining landfills in San Diego County after the year 2003. The projected closure dates are: **Miramar Landfill: 1996 Montgomery Landfill: 1987 Otay Landfill: 2003 ***Ramona Landfill: 2003 *San Marcos Landfill: 1991 Sycamore Landfill: 2003 SCENARIO NUMBER 4 - Volume Enhancement at Existing Facilities Combined with 10% Volume Reduction If the volume enhancement alternative described in Scenario Number 3 was combined with a 10% volume reduction realization, then there would be no remaining landfills in San Diego County after the year 2005. The projected landfill closure dates for this scenario are: **Miramar Landfill: 1997 Montgomery Landfill: 1987 Otay Landfill: 2004 ***Ramona Landfill: 2004 *San Marcos Landfill: 1992 Sycamore Landfill: 2004 SCENARIO NUMBER 5 - Waste-to-Energy Projects On-Line at the San Marcos and Miramar Landfills This scenario assumes that waste-to-energy projects are on-line at the existing San Marcos and Miramar Landfills in 1989, resulting in an average of 75% volume reduction of waste processed at the San Marcos facility and an 80-85% volume reduction of waste processed at the SANDER facility. The waste-to-energy plants are not designed to handle *Upon closure of the San Marcos Landfill, trash is transferred to the Sycamore Landfill. **The method of computing average refuse density and daily capacity depletion differ between the City and the County causing site life predictions to vary. City landfill closure dates occur 1 year earlier than County estimates. ***With the advent of aerial photography analysis, it is apparent that previous volume capacity calculations were grossly understated. With the staged development plan changes proposed for the Ramona site, it would appear there is in excess of 10 years of remaining capacity available at the Ramona Landfill. 111-31 all trash coming into the sites. Like Scenario Number 3, the planned expansion of the Ramona Landfill comes on line, and additional volume is added to the Sycamore Landfill. This scenario assumes that Sycamore is accepting most of the region's trash due to its physical location when San Marcos closes in 1993 and when Miramar accepts only ash residue from the waste-to-energy project. In this scenario there is has no landfill capacity after the year 2005. The projected landfill closure dates under this scenario are: **Miramar Landfill: 2005 Montgomery Landfill: 1987 Otay Landfill: 2004 ***Ramona Landfill: 2003 *San Marcos Landfill: 1993 Sycamore Landfi11: 2003 SCENARIO NUMBER 6 - New North County Landfill This scenario assumes that, in addition to the waste-to-energy facilities at the San Marcos and Miramar sites and the volume enhancement projects discussed in Scenario Number 3, a new landfill is sited and in operation in North County by 1993, the projected closure date for the existing San Marcos Landfill to accept waste that would normally be taken to San Marcos. The North County Landfill is assumed to have at least 10 million cubic yards of capacity. When the North County landfill closes, this waste would be routed to Sycamore. Otay would be accepting waste from the South County. *Upon closure of the San Marcos Landfill, trash is transferred to the Sycamore Landfill. **The method of computing average refuse density and daily capacity depletion differ between the City and the County causing site predictions to vary. Further, it should be noted that the City as part of the C.E.C. permitting process may be required to reserve capacity for SANDER ash disposal for the initial contract period. Such reservation would effect annual waste disposal volumes and site operations programs at the Miramar facility through the year 2017 (maximum Navy lease period). ***With the advent of aerial photography analysis, it is apparent that previous volume capacity calculations were grossly understated. With the staged development plan changes proposed for the Ramona site, it would appear there is in excess of 10 years of remaining capacity available at the Ramona Landfill. 111-32 Mlramar accepts only ash from the waste-to-energy facility at the site. In this scenario there is no landfill capacity after the year 2006. The projected landfill closure dates under this scenario are: **Miramar Landfill: 2006 Montgomery Landfill: 1987 Otay Landfill: 2005 ***Ramona Landfill: 2002 *San Marcos Landfill: 1993 Sycamore Landfill: 2005 New North County Landfill: 2001 SCENARIO NUMBER 7 - Resource Recovery in the East County and South County This scenario assumes a best case situation in which waste-to-energy projects are on-line in 1995 in the East County and South County, in addition to the volume reduction and site enhancement projects discussed in Scenario Numbers 3, 4 and 5, resulting in a 47% volume reduction in the year 2000 in the amount of waste which must be landfilled regionwide. In this scenario San Diego County has no landfill volume capacity after the year 2011. The projected landfill closure dates for this scenario are: **Miramar Landfill: 2011 Montgomery Landfill: 1987 Otay Landfill: 2009 ***Ramona Landfill: 2004 *San Marcos Landfill 1993 Sycamore Landfill: 2008 New North County Landfill: 2003 *Upon closure of the San Marcos Landfill, trash is transferred to the Sycamore Landfill. **The method of computing average refuse density and daily capacity depletion differ between the City and the County causing site predictions to vary. Further, it should be noted that the City as part of the C.E.C. permitting process may be required to reserve capacity for SANDER ash disposal for the initial contract period. Such reservation would effect annual waste disposal volumes and site operations programs at the Miramar facility through the year 2017 (maximum Navy lease period). ***With the advent of aerial photography analysis, it is apparent that previous volume capacity calculations were grossly understated. With the staged development plan changes proposed for the Ramona site, it would appear there is in excess of 10 years of remaining capacity available at the Ramona Landfill. 111-33 It is clear from the scenarios evaluated that we must continue to site landfills in conjunction with developing and using various waste reduction methods to prevent a serious crisis in solid waste management in the next decade. PROPOSED NEW FACILITIES The practical matter of actually finding, permitting and developing a landfill is extremely difficult and time consuming due to lengthy hearings in the permitting process and the increasing restrictions and requirements necessary to safeguard the environment. We estimate at least four years between approval to acquire a site and operational status. The Department of Public Works is engaged in two separate studies to locate landfill sites in the County. The Southeast County study is being conducted by the United States Geological Survey. They located approximately 12 potential sites on a preliminary basis. Further review reduced the number to six candidate sites. The six candidate sites that were analyzed are, in alphabetical order: Campo, La Posta, Manzanita Indian Reservation, Tecate, Tierra Del Sol and Vallecito Valley. From these, two sites were selected for more detailed geohydrologic appraisal: the Manzanita Indian Reservation and the Vallecito Valley site. A map showing the study area and approximate locations of the candidate sites is included as Figure III-2. The second study is being conducted by the consulting firm of Lawrence/ Trumbull Associates in the Northwest quadrant of the County to find replacement facilities for the Bonsall and San Marcos Landfills. The Department hopes to locate an approximately 200-acre site with 10 million cubic yards of capacity. The initial search located 18 sites for review. Two sites located at USMC Camp Pendleton were withdrawn from consideration. The number was later ranked to six sites by a Citizen Task Force assisting in 111-34 this search effort. Those six selected for further study are: two sites located west of 1-15, one north of Deer Springs Road and the other south of Lawrence Welk Boulevard; one north of Oceanside near the Camp Pendleton boundary; one west of San Marcos and north of Palomar Airport Road; two off Hwy 79, one south of Sunshine Summit and one near the Riverside County border. A map showing the approximate locations of these sites is included as Figure III-3. Locations of the 18 initially identified sites is included as Appendix A-III-4. Phase II of the study ranked the top three sites in order of their potential for development. The County will work with the cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar, San Marcos, Vista and Escondido to develop a replacement facility to serve North County residents. The County has retained the right to review the need to reactivate the Palomar Transfer Station as a solid waste facility should both the landfill and the waste-to-energy facilities fail to come on line in a time sufficient to provide for waste handling in the North County. The City of San Diego has requested that the County of San Diego, as the regional solid waste planning and management agency, conduct a search for potential landfill sites within their city limits. Candidate sites identified would be studied for their suitability for development to replace the City's Miramar Landfill. Initiation of the City of San Diego search to be performed by a consultant will require approval by the Board of Supervisors. As the regional solid waste management agency, the County will work with South and East County cities to develop replacement facilities for the Sycamore and Otay landfills so that they can be on line when these existing facilities reach capacity in the next decade. 111-35 -FIGURE EAST-COUNTY LANDFILL SEARCH STUDY AREA HI-36 . NORTH COUNTY LANDFILL SEARCH STUDY AREA 111-37 FIGURE II1-4 COMPLETED LANDFILLS IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY 111-38 COMPLETED LANDFILLS There are 30 identified completed landfills within San Diego County. Table III-7 lists the locations of these disposal sites. Figure III-4 shows the location of these disposal sites. Owners and operators of completed landfill sites are required to develop post-closure maintenance plans. Maintenance includes monitoring landfill gas and groundwater movement. The County, for instance, has installed methane gas containment systems at their closed Encinitas and Gillespie Landfills. The County of San Diego works with interested groups to develop compatible land uses on closed landfill sites. For example, the closed Valley Center facility has been leased for use as a horse-riding area. The old San Marcos Landfill was given to the City of San Marcos for use as a park. TABLE II1-7 COMPLETED LANDFILL SITES IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY Number Site Location Number Site Location 1 Alpine 16 Miramar, North 2 Arizona 17 Miramar, South 3 Balboa Park 18 Mission Bay 4 Bonsall 19 North Coastal 5 Carlsbad 20 Oceanside 6 Choi las, South 21 Paradise 7 Encinitas I 22 Pine Valley 8 Encinitas II 23 Poway 9 Escondido 24 Solana Beach 10 Fall brook 25 San Ysidro 11 Gillespie 26 South Bay 12 Jacumba 27 Sweetwater 13 Jamacha 28 Valley Center 14 Jamul 29 Viejas 15 Lakeside 30 Vista Landfill sites to be completed in the near future in San Diego County are proposed for open space use with the exception of the City of San Diego's Montgomery Landfill. The Montgomery Landfill site, a demolition landfill, will be utilized as part of the Montgomery Airport operations. 111-39 Concerns for ground settling and landfill gas generation and containment are minimal for demolition landfills because they generally contain little organic matter which is decomposing and can result in a site being unsuitable for placement of structures. Table III-8 lists the currently operating landfills in San Diego County and their probable final uses. TABLE 111-8 LANDFILL SITE PROBABLE USE UPON CLOSURE Site Proposed Use Borrego Open Space Miramar Open Space Montgomery Airport Operations Otay Open Space Ramona Open Space San Marcos Open Space Sycamore Open Space and Park Land In 1984, Title 23, Chapter 3, Sub-Chapter 15, of the California Admin- istrative Code was adopted setting forth new requirements for closure and post-closure plans for landfills. When a landfill approaches capacity, a closure plan and post-closure plan, meeting these guidelines, must be submitted to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The plan must provide for continued compliance with applicable standards for waste containment, including final cover, precipitation and drainage controls, leachate collection and removal systems and monitoring program requirements. The County of San Diego is currently finalizing closure reports for the closed Class I facility at Otay and the recently closed Class II Bonsall Landfill. Additionally, Federal RCRA requirements for closed landfill facilities must be met. Currently, three closed landfill sites in San Diego County, the County's closed Encinitas II site and the City of 111-40 Oceanside's Mission Avenue and Maxson Avenue sites, are not 1n compliance with federal standards for methane gas and are listed on the Open Dump Inventory. The County of San Diego has installed an air injection gas containment system in the native soil surrounding the Encinitas site to prevent gas migration into the surrounding residential area. The system is operating satisfactorily. The City of Oceanside has installed a gas extraction system at the Mission Avenue site. Gas migration is being contained. The City has budgeted funds in their FY 1986-87 Capital Improvement Projects budgets to develop a system at the Maxson Avenue facility. CONTINGENCY PLANS A dependable disposal operation is a critical segment in the total solid waste operation. While the most likely large-scale interruptions in disposal service would arise from labor disputes, reduced operability of landfill sites could also result from fuel shortages, equipment breakdowns and natural disasters. The disposal contingency plan for the County of San Diego requires that the contractor provide substitute personnel to operate landfill equipment at two regional sites, one in the north and one in the south County area. The County also has the right to bring in County employees and use the contractor's equipment to ensure that disposal operations are not impacted. The existing procedures manual for County-operated disposal sites provides instructions to be followed in many emergency situations including: operation in bad weather; in the event of accident and/or 111-41 Injury; and procedures in the event hazardous materials are discovered. The procedures are on file in the Department of Public Works. Disposal operations at the City of San Diego's landfills are conducted by municipal employees. A "no strike" clause minimizes the risk of an inadequate work force due to labor disputes. The City of San Diego's General Services Department has prepared an Emergency Procedures Manual containing general procedures for providing waste disposal services during emergency situations. Such issues as fuel shortages and obtaining trained equipment operators from other sources are addressed. Landfill operations at Camp Pendleton are performed under contract by civilian employees. Should a labor dispute arise, military personnel would take over operations. SUMMARY Solid waste generation in San Diego continues to increase. Unless social or economic circumstances change the rate of generation, recycling rates countywide will probably remain at their existing levels, approximately five percent of total quantities generated in San Diego County. Volume reduction through resource recovery and recycling will continue as the primary waste management challenge of this century. While landfills will remain the primary method of disposing of solid waste during the term of this revision to the plan, two waste-to-energy plants are planned to be operational in 1989. These plants will reduce the amount of waste to be landfilled, but will not eliminate the necessity for maintaining landfill capacity. We will continue to need additional landfill capacity to accept ash residue, non-processed waste and waste in excess of plant capacities. 111-42 To provide this necessary landfill space to serve the region it is planned to site and permit at least three new landfill sites in the next five years. The County is currently evaluating sites in the North County as a first priority. Evaluation of future landfill sites to serve the rural East County areas is underway, and an additional site search in the City of San Diego is planned. Our goals for managing the region's waste stream in the San Diego region are: 1. The County will continue to work with the cities to develop all forms of solid waste projects to meet the region's disposal needs and bring them on-line as necessary. 2. The County will investigate and implement, with the assistance of appropriate cities and other agencies, new resource recovery systems to provide further volume reduction of waste generated in the San Diego region. 3. Development of the SANDER and North County Recycling and Energy Recovery Projects, proposed to come on line in 1989. 4. The County will work with North County jurisdictions to site and permit additional landfill space in north San Diego County by 1990. 5. The County will site and permit additional landfill space to serve the east County area. The County will continue to work with the City of San Diego to site a new landfill to serve its residents. 6. The County will acquire final permits for landfilling at the Ramona Landfill annex. 7. The County and the City of San Diego will identify and implement operational and design changes to extend the capacity of existing landfills, if feasible. 8. The County and City of San Diego will explore expansion of existing facilities through additional property acquisition. 111-43 9. The County will maintain and revise the Solid Waste Allocation Model. 10. The County and the 18 cities will identify and establish facilities for inert materials and special wastes such as sludge and non-hazardous liquids. 11. The City of San Diego will close the Montgomery Demolition Landfill and identify and establish a replacement facility. 111-44 CHAPTER IV ENFORCEMENT The purpose of this chapter is to discuss how solid waste regulations are enforced in San Diego County. The Z'Berg-Kapiloff Solid Waste Control Act of 1976 required that each municipality designate an enforcement agency to carry out the provisions of the Act and to enforce the state's minimum standards for solid waste handling and disposal. The Act also requires that the designated Local Enforcement Agencies (LEA) prepare plans which identify their responsi- bilities and duties. These LEA Plans become the enforcement element of each County Solid Waste Management Plan by direction of the California Waste Management Board. The solid waste enforcement programs for the eighteen incorporated cities and the unincorporated areas of the County operate by authority of Title 7.3 of the Government Code, Title 14 of the California Administrative Code and the United States Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended. In addition to these state and federal laws, there are numerous local ordinances which address various aspects of enforcement of solid waste storage, collection, transportation and disposal matters. The local ordinances are enforced by the applicable local jurisdictions. COMPONENTS OF A SOLID WASTE LOCAL ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM The components of an LEA Plan were outlined in a document prepared by the California Waste Management Board entitled "The Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Local Enforcement Program Plans". A summary of the LEA Plans in San Diego County follows. IV-1 STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS Solid waste management regulations applicable in San Diego County are found 1n the United States Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Title 7.3, of the California Government Code; Titles 14, 22 and 23 of the California Administrative Code, the California Health and Safety Code; San Diego County Code of Regulatory Ordinances and in the municipal codes of the Incorporated cities within the County. Table IV-1 lists applicable local regulations pertaining to solid waste storage, collection, transportation and disposal. The County of San Diego, Department of Health Services (DHS), has been designated as the LEA for health-related solid waste disposal and site storage regulations by all 18 Incorporated cities and the County of San Diego. Additionally, DHS Is the LEA for non-health-related solid waste storage and collection regulations for the City of San Diego. Fifteen Incorporated cities have designated themselves as LEA for non- health-related solid waste matters. The County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, 1s the LEA for non-health-related standards In the unincorporated areas of the County. Two cities, Solana Beach and Encinitas, Incorporated in 1986 and have yet to establish 'enforcement programs and designate enforcement agencies. For one year after incorporation, the cities can choose to continue to operate under applicable County ordinances and procedures. Information on these cities is therefore omitted from Table IV-1. PROGRAM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The goal of the local solid waste enforcement programs is to service the solid waste management needs of the people of San Diego County in a way that will assure that all residential, commercial and Industrial solid wastes are stored, collected, transported, transferred, processed and disposed of in a safe, sanitary and environmentally acceptable manner. IV-2 LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY . I! h. <*!*$sa M 1 . ei | si 1 *g 8ES Is j S |S 3| sssi I 5 i §5 i S ' • .! ii i iii ii i1 U 1 I! ! i i j !_ !ii sl i jtt s: t : M ii! aj 7-77 77 372- 22 - o Z - :...5.*«Z- ... 1 • ° M 5 S • • •• •U • St V *» U • VXWN. U • « *»" a* 2 „ |. 1 fc S Si JL S if :s. «: « ? •; « > « !« 5- s: ::: sz : s ss * s s ss ss « •Wtfi »4 • .M *• • S.X.S O9 J eata T « K « c -^ i v « Q 8 8 mi-* «* • »• • —« j| • • o M* « • e • • -• o o a o • «*,-<'*• • * >•U«G««U4* U £ 5 « W 0 M M H 0 U 5 * U-* & U3A • • •• •• ••• ••« •V'QV V«nv* ^)OVV* V* 9 * *^ "^ 2"Io^**** • u *« •* o •» Id id id 1: id 3d Is id id Is sd s IS id id as as as a? as j^ a. as a^ |n s al a^ a id id id 1 i: Id 5d Is i id is sd 1 Is id id . , ! '. - - : 2 - - - - - . 5 - J M«^« • • 9 -^ •*• • • • 41 C • • ~* • M • •• • B • * E « M *•••• • Bu -- >. 2 >, >. x 2 2 ».*•>. •«« >. >• 2 >. II ! I J I I i i I I I III I I ! iiii iiiiiiiiei IB iiii iiiiiiiiei ic 1 1 1 1 1 1 101 1 1 1 1 1 I 1*1 1 1 !*•! 1 1 III Itftl 1 1 1 1 111 ! . - - 1e G e « M 4J «l Wtt t* to Mi 1 f 1S iy, i i •*' >*l *•> Ml >.! >.! .41 k«l >.! •«! •«( -41 Ml 1 >•! Ml&• VM A"* dtf* MM M* AM MM WV 4M £<• A« 4*n 1« MV AMa- u, t« »<. «,. u- t^ u, u, _, »« z, 2, «™ «,. »„ MMMM MMMMNMMMMM MM !. 3. i. S. S. S. S. S. S. 2. S. S. 5. 8. S. S. i< is !_ !i !; ji !• i. i. !i !i i. !i !i !J |n | a 3 SC< M U U M u o o u OMUM^JBO^M MM 3 y Z. •» » i -i i i ME t i ^ i^ I M != • 1 m M0)4-> U § >E >» U01 O Q) S&.C £<£+*^3^i^^1^_« 0 O (O O 4J••-•{: cEi5 1k UJ E 0 -P<4- l— t.•^ * 10r- 0 O.A O Hio5S u u u 00is^U -JO • •(/)UJ3u 1 j 1 «t1 s IV-3 The objectives of the solid waste enforcement program are as follows: 1. To ensure that all existing disposal sites, transfer stations and waste processing facilities are operating under the author- ity of a current solid waste facility permit issued by the Local Enforcement Agency. 2. To ensure that all proposed solid waste facilities, or revisions or modifications of existing facility operations, follow necessary permitting procedures. 3. To ensure that all solid waste facility permits will be reviewed and, if necessary, revised at least every five years. 4. To ensure that all solid waste facilities will be in compliance with those items listed on the Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) inspection form. 5. To ensure that all existing private refuse collectors are oper- ating under authority of the appropriate enforcement agency. 6. To ensure that all justified refuse collection and disposal complaints are abated according to current law. 7. To ensure that public information regarding refuse collection, complaints, disposal problems, recycling and current trends in the solid waste management is provided. SOLID WASTE FACILITY PERMITTING PROCEDURES In San Diego County, all solid waste facility permits are issued by the County's Department of Health Services (DHS) as the health-related LEA. Procedures specifying permit issuance, denials, appeals, revisions and modifications are described in DHS's Local Solid Waste Enforcement Plan. IV-4 To summarize, a permit application must show proof of approval of all applicable local land use and operating permits, compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, meet waste discharge requirements, if applicable, and provide specific information on the facility operation. The solid waste facility permit must also be approved by the California Waste Management Board before issuance by the LEA. INSPECTION AND COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES All solid waste collection and/or transportation vehicles that dispose of waste in County landfills are inspected at least once annually while in the field or while in the corporation yard by the County Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Compliance Section, and/or County Department of Health Services. The County, therefore, performs vehicle inspection for all of the incorporated cities, with the exception of the City of San Diego. Inspection of City of San Diego-owned vehicles is performed by the City's Department of General Services, Refuse Collection Division. All other vehicles operating within the City of San Diego are inspected by the City's Refuse Disposal Division at the Miramar Landfill. The County Department of Health Services (DHS) as health-related LEA inspects all existing County and City solid waste facilities, as well as the facilities at Camp Pendleton monthly. DHS also inspects all inactive or closed landfills throughout the region twice yearly. Written or verbal complaints regarding health or environmental hazards or public nuisances are also accepted and investigated by the San Diego County Department of Health Services. The non-health-related LEAs respond to complaints regarding litter and illegal dumping and monitor collection activities within their jurisdic- tions. Each city has designated staff who respond to litter and illegal dumping and collection complaints as needed. Enforcement is generally delegated to staff within the Departments of Public Works, Planning or Fire. IV-5 STAFF TRAINING The staff training conducted by the Local Enforcement Agencies include the instruction in general enforcement procedures and specific enforce- ment techniques to all staff relative to the solid waste management program. Staff training is provided as necessary. Examples of staff training include the following: 1. Provide knowledge of codes, minimum standards and local ordinances. 2. Provide knowledge of individual permit content and requirements. 3. Promote development of communications skills to deal with facility operators, complainants, and State/City/County officials. 4. Inspection techniques. STAFFING Staffing levels for the various enforcement programs throughout San Diego varies. Generally, less than one staff year is allocated by each city for enforcement activities because the need has not been demonstrated due to the size of the city and number of complaints received. The County Department of Health Services has 2.0 staff years budgeted for enforcement activities. Primary duties include monthly inspection of all 19 solid waste facilities in the San Diego region, permit processing, when needed, and training. The County Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Compliance Section, has five staff years budgeted for enforcement activities. Staff levels consist of four Compliance Officers and one Senior Environmental Health Sanitarian. Primary duties include yearly inspections of collection vehicles and litter and illegal dump investigations and abatement. IV-6 Various "volunteer" forces from the Workfare Program, the Probation Department and correction institutions are utilized in the actual clean-up process. In May, 1986, the County Board of Supervisors adopted a new Summary Abatement Ordinance. The Ordinance consolidates numerous provisions in the County Code that deal with the abatement of nuisances, including litter and illegal dumping, in a variety of different ways. The new provisions allow the County to abate illegal dumps on private property and assess the property owner on property tax bills. The City of San Diego has six staff years budgeted for litter control enforcement activities. Primary duties include responding to litter and illegal dumping complaints and working with community organizations on sponsored cleanup events. In addition, 28 staff years are budgeted for litter pickup crews. The staffing level is supplemented by workfare forces and County Probation Department inmates who perform community work in lieu of sentencing. LITTER CONTROL Litter is generally defined as any post-consumer solid waste which is not deposited in an authorized solid waste disposal site, appropriate storage container or other area designated for disposal. Although litter is often thought of as primarily an aesthetic problem, it can also be both costly and physically injurious. Broken bottles and torn beverage containers can be a threat to County residents. Litter can also cause damage to lawns and clog storm drains. Fatalities have been caused by automobiles striking bulky foreign objects in the highway or swerving to avoid them. Litter is not distributed evenly over the County. Evaluations showed that the majority of litter is found in urban areas, especially roadways, where population densities are the greatest. Litter is almost IV-7 twice as dense on roadways as on beaches, primarily because beaches are serviced more frequently. Responses gathered from a public opinion survey regarding solid waste management problems in San Diego County indicate that the visibility of litter and the particular type of environment in which it is observed influences public perception of litter problem areas. When respondents were asked to identify areas having the worst litter problems, the most frequently mentioned were beaches (29 percent), streets (15 percent), and canyon and alleys (15 percent each). Litter control measures include all techniques utilized either to reduce litter by discouraging the act of littering or to provide for cleanup and removal after it has occurred. The City of San Diego's ongoing litter program includes public education, litter law enforcement, litter cleanup and organized collection. The enforcement section is authorized to issue Notices of Violation or to cite litter law violators. Weekend community cleanup projects are conducted in conjunction with community groups and the private sector. The most common "after-the-fact" approach to litter and illegal dumping control in San Diego County includes volunteer or government-sponsored cleanup. Extensive use is made of the Probation Department's programs using inmates from various honor camps, court appointed alternative sen- tence workers and workers from the Department of Human Service's Work- fare Program, where persons receiving food stamps are required to work in public service. Perhaps the most active anti-litter group in San Diego is I Love a Clean San Diego County, Inc., which is supported financially by the City of San Diego and RecyCAL. The group provides speakers, anti-litter films and literature to schools and to service and civic organizations. IV-8 The group coordinates litter cleanup activities in the City of San Diego and assists in annual community cleanups in other cities in the region. Litter bags, posters, buttons and other publicity materials are furnished for cleanup campaigns and for general distribution. The group also sponsors recycling events in many of the region's school districts. Three hundred fifty thousand pounds of newsprint, 25,000 pounds of aluminum and 2,000 pounds of glass have been collected at these school events generating $15,000 for various school programs. It is hoped that these programs will encourage students to recycle and instill in them anti-litter behavior. I Love a Clean San Diego County, Inc., in conjunction with CALTRANS has placed anti-litter signs at 24 freeway on-ramps or interchanges throughout the County. It was shown that these signs resulted in a reduction in litter on roadways. Additionally, the "Tarps on Trucks" Program, operated with the assistance of CALTRANS and the California Highway Patrol, is aimed at educating the public to properly cover loads of waste being transported. Debris falling off vehicles on the freeway is a potential hazard and its cleanup is costly. As part of the program, recycled fish net is sold for a nominal charge to be used as a tarp. Public service announcements about the program are also being made. ANTI-LITTER LAWS Litter and illegal dumping control through enactment of anti-litter laws relies primarily on the psychology of imposition of fines on violators. Most people are law-abiding and reluctant to compound the anti-social act of littering by violating a local or state statute. For those who are caught and found guilty of littering, the original fine and the threat of increased fines for subsequent violations are deterrents to repeated littering. If this litter control technique is to be effective, however, litter laws must be strictly enforced. Enforcement IV-9 of litter control ordinances must often take on a low priority in the cities because of more urgent day-to-day management problems like law enforcement. In March 1981 the City of San Diego adopted an ordinance putting more teeth into its anti-litter laws. Littering, illegal dumping, transporting open loads of spiliable refuse and maintenance of open or inadequate refuse containers are specifically prohibited. The City also granted citation authority to its inspectors to enforce these sections. Since adoption of this Ordinance, the City has observed less debris on roadways leading to their landfills. Littering and improper waste storage still remain a problem. The California Highway Patrol is responsible for enforcing regulations regarding properly covered loads of trash being transported on roadways. Enforcement of these regulations limits, but does not eliminate, litter on our roadways. County fee collectors routinely provide handouts to drivers of improperly covered loads of waste arriving at a landfill or rural container site advising them of the California Vehicle Code requirements for transporting of refuse. REQUIRED COLLECTION While litter control is not its primary aim, regularly scheduled refuse collection service has the effect of reducing litter problems that are associated with prolonged accumulation of wastes and overflowing storage containers. In addition, organized collection reduces the numbers of unsuitable vehicles used to transport wastes, thereby reducing the amount of litter blowing from trucks enroute to disposal sites, as well as the temptation to dispose of wastes illegally. Prevention of litter in this manner is more effective in areas of mandatory collection. IV-10 ABANDONED VEHICLE ABATEMENT Each year thousands of vehicles are abandoned In the San Diego region. Abatement of this nuisance is very costly. If not abated, abandoned vehicles create an eyesore in the neighborhoods they are left in and can be a hazard. The San Diego Police Department removes vehicles from both off-street and on-street locations. Vehicles removed from off-street locations have typically been sold to ferrous metal scrap dealers; on-street vehicles are either sold for scrap or offered for sale in regularly scheduled lien sales following impoundment. The California Highway Patrol and the County Sheriff's Department will remove vehicles abandoned on public roadways and right-of-ways. Removal of vehicles abandoned on private property takes a lower priority due to a lack of staffing and funding available. The County formed a task force composed of staff from the Departments of Public Works, Planning, Health Services and the Sheriff to address the issue of abandoned vehicle abatement on public and private property. The task force recommended that the program be assigned to the Sheriff's Department. Funding arrangements for the program have not been finalized. LITTER CLEANUP COSTS Litter pickup programs can be extremely costly. The litter control pro- gram in the City of San Diego is currently in excess of one million dollars annually. This cost would be much greater if not augmented by community group volunteers and private sector service. The City of San Diego also able to utilize the services of the County Probation Department inmates eligible for the alternative sentencing program. IV-11 SUMMARY Enforcement of solid waste regulations is necessary to ensure that the state's minimum standards for solid waste storage, collection and disposal are met. Enforcement of regulations in San Diego is generally satisfactory. No significant problems have been observed in waste collection and disposal operations. Litter and illegal dumping complaints comprise the greatest number of complaints received by the various enforcement agencies in San Diego County. More vigorous enforcement of regulations pertaining to litter and storage standards could help alleviate some of the litter problem. Increased public education may also help. During the period of this Revision: 1. The County of San Diego and the incorporated cities will review their LEA Plans and update as necessary. 2. Cities that have not designated LEAs for health and non-health shall make the appropriate designations. 3. Cities that have not prepared LEA programs shall prepare appropriate programs and submit them to the CWMB. 4. The County of San Diego and the incorporated cities in the region will continue to develop and coordinate anti-litter programs. 5. The County and the cities will continue to support legislation aimed at reducing litter. 6. The County and the cities will study the need for a comprehensive litter control ordinance. IV-12 CHAPTER V RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESSING AND REUSE Resource recovery is any process that reclaims energy or materials from municipal solid waste. Recovery of materials such as magnetic metals, glass, paper, sewage sludge, non-ferrous metals and oil can be accomplished by separation at the source, at intermediate points such as transfer stations or at integrated processing plants. Material for which there is no current market or reuse can be turned into energy by a number of available technologies. RECYCLING Historically, solid waste has been either buried or burned. Little thought was given to the loss of valuable raw materials and energy resources as trash continued to fill up landfill after landfill throughout our cities and counties. Today, there is a general acknowledgment by society that natural resources are finite. A growing commitment to save these resources has developed because it makes good sense. For example, the recycling process of aluminum cans saves 95% of the energy required to manufacture from the original ore; ferrous metals, 74%; plastics, 80%. As technology and experimentation continues, this list will grow. In the last five years recycling in San Diego County has been increasing but there have been wide swings in the public's acceptance and in market conditions. A 1980 survey revealed that an estimated 61,389 tons of recyclable materials were collected in San Diego County. An anticipated growth rate of 5-6% per year was projected. In the following year, a second survey tallied only 35,000 tons, or 60% of the preceding year's projection. V-l In 1985 another survey was undertaken. Thirty-six percent of the com- mercial recyclers throughout the San Diego County area responded and reported resale of some 86,182 tons. This represents a 40% growth above the 1980 survey and is approximately a 7% annual growth rate. If this trend should hold through 1990, recycled materials are expected to exceed 125,000 tons. RECYCLING CENTERS San Diego County has a viable network of commercial recycling centers. (See Appendix A-V-1.) Although markets for recycled materials have fluctuated dramatically in the past, these recycling centers have become a stable and dependable source of supply for certain raw and semi-processed materials. Recycling activities have grown into a multi-million dollar industry which is highly labor intensive. It employs over 400 local people on either a full- or part-time basis and is supported by an unknown number of additional industries and volunteer organizations. In 1981, the County of San Diego received a California Waste Management Board grant for construction of two "buy-back" centers. They are located at the Otay and Sycamore Landfills. They are operated under private contract and accept aluminum, glass, newsprint, used motor oil and recyclable plastic. Hours of operation at the Otay "buy-back" center are Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Saturday and Sunday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.. The Sycamore "buy-back" center is open Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Saturday and Sunday, 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The City of San Diego has two drop-off recycling centers. They are located at the City's Chollas Operations Center and at the Miramar Landfill. The Chollas center is open 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, and accepts aluminum, glass and newsprint. The Miramar center is open 7 days a week from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and accepts glass and newsprint. V-2 CURBSIDE COLLECTION Along with the development of recycling centers, the 1970's saw various tests of separate collection of recyclable materials. City of San Diego In 1974, the City of San Diego implemented a curbside newspaper collection program. The program was discontinued due to scavenging along the route, high collection costs, and curtailment of federal funding. In 1975, the City took over the newspaper collection service. The program continued until May 1978. The program was terminated for the following reasons: 1. Revenues from the program did not equal the costs. 2. Citizen participation varied widely among the community areas. 3. Scavengers would collect the newspapers before • authorized crews could. 4. Federal CETA assistance for the program was discontinued. At the conclusion of the program, only 47% of the 91.75 tons of newspapers collected each week were remaining at the pickup- sites. The program was discontinued as revenues were only 44% of the costs associated with the collection effort. City of Oceanside In 1982 the City of Oceanside was awarded a $250,000 grant from the California Waste Management Board for implementation of a curbside collection program to separately collect tin, aluminum, glass and newsprint from the City's residential areas. The program began in early 1983. A public awareness program is also part of the program implementation. Property owners are assessed a surcharge to offset the costs of the program. The goal of this program is to recapture 23% of the V-3 residential waste presently entering the waste stream, thereby prolonging landfill capacity and preserving resources. An analysis of the Oceanside program shows that the participation rate is 11%. Approximately 900 tons of materials were recycled during 1985. The program is not operating at a profit, however, it is resulting in less waste which must be landfilled and is helping to preserve energy and valuable resources. City of Sol ana Beach The City of Solana Beach began a separate collection program in late 1983 and has achieved strong community support with an estimated 35-40% participation rate. The program is run by Solana Beach Recyclers, a non-profit organization, and relies heavily on volunteers and fund-raising to offset the costs of the program. Revenues from the sale of materials collected and membership dues also offset program costs. Pickup is available for all residents regardless of membership status. Coordinators of this program attribute the success of the program to the effectiveness of their nonprofit management of the program. The program received a $2,400 grant in January, 1986 from RecyCAL, a non-profit organization established to develop and expand recycling and litter control efforts statewide, to offset operational costs and purchase household recycling containers for members. Curbside collection of glass, newspaper and aluminum netted approximately 100 tons in FY 1983-84; 250 tons in FY 1984-85; and 400 tons in FY 1985-86. City of Vista A curbside collection program was initiated in the City of Vista in September 1985 by the Women's Club of Vista with the assistance of the 60+ Men's Club and two local Boy Scout troops. V-4 Newspaper, glass and aluminum are collected in certain parts of the City on the first Saturday of the month. Drop off bins for glass have also been placed at several locations. Revenues from the program are used for community service projects. An average of seven tons of materials are being collected monthly. Organizers of the program hope to expand the service area when additional vehicles are made available for collection. While curbside collection programs may not be financially rewarding at this time, they do have a legitimate place in municipal solid waste disposal options. Curbside programs are also of value from the standpoint of helping to preserve our dwindling landfill resources. COLLECTION CENTERS - Commercial Organizations Presently, there are 39 recycling centers throughout the County. A list of these centers is included in the Appendix A-V-1. Based on a 1985 survey with 36% of the centers responding, an estimated 86,000 tons of materials were processed at the commercial centers. Actual quantities were estimated to be in excess of 100,000 tons. Table V-l illustrates the commodities recycled during 1985 and their quantities. TABLE V-l RECYCLABLE MATERIALS PROCESSED IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY (1985) Reported Projected 1985 1985 Commodity Tonnage1 Tonnage2 Aluminum 6,879 8,599 Newsprint 9,717 12,148 Cardboard 1,385 1,739 Plastics 0 0 High-grade Ledgers 6,161 8,140 Glass 2,434 3,043 Ferrous 15,226 19,033 Non-Ferrous 9.380 11.725 TOTAL 86,182 107,626 1Tonnages reported by 36% of responding centers. ^Projected tonnages estimated by assuming that an additional 25% increase in tonnage was a reasonable estimate of material processed by centers not reporting. MARKET IMPACT Typically, the secondary materials industry is oriented to short-range market requirements. Current demand for these materials generally determines both the dealer's buying and selling prices. Such complex factors as international trade policies and supplies also impact demand for secondary materials. For example, the abundant supply of cheap aluminum from Brazil, Australia and other Third World countries is expected to affect domestic markets for recycled aluminum. Recyclable materials are generally used as supplements to virgin materials. They are in strong demand only when a firm's desired production exceeds material availability. This typically occurs when the economy is strong. When production as a whole diminishes, such as during times of extreme inflation or recession, markets for recycled materials decreases. Even slight changes in the volume of production can significantly influence the demand for secondary materials and the prices paid for them. RECYCLING ACTIVITIES OF CIVIC AND CHARITABLE GROUPS Charitable non-profit agencies head the list in coordinating recycling activities. These organizations make door-to-door collections in search of such resalable commodities as textiles, used clothing and furniture, household goods and repairable white goods. These goods become reuseable merchandise available to the public at the thrift stores each organization maintains. The periodic recycling drives of numerous charitable groups and local civic organizations, service clubs, churches and schools constitute another important aspect of recycling. Collected items are generally sold directly to secondary materials dealers and constitute over half of all the newsprint and cans recovered during favorable market conditions. V-6 Numerous collection bins have been placed at various locations throughout the County by various groups. They are provided to encourage volunteer deposit of recyclable materials. For the most part, these bins are designed for newspapers and aluminum cans. The actual quantity of material collected by these sources is unknown since it is often sold to commercial collection centers rather than buyers from the commodity market. Second hand dealers, as well as swap meets, garage sales or 'flea markets', are also a part of the recycling picture. Discards may change hands several times before they finally enter the waste stream. MILITARY RECYCLING The military services have a program for reprocessing materials declared surplus to the needs of military installations in San Diego County. At each major military base is an arm of the United States Defense Supply Agency. All reuseable or recyclable items no longer needed by a particular military activity are made available to units where they can be used. Recycled materials range from airplanes to pencil sharpeners. SCRAP METAL SALVAGING There are six major scrap metal dealers operating in San Diego County. Local salvaging operations are dependent to a great degree upon foreign markets. The market prices paid for used ferrous and non-ferrous scrap tend to fluctuate substantially and unpredictably. Ferrous Metals Approximately 70,000 tons of ferrous scrap were shipped during calendar year 1985 to Japanese markets through the Port of San Diego. Scrap V-7 material is transported to the mill by rail, truck or ship. No information is available on rail or truck loadings. Major uses for reclaimed ferrous products are as scrap raw materials for the steel industry, for copper mine precipitation operations and as steel scrap after de-tinning. Demand is largely determined by three factors: total iron and steel production, which correlates with economic activity as a whole; the ratio of virgin metal to scrap consumed by the industry; and export demand for scrap. Ferrous scrap is sold by grade. Prices have gone through periods of substantial fluctuations during the past five years. Markets for ferrous scrap at this time are seriously depressed by the reduced demands of foreign consumers. In addition, shredded, light weight, ferrous scrap separated from municipal refuse contains organic impurities and other contaminates in such quantities as to make marketing difficult without an additional processing or cleaning step. The costs associated with such additional steps must be weighed carefully. Non-Ferrous Metals Due to the intrinsic value of non-ferrous metals there is a strong market for the reclamation and processing of these metals. The metals which have had the strongest demand are copper, brass, lead and aluminum. Aluminum is by far the most important of the non-ferrous metals principally due to the soft drink industry. In 1980 over 4,000 tons of aluminum were recycled in San Diego County. A recent survey indicated that nearly 7,000 tons were collected in 1985 confirming the growing acceptance of recycling aluminum. The 1985 data was based on a 36% response and is probably much higher. This industry has now gained a foothold as a major industry within the San Diego County as an estimated 50% to 60% of all aluminum beverage cans used in the County are recycled. This same recycling rate is also occurring statewide. V-8 Waste Plastics 'Plastics' is a generic term covering many organic, synthetic or processed material that can be molded, cast, extruded, drawn or laminated into objects, films or filaments. Approximately 85% of the 2.69 billion pounds of plastics used in the United States during 1980 were capable of being remelted and recycled. The other 15% were 'thermoset' after forming and required additional steps for recycling or resource recovery. Latest tonnage figures indicate that 50,000 tons were recycled nationwide in 1984. No data on plastics recycled in San Diego County was reported by local recyclers. In 1970, plastics comprised 2% of the collected waste; in 1980 plastics made up 7.3%. Other studies throughout the state have verified that the trend of increased percentages in plastics in the waste stream will continue. White Office Paper White office paper makes up approximately 8% of all paper found in the municipal waste stream. Instead of throwing away used white bond paper, computer cards, printouts and other high grade papers, offices can collect and sell them to local recyclers and waste haulers. Over 6,000 tons were reported to be recycled during 1985 in San Diego County. Most of this paper was generated by large printing companies, law offices and computer firms and from County facilities. Waste Cardboard Consolidated Resource Recovery operates a transfer station in the City of San Diego which accepts loads of dry cardboard waste for recycling. Material delivered to the site on Dalbergia Street is sorted by employees to remove any plastic or other unacceptable material from the waste. The cardboard is then baled for shipment to waste processors. V-9 Approximately three packer trucks full of cardboard is compressed into one bale. Residual waste is taken to a landfill for disposal. Approximately 1,400 tons of cardboard were reported recycled in San Diego County in 1985. Waste Lubricating Oil Lubricating oil is not generally thought of as an element of solid waste. Its disposal and recoverability, however, are of particular concern to solid waste management because of its potential environmental impact. The principal post-customer sources of used lubricating oils are accumulations from crankcase drainings at service stations, automotive repair garages, aircraft and commercial automotive fleet operators. Removal of oil from the waste stream is not only a positive step in extending a valuable natural resource, but it is vitally important in protecting the public and the environment from this hazardous waste. On the basis of the number of motor vehicles registered in the County and projected miles driven it is estimated that lubricating motor oil is currently being consumed at an annual rate of 6 million gallons. The 'Used Oil Recycling Act of 1977' encourages waste oil reclamation. This Act is implemented by the California Waste Management Board. The Act specifically requires the Board to: 1. Encourage the establishment of voluntary used oil collection and recycling programs. 2. Adopt rules requiring oil retailers to post signs indicating the location of a nearby collection facility. 3. Adopt regulations governing the operation of collection facilities, used oil haulers, and used oil recyclers. V-10 4. Conduct a public information program regarding the need for and the benefits of collecting and recycling used oil. 5. Encourage the procurement of re-refined automotive and industrial oils for all state and local uses. 6. Submit an annual report to the Legislature analyzing the effectiveness of the program. There are over 200 gas and service stations in the San Diego region that collect used motor oil. It is estimated that over 3.0 million gallons are collected from these drop off points annually by one of three companies that reclaim this material. Waste Glass In 1972 glass comprised 5-6% of the waste stream. By 1977 the percentage dropped to 4.5 - 5.5% reflecting the increased use of aluminum cans in the soft drink industry. Further decreases in percentage of glass can be expected as plastics make further inroads in the soft drink industry. On the basis of 4.5% glass, San Diego County's 1980 waste stream contained 89,145 tons of glass. Only 1,050 tons were recovered by the various recycling programs in the County during the same time period. During 1985 total glass collected exceeded 2,500 tons, based on 36% response to a survey of recycling industries. Glass has a potential high negative value in any form of mechanical waste processing. If primary shredders are used, glass increases the wear on hammers by as much as 50%. In incinerators, glass represents a heat loss of 0.3 Btu/pound/degree F. It also contributes much to the slagging problems experienced in furnaces and grates and adds to the weight of the ash that must be disposed of. Even in hand sorting operations, glass presents a hazard to operating personnel in the form of cuts from flying shards. For these reasons, as well as to reduce waste stream volumes, glass should be removed from the waste stream by source separation to the fullest extent possible. V-ll Composting Large quantities of plant materials (tree trimmings, yard clippings) are regularly brought to the area's landfills and transfer stations for disposal. While plant material is not difficult to handle, it is voluminous. More importantly, it can be utilized as mulch when chipped. In 1985 the City of San Diego began a chipping program to reutilize the large volumes of tree trimmings and other plant materials routinely brought to their Miramar Landfill for disposal. The City of San Diego has been experimenting with different ways of mixing the chipped material for use as final cover at their Miramar Landfill. To date an estimated 62,000 cubic yards of material have been processed resulting in approximately 9,000 cubic yards of mulch. The City plans to expand their processing capabilities. The County of San Diego is planning to operate chipping projects at selected container sites in the Interior Zone during FY 1986-87 where large quantities of woody plant material appear in the waste stream during the spring and fall. The County plans to make the mulch produced from this program available to local parks and school districts for landscaping purposes. This should result in a substantial reduction in the waste volume that must be transported to a landfill for disposal. Sewage Sludqe/Septage Waste In 1985 an estimated 30,000 dry tons (80% solids) of sewage sludge was generated by the various wastewater treatment facilities throughout San Diego County, including the City of San Diego, the County of San Diego's San Elijo facility, Encina, Escondido and Oceanside. This tonnage is dependent on the level of sewage treatment. Included in this V-12 tonnage are residuals from septic tank pumpings which are processed at the Encina, Escondido and City of San Diego treatment facilities. Landfill ing has been the traditional method for disposal. Recently enacted federal and state statutes may impact the continued landfill ing of sludge due to concerns about moisture content in the sludge and potential water quality impacts from liquids in landfills that can reach the groundwater. Wastewater treatment facilities may be faced with adding expensive dewatering systems to reduce the water content of their sludge to meet more stringent requirements. Additionally, limits may be placed on the quantity of sludge a landfill can accept daily. Currently, the County's Otay Landfill is the only landfill that the Regional Water Quality Control Board allows to accept sludge for disposal. The other fill sites are not acceptable because of soil types and lack of leachate control. The cost of hauling sludge to this site will substantially increase the cost of treatment especially for the facilities in the North County (i.e., Encina, Escondido, Oceanside and San Eli jo). The various sewering agencies in the County are currently investigating both short-range and long-range alternative methods of sludge disposal and management. Identified options include: land application for soil amendment or reclamation purposes; distribution and marketing of sludge products for use as a fertilizer by commercial growers, landscaping firms, parks, highway departments, cemeteries and the public; mixing with soil as a landfill cover material; incineration of sludge to reduce the volume and mass which must be disposed of. Strategies identified to implement the sludge disposal and management options identified include: education of the public in the acceptance of recycled sludges as a soil amendment; supporting regulatory changes that require the use of a sludge-based compost in public and private V-13 parks, greenbelts and other landscaped areas; implementation of zoning changes, if necessary, to facilitate the establishment of composting facilities; exploring the use of sludge in conjunction with other disposal processes; and ensuring that there will be adequate landfill space for disposal of sludge or compost not readily utilizable as a compost material. WASTE-TO-ENERGY Processing solid waste to reduce its volume and recover energy by any number of technologies has the potential to provide something for nearly everyone: 0 Urban residents gain by getting rid of their solid waste at lower costs, over the long run, than landfilling. 0 Surrounding communities gain since the useful lives of existing landfills are extended and less additional land, an increasingly scarce and valuable resource, must be set aside for future landfills. 0 State and federal governments gain by the fact that electricity is produced without burning oil which must either be extracted from increasingly more vulnerable areas of the environment or imported. 0 Environmentalists gain as a discarded resource is converted into a useful energy source. Projects can also promote recycling by including curbside collection programs, source separation and other front-end or back-end technology to separate commodities for sale or reuse. Reduction Of Costs Recovery systems can reduce hauling and disposal costs when used as alternatives to or in combination with conventional methods of disposal. In the past, resource recovery facilities had generally not been profitable because systems were not perfected and unable to be utilized on a large V-14 scale. Resultant energy production costs were not competitive with conventional power plants utilizing gas, oil or coal as fuel. Recently, however, the full cost of land disposal with increased regulation of both open and closed facilities has skyrocketed thereby making resource recovery systems a more economically feasible solid waste management option. Environmental Concerns The environmental impacts of a resource recovery project are site specific. Size of the facility and technology used also will affect impacts. However, general environmental concerns include potential impacts to public health, air quality, land use and transportation. Environmental impacts associated with landfills are also site specific. The decomposition of the organic portion of solid waste in a landfill is the primary source of such environmental pollution as methane gas, organic compounds and leachate which can impact air and groundwater quality if site design precautions are not taken. Landfills require large areas of land, a resource which is becoming increasingly scarce in our urban areas. Advantages, from an environmental standpoint, of resource recovery over landfilling include: resource conservation from recycling material that would ordinarily be landfilled (i.e., aluminum, glass, plastic, ferrous metal, newspaper, cardboard); reduction in fossil fuel consumption both directly (offset consumption of oil and natural gas at area power plants) and indirectly (saving energy used to process new aluminum, ferrous metals, newspapers, etc.); a reduction in the land area necessary for waste disposal; reduction in the amount of organic degradable wastes which are buried and can create air quality and groundwater pollution; and reduction in haul distances if facilities are located close to generation sources with the resultant decrease in vehicle emissions. V-15 Negative impacts of resource recovery may include: potential localized increases in criteria and non-criteria pollutants; increases in local noise levels; increases in traffic in the area; impacts to visual aesthetics from the facility buildings and stack; and potential impacts to biological and archaeological/cultural resources. As stated previously, potential impacts are site specific. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that any proposed project be evaluated for potential environmental impacts and be mitigated prior to approval. A resource recovery project must be found in compliance with CEQA prior to approval. Projects producing in excess of 50 megawatts of electricity are required under law to undergo an equivalent permitting process controlled by the California Energy Commission. HASTE-TO-ENERGY IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY San Diego County has historically been in the forefront of innovative solid waste management. In the early '70s, the County secured private and public funds for the development and construction of the El Cajon Resource Recovery Demonstration Project. In the mid-seventies, an Economic Development Administration grant was secured for the construction of the Palomar Transfer Station. The Board of Supervisors has an agreement with a private company for the construction and operation of the North County Recycling and Energy Recovery Center and, with the City of San Diego, is supporting the San Diego Energy Recovery (SANDER) Project by agreeing to continue an active role in a new SANDER Joint Powers Authority staffed by the City of San Diego. Historically, landfill ing of solid waste has been the most economical disposal method. However, the ongoing costs of landfilling, including site maintenance, long-term methane gas and leachate monitoring, capital cost of replacement, post-closure requirements, liability issues and additional regulations initiated at the state and federal levels, when considered with the benefits of recycling and resource recovery, make it advantageous to consider landfilling alternatives. V-16 To promote alternative methods of solid waste disposal, the County Board of Supervisors, as the agency responsible for regional solid waste management, adopted a policy to: 1. Recognize that landfill disposal is the preferred disposal alternative only for wastes that cannot be recycled or processed and for the residual from processing facilities. 2. Seek funding for urban resource recovery projects that result in production of energy, animal food sources or other useful products. 3. Identify candidate sites for the location of transfer stations or other solid waste processing facilities as alternatives to landfill sites. 4. Encourage lifestyle changes in order to reduce per capita solid waste generation and promote increased recycling. 5. Whenever feasible, to utilize a shredding process to further decrease solid waste volume. 6. Support public information and education programs and the efforts of other public and private community groups in establishing resource recovery and conservation programs. This policy is consistent with the California Waste Management Board's goal to reduce the total amount of residential, commercial and industrial wastes now disposed of in landfills. The California Waste Management Board through its various programs and grants encourages recycling, reuse and waste-to-energy facilities throughout the state. This goal underlines the high priority that resource recovery must be given by solid waste managers throughout the state. V-17 State law (Government Code Section 66787) authorizes local agencies to enter into contracts with business entities for waste-to-energy plants and provides that bonds may be issued to finance those plants. County Code Section 68.511 permits the County to direct collected solid waste to the facility which best suits the interest and needs of the County. The County of San Diego is involved in two waste-to-energy projects, the San Diego Energy Recovery Project (SANDER) in the City of San Diego and the North County Recycling and Energy Recovery Center in San Marcos. Additionally, the County has entered into an agreement with a private company for the development of methane recovery systems at several County landfills. These projects are discussed in the following pages. Methane Recovery Methane gas is produced when organic matter decomposes under anaerobic conditions, which is the typical case at most landfills. If not adequately contained, methane gas can permeate laterally and vertically through the soil and create potential explosion hazards to adjacent structures. Landfill operators are often required to install expensive gas containment and/or venting systems at existing or closed sites to prevent gas migration to surrounding properties. Methane gas is recognized as an excellent source of energy. Quantities produced at a landfill can generate millions of kilowatts of electricity so mining of methane gas for use as a fuel source has been increasing. The benefits of methane recovery include utilizing a known energy source and reducing landfill gas monitoring costs. The County has entered into an agreement with a private contractor to extract methane gas at the Bonsai 1, Otay, San Marcos and Sycamore Landfills to produce electricity. The County will receive a royalty stream as well as lease revenues from each project. The Bonsai 1 and V-18 Otay facilities are scheduled to be in place by late 1986, followed by the San Marcos and Sycamore facilities in 1987. A similar methane recovery system is proposed at the City's Miramar Landfill. The Navy has entered into an agreement with a private company to extract methane and produce electricity for use at the Miramar Naval Air Station. The City of San Diego is also investigating the potential for methane recovery at their closed South Choi las Landfill. SAN DIEGO ENERGY RECOVERY PROJECT (SANDER) The proposed San Diego Energy Recovery (SANDER) Project, formally a joint County and City of San DiegO project, became a City of San Diego project as of June 30, 1986 when the initial SANDER Joint Powers Authority (JPA) was allowed to expire. That JPA was dissolved because the project now primarily benefits the City and all commitments are their responsibility. County membership in a second JPA has been directed by the Board of Supervisors in recognition of the role of the SANDER Project in meeting the region's overall disposal needs. The SANDER Project is classified as a thermal power plant, since it will produce in excess of 50 megawatts of electricity, and hence is subject to the permitting guidelines of the California Energy Commission (CEC). The CEC guidelines require that all applicable local and state land use and operating permits and environmental review requirements be met prior to certification of the project. The CEC coordinates activities of all typical permitting agencies. The SANDER Project is currently being processed for certification by the CEC. It is anticipated that the project certification process will be completed by early 1987. The proposed project will utilize mass burning technology, i.e., combustion of municipal solid waste (MSW), instead of other fuels, such as coal or oil, to produce steam or electricity. The waste received at V-19 the facility will be unloaded directly into a pit in an enclosed building, then overhead cranes will transfer the waste to moving grates where it will be burned at temperatures in excess of 1800° F. .The heat produced using this process is captured as steam which can be converted into electricity and sold. In the proposed project enough energy will be produced to provide electricity to approximately 60,000 homes. Revenues received from energy sales and waste disposal fees will be used to pay for the facility. Revenue from materials recovered, including ferrous metals, is not included in the current financial plan; however, the proposed service agreement gives the City of San Diego the unilateral right to recycle waste materials and receive the resulting income at any time the City finds it economically prudent to do so. A study is currently underway to determine recycling options and feasibility. The proposed site for the SANDER Project is a U.S. Navy-owned parcel adjacent to a completed portion of the S.E. Miramar Landfill and a mile south of the current West Miramar Landfill. The proposed site is to be acquired through a property exchange between the U.S. Navy and the City of San Diego. San Diego voters and Congress have approved the exchange; and appraisal and negotiation of the exchange values of the respective pieces of property is still in progress. Wasteshed - The SANDER Project will primarily serve the City of San Diego. The wasteshed area encompasses the entire city limits with the exception of the South San Diego area, which is served by the County's Otay Landfill. Some peripheral areas of the County and adjacent cities such as Del Mar, Lemon Grove, Poway and National City (where haulers' routes overlap jurisdictional boundaries) are also part of the wasteshed. In 1989, the scheduled date for commencement of SANDER operations, the City of San Diego expects to have 1.8 million tons annually of waste requiring disposal. The SANDER facility will be designed to process V-20 52%, or up to 680,000 tons, of that waste annually generated in the project wasteshed using three 750 ton per day boilers, totaling 2250 tons per day. It will reduce the solid waste volume by approximately 80 - 85% and the weight by 76%. Additional waste will be available for recycling and the SANDER Project is currently conducting a feasibility study on mechanical separation of recyclables from the waste stream. Ash Residue - Approximately 600 tons per day of ash residue will be generated and disposed of at the City of San Diego's Miramar Landfill. The California Department of Health Services has classified the fly ash, bottom ash and flue gas emission control residues to be generated by the SANDER Project as nonhazardous. This classification was made based on an application submitted by the SANDER Project describing the characteristics of the waste stream and the combustion process. Commitment of Waste - Assured commitments of waste are normally evidenced by (1) legal controls, including the federal and state constitutions, legislation and court rulings implementing the "police power" authority to regulate collection and disposal of solid waste; and (2) voluntary long-term agreements entered into by the different local government agencies served to deliver waste to the facility until bond repayment is accomplished. The legal authority of the County and City of San Diego to commit waste to SANDER is substantial. Both government agencies have extensive police powers granted by the state constitution and the Legislature to regulate the collection and disposal of solid waste within their respective jurisdictions. In addition to legal controls, the County and the City of San Diego have strong practical control in that they own the only disposal sites within a reasonable hauling distance of the SANDER facility. The waste which will be directed to SANDER is currently going to the City's Miramar Landfill. V-21 Prior to the issuance of bonds for the design and construction of the SANDER facility, the City of San Diego will enter into a long-term service agreement with the owner/operator of the SANDER .facility. Included in the service agreement will be a guarantee by the City of San Diego to deliver waste to SANDER for the period of the bond indebtedness. Recycling - The SANDER Board of Directors and the City and the County of San Diego support recycling as a compatible activity with the SANDER Project and encourage increased recycling in order to reduce the waste stream for disposal and to conserve our natural resources. Current recycling activities in the SANDER wasteshed include 14 permanent recycling operations. According to a survey conducted in the SANDER wasteshed between January 1983 and December 1983 recycling rates included: - Over 7,200 tons or 55% of aluminum cans; - Over 35,000 tons or 45% of newsprint; - An estimated 27,000 tons of cardboard; 8,800 tons of high grade ledger paper and 33 tons of plastics. To achieve the SANDER Project's objective of increased recycling in the San Diego area, the SANDER Project is in the process of planning to: 0 Encourage increased private sector recycling by the establishment of a buy-back center for recyclable materials at the Miramar Landfill. 0 Ensure that an adequate information and referral service is available to citizens by funding a recycling information clearinghouse. 0 Support public education regarding waste reduction and product waste by working with local agencies to provide an educational effort which includes community presentations regarding recycling. V-22 0 Encourage the inclusion of San Diego businesses in an Industrial Waste Exchange in the SANDER wasteshed. This waste exchange could help conserve energy and resources while reducing waste management problems and disposal costs. A consultant study has been completed which identifies firms producing hazardous waste and reviews waste exchange programs operating in other areas. 0 Assess the feasibility of mechanical separation at the Miramar Landfill. A consultant has been hired to determine if a mechanical separation system is available that will reliably and economically sort residential and/or commercial waste, and whether regional markets will provide sufficient revenue to support such a facility. SANDER provides an alternative to filling San Diego's urban open space areas with refuse. Without SANDER, open space will continue to be used as landfills and new sites will be located far from urban areas, thus significantly increasing the number and length of trips on the region's street network. NORTH COUNTY RECYCLING AND ENERGY RECOVERY CENTER The North County Recycling and Energy Recovery Center is a private waste-to-energy project being developed by North County Resource Recovery Associates (NCRRA). The project has received all applicable local land use and operating permits and has been issued a Solid Waste Facility Permit from the California Waste Management Board. Legal challenges to the validity of the General Plan designation and land use permits for the project remain unresolved. The proposed project will reclaim materials and energy from solid waste that would otherwise be landfilled. A recycling center will be included for purchase of source-separated recyclables from citizens and organizations. Materials for which the markets and separation technology exist will be recovered through centralized processing. These include aluminum, ferrous metals, film plastics and corrugated paper. The project will include a composting program to handle yard V-23 wastes. Once the facility is operating, additional composting alternatives will be explored, including evaluation of the use of process residue, ash and other organic materials. Only those combustible portions of the waste stream that cannot be economically recovered as recyclable materials will be used as fuel. The prepared fuel (a homogeneous mix of combustible shredded solids such as paper, wood and other organic refuse) will be burned onsite in a specially designed boiler to produce steam that will drive a turbine to generate electricity. The electricity will be sold to San Diego Gas & Electric Company and transmitted through existing power lines immediately adjacent to the site. Of the approximately 580,000 tons per year to be processed by the facility, only the process residue, ash and solid waste that cannot be recycled or processed into fuel will be landfilled in the adjacent San Marcos Landfill. This reduction of the waste stream entering the landfill will extend the landfill's operating life. Agreement with County - The project is being developed under an agreement with the County of San Diego. The County provides a site at its San Marcos Landfill and commits to providing 580,000 tons/year of municipal solid waste at an established fee. The County receives a royalty stream from the sale of recycled commodities and electricity in addition to lease revenues from the site. Wasteshed - The North County project serves the cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Poway, Escondido, San Marcos, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar, Poway and Vista and the unincorporated area from the northern limits of the City of San Diego to Camp Pendleton. Waste generated at Camp Pendleton is disposed of at military-operated landfills on the base. The facility's design capacity is approximate!:? 580,000 tons per year based on a design operating condition of approximately 2,320 tons per day, five days per week, 50 weeks per year. V-24 In FY 1985, 635,000 tons a year were handled at the San Marcos Landfill, the area's only landfill. In 1989, the scheduled date for commencement of operations, the County anticipates annual quantities of waste in this area well in excess of 800,000 tons a year. Ash Residue - The center will produce approximately 20,600 tons of air pollution control solids and fly ash and 31,500 tons of bottom ash annually, or 140 tons per day total. The California Department of Health Services has classified this ash as nonhazardous based on an analysis of the center's waste stream and combustion process. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board has authorized disposal of this ash at the San Marcos Landfill. As part of the contractual agreement, the County is obligated to provide a disposal site for process residue and ash. Initially, the San Marcos Landfill offers the most economical and convenient waste disposal location. Commitment of Waste - San Diego County's Solid Waste Ordinance requires haulers collecting waste in the unincorporated area and transporting waste through unincorporated areas to the County's landfills to be permitted. Permits are issued by the Department of Public Works. This permit includes the right of the County to designate the disposal site to be used by the hauler. Basic legal rights of the County to guarantee waste to a resource recovery facility are discussed in the WASTE-TO-ENERGY IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY Section earlier in this Chapter. Additionally, the Agreement between the County and NCRRA forbids the County from taking any action, failing to take any action or allowing any third party to take any action that would decrease the waste stream available to the center, except as otherwise prohibited by state or federal law. Recycling - A buy-back/recycling center is included as part of the project. Newspaper, aluminum, glass, ferrous metals and other materials V-25 for which there is a market will be purchased from individuals and organizations who bring these materials to the center. Buy-back prices will be set by current market conditions. To promote recycling activities in the project wasteshed, NCRRA will contribute to the establishment of a public information program for volume reduction in the project wasteshed. A residential source separation/curbside collection program will also be established. The center will also operate a composting project. Tree trimmings and other yard wastes comprise approximately 20 percent (by weight) of the total waste stream. The anticipated market for this product is in agricultural, landscaping and gardening applications. SUMMARY Resource recovery has become more attractive in the 1980's due to increased awareness of the limited capacity of existing landfills and the increased difficulty in siting new facilities close to the area of generation. A flexible system that provides both energy and materials from municipal solid waste fits the future recycling trends and must be supported. To deal with the growing volume of solid waste, the County and cities must implement programs aimed at recovering all the materials that are feasible to remove from municipal solid waste and convert to useful energy that portion which cannot be recycled. The County of San Diego has taken an active role in promoting and furthering resource recovery. During the period of this Revision: 1. The County will continue the implementation of the North County Recycling and Energy Recovery Project. V-26 2. The County and the City of San Diego will continue planning and implementation of the SANDER Project. 3. The County will continue to designate specific disposal sites as part of its collector and transporter permit approval process. 4. The City of San Diego will commit wastes in the SANDER wasteshed to that project for the period of bond indebtedness. 5. The County and 18 cities will implement recycling programs including separate collection programs as appropriate within cities and unincorporated communities. 6. The County Board of Supervisors, as the regional solid waste management and planning agency, will continue to assess the applicability of resource recovery and alternate waste management technologies for other regions of the County. 7. The County and the City of San Diego will work with state agencies to continue to assess the environmental impacts of resource recovery. 8. The County will assist the private sector in the implementation of volume reduction programs. 9. The County will continue to participate in the North County Sewage Solids Management Study and will assist in implementation of feasible sludge disposal alternatives for the region. 10. The County and the cities will assist sewering agencies in sludge disposal and management options by supporting their efforts to: locate and permit adequate landfill space for V-27 disposal of sludge or compost not otherwise reuseable; educate the public in the acceptance of recycled sludges as a soil amendment; make regulatory changes that require the use of a sludge-based compost in public and private parks, greenbelts and other landscaped areas; implement zoning changes, if necessary, to facilitate the establishment of composting facilities. V-28 CHAPTER VI FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION This Chapter summarizes existing solid waste management responsibilities and financing practices within the San Diego region. It also describes alternative organizations and agencies which could be used to meet the region's solid waste needs should a change in the existing practices be desirable. The County of San Diego is a one county planning and management region consisting of approximately 2.1 million people. Within the County there are 18 incorporated cities, of which the City of San Diego is the largest with a current population of over one million people. The County of San Diego and the City of San Diego are the only two local agencies currently providing solid waste disposal services. The 18 cities, and the County of San Diego for the unincorporated area, provide a variety of types of solid waste collection and enforcement services. There have been few problems experienced within the County in managing and planning for solid waste services with the exception of siting solid waste disposal facilities. ORGANIZATIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT This section identifies the specific organizations and the methods by which they provide and maintain solid waste services. The County of San Diego The County of San Diego, Department of Public Works (DPW), is the region's designated solid waste planning and management agency. It has been the lead agency for the development of the original Solid Waste Management Plan, the 1982 Revision and the current revision. The County is also responsible for any amendment of this Plan. VI-1 DPW is responsible for the operation of five sanitary landfills and ten rural container transfer stations. It does not provide collection services but does permit private companies to service the unincorporated areas. As part of the permit process, the County issues transporter permits to private sector haulers using County facilities. Since the majority of transporters in the region utilize County landfills, the County, in effect, performs vehicle inspection services for all the cities within the County, with the exception of the City of San Diego. The Department of Public Works is also responsible for illegal dump abatement on public property, including County maintained roadways. DPW investigates illegal dumping on private property in response to complaints. However, responsibility for abatement of these lies with the property owner. The County does have the ability to abate the nuisance under the recently enacted Summary Abatement Ordinance and assess the cost of abatement to the property owner. The Department of Public Works is responsible for road sweeping following all road construction or repair work on County maintained roads and for sweeping all bike lanes in the unincorporated areas monthly. There are several other County agencies involved in solid waste management. The County's Department of Health Services (DHS) is the designated enforcement agency for health-related solid waste matters (i.e., storage, landfill disposal) for all cities within the County as well as the unincorporated area. In this capacity, DHS inspects all existing County and City landfill sites for compliance with permitting and operational requirements. The County's Department of General Services also provides for the removal of dead animals along County maintained roads. When requested, the County of San Diego works with its cities to develop volume reduction projects. The Department of Public Works also provides public information and education services itself and through VI-2 contracts with the private sector. The Department of Health Services and the County's Office of Intergovernmental and Public Affairs also provide public information on solid waste activities. Cities The incorporated cities within the County have responsibility for solid waste storage, collection, disposal, litter programs, street sweeping, certain public information and education programs and nuisance abatement, including vacant lot cleanups, abandoned vehicle abatement and illegal dumping within their jurisdictions. Table VI-1 summarizes the operational responsibility for the various solid waste programs within each jurisdiction. The majority of cities within the County accomplish solid waste collection through franchises or license arrangements with the private sector. Residents of these cities contract directly with the franchise holder or licensed collector fpr service. Exceptions to this include the City of San Diego, which provides collection service to residential and small business establishments utilizing municipal crews, and the City of Coronado, which contracts with a private collector for this service. These collection costs are considered part of each City's General Fund obligation. Under provisions of the People's Ordinance, enacted in 1919, the City of San Diego provides collection and disposal services for most residential waste generated without a fee to City residents. Residential collection service within the City of San Diego is provided by municipal employees. The City of San Diego also licenses private haulers for commercial, industrial and additional residential collection service that may be required within its boundaries. The City of San Diego contracts for public information and education services. Street sweeping, litter control and illegal dump abatement activities are performed by City personnel. The programs are funded by either the General Fund or the Environmental Growth Fund. VI-3 TABLE VI-1 SOLID HASTE MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES •iritmrupLuwrr || II IIvtllitle* Moint. || . IIPublic Work* jj II II II II II JlII II II JlII II II II II incerp. Juno 1M« jj Currently Iftlllcel jj county Syvton || .11 cm"II II II IIHCMLSBAD IIHCHUIA VUTK If IIf ICOHOHADO II II II •ulldinf 4 City Public Horki Public Work* DtirOSM. Coll«ct«r Collector r •ibilltr publc Works ||DEt.HM II II II j|el CHJOH IIII IIII| (OtCimTAJ IIII ll_ rtn Pin Collvctoc r« ibllity Public Work* Pin On*.Public Uorfc* ••Hint Intoc <MClc«c PlMMiltf Zcdln* E Officer Public Wbrka City t Cwnty County penit ftelden m 1*M otlli««« Cawity fy«t«i Inc*rp. Jun* l*l( CUrroitlr UtllllM County *y«t«i IMC Curnatly Wlllu* County Xy*tM C*ll«ct«c •Ibllity IfCSCONDIOO II II. 'conchiM Pic* IU»h*ll rlt.Public HMTlu City Council HIMPOUAI. IIII Contract X. >. Di*poMl Pin DnxrC~at 'Public w>rk> rrenchin Cenmi»ien|| controct* to jj .11 II II IIPublic Work* jj Deportment-Street j j IICity Nuafor I) II II II II II II II| IHATXONM. cm II II. Public Work*Callvctor r«*po«- •U>ility Coil«cter • Ibilltr * Collector rompoo- •iblllty Public Mork« IIOCCAMSiaCIIII. Prcnehiie Mute dtr Mut«City Collector •ibllity city Cooo enforce- •Mt Mvi>len IIPOHMT II II. City Peralt_|tolden OMtrccc Public rtM Sheriff Collector •ibllity Public Service! ||SM< DIBOOIIIIIIII •efuoe Collection 01 Villon •trwt te Lttt«« tt Pin O*pt Street Mvidon lieI ISM DIBOOIIIIIIII IIS*"IIIIII. County Pemit Mlifan Pvblie w>rk«.Solltf Wut* H*iii«a Sheriff IMC ibllity fron State Hietnwr Pe.tr*! Public Mnfcs i* r*«paMlbil« f«r •icycl« tim« t CWHIt. Cl*«l Up •• 0>. Calloctor •Ibilltr Public Work*, solid «ta*to DivUlon Pronchiie ••114 Mute Service lac. Cltr City Public Collector • Ibillty Public «*>rk» IISMCRX II II- County Pemit ftelde» City (City 1 Public Mick*Collector •Ibilltr Public Work. HSOfJUUk SCMOIIIIIII CumUf Pemit lamp. JUM IfM |lnc*n>- Cwnntly acltlcx »»•«temcp. JUM !»•« Ownntly UtlllSM Owty >y<t«> Collector •ibllity Incorp. Juno 1»M Currently vtillcoe S.O. County Syoten HVISTA IIII II (City j 1 Public WKlu OoptCtMIt W Cmtnctiat Colloctoc r •ibllity public work* DepartMat end Contrectlne VI-4 The City of San Diego also operates a municipal solid waste landfill for residential and commercial trash generated in the central, northern and eastern parts of the City. It uses the County's Otay facility for trash generated in the South San Diego area. All remaining cities utilize the County's facilities in San Marcos, San Diego and Chula Vista. The growing difficulty in siting new facilities, combined with the increasing pressure on the limited capacity of existing facilities, make it imperative that sub-regional efforts be initiated to provide a future management strategy for the over three million tons of solid waste generated annually in San Diego County. Organization Alternatives Public agencies having both the legal authority and the financing capability to address solid waste problems include counties, cities, certain special districts, joint power authorities and public nonprofit corporations. However, only counties and cities have any legal mandate to plan for regional facilities. County and city governments are specifically delegated this responsibility by the Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972 (Government Code Section 66700ff). FUNDING SOURCES FOR SOLID HASTE PROGRAMS At the present time, the cities and County of San Diego utilize a number of methods to finance their solid waste programs. These include monies from the General Fund, user fees and service charges. As shown on Table VI-2, revenue sources most commonly used in the County to support solid waste activities are service fees and general funds. However, other revenue sources are also available to support public agencies for this purpose. They are discussed below. Service Charges Service charges have several advantages. They establish a relationship between cost and use. They decrease the need to use property taxes. VI-5 Properly applied, service charges can promote efficient use and planning of solid waste facilities and can enable these facilities to be run as enterprise-type operations. All local agencies have the power to levy service charges. However, in recent years this power has been limited by state and local initiatives. Land Use Fee Some local agencies may also levy indirect use charges for solid waste services, in addition to, or in lieu of, direct service charges. These are indirect service charges levied against a property owner collected through the property tax bill. It is a flat fee based on a land use category and is proportioned to the amount of waste generated by that type of land use. Specifically, counties and county service areas are empowered to levy: "Fees to be used for the acquisition, operation, and maintenance of County waste disposal sites and for financing waste collection, processing, reclamation, and disposal services where such services are provided. In establishing the schedule of fees, the Board of Supervisors shall classify land within the unincorporated area based upon various uses to which the land is put, the volume of waste occurring from different land uses, and other factors. . ." TABLE VI-2 FINANCING OF SOLID HASTE PROGRAMS Jurisdiction Carlsbad Chula Vista Coronado Del Mar El Cajon Encinitas Escondido Imperial Beach La Mesa Lemon Grove National City Ocean sidePoway San MarcosSantee San Diego San Diego County Solana Beach Vista Method of Finance General Fund, Service Fees from Contracted Haulers General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund, Franchise Fees from Haulers General Fund, User Fees, Service ChargesGeneral Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund, Service Fees from Collector Permits, Tipping Fees from Commercial Disposals, Environ mental Growth Fund User Fees, Permit Fees from Collector/Transporter Licenses, Lease RevenuesGeneral Fund, Franchise Fees from HaulersGeneral Fund, Tax Fund for Weed Abatement User Fees Under the Subdivision Map Act, cities and counties have the right to require that subdividers pay reasonable fees and/or dedicate improvements to the city or county prior to subdividing land. Originally, these fee and dedication requirements were restricted to streets, sidewalks and other improvements. This has been amended to allow cities and counties to pass local ordinances to charge for all improvements which are "necessary or convenient to insure conformity to or implementation of applicable general or specific plans of a city or county." Developers could, therefore, be made responsible for providing solid waste disposal capacity which is necessary for use by future occupants of the development. This could be accomplished either through imposition of fees to be used to finance disposal site expansion and improvement or by setting aside an appropriate disposal site. Enterprise Fund One accounting method available to capture funds for future needs is an enterprise fund. The County of San Diego's Solid Waste Program became enterprise funded in FY 1981-82. Enterprise funds are accounting mechanisms which allow user fee supported programs, once an operating plan is approved, to budget for all expenses, including capital maintenance and future capital acquisition. Unexpended funds are "carried over" from year to year, earmarked for specific solid waste uses. CAPITAL AND OPERATIONAL COSTS Costs for the region's solid waste programs include those for collection, disposal, litter control, illegal dump abatement and enforcement activities. Collection and disposal costs constitute the largest portion of expenditures since these activities must be performed on a regular basis and are more capital intensive. VI-7 For the most part such operational costs as litter control, illegal dump abatement and other enforcement activities are performed on an as-needed basis. The cities and County have staff available to respond to citizen complaints and abate the nuisances if necessary. Collection In most cities in the region and the unincorporated County area, solid waste collection costs are paid directly by the residents who receive the service. In the City of San Diego collection service is provided at no cost to City residents. In the cities of Coronado and Imperial Beach collection service costs appear on property tax assessments. Appendix A-VI-1 contains an analysis of current collection costs in the region. Disposal The County of San Diego and the City of San Diego are the only two local agencies currently providing solid waste disposal services in the region. Disposal costs include those incurred for day-to-day disposal operations, open and closed facility maintenance and future facility acquisition and developments. A discussion of disposal costs for the County and the City of San Diego disposal operations is included in Appendix A-VI-1. The City of San Diego funds disposal operations through both General Fund revenues and by tipping fees collected at their facilities. As stated previously, the City provides collection and disposal service for most residents of the City from the General Fund. Tipping fees are charged at the City's landfills for disposal of commercial, industrial and other non-residential trash regardless of origin, as well as residential trash from other jurisdictions. Tipping fees are based on the cost of disposal. VI-8 Landfill maintenance, post-closure monitoring and maintenance, future facility acquisition and development and other capital costs are funded either through the City's General Fund or Capital Improvements Program. The County of San Diego funds disposal operations through tipping fees collected at all County landfills, permit fees from licensed haulers utilizing County facilities and from leases of enterprise fund property. No General Fund monies are allocated for disposal operations. These funds also support active landfill maintenance, betterments, closed facility monitoring and maintenance, future facility acquisition and development costs, the cost of maintaining the Interior Region's rural container stations, program planning, management and administration. A Facility Reserve was established during FY 1982-83 to fund those solid waste projects that increase the disposal capacity of the County. The funds are derived from program savings and interest that accrues at the end of each fiscal year, and any over realized revenues from landfill fees. Funds have been earmarked in the Fiscal Year 1986-87 Facility Reserve for relocation of San Diego Gas and Electric Company transmission lines located at the Sycamore Landfill. This project will result in increased disposal capacity at the Sycamore site. The County has also set aside money for acquisition of the proposed Ramona Landfill expansion area. Additional funds will be necessary for development of the Ramona site. The County is also currently evaluating candidate landfill replacement sites in the North and East County. A fee increase will be necessary to fund acquisition and development of the North and East County sites. All of the remaining cities, with the exception of the City of Oceanside, have not had any capital and/or direct disposal operation costs for their incorporated service areas as they either utilize VI-9 County or City of San Diego landfills. The City of Oceanside formerly operated two landfills in their jurisdiction, the Mission and Maxson Avenue facilities. The City of Oceanside is required to provide post-closure maintenance at these sites including the monitoring of methane gas. Oceanside reported that the cost for such maintenance for FY 85-86 was approximately $60,000, which was funded from the City's General Fund. Resource Recovery Two waste-to-energy plants are being proposed in the San Diego region: the San Diego Energy Recovery Project (SANDER) at the City's Miramar Landfill and the North County Recycling and Energy Recovery Center at the County's San Marcos Landfill. Both projects are being developed under contract by private companies. Project financing will come from issuance of bonds, private venture capital and from tipping fees charged at the facilities for disposal. Project capital costs, funding sources and first year operating costs are summarized in the following table: TABLE VI-3 PROJECT ECONOMIC INFORMATION SANDER PROJECT CAPITAL $227M TOTAL FINANCING $306M FUNDING SOURCES CPCFA Industrial Development Bonds and 25% equity by Signal Environmental Systems OPERATING COST (1991) $19M to be funded by processing fee of $12.80 per ton from the City of San Diego and revenue from sale of 405M KWH of electrical energy to SDG&E (62MW capacity) SAN MARCOS WASTE-TO-ENERGY PROJECT CAPITAL $135M TOTAL FINANCING $217M FUNDING SOURCES $185M CPCFA Industrial Development Bonds $32M Equity Capital From Haliburton OPERATING COST (1990) $14M to be funded by processing fee of $10.56/ton (1985 Agreement level) and revenue from sale of 225M KWH of electrical energy to SDG&E (32MW capacity) and sale of recyclables. VI-10 SUMMARY Funding sources for existing collection and disposal activities are generally adequate. A majority of solid waste services are fee supported. Annual review allows rates to be set which cover operational costs. Costs for collection and disposal have not increased significantly since the 1982 Plan was prepared. However, existing funding mechanisms in the region may need to be revised to ensure that solid waste programs can be adequately maintained in the future. The region is faced with the need to replace several facilities in the near future. The County is currently conducting studies to locate landfill sites in the North and East County and will be searching for a landfill site in the southwest quadrant to replace the City of San Diego's Miramar Landfill and perhaps the County's Otay Landfill. In order to meet their responsibility to provide disposal capacity for the waste generated by their citizens, cities may also be required to establish landfill sites within their jurisdiction. Additional revenue sources will need to be identified for acquisition and development of these new landfill sites. The establishment of a regional Solid Waste Authority may be necessary to ensure that an adequate funding mechanism exists to meet the region's solid waste disposal requirements. During the period of this revision: 1. The County of San Diego will continue to serve as the management and planning agency for the San Diego region. 2. The County and the cities will implement the Revised Solid Waste Management Plan. 3. The County will review the Revised Plan and revise if necessary. VI-11 4. The County of San Diego will establish and maintain a fee schedule designed to recover the costs of the Solid Waste Program as defined by the Board of Supervisors. 5. The County and the cities will review existing solid waste financing mechanisms and propose appropriate changes. 6. The County and the cities will consider establishment of a joint powers Solid Waste Authority. VI-12 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Adopted April, 1994 San Diego HE) ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS First Interstate Plaza 401 B Street • Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 (619)595-5300 This report wu financed with SANDAG local funds. MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad. Chula Vista, Coronade. Del Mar. El Cajon. Encinrtaa, Escendido, Imperial Baach, La M«««, Lamon Grova. National City, Ocaansida. Poway, San Diago, San Marcos, Santas, Solana Baach. Vista, and County of San Diago. ADVISORY/LIAISON MEMBERS: California Dapartmant of Tranaportation, U.S. Oapanmant of Dafanaa. and Tijuana/Bajs California. Board of Directors SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is a public agency formed voluntarily by local governments to assure overall areawide planning and coordination for the San Diego region. Voting members include the incorporated Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, En c in it as, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and the County of San Diego. Advisory and Liaison members include Cartrans, U.S. Department of Defense, San Diego Unified Port District, and Tijuana/Baja California/Mexico. CHAIRWOMAN: Hon. Gloria McClellan VICE CHAIRMAN: Hon. Mike Bixler SECRETARY-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Kenneth E. Sulzer CITY OF CARLSBAD Hon. Bud Lawi*. Mayor (A) Hon. Ann Kulehin, Councilmember (A) Hon. Juliann* Nygaard, Councilm*mbar CITY Of CHULA VISTA Hon. Laonard Moor*, Councilmembar (A) Hon. Tim Nadar, Mayor CITY OF CORONADO Hon. Mary Harron, Mayor (A) Hon. Thoma* Smiaak, Councilmambar CITY Of DEL MAM Hon. Elliot Parka, Councilmanribar (A) Hon. Mark Whitahaad, Councilmambar CITY OF EL CAJON Hon. Harriat Stockwall, Councilmambar (A) Hon. Mark Lawia, Mayor Pro Tarn (A) Hon. Richard Ramoa, Councilmambar CITY Of ENCINITAS Hon. Gail Hano, Mayor (A) Hon. Maura Wiagand, Councilmambar CITY OF ESCONDIDO Hon. Jarry Harmon, Mayor (A) Hon. Lori Holt Pfailar, Councilmambar CITY OF IMPERIAL MACH Hon. Mik* Bixtar, Mayor (A) Hon. Marti Goatha. CouncHmambar CITY OF LA MESA Hon. Art Madrid, Mayor (A) Hon. Barry Jane, Councilmambar (A) Hen. Jay LaSuar, Councilmambar CITY OF LEMON WOVE Hon. Brian Cochran, Mayor (A) Hon. Jaroma Lagarton, Councilmambar CtTY OF NATIONAL CITY Hon. Roaalia Zarata, Councilmambar (A) Hon. Michaat Dalla, Vica Mayor CITY OF OCCANSIDE Hon. Dick Lyon, Mayor (A) Hon. Nancy York, Councilmambar CITY OF POWAY Hon. Don Higojnion, Mayor (A) Hon. Bob Emary, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. Mickay Cafagna, Councilmambar CITY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Judy McCarty, Councilmambar (A) Hon. Barbara Wardan, Councilmambar (A) Hon. Valeria Stalling*, Councilmambar OTY OF SAN MARCOS Hon. Laa Thibadaau, Mayor (A) Hon. Mark Loachar, Councilmambar CITY Of SANTEE Hon. Jack Dala, Mayor (A) Hon. Hal Ryan, Councilmambar CITY Of SOLANA BEACH Hon. Marion Dodaon, Councilmambar (A) Hon. Paul Tompkina, Mayor (A) Hon. Joa Kailajian, Councilmambar CITY Of VISTA Hon. Gloria E. McClallan, Mayor (A) Hon. Scon Packard, Councilmambar COUNTY Of SAN D*OO Hon. Brian Bilbray, Suparviaor (A) Hon. Pam Slatar, Chair (A) Hon. John MacDonald, Suparviaor kPOHTATIONSTATE DEPT. Of THAI (Adviaory Mambar) Jama* van Loban Sala, Diractor (A) Gary GaUago*. Diatriet 11 Diractor UJ. DEPARTMENT Of DEFENSE (Uaiaon Mambar) CAPT. Tern Gunn, CEC, USN Commanding Officer Southwaat Diviaton Naval Fecifttiee Enginaaring Command SAN OBIOO UNETBP POUT DtSTMCT (Adviaory Mambar) Jaaa Van Davamar, Commiaaionar IAHA/BAJA (Adviaory Mambar) Hon. Hactor G. Oauna Jaima Praaidanta Municipal da Tijuana Ravtaad Apr! 29. 1S*4 lA/MEXICO San Diego ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Suite 800, First Interstate Plaza 401 B Street San Diego, California 92101 (619)595-5300 Fax (619)595-5305 TO THE CITIZENS OF THE SAN DIEGO REGION In 1970, the State Legislature created Airport Land Use Commissions in each county within die state. The following year, SANDAG was recognized as die agency empowered to serve as the Airport Land Use Commission for the San Diego Region. Serving as the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUQ, it is the responsibility of SANDAG to prepare Comprehensive Land Use Plans, based on aircraft produced noise and flight activity considerations, for each airport within the region. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport was prepared by SANDAG with review by die Palomar Airport Advisory Committee and die City of Carlsbad staff. The plan is based on the noise contours prepared for San Diego County. The plan recommendations for achieving compatible land uses for the Cities of Carlsbad, Encinhas, Vista, San Marcos, and Oceanside, and the County of San Diego include: 1. Prohibit incompatible uses within the Area of Influence, as defined by this plan. 2. Use this plan to review pertinent proposals for revision of die General Plans of Carlsbad and the County of San Diego. 3. Adopt an ordinance making the requirements of die existing and applicable California Noise Insulation Standards (CAC, Title 25) apply to single family detached residences in the same manner as they are applied to multiple family residences, hotels, motels, and other buildings addressed in that law. 4. Direct the appropriate County Department to record the location of any aircraft accidents within five mites of die airport property boundaries. 5. Review the assumptions and forecasts of aircraft operations and update the existing and projected Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) contours every five years or when warranted. Successful implementation of mis plan will require the cooperation of die City of Carlsbad and the County of San Diego, SANDAG serving as the ALUC, and die aircraft owners and pilots operating at McClellan-Palomar Airport. GLORIA McCLELLAN Chairwoman, Board of Directors iii MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad. Chula Vista. Coronado, Del Mar. El Cajon, Enctnitas, EscoodkJo, Imperial Beach. La Mesa. Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside. Poway. San Diego. San Marcos, Santee. Solana Beach. Vista, and County of San Diego. ADVISORY/LIAISON MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation. U.S. Department of Defense, S.D. Unified Port District, and Tijuana/Baja California. OF RESOLUTION GOVERNMENTS First Intarstata Plaza. Suit* 800 401 B Stra«t 94-64 S*n Dwgo. California 92101 (619)595-5300 Fax (619) 595-5305 ADOPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FOR McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT WHEREAS, SANDAG is designated as the Aiiport Land Use Commission for the San Diego Region pursuant to the State of California Public Utilities Code, Article 3.5, Chapter 4, Part 1, Division 9; and WHEREAS, SANDAG has prepared a Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Aiiport in order to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare of the region's citizens; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport was prepared with input from the McClellan-Palomar Aiiport Advisory Committee and the Cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Vista, San Marcos, and Oceanside; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on April 22, 1994, to take testimony on the Plan's findings and recommendations; and WHEREAS, SANDAG has determined that there will be no significant environmental impact caused by the implementation of the Plan; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the San Diego Association of Governments, serving as the Aiiport Land Use Commission for the San Diego Region, hereby adopts the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Aiiport. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of April, 1994. ATTEST:. CHAIRPERSON SECRET/ MEMBER AGENCIES: GtMt of Carlsbad. Chute Vi*u, Coronado. D«f Mar. B Cajon. Enbnrta*. Eaoondido. Imperial Beach. La M««a. Lwnen Qrov*. National City. Occanaid*. Poway. San Oiogo. San Mareo*. Santa*. Solana Boaeh. Vwta and County of San Oiogo. ADVISORY/LIAISON MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, U.S. Dopartnentof Defente and Tijuana/Baja California. ABSTRACT TITLE: AUTHOR: SUBJECT: DATE: LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY: SOURCE OF COPIES: NUMBER OF PAGES: ABSTRACT: Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport San Diego Association of Governments Land Use Compatibility Surrounding McClellan-Palomar Airport April, 1994 San Diego Association of Governments San Diego Association of Governments 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 67 This report has been prepared to assist in ensuring compatible land use development in the area surrounding McClellan-Palomar Airport. The plan contains the Airport's Influence Area, the noise impact notification area, projected noise contours, clear zones, flight activity zone, land use compatibility matrix, and plan recommendations. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 3 The Airport Land Use Commission 3 McClellan-Palomar Airport 5 H. AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS 5 m. AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA 7 IV. NOISE CONTOURS 7 V. RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONES, FLIGHT ACTIVITY ZONE, AND AIR SAFETY 11 Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) 11 Flight Activity Zone 12 Noise Compatibilty Program 13 Noise Impact Notification Area 13 VI. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY AND NON-CONFORMING USES 15 VH. PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS 16 Recommendations for Actions by the Cities of Carlsbad, Vista, San Marcos, and Oceanside, and the County County of San Diego 16 Recommendations for Action by the San Diego Association of Governments (ALUC) . 17 Vffl. ALUC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS 17 DC. PLAN UPDATE 18 IX APPENDICES: A. EXISTING AND FORECAST AVERAGE DAY AIRCRAFT MK . . 21 B. AVERAGE DAY FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION - ARRIVALS, DEPARTURES, AND TRAINING BY NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE 23 C. RECOMMENDED NOISE ABATEMENT AND NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES, THE ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION, AND THE APPROXIMATE START DATES 25 D. FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS (FAR), PART 77 FOR McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT 37 E. RULES AND REGULATIONS AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR THE SAN DIEGO REGION 39 F. PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... 51 G. NOTICE CONCERNING AIRCRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 65 H. 1995 NOISE CONTOURS, RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE, AND FLIGHT ACTIVITY ZONE 67 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Existing Regional Airports System 4 Figure 2 Airport Influence Area 6 Figure 3 Airport Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix 9 Figure 4 Noise Impact Notification Area 14 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Development Within Airport Noise Levels 11 xi COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FOR McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FOR McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT I. INTRODUCTION The AirpCIt Land Use Commission In 1970, the State of California enacted a law requiring the formation of an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) in each county containing a public airport. According to Chapter 21675 of the California Public Utility Code, it is the responsibility of the Commission to: "formulate a comprehensive land use plan that will provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and the area surrounding the airport within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. The Commission plan shall be based on a long-range master plan or an airport layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation, that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years. In formulating a land use plan, the Commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, may specify use of land, and may determine building standards, including sound-proofing adjacent to airports, within the planning area." The San Diego County Board of Supervisors, by unanimous vote on December 15,1970, recommended that the San Diego Association of Governments be designated to assume the responsibilities of an Airport Land Use Commission. A similar resolution was passed and adopted by the Selection Committee of Mayors of the San Diego County Region on February 8, 1971. The Secretary of State was notified of this determination on February 25,1971, and an acknowledgement of this determination was received from the Secretary of State's office on March 2, 1971. SANDAG, as the Airport Land Use Commission for the San Diego Region, has approved and adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUP) for Montgomery Field, Brown Field, Oceanside, Gillespie and Palomar Airports, and NAS Miramar. A draft CLUP for Ramona Airport is under review. This CLUP for McClellan-Palomar Airport will replace the original CLUP adopted for McClellan-Palomar in 1986. (See Figure 1 for locations of public airports.) FIGURE 1 imperial County McClellan-Palomar Airport The McClellan-Palomar Aiiport is located within the corporate limits of the City of Carlsbad, approximately five miles southeast of the Carlsbad Village. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) classifies the airport as a general utility facility, an airport mainly serving aircraft with a maximum gross takeoff weight of 12,000 pounds or less. However, some aircraft larger than 12,500 pounds, but less than 60,000, do operate at the airport. The North County area served by McClellan-Palomar Airport is the fastest growing portion of the region. It is expected to increase from its 1986 population of 481,335 to over 861,786 by the year 2000, an increase of 55.8 %. Employment is forecast to increase from 196,482 to 343,310, a 57.2% increase. The rapid growth in employment is due largely to the extensive industrial development taking place in the North County, much of it located around the McClellan-Palomar Airport. Industrial development was encouraged by local agencies to ensure that the land use change from agriculture to more intensive uses would remain compatible with the operation of the airport. The purpose of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) is to identify areas likely to be impacted by noise and flight activity created by aircraft operations at the airports. This update was required to keep the CLUP current. It was prepared in cooperation with the County of San Diego, using the County's FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. This Plan should permit the reader to determine if a particular property is impacted by aircraft-produced noise or flight activity, what the land use or construction implications are, and mitigation measures needed to permit development that is compatible with airport operation. Figure 2 in the Plan identifies the areas impacted by aircraft operations from the airport. The narrative includes the plan assumptions, the area of influence, noise contours, clear zones, flight activity zone, the noise compatibility program, the ALUC review process, and recommendations. The ALUC rules and regulations, including definitions, are contained in the Appendix, followed by a list of References. The recommendations contained in this report apply to both the current situation at McClellan-Palomar Aiiport and to future operations as well. H. AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS There were 380 aircraft based at McClellan-Palomar Airport in 1992. Most of its 225,000 annual (1992) operations' involve single engine aircraft. Current operations produce noise impacts on the surrounding area. With the forecasted increase in North County population and employment, aircraft operations are expected to increase to about 290,000 by 1995. The area of noise impact will stay about the same with the increase in aircraft operations "Each takeoff and each landing is defined as one operation. 5 and change in aircraft mix. This Plan provides guidance in land use development to assure future compatible uses. The future aircraft operations shown in Appendix A were developed by the consulting firm of KPMG Peat Marwick for the County of San Diego. These data were used by the consultants to determine projected noise contours. (The consultant's report is available for review at the San Diego County Public Works Department, Airports Division.) Appendix A shows the mix of aircraft by type and percent of operations by each type. m. AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA The ALUC establishes an Airport Influence Area for each airport in the region. The Influence Area encompasses those areas adjacent to airports which could be impacted by noise levels exceeding the California State Noise Standards or where height restrictions would be needed to prevent obstructions to navigable airspace as outlined in Federal Aviation Administration regulations. It represents the boundary of the ALUC's planning and review authority. The ALUC procedure ensures a regional overview to protect the airport's operations and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. The McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area is shown on Figure 2. The cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Vista, San Marcos, and Oceanside, through their community planning processes and zoning ordinances, retain land use control within the Airport Influence Area. IV. NOISE CONTOURS In California, the technique used for quantifying aircraft noise is the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). The CNEL is a descriptor of daily noise environment. It accounts for the magnitude, the time of day, and the frequency of occurrence of noise intrusions. The CNEL is calculated from the hourly noise by a formula prescribed in the California Noise Standards. The outside boundaries of the areas generally subject to such noise are usually portrayed by lines overlaid on a map of the area around the airport. These boundary lines are referred to as "noise contours". The noise contours provide one of the bases for delineating the airport's Area of Influence. Individual contours appear on the map because the noise is loudest at the airport and dissipates at varying distances away from the airport depending on the location of the flight activity, the types of aircraft involved, and topography. The 60 and 65 CNEL contours are important because each of them has a different significance in developing compatible land uses around an airport. The 60 CNEL contour is important because the California Noise Insulation Standards, which became effective on August 22, 1$74, state that residential structures (all dwellings other than detached single family dwellings) which are located within the 60 CNEL contours require an acoustical analysis showing that the structure has been designed to limit intruding noise to levels which would not interfere with speech or sleep. This contour does not define a land area in which residential uses are unsuitable. Rather, the contour identifies an area in which a mitigation measure may have to be utilized to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on dwelling units other than single family detached. The 65 CNEL contour is the value defined by the adopted State Noise Standards which identifies the noise impact boundary of airports; that is, a boundary within which the noise environment is not suitable for residential use. Other non-residential uses are generally suitable within the contour. The 70 CNEL contour defines a boundary within which the area is not suitable for numerous land uses. CNEL's above 70 are not projected far beyond the airport boundary. Active, outdoor recreation, commercial uses and manufacturing uses are acceptable. CNEL's above 75 remain within the airport boundary. Figure 3 presents the range of land uses compatible with various projected annual CNEL's. It can be used to determine the appropriateness of various planned land uses. McClellan-Palomar Airport, with the level of operations and CNEL's projected, should not be limiting to the uses permitted by San Diego County's or Carlsbad's General Plans within the Area of Influence. The area immediately surrounding the airport is planned for industrial and commercial uses, which are compatible with the noise levels forecast around the airport. Residential uses are planned in the area south of the airport. Homes may, therefore, be impacted by noise within the 60 CNEL. Mitigation measures, such as air conditioning to allow windows to remain closed, would be appropriate to reduce the noise level inside these homes. A review of current land use and general plan data summarized on Table 1 shows little noise impact currently on existing uses. Several parcels lie within the 60 to 65 CNEL. The majority of the area impacted is planned for single family uses with the remainder planned for multiple residential; future development will require noise attenuation studies for these units. FIGURE 3 McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT NOISE/LAND USE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX LAND USE Annual Community N«iM Equtatont Laval (CNEL) In Oadbala 89 M 68 70 75 1. OUTDOOR AMPHITHEATERS NATURE PRESERVES. WILDLIFE PRESERVES. LIVESTOCK FARMING, NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS 3. SCHOOLS, PRESCHOOLS. LIBRARIES 4. RESIDENTIAL-SINGLE FAMILY. MULTIPLE FAMILY MOBILE HOMES, RESIDENTIAL HOTELS, RETIREMENT HOMES, INTERMEDIATE CARE FACILITIES, HOSPITALS NURSING HOMES HOTELS AND MOTELS. OTHER TRANSIENT LODGING, AUDITORIUMS, CONCERT HALLS, MDOOR ARENAS, CHURCHES OFFICE BUILDINGS-BUSINESS. EDUCATIONAL, PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL SERVICES. RAD OFFICES AND LABORATORIES 7. RIDING STABLES, WATER RECREATION FACILITIES. REGIONAL PARKS AND ATHLETIC FIELDS. CEMETERIES. AND OUTDOOR SPECTATOR SPORTS COMMERCIAL-RETAIL: SHOPPING CENTERS. RESTAURANTS. MOVIE THEATERS COMMERCIAL4WHOLESALE, MOUSTRML. MANUFACTURING 10. AGRICULTURE (EXCEPT RESIDENCES AND LIVESTOCK), EXTRACTIVE WDUSTRY. FBHMO, UTILITIES. & PUBLIC R-O-W. AND GOLF COURSES 4f 4f 4S SO to OOMPAHBLE Tha outdoor ao Nr aquiva- tent (aval to aufficianrjy attanuatad by aanvwittonal aonatuetlon feat lha in- fa An ns ——.^ ---*-*W1OOO* BnQ OvNO tiwtth <h« tend UM may b* ew> Hadoutw>haaiintlallynoln>arfafanc< COMNTONALLY COMPATIBLE Tha outdoor oommunity noiaa aqulva- lant laval wM ba attanuaiad to tha •> neiaa (aval la aeoapUMa for aaaoeiatad MCOMPATmE ifW oonwiNJfMy noiaW 9^uRr*twni MWI IB aiM>enmanl aooaptabla tar partarm- mant would bo Intolarabla tor outdoor Jwtttftalanduaa. Thto matrix should b« uMd wfth r«f«r«ne« to th« ImplamonUtton DfctcUva* •hown on th« rovorM. AIRPORT NOISE/LAND USE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX IMPLEMENTATION DIRECTIVES All the uses specified are "compatible" up to the noise level indicated. Specified uses are also allowed as "conditionally compatible* or "interior only, conditionally compatible" in the noise levels shown if two specific conditions are met and certified by the local general purpose agency: • Proposed buildings will be noise attenuated to the level shown on the matrix based on an acoustical study submitted along with building plan*. • In the case of discretionary actions, such as approval of subdivisions, zoning changes, or conditional use permits, an avigation easement for noise shall be required to be recorded with the County Recorder as a condition of approval of the project. A copy of the recorded easement is to be filed with the affected airport operator. For all property transactions, appropriate legal notice shall be given to all purchasers, lessees and renters of property in "conditionally compatible" or "interior only, conditionally compatible" areas which clearly describes the potential for impacts from airplane noise associated with airport opera- tions. Notice also will be provided as required on the state Real Estate Disclosure form. Identified uses proposed in noisier areas than the level indicated on the matrix are considered "incompatible." The directives below relate to the specific "conditionally compatible* land use categories identified by number on the matrix. 3. New schools, preschools and libraries located within the CNEL 60-65 contours must be subjected to an acoustical study to assure that interior levels will not exceed CNEL 45. 4. New residential and related uses located within the CNEL 60-65 contours must be subjected to an acoustical study to assure that interior levels will not exceed CNEL 45. Appropriate legal notice shall be provided to purchasers, lessees, and renters of properties in this conditionally compatible zone. •Residential hotels* are defined as those that have 75% or more of accommodations occupied by permanent guests (staying more than 30 days) or those hotels which have at least 50 percent of their accommodations containing kitchens. 5. Transient Lodging is defined as hotels and motels, membership lodgings (Y's, etc.), suite or apartment hotels, hostels, or other temporary residence units, not defined as residential hotels, above. Within the CNEL 60-70 contours, buildings must be subjected to an acoustical study to assure that interior levels do not exceed CNEL 45. Appropriate legal notice shall be provided to purchasers, lessees, and renters of properties in this conditionally compatible zone. 6. Office buildings include many types of office and service use*: business and business services; finance, insurance, real estate; personal services; professional (medical, legal and educational);, and government, research and development and others. Within the CNEL 65-70 contours, buildings must be subjected to an acoustical study to assure that interior levels do not exceed CNEL 50. Appropriate legal notice shall be provided to purchasers, lessees, and renters of properties in this conditionally compatible zone. 8. For new commercial retail uses located within the CNEL 65-75 contours, buildings must be subjected to an acoustical study to assure that interior levels do not exceed CNEL 50. Appropriate legal notice shall be provided to purchasers, lessees, and renters of properties in mis conditionally compatible zone. 10 Table 1 DEVELOPMENT WITHIN AIRPORT NOISE LEVELS McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT CNEL 60-65 65-70 70 or More Year 1986 2QOQ 1986 2000 1986 2000 Total Population 331 826 2 92 00 Household 331 826 2 92 0 0 Group Quarters 00 00 00 Occupied Housing Units 179 426 1 44 0 0 Single Family 93 298 1 44 00 Multi-Family 0 38 00 00 Civilian Employment 2,285 3,754 218 505 434 1,242 Note: New multi-Family dwellings will require noise attenuation studies. Sources: SANDAG Regional Growth Forecasts, Series 7 and Carlsbad General Plan, 1985 V. RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONES, FLIGHT ACTIVITY ZONE, AND AIR SAFETY It is one of the purposes of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to preclude incompatible development from intruding into areas of significant risk resulting from aircraft takeoff and landing patterns. For the purposes of this report, such areas of significant risk are identified as "Zones" and "Flight Activity Zone." They are delineated on Appendix H and Figure 2, along with accident data in the vicinity of the airport. Runway Protection Zones fRPZ> The Runway Protection Zones for McClellan-Palomar Airport are the land areas adjacent to the ends of the runway's primary surface, over which aircraft using the airport must pass for each operation, either arrival or departure. The zones reflect the dimensions of the airport as promulgated by Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 (Obstruction Hazards) and Part 152 (Runway Protection Zones). The RPZ is an "area at ground level that begins at the end of each primary surface... and extends with the width of each approach surface ... to terminate directly below each approach surface slope at the point, or points, where the slope reaches a height of 50 ... feet above the elevation of the runway end or 50 feet above the terrain at the outer extremity of the clear zone, whichever is shorter." 11 Because the RPZ's lie mainly on the airport property, they are mostly protected from private development. The only land uses considered to be compatible with the restrictions required of the RPZ's are: 1. Natural Recreation Areas or Habitat and Species Preservation Areas. 2. Public rights-of-way. 3. Agriculture, except livestock, and sand and gravel extraction. 4. Storage facilities, not including flammables, explosives and corrosives, and low intensity land uses characterized by a low number of employ « and customers per square foot of building area. Areas immediately adjacent to the airport in every direction are zoned with a height limit of 35 feet. This height limit could assure that new construction will not penetrate either the approach surfaces at the runway ends or the transitional surfaces along the length of the runway. However, the 35-foot height limit allows an avjgogg height of 35 feet (e.g., an average of a sloping roofline could be 35 feet, although the roofline could slope from 25 feet to 45 feet). Additionally, penthouses, smokestacks, etc., can extend higher than 35 feet. These zoning requirements are not adequate to protect the approaches to the airport runways. For this reason, the approval of an industrial subdivision west of the airport included conditions set by the City of Carlsbad: meet the height limitation set by FAR Part 77 and also limit the uses to warehouses and some office uses in the area immediately west of the airport. Flight Activity Zone The additional air safety considerations are shown graphically in the CLUP as Flight Activity Zones. They are based upon the data presented in the 1974 CLUP as amended and the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program which identified areas where most problems may be expected to occur, namely the normal flight patterns (see Appendix B). Thus, the areas most likely to experience a crash remain those beneath the flight pattern, especially in the final approach to the runway. These are the areas identified as flight activity hazard areas in the 1986 CLUP. Both the CNEL contours and the Flight Activity Zone are delineated on the pocket map to indicate areas of land use concern. The land uses compatible with the greatest levels of noise are not identical with uses compatible with increased flight activity, in the areas under the final approaches to Runway 24 and to Runway 6. The Flight Activity Zone overlays private properties. It identifies land areas which should be held free of intensive development (for example, more than ten dwelling units per acre), including high rise development and all uses which involve the assembly of large 12 groups of people (more than 100). This zone should be used as a guide in consideration of any proposed increase in density or high rise development. It also should be used in review of assembly-type uses, which usually require a conditional use permit from the land use agency. The City of Carlsbad should find such uses to be inappropriate in the Flight Activity Zone, by finding them to be incompatible with this CLUP. Noise Compatibility Program The County of San Diego as the airport operator has recently completed a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) sponsored noise compatibility program for the airport. Appendix C contains a summary of the recommended program and a copy of the FAA's approval of the program. Noise Impact Notification Area The Noise Impact Notification Area (NINA) is the area most impacted by aircraft operations to and from McClellan-Palomar Airport. This area represents nearly 90% of all noise and overflight related complaints from area residents. Much of the noise in this area occurs on an irregular basis, and is often called single event noise. This type of noise, although not generally considered a health or safety issue, may be a nuisance. Physically, the NINA is composed of a three mile radius around the airport, as well as the VOR and ILS corridors to the west and east, respectively, and extends both horizontally and vertically due to terrain considerations. The NINA incorporates class D airspace, as well as the approach corridors. As such, it corresponds to an area shown on aeronautical maps familiar to pilots. This area has also been recognized by the 1990 Part ISO Noise study conducted for McClellan-Palomar Airport, which is the basis for federal government (FAA) participation in the acquisition of a noise monitoring system at the airport. The noise monitor allows for systematic recording and empirical analysis of noise and overflight in the area and establishes validation procedures for noise contours, the noise abatement area and the newly created NINA. To ensure that new residential discretionary projects are conditioned to notify new property owners of their proximity to the airport, and that their property may be subject to aircraft overflight operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, the NINA has been established. All new residential projects located within the NINA, as shown on Figure 4 (attached), shall be required to record a notice concerning aircraft environmental impacts, clarifying that the property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar (see Appendix G for a sample form). 13 ,. »•«« » \ ,- » : .'•L-r v / \ s \ :"•*,.•*•• iiiiii I I I I 1 I I .1 • -v.f"-:% ti ii 1 .-Cl._ ""Tv-...^-V. .V'v '•.•-V^'X:?TI^ ", »• * * .\ • •• • ' . N ^J ~, — V-^ s. i I *•' -•.v- *? _i._.._. jf .v t i --" ^ •V • il« io ^21 <tjifsS «111 5n=*! VI. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY AND NON-CONFORMING USES The Carlsbad General Plan, under update in 1992, is consistent with this CLUP. There is a problem relating to the 65 dB CNEL line south of Palomar Airport Road. This area is planned for residential use on the Carlsbad General Plan; the area will require specific project review to assure that any development proposed is compatible with the CLUP. The ony other areas of land use concern relate to height limits and hazard zones. Because the Carlsbad zoning ordinance does not specifically limit the height of rooftop appurtenances, there is no assurance that new construction will not create hazardous conditions near the airport. This concern was addressed in the approval of the industrial subdivision west of the airport, by requiring adherence to the FAR Part 77 guidelines. The area east of the airport, especially along the ELS approach, is not so protected. It will be necessary for the City of Carlsbad and San Marcos to review heights of all structures to ensure that they conform to the FAR Part 77 guidelines, using the site development plan review procedure. The City of Carlsbad has established an overlay zone for the ALUC-designated Area of Influence. The procedure requires that all parcels of land located in the Airport Influence Area obtain either a site development plan, planned industrial permit, or other discretion- ary permit and to comply with the noise standards of the CLUP and to meet FAA requirements with respect to building height and the provision of obstruction lighting when appurtenances are permitted to penetrate the transitional surface (a 7 to 1 slope from the runway primary surface). It would be appropriate for the FAA guidelines to be made a part of the zoning requirement around the airport, so that building designers are made aware of these concerns in advance of design. It could reduce the possible need for obstruction lighting on new construction adjacent to the airport. The community plan should continue to designate land uses consistent with this CLUP. In order to be protected from inappropriate land uses not readily covered by the criteria of this CLUP, one additional concern must be addressed. Any use, whether within or outside the defined Airport Influence Area, found to be an "obstruction" by the FAA, should be determined not to be in conformance with the CLUP. Such a provision would assure that approval of a discretionary use (such as a very high smokestack in an industrial area) which might otherwise be considered acceptable, would not create a hazard to the operation of the airport. The FAA has no authority to limit land use and can only direct that changes be made in airport operations when the determination of a "hazard" is made. Therefore, the CLUP would be the determining factor by indicating that such a use would not be in conformance with the Plan. 15 VH. PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for Actions by the Oceanside. and the County of San Diego 1. Prohibit incompatible uses within the Airport Influence Area, as defined by this plan, including inappropriate heights which would penetrate the 34:1 airport approach surface which extends 10,000 feet to the east. 2. Use this plan to review pertinent proposals for revision of the General Plans of Carlsbad, Vista, San Marcos, and Oceanside. Include, as part of the General Plans' implementing ordinances, a provision for assurance that no construction permitted in the vicinity of McClellan-Palomar Airport will constitute an "obstruction" as determined by FAA. 3. Adopt an ordinance making the requirements of the existing and applicable California Noise Insulation Standards (CAC, Title 25) apply to single family detached residences in the same manner as they are applied to multiple family residences, hotels, motels, and other buildings addressed in that law. 4. Direct the appropriate County Department to record the location of aircraft accidents within five miles of the airport property boundaries. 5. Review the aircraft mix assumptions and forecasts of aircraft operations, update the existing and projected CNELs, and re-evaluate the impacts of noise summarized in Appendix A in five years or when warranted. 6. The County of San Diego should implement the FAA approved noise abatement and noise mitigation measures as recommended in the FAR 150 Noise Compatibility Program for McCleUan-Palomar Airport. 7. The County of San Diego, in cooperation with the City of Carlsbad and SANDAG, should prepare an airport master plan. 8. The City of Carlsbad and the County of San Diego should seek an avigation easement for all new development within the noise contours. 9. The County of San Diego and the Cities of Carlsbad, San Marcos, Vista, and Oceanside should implement a disclosure notice for all new residential development within the noise impact notification area. 16 Recommendations for Action hy tfc San Diego Association of Governments <ALUQ 1. Monitor the plans and regulations adopted by the Cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Vista, San Marcos, and Oceanside, and the County of San Diego, and act in accordance with the rules and regulations adopted by SANDAG (ALUC). 2. Use the Land Use Compatibility with Projected Community Noise Equivalent Levels matrix contained in this plan for the determination of consistency of proposed development within the Airport Influence Area. 3. Use the Clear Zones and Flight Activity Zone suitability guidelines in determining compatible land uses (including height limits) for areas subject to risk resulting from aircraft takeoff and landing patterns. Stipulate that any proposed discretionary construction found to be a "hazard" to navigation by.FAA is not in conformance with the CLUP. 4. Work with the City of Carlsbad and the County of San Diego, FAA, and National Transportation Safety Board to review the Flight Activity Zone and land use compatibility matrix contained in this CLUP. 5. Discourage federal or state expenditures on projects intended to support residential or other forms of incompatible development within areas subject to excessive noise levels and/or accident potential as defined in this plan (e.g., sewer projects, FHA mortgage insurance). VET ALUC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS The following steps are identified as the process by which a development or proposal is determined to be consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport: 1. The local agency staff or the airport operator notifies the ALUC staff of proposed adoption or amendment of general or specific plans or the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation on lands lying wholly or partially in the airport's area of influence. 2. The ALUC staff determines whether or not the proposed action would be clearly consistent with the ALUC adopted land use plan covering such area and so notifies the local agency. This written notice shall constitute action by the ALUC. 3. If the proposed action of the local agency is considered by the ALUC staff to be potentially inconsistent with the adopted land use plan, the Commission shall hold a hearing to determine whether or not the proposed action is inconsistent with the Commission's plan. The local agency shall be notified of the ALUC decision prior to the agency's hearing. 17 4. If it is determined by the Commission that the proposed action is inconsistent, the Commission's action shall be considered by the local agency. After holding a public hearing, by a two-thirds vote of its governing body, the local agency proposing the action may overrule the ALUC if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes stated in Section 21670 of the Public Utilities Code. DC. PLAN UPDATE This plan should be updated every five years from date of adoption or when the information upon which the plan is based has been changed sufficiently to warrant a review of noise contours, flight activity zones, or land use compatibility. 18 APPENDICES APPENDIX A 2 S q 3 — r» p op Oi ftd d d d d d I<i§ ti « r>»ee — P lit»jss -£> •s u •= < sx « a i.s si.£ % Q Z '.9 >c q * — — d d d 6 ci V *r* i a «t -. « » r 9 §r* .-- cs 21 APPENDIX B > 8 x .< 2 2 . Table 4 (pg. 3 of 3) AVERAGE DAY FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION ARRIVALS, DEPARTURES, AND TRAINING BY NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE McClellan-Palomar Airport Percentage of 1989 and 1995 Operation* Departure traeki 001 D02 003 004 DOS DOC 007 001 009 010 Total Arrival tracks A01 A02 A03 A04 AOS A06 A07 A08 A09 Total Training tracks T01 T02 T03 Total Jet 20.0% 20.0 20.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 30.0 100. 0% 0.0% 0.0 25.0 0.0 73.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 100.0% 0.0% 0.0 100.0 100.0% Heavy turboprop 25.0% 48.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 100.0% 0.0% 0.0 25.0 0. 73- C •O.C 0.0 0.0 2.0 100.0% 0.0% 0.0 100.0 100.0% Light turboprop 9.8% 9.8 9.8 9.8 23.0 8.0 13.0 8.0 2.0 9.8 100.0% 0.0% 34.0 0.0 8.0 34.0 14.0 10.0 0.0 2.0 100.0% 0.0% 0.0 100.0 100.0% Twin- engine proo^ 9.8% 9.8 9.8 9.8 23.0 8.0 13.0 8.0 2.0 9.8 100.0% 22.0% 12.0 0.0 8.0 34.0 14.0 2.0 8.0 2.0 100.0% 82.0% 18.0 0.0 100.0% Single- engine prop 9.8% 9.8 9.8 9.8 23.0 6.0 13.0 8.0 2.0 9.8 100.0% 22.0% 12.0 0.0 6.0 34.0 14.0 2.0 8.0 2.0 100.0% 82.0% 18.0 0.0 100.0% •«lieopt«r 0.0% 98.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 100.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 98.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 100.0% 82.0% 18.0 0.0 100.0% Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. Source: Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc., Kay 1990. 24 APPENDIX C Table 4 KKOMMZHDCB HOIK AlATSCEMT AND (RISK NITISATXON KZAfUltS.rax BRin USPONSIII.Z ran IKFUXTHTAIIOM, AMD m A1FROXIHATZ START OATZS NeClallan-relomar Airport Measure tnttty with Approximate implementation responsibility «tart date Operations Measures 1. Raise the traffic pattern altitudes 2. Increase Its* and VAST* angles from 3.3 degreea to I-** <«gre*S 1. Modify Octant id* VOR« approach to altitude ov«t Caclabad 4. Rt^uirt viaual dtparturtt »roe««dlB« to the coast ttom tunvay 14 to turn to a 3SO-d««i«« h*adin« and fly tacoiifn tlM k«t««*n folaaat aad Tvtraaac J. 0«v«lot jet standard iuttuMat dcpac- tut« (SID) for Buavay 24 operations to turn to a 2SO-d««r«« head in* aad perform a thrust eutMCR procedure at Interstate 5 I. Conduct a teat ia wnich luaway 34 arrivals would Maintain eear aad flap ••ttiaes fro* the outer aarke'r until paat Palostar Meat 7. Require )et arrivals to tuavay 34 to use the IU I. fpeeify Runway 34 as the preferential runway t. tncrease the helicopter rout* altitude to 1000 feet ML* tan Oleoo County/ Federal Aviation Administration Saa Oi*«o County/ federal Aviation Administration Saa Oieeo County/ federal Aviation Administration San Die^o County/ federal Aviation A San Dlefo County/ federal Aviation A linlstratioa lialstratioa iffl San Oie«e County/ federal Aviation Administration/ Aircraft operators Saa Dieeo County/ federal Aviation «liaistratlon Saa Die«o County/ federal Aviation AJminlstration San DiefO County/ federal Aviation AAsiaistratloa/ Aircraft operatora Ittl im* 199 14 1991 1991* 1991 1991 Ground trations Measures 10. locate engine maintenance runup area to west aide of tae Airport 11. told aircraft at partine poattion vnea departure delaya are hifh San Oleto County federal Aviation Administration. 1991* 1991* lUnaeement Measures 12. Olacourafe the use of the Airport my aircraft 'operatine at a maximum weight of fO.OOO pounds or more 13. Diaeeura«e jet training operationa. particularly by Stage 3 aircraft San Diego County San Diego County/ Aircraft operatora 1991* 1991* 25 Tablt 4 <pt«t 2 e( :) •.KOWCWDO NOXSI ABATBOXT AMD HOIK M2TZCATIOM KKASUUS. TB DfTITT USKNSI1LC FOR UVUDOMTATION, AVB TB UHoxxMATt ftAM MTU HeCltnaa-Mloaar Aixpert 14. lapltotat • voluntary State 1 Jtt dtparturt curfew Mtweta 10 p. a. and 7 a. a. 15. Acquit* and laatall • ptnaatnt aoiac •oaitoriat aytitt) It. Ottienatt • r»ol§« 4b«t*Mnt oCfiecc 17. Centinu* to luv« th« raloaar Airport Advisory Co«*ttt«« act «• • M1M II. fredue* MP« ••aittiv* Entity with t«ioonilbilltv itirt •«a Ditto County/ Aircraft oe«ratora •aa Ditto County •aa Ditto County Saa Ditto County •aa Ditto Couaty Ittl Ittl Ittl Ittl Ittl acouad Airport HOIK HITISATIOH 1. 2. J. 4. S. I. Caaatt tat Airport Xaflucnct Area to rtCltet tat at* forteatt aoiso tspoturt Aatnd tM aoitt tltatnti of the City aad Couaty |tntr«l plaat to rtfloct the atv aoiat tspoturt aapt ttquirt all land tttt iaaidt tht OIK (S bt sontd aa eoapatlfclt land utt or rtquUt touadprootiat •tquirt tut frantiat of avitation taat- •tata for all aov aoltfttatUlvt laad uata iaaidt tat CMSL IS toavrt that all proptrtita laaid* tat OB. (t iacludt tat aircraft noitt Itvtlt la tat fair diacloturt ttatttwat •aa Ditto County/ Saa Dltoo Ataociatioa of tovtraatata (Airport Laad Qtt liatioa) tecourato that tat atrimltural arta •tat of the Airport rmaia aa atricul- tural proacrro City of Carltaad/ tan Ditto Couaty City of Carltaad Saa Ditto Couaty City of CarlaMd City of Carlaaad/ troptrty ownor Ittl Ittl Ittl Ittl Ittl Ittl a. laatnamtat laadlat tyttta. a. Vitual approach alopt indicator. c. ttry aith«trta>oncy oanidirtctloeal radio rant** d. RtcooBtndtd actions that have a«tn inpltvtattd or art kolat inpltatattd ttit nay indicate action* aotdtd atyond taoat alrtady taktn). t. Ntaa tta Itvtl. •ourcti Mat Harwich. Hay IttO. 26 Bo» 92007 PO»<» LOt An9tm CA 90009l Aviation Admimttrahon 2 0 1992 Mr. Jack Miller Assistant Deputy Director Department of Public works 1960 Joe Crosson Drive El Cajon, CA 92020 Hcciellan-Palomar Airport, Carlsbad, California FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Prograa Dear Mr. Miller: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has evaluated the Noise Compati- bility Program (NCP) for the above referenced airport contained In toe FAR Part ISO study and related documents submitted to this office under the provisions of section lOMa) of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979. I am pleased to inform you that the Assistant Administrator for Airports has approved 15 of the 2« proposed noise compatibility measures In the NCP: 7 noise measures were disapproved, and 2 received no action. The specific FAA action for each Noise compatibility Prograa element Is set forth in the enclosed Record of Approval. The effective date of this approval Is June 16, 1992. Each Airport Noise Compatibility Program developed In accordance with FAR part 150 is a local program and not a Federal program. The FAA does not substitute Its judgement for that of the airport sponsor with respect to which measures should be recommended for action. The FAA'S approval, disapproval or no action taken of FAR Part 150 program recommendations is measured according to the standards expressed In Part 150 and the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979, and Is limited to the following determinations: 1. The Noise Compatibility Program was developed In accordance with the provisions and procedures of FAR Part 150; 2. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the goals of reducing existing noncompatlble land uses around the airport and preventing the Introduction of new incompatible land uses; 3. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of airport grant agreements, or Intrude Into areas preempted by the Federal government. 27 4. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be Implemented witnin the period covered by the program without derogating safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the naviga- ble airspace and air traffic control responsibilities of the Administrator prescribed by law. Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an Airport Noise Compatibility Program are delineated in FAR Part ISO, section 150.5. Appro- val is not a determination concerning the acceptability of land uses under Federal, state or local law. Approval does not, by Itself, constitute an FAA implementation action. A request for Federal action or approval to implement specific Noise Compatibility Measures may be required. An FAA decision on the request may require an environmental assessment of the proposed action. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. Where Federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must be submitted to the appropriate FAA office. The FAA win publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing approval of this Noise Compatibility Program. You are not required to give local official notice, however, you may do so If you wish. Thank you for your continued Interest in Noise Compatibility Planning. Sincerely, Herman '/ Manager, Airports Division Enclosure 28 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION RECORD OF APPROVAL FAR PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM McClellan-Palomar Airport Carlsbad, California CONCUR NONCONCUR LUAssistant Administrator for ;olicy, Planning, and International Aviation, API-1 Data V \ n.\c~* iCc*>>Ti^\ Chief Counsel, AGC-1 Date APPROVED DISAPPROVED Assistant Administj for Airports, ARJ Dat 29 RECORD OF APPROVAL McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The Mcdellan-Palomar Airport (CRQ) Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) describes the current and future incompatible land uses based on the parameters as established in FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning. The NCP includes eighteen (18) noise abatement measures, and six (6) noise mitigation measures. These measures are summarized on pages 3, and 4 of the Noise Compatibility Program, Volume 2. The approvals listad herein include approvals of actions that the airport recommends be taken by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It should be noted that these approvals indicate only that the actions would, if implemented, be consistent with the purposes of FAR Part 150. The approvals do not constitute decisions to implement the actions. Later decisions concerning possible implementation of these actions may be subject to applicable environmental or other procedures or * requirements. The recommendations below summarize as closely as possible the airport operator's recommendations in the noise compatibility program and are cross-referenced to the prograa document. The statements contained within the summarized recommendations and before the indicated FAA approval, disapproval, or other determination do not represent the opinions or decisions of the FAA. NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM MEASURES NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES Operational Measures 1. Raise the traffic pattern altitude from 800 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to 1,000 feet for helicopters, from 1,200 feet MSL to 1,500 feet for small aircraft, and from 1,500 feet MSL to 2,000 feet for large aircraft, (page 11, Exhibit E, Table 344) No action required at this time. This measure relates to flight procedures under Section 104(b) of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979. In addition, the NCP would have to adequately demonstrate a noise benefit; there is insufficient statistical and other data to make a determination on the benefits of this measure from a noise standpoint. 30 2. Increase the instrument landing system (ILS) glideslope angle and the visual approach slope indicator (VASI) angle to 3.6 degrees, which would provide additional altitude to arriving aircraft overflying neighborhoods to the east of the airport, including the community of San Marcos and the Palomar West Mobile Home Park. (page 16) Disapproved. Increasing the glideslope and VASI angles from their current 3.2 degrees to 3.6 degrees would not provide any meaningful noise reduction and would increase the complexity faced by pilots using these approach aids. 3. Modify the Oceanside very high frequency omnidirectional radio range (VOR) approach for aircraft so that they maintain a minimum altitude of 3,000 feet MSL at the Oceanside VOR, 2,000 feet MSL four miles past the VOR on a heading of 120 degrees, and 1,400 feet MSL seven miles past the VOR. (page 16) Disapproved. Increasing the altitude to 1,400 feet at 7DME would require raising the established minima and would thereby reduce the utility of the approach. 4. Require visual departures proceeding to the coast from Runway 24 to (a) make a right turn as soon as feasible to a heading of 250 degrees, (b) fly over the vacant area between the communities of Terramar and Solamar, and (c) maintain heading until one mile past the shoreline before turning south or north. (page 16) Approved as a voluntary measure only. This measure reflects a recommended practice which is already in effect at the airport. This measure should be implemented as a part of, and at the same time as measure 118. 5. Prepare a standard instrument departure (SID) with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) concerning instrument flight rules (IFR) jet departures from runway 24 to require that aircraft maintain a heading of 250 degrees and climb to a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet MSL before crossing 1-5 or the Oceanside 131-degree radial. Reduce power at 1-5 as acceptable for safe flight, and maintain the initial heading and altitude until at least three miles offshore. (page 17) No action required at this time. This measure relates to a flight procedure under Section 104(b) of the Airport Safety and Noise Abatement Act (ASNA) and requires additional information and analysis. 31 6. Conduct a test, using noise monitoring equipment, in which arriving aircraft to Runway 24 maintain various gear and flap settings between the McClellan-Palomar Airport outer marker and the west edge of the Palonar West Mobile Home Park. The results of this test may recommend new approach procedures to reduce noise exposure. (page 17, 18) Approved as a voluntary measure only. 7. Require jet aircraft arrivals to Runway 24 to use the IIS approach. (page 18) Disapproved for purposes of Part 150. The measure as submitted does not demonstrate any noise benefit. However, FAR Part 91.129(d)(2) specifies that large and turbine powered aircraft shall fly the final approach at or above the ILS glideslope and (3) provides that all aircraft approaching a runway equipped with a visual approach slope indicator shall fly at or above the glideslope until a lower altitude is necessary for landing. 8. Specify Runway 24 for use by all aircraft during cala wind conditions. (page 18) Approved as a voluntary measure. The airport sponsor should consult with the manager of the air traffic control tower regarding implementation of changes to the ATCT SOP. 9. Increase the helicopter route altitude from 800 feet MSL to 1,000 feet MSL. (page 18) Disapproved pending submission of additional information relative to anticipated noise benefits. Information provided in the NCP is insufficient to determine the noise benefit, if any, of this measure. Ground Operation Measures 10. Locate the aircraft engine maintenance runup area on the west side of the Airport with aircraft facing east. Mo maintenance runups should be conducted between 10:00 p.m., and 7:00 a.m. (page 19) Disapproved. There is no documentation that these measures will result in a noise benefit for people in the airport vicinity. However, with respect to the location of an aircraft maintenance runup area, the airport operator has the perogitive of designating such a location. 32 11. When more than four departing aircraft are waiting in queues on the taxiway, additional departing aircraft should hold at their tiedovm or hanger location with engines off. (page 19) Disapproved. There is no indication that aircraft taxiing or holding for departure contribute to noise impacts in the airport vicinity, nor is there any indication that this measure provides any noise benefit. Management Measures 12. Discourage use of the Airport by aircraft operating at a maximum weight of 60,000 pounds, or more. (page 19) Disapproved for purposes of Part ISO. The cause and effect relationship between aircraft weight and aircraft noise is not presented in the NCP. It is within an airport sponsor's discretion however, to develop or not develop airport facilities to serve larger aircraft and to make known to pilots the physical limitations of the airfield. 13. Discourage jet training operations, particularly by Stage 2 aircraft, through voluntary compliance. (page 19) Approved as a voluntary measure only. This measure provides for continuation of an existing on-going program at the airport. Any mandatory restriction proposed for Stage 2 aircraft would be subject to analysis and review under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 and FAR Part 161. 14. Implement a voluntary Stage 2 jet departure curfew between 10:00 p. m., and 7:00 a. m. through a letter of agreement between the airport owner (County of San Diego) -and operators of Stage 2 jet aircraft located at the Airport, (page 20) Approved as a voluntary measure only. Any attempt to make this measure mandatory would be subject to analysis and review under the Aviation Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) and FAR Part 161 15. Acquire and install a permanent noise monitoring system to validate the effectiveness of the noise abatement.procedures and to quantify noise problems in surrounding neighborhoods in the future. Approved. NOTE: For purposes of aviation safety, this approval does not extend to the use of monitoring equipment for enforcement purposes by in situ measurement of any pre-set noise thresholds. 33 16. Designate a noise abatement officer to administer the approved Noise Compatibility Program. (page 20) Approved. 17. Continue to have the Palomar Airport Advisory Committee act as a forum for discussion of noise abatement actions. (page 20) Approved. 18. Produce maps identifying noise sensitive areas around the Airport, and distribute them to pilots to help them avoid these areas when possible. (page 20, 27) Approved..Implementation of this measure should be combined with measure number 4 as a part of a comprehensive effort to inform pilots regarding the noise sensitive areas in the vicinity of the airport. NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES Preventive Measures 1. Amend the San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission's Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport to reflect the new forecast noise exposure area in the Airport Influence Area. (page 28 and Appendix A) Approved. This measure is considered to be within the authority of the County Airport Land Use Committee. 2. Amend the noise elements in the General Plans of San Diego County, and the City of Carlsbad to reflect the new noise exposure maps. (page 28 and Appendix A) Approved. This measure is considered to be within the authority of the County of San Diego, and City of Carlsbad. 3. All undeveloped land exposed to noise of CNEL 65+ (current or future) should be rexoned to a compatible use, or, if noise sensitive development is permitted, adequate noise insulation should be required, (page 28) Approved. This measure is considered to be within the authority of the County of San Diego, and City of Carlsbad. 34 4. If new noise sensitive development is permitted in areas of CNEL 65+, the granting of an avigation easement to San Diego County should be required as a condition of approval. (page 29) Approved. This measure is considered to be within the authority of the County of San Diego, and City of Carlsbad. 5. The City of Carlsbad should ensure that for all properties in areas of CNEL 65+, the aircraft noise levels are included in the fair disclosure statement, as required by the State of California. (page 29) Approved. 6. The owner of the large agricultural area west of the Airport should be encouraged to keep the land in an agricultural preserve under the Williamson Act. (page 29) Approved. 35 APPENDIX D FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS (FAR), PART 77 FOR McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT FAA regulation of airspace around airports is established primarily to protect aircraft. FAA notifies pilots and airport operators of hazardous conditions. However, only local governments have the authority to correct or prevent any construction or alterations which would pose a hazard to air navigation. FAR Part 77 identifies airspace within which development should be controlled to protect air navigation. It describes a number of imaginary surface with various shapes for different types of airports and runway configurations. Dimensions of the surfaces varies from airport to airport depending on the runway classification. The following describes the imaginary surfaces for McClellan-Palomar Airport, and Runway 24. Descriptions of the surfaces are abbreviated from die federal document. Primary surface: a surface longitudinally centered on a runway and extending 200 feet beyond the end of that runway. The width of this surface is 1,000. The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the runway at that point. Approach surface: a surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway center line and extending outward and upward from each end of the primary surface. The inner edge of the approach surface is the same as the width of the primary surface and it expands uniformly to 16,000 feet at a distance of 50,000 feet. The slope of this surface is SO: 1. Transitional surface: these surfaces extend outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline or its extension at a slope of 7:1 from the sides of the primary surfaces and the approach surfaces. Horizontal surface: a horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation, the perimeter of which is constructed by swinging arcs of 10,000 feet from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway and connecting the adjacent arc by lines tangent to those arcs. Conical surface: a surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20:1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. The purpose of the imaginary surfaces is to protect the approach, departure, and circling airspace in the vicinity of the airport. Any object which penetrates the surfaces is an obstruction. FAA reviews each proposed obstruction to determine if it constitutes a hazard to air navigation. 37 APPENDIX E RULES AND REGULATIONS AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR THE SAN DIEGO REGION San Diego Association of Governments Board of Directors Revised January 1990 The State of California, in 1970, enacted a law regarding the formation of an Airport Land Use Commission in each county. If the Board of Supervisors and the city selection committee of mayors in each county made a determination by a majority vote that proper land use planning could be accomplished through the actions of an appropriately designated body, then such body could assume the planning responsibilities of an airport land use commission and a separate commission need not be formed in that county. The San Diego County Board of Supervisors, by unanimous vote on December 15, 1970, recommended that the San Diego Association of Governments be designated to assume the responsibilities of an airport land use commission. A similar resolution was passed and adopted by the Selection Committee of Mayors of the San Diego County Region on February 8, 1971. The Secretary of State was notified of this determination on February 25, 1971, and an acknowledgement of this determination was received from the Secretary of State's office on March 2, 1971. The authority, powers, duties, and limitations of this appropriately designated body are defined in the California Public Utilities Code, Division 9, Part 1, Chapter 4, Article 3.5, commencing with Section 21670. In accordance with the authority with which it has been invested, and in performance of the duties with which it has been charged, the San Diego Association of Governments Board of Directors, acting as the Airport Land Use Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Commission") and pursuant to Section 21674 of the Public Utilities Code, hereby adopts and promulgates the following rules and regulations which shall provide advice and guidance to the Commission in carrying out its duties, and inform public agencies and private parties of the Commission's procedures. 39 ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1.1 Name The San Diego Association of Governments is designated the Airport Land Use Commission in San Diego County. Section 1.2 Purposes The Commission hereby finds and declares that: a. It is in the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this county, and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California Airport Noise Standards adopted pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21669, and prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems; and b. It is the purpose of this Commission to protect public health, safety and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. Section 1.3 Powers and Duties The Commission has the following powers and duties, subject to the limitations set forth in Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code:' a. To assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of all new airports and in the vicinity of existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of such airports is not already devoted to incompatible uses. b. To coordinate planning at the state, regional and local levels so as to provide for the orderly development of air transportation, while at the same time protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. c. To prepare and adopt comprehensive land use plans pursuant to Article ffl. d. To review the plans, regulations, and other actions of local agencies and airport operators pursuant to Article IV. 'All further section references are to the Public Utilities Code. 40 e. To act upon applications for the construction of new airports. The powers of the Commission shall in no way be construed to give the Commission jurisdiction over the operation of any airport. Section 1.4 Creation of Ad Hoc Committees and Appointment of Members The Commission Chairperson may, subject to review and ratification by the Commission, create Ad Hoc Committees and may appoint ad hoc committee members representing those jurisdictions, agencies, or groups who will be most directly affected by the determination of the Commission on any comprehensive land use plan. Section 1.5 Fees The Commission may establish a schedule of fees to cover its costs for reviewing and processing proposals, and for providing copies of comprehensive land use plans. The fees will be charged to proponents of actions, regulations, and permits. After June 30, 1991, the Commission will discontinue charging fees for proposals around any airport which does not have an adopted comprehensive land use plan. DEFINITIONS As used in these rules and regulations, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated. Section 2.1 Aircraft Any manned contrivance used or designed for navigation of, or flight in, the air requiring certification and registration as prescribed by federal statute or regulation. Manned lighter-than-air balloons and ultralight vehicles as defined in the regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration (14 C.F.R. Part 103), whether or not certified by the Federal Aviation Administration, shall not be considered to be aircraft for purposes of these rules and regulations. Section 2.2 Airport Any area of land or water which is used, or intended for use, for the landing and take-off of aircraft. Included are any appurtenant areas which are used, or intended for use, for airport buildings or any other airport facilities or rights-of-way, and all airport buildings and facilities located thereon. Heliports, helipads and helistops shall be considered airports for purposes of these rules and regulations. 41 Section 2.3 Airport Influence Area A planning area designated by the Commission around each public airport which is, or reasonably may become, affected by airport related noise, fumes, or other influence, or which is, or reasonably may become, a site for a hazard to aerial navigation. Section 2.4 Airport An airport layout plan is a graphic presentation to scale of existing and proposed airport facilities, their location on the airport, and the pertinent clearance and dimensional information required to show conformance with applicable standards. Section 2.5 Airport Master Plan An airport master plan presents an operator or proprietor's conception of the ultimate development of a specific airport. An airport master plan should present in graphic and written form an inventory of existing airport facilities, forecasts of aviation demand, demand/capacity analysis, facility requirements determinations and environmental study. Section 2.6 Airport Operator Any person or entity having the authority and responsibility for the establishment and operation of an airport. Section 2.7 Airport Proprietor Any person or entity having the legal right or exclusive title to an airport. Section 2.8 Comprehensive Lflfld. A comprehensive land use plan presents the Commission's determination of the areas currently impacted or likely to be impacted by noise levels and flight activities associated with aircraft operations of a particular airport. It presents in narrative and graphic form the noise, safety and other criteria which will enable local agencies to compatibly plan and develop the land within the airport influence area. (The Comprehensive Land Use Plan may also be referred to herein as "Plan".) Section 2.9 Hdicad Any area of a structure which is used, or intended for use, for the landing and take-off of helicopters. Included are any appurtenant areas which are used, or intended for use, for helipad buildings or other helipad facilities or rights-of-way, and all helipad buildings and facilities located thereon. 42 Section 2. 10 Heliport Any area of land or water which is used, or intended for use, for the landing and take-off of helicopters. Included are any appurtenant areas which are used, or intended for use, for heliport buildings or other heliport facilities or rights-of-way, and all heliport buildings and facilities located thereon. Section 2.11 Helistop Any area of land, water, or a structure not designated as either a heliport or a helipad which is used, or intended for use, for the landing and take-off of helicopters. Such areas generally provide only minimal facilities to accommodate helicopter landings and take-offs. Section 2. 12 Local Agencies and Public Agencies A County, a city, special district, or any combination thereof, which has the authority to do any of the following: (1) adopt general or specific land use plans and establish land use zones which are applicable to land within the boundaries of a comprehensive land use plan adopted by the Commission; or (2) own any public airport. Section 2. 13 Private Airport Any airport which allows use of its facilities only by the owner or his invitees. Section 2. 14 Public Airport Any airport which offers the use of its facilities by the public in general without prior notice and without specific invitation or clearance. An airport proprietor or operator may preclude use by a size or type of aircraft for which the facilities are not adequate without altering the public status of the airport. ARTICLE m COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FORMULATION AND ADOPTION Section 3.1 Formulation of the Comprehensive Land Use. The Commission shall be responsible for the formulation of a comprehensive land use plan for each public airport in the region, as required by state law. The following documents shall be used as primary sources of information: • General Plans, Specific Plans, Zoning Maps and Ordinances of Local Public Agencies • Airport Master Plans 43 • Airport Layout Plans • NOISE STANDARDS, Title 21, Chapter 2.5, Subchapter 6, California Adminis- trative Code • OBJECTS AFFECTING NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE, Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 • San Diego Plan for Air Transportation • SANDAG's Adopted Regional Growth Forecasts a. The Commission shall formulate a comprehensive land use plan that will provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and the airport influence area within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. The Commission plan shall include the airport master plan that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years. In formulating a comprehensive land use plan, the Commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, may specify uses of land, and may determine building standards, including soundproofing adjacent to airports, within the airport influence area. b. The Commission may include, within its plan formulated pursuant to subdivision (a) the area within the jurisdiction of the Commission surrounding any federal military airport for all the purposes specified in subdivision (a). This subdivision shall not give the Commission any jurisdiction or authority over the territory or operations of any military airport. c. The airport influence area boundaries shall be established by the Commission after hearing and consultation with the involved agencies. Boundaries shall be determined for those areas adjacent to public airports which could be impacted by noise levels exceeding the California State Noise Standards or where height restrictions would be needed to prevent obstructions to navigable airspace as outlined in Federal Aviation Regulations. The airport influence areas shall serve as a basis for formulating the comprehensive land use plan. It is the intent of the Commission to make it possible for individual property owners to readily ascertain whether or not a particular parcel of property is located within an airport influence area. To the maximum extent practical, these boundaries shall be described with reference to prominent features or landmarks of a permanent nature such as roads, power lines, railroad tracks, etc. d. Preparation of each comprehensive land use plan shall be a cooperative effort of the Commission staff, airport proprietors and operators, ad hoc committee members, and representatives of the local agencies. e. The Commission shall submit to the Division of Aeronautics of CALTRANS one copy of the plan and each amendment to the plan. 44 Section 3.2 Plan Ajnendments A request to amend or revise a comprehensive land use plan may be submitted to the Commission at any time by the aiiport proprietor, the airport operator, or an affected local agency. Plan amendments or revisions may be necessitated by a change in airport use, size, number and type of aircraft accommodated, or a change to the airport master plan, among other reasons. In addition, the Commission shall periodically review adopted comprehensive land use plans and initiate any amendment or revision that may be required. A comprehensive land use plan shall not be amended more than once in any calendar year. Section 3.3 Adoption of Comprehensive Lifld Use Pjajfl and. Amendments The comprehensive land use plan and any amendments thereto shall be approved and adopted by the Commission, and shall constitute the Commission's recommendation to the local agency for compatible land uses within the airport influence area. Prior to adopting each comprehensive land use plan or amendment, the Commission shall hold a public hearing in accordance with Article VI. IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANS Section 4.1 Determination of Consistency for Airports With Comprehensive Use Plans The following steps are identified as the process by which a specified action is determined to be consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for a particular airport. a. The local agency staff (City Manager/CAO or Planning Director) or the airport operator provides written notice to the Commission staff of a proposed adoption or amendment of general or specific plans or the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation on land lying wholly or partially in the airport's area of influence. (Written notice shall include the official transmittal of environmental documentation of the proposal for review by the Commission.) b. The Commission staff determines whether or not the proposed action would be clearly consistent with the Commission's adopted land use plan covering such area and so notifies the local agency. This written notice shall constitute action by the Commission. c. If the proposed action of the local agency is considered by the Commission staff to be potentially inconsistent with the adopted land use plan, the 45 Commission shall hold a hearing to determine whether or not the proposed action is inconsistent with the Commission's plan. The local agency shall be notified of the Commission's decision prior to the agency's hearing. d. If it is determined by the Commission that the proposed action is inconsistent, the Commission's action shall be considered by the local agency. After holding a public hearing, by a two-thirds vote of its governing body, the local agency proposing the action may overrule the Commission if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes stated in Section 21670 of the Public Utilities Code. Section 4.2 Determination of Consistency for Airport Master Plans The following steps are identified as the process by which an Airport Master Plan is determined to be consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for a particular airport. a. Each public agency owning an airport within the boundaries of a comp- rehensive land use plan adopted by the Commission shall, prior to modification of its airport master plan, refer the proposed changes to the Commission. b. The Commission staff determines whether or not the proposed action would be clearly consistent with the Commission's adopted land use plan covering such area and so notifies the public agency. This written notice shall constitute action by the Commission. c. If the proposed action of the public agency is considered by the Commission staff to be potentially inconsistent with the adopted land use plan, the Commission shall hold a hearing to determine whether or not the proposed action is inconsistent with the Commission's plan. The public agency shall be notified of the Commission's decision prior to the agency's hearing. d. If it is determined by the Commission that the proposed action is inconsistent, the Commission's action shall be considered by the public agency. After holding a public hearing, by a two-thirds vote of its governing body, the public agency proposing the action may overrule the Commission if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes stated in Section 21670 of the Public Utilities Code. Section 4.3 Further Commission Review of Local Agency Actions a. If the Commission finds that a local agency has not revised its general plan or specific plan or overruled the Commission by a two-thirds vote of its governing body after making specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes stated in Public Utilities Section 21670, the Commission may require that the local agency submit all subsequent actions, 46 regulations, and permits to the Commission for review until its general plan or specific plan is revised or the specific findings are made. If, in the determination of the Commission, an action, regulation, or permit of the local agency is inconsistent with the Commission plan, the local agency shall be notified and that local agency shall hold a hearing to reconsider its plan. The local agency may overrule the Commission after the hearing by a two-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes stated in Public Utilities Code Section 21670. b. Whenever the local agency has revised its general or specific plan or has overruled the Commission pursuant to subdivision (a), the proposed action of the local agency shall not be subject to further Commission review, unless the Commission and the local agency agree that individual projects shall be reviewed by the Commission. Section 4.4 Review Process for AJIPPTtS Without Comprehensive 1,-sn^ V5? The following steps are identified as the process by which all actions, regulations, and permits in the vicinity of an airport without a Comprehensive Land Use Plan are reviewed. a. Beginning January 1st, 1990, the local land use agency (city or county) shall first submit to the Commission all actions, regulations and permits within the vicinity of a public airport without a comprehensive land use plan to the Commission for review and approval. If the Commission has not designated a study area for the plan, then "vicinity" means the area within two miles of the boundary of a public airport. b. Before the Commission approves or disapproves the submittal, it shall give public notice in the same manner as the local land use agency. The Commission may approve a submittal if it finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, all of the following: (1) The Commission is making substantial progress toward the completion of the plan. (2) There is a reasonable probability that the action, regulation, or permit will be consistent with the plan being prepared by the Commission. (3) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted Plan if the action, regulation or permit is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c. If the Commission disapproves an action, regulation, or permit, the Commission shall notify the local agency. The local agency may overrule the Commission, by a two-thirds vote of its governing body, if it makes specific 47 findings that the proposed action, regulation, or permit is consistent with the purposes of stated in Section 21670. d. The Commission may adopt additional rules and regulations which exempt any ministerial permit for single family dwellings and exclude other actions, regulations, and permits from the requirements of subdivision (a) if it makes the findings required pursuant to subdivision (b) for the proposed rules and regulations, except that the rules and regulations may not exempt either of the following: (1) More than two single family dwellings by the same applicant within a subdivision prior to June 30, 1991. (2) Single family dwellings in a subdivision where 25 percent or more of the parcels are undeveloped. Section 4.5 Authorisation for Staff Review The Executive Director is authorized to determine the consistency of proposed actions referred to the Commission, but only where such actions are clearly consistent with the comprehensive land use plan. The Executive Director shall officially notify the local agency and the airport operator (where the operator makes the referral) of such rinding within 60 days from the date of referral of the proposed action. The Executive Director is authorized to approve actions, regulations, and permits submitted pursuant to Section 4.4, but only where such actions, regulations, and permits clearly meet the substantial evidence test required pursuant to subdivision (b). Section 4.6 Determination Deadlines Each Commission determination pursuant to these rules and regulations shall be made within 60 days from the date of referral of the proposed action in accordance with Sections 21675.2 and 21676. Section 4.7 Reconsideration Criteria for Determinations of Consistency Commission determinations made pursuant to Section 4.1 shall remain in effect until such time as any of the following occur. a. There is a substantive alteration, change, or modification to the proposed action. b. There is a change in the relevant airport master plan which substantively alters the noise and safety effects of aircraft operations. 48 c. The relevant comprehensive land use plan is substantively revised or amended pursuant to Sections 3.2 and 3.3. d. Four years have lapsed since the Commission's determination, and final discretionary approval of the proposal has not been taken by the local agency. At such time the Commission's previous determination shall be null and void and the Commission shall make a new determination of consistency pursuant to Section 4.1. Section 4.8 Immunity From Liability With respect to a publicly owned airport that a public agency does not operate, if the pubb'c agency, pursuant to Sections 21675.1, 21676 or 21676.5 of the Public Utilities Code, overrides the Commission's action or recommendation, the operator of the airport shall be immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury caused by or resulting directly or indirectly from the public agency's decision to override the Commission's action or recommendation. Section 4.9 CEOA Review and Comment The Commission's review and comment on draft environmental documents pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act or the National Environmental Protection Act shall be independent of its review of proposals for the purpose of making a consistency determination, unless the referring agency specifically requests that both reviews be conducted concurrently. ARTICLE Y REVIEW OF NEW AIRPORTS Section 5.1 New Airport Plan Submission No political subdivision, any of its officers or employees, or any person may submit any application for the construction of a new airport to any local, regional, state, or federal agency unless the plan for such construction is first approved by the board of supervisors of the county, or the city council of the city, in which the airport is to be located and unless the plan is submitted to the Commission exercising powers pursuant to Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 21670) of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 9 of the Public Utilities Code and acted upon by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of such article. Section 5.2 Hearings Commission action will be taken in accordance with Article VI. 49 V PUBLIC HEARINGS Section 6. 1 Procedures Public hearings shall be held in accordance with SANDAG procedures. Section 6.2 Processing of Referrals Referrals to the Commission shall be submitted in writing. The referral should fully and fairly state the reason for the referral and should include detailed property descriptions, maps and other material necessary to fully understand the matter for which a hearing is being requested. Within the 15 working days immediately following the receipt of a referral, the Commission's staff shall determine if the matter for which the hearing is being requested is within the purview of the Commission. If the matter is a proper subject for a hearing, a date for the hearing shall be set and the date for hearing shall be not more than 60 days from the date of referral of the proposed action. Section 6.3 Hearing Notice Public notice of Commission hearings shall be made in accordance with applicable law. In addition, the date and subject matter of each hearing shall be sent to the local agency and to all public agencies having an interest in the matter to be heard. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 7.1 PJMV.ftltffcfltiffll Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21672, Commission members shall disqualify themselves from participating in the review or adoption of a proposal because of conflict of interest in accordance with the provisions of the Political Reform Act of 197S, as amended, and the SANDAG Conflict of Interest Code. Alternates to the Commission may participate in the event of a regular Commission member's disqualification. 50 APPENDIX F PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A proposed negative declaration has been prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments for a draft McClellan-Palomar Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an Environmental Initial Study conducted by SANDAG. The Negative Declaration, Initial Study and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the San Diego Association of Governments, 401 B Street, Suite 800, First Interstate Plaza. For environmental review information, contact Jack Koerper at 595-5372. Written comments regarding the adequacy of this Negative Declaration must be received by the San Diego Association of Governments at the above address by October 7, 1993. A final environmental report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decisionmaking authorities. STUART R. SHAFFER Deputy Executive Director This notice was published in the SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT and distributed on August 23, 1993. 51 DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION SUBJECT: Draft McClellan-Palomar Comprehensive Land Use Plan I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Initial Study, n. ENVIRONMENTAL SUITING: See attached Initial Study, m. DETERMINATION: The San Diego Association of Governments has conducted an Initial Study and determined that the proposed amendment will not have a significant environ- mental effect and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. IV. DOCUMENTATION: The attached Initial Study documents the reasons to support the above Determination. V. MITIGATING MEASURES: None Required VI. PUBLIC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION: Draft copies or notice of this Negative Declaration were distributed to: City of Carlsbad Coastal Commission Federal Aviation Administration State of California Division of Aeronautics City of Vista Palomar Airport Advisory Committee State Clearinghouse California Pilots Association 52 California Department of Fish and Game County of San Diego VH. RESULTS OF PUBLIC REVIEW: (S) No comments were received during the public input period. ( ) Comments were received but did not address the Negative Declaration finding or the accuracy/completeness of the Initial Study. No response is necessary. The letters are attached. ( ) Comments addressing the findings of the draft Negative Declaration and/or accuracy or completeness of the Initial Study were received during the public input period. The letters and responses follow. Copies of the draft Negative Declaration and any Initial Study material are available at the SANDAG offices for review, or for purchase at the cost of reproduction. 8/1/93 STUART R. SHAFFER Date of Draft Report Deputy Executive Director 11/1/93 Date of Final Report Analyst: JackKoerper 53 Initial Study SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan- Palomar Airport I. Purpose and Main Features: SANDAG, as the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for the San Diego Region, has the responsibility to protect the region's airports from incompatible land use development. State law requires the preparation and adoption of an airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) by the ALUC to accomplish this goal. A CLUP identifies the Airport Influence Area, noise contours, and the area impacted by airport-generated noise; the kinds of land uses that are compatible and incompatible with airport operations matrix, accident potential zones and matrix, and recommendations for the airport operator, land use agency, and SANDAG, as the Airport Land Use Commission. n. Environmental Setting: The McCleUan-Palomar Airport is located within the corporate limits of the City of Carlsbad, approximately five miles southeast of the Carlsbad Village. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) classifies the airport as a general utility facility, an airport mainly serving aircraft with a maximum gross takeoff weight of 12,000 pounds or less. However, some aircraft larger than 12,500 pounds, but less than 60,000, do operate at the airport. The North County area served by the airport is the fastest growing portion of the region. It is expected to increase from its 1986 population of 481,355 to over 861,786 by the year 2000, an increase of 55.8%. Employment is forecast to increase from 196,482 to 343,310, an increase of 57.2%. The rapid growth in employment is due largely to the extensive industrial development taking place in North County, much of it located around McCleUan-Palomar Airport. The airport is owned and operated by the County of San Diego. It occupies about 255 acres of land; the remaining 211 acres of County owned airport land is separated from the airport by Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. The airport has one runway, Runway 6-24, which is 4,700 feet long by 150 feet wide. McCleUan-Palomar Airport is the only airport with an instrument landing system between Lindbergh Field and Santa Ana that can accommodate the majority of the 54 business aircraft fleet of over 12,500 pounds. There is a parallel taxiway equal to the full length of the runway. m. Environmental Analysis: See attached Initial Study Checklist IV. Discussion: None V. Recommendation; One the basis of this initial evaluation: S The proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION should be prepared. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in Section IV above have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION should be prepared. The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT should be required. PROJECT ANALYST: Jack Koerper, 595-5372 Attachments: Initial Study Checklist S ANDAG Board of Directors Report Draft McClellan-Palomar CLUP 55 Initial Study Checklist m. ENVIRONMENTAL ANAYSIS: This Initial Study checklist is designed to identify the potential for significant environ- mental impacts which could be associated with a project. All answers of "yes" and "maybe" indicate that there is a potential for significant environmental impacts and these determinations are explained in Section IV. Yes Mavbe A. Geolofv/Soils. Will the proposal result in: 1. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? B. Air. Will the proposal result in: 1. Air emissions which would substantially deteriorate ambient air quality? 2. The exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 3. The creation of objectionable odors? 4. The creation of dust? X 5. Any alteration of air movement in the area of the project? X 6. A substantial alteration in moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X C. Hydrology/Water Quality Will the proposal result in: 1. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? 56 2. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? x 3. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? 4. Discharge into surface or ground waters, or in any alteration of surface or ground water quality, including, but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? 5. Discharge into surface or ground waters, significant amounts of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, gas, oil or other noxious chemicals? 6. Change in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 7. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 8. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? D. Biology. Will the proposal result in: 1. A reduction in the number of any unique, rare, endangered, sensitive or fully protected species of plants or animals? X 2. A substantial change in the diversity of any species of animals or plants? X 3. Introduction of invasive species of plants into the area? 4. Interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species? 57 5. An impact on a sensitive habitat, including, but not limited to streamside vegetation, oak woodland, vernal pools, coastal salt marsh, lagoon, wetland, or coastal sage scrub or chaparral? X 6. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? X E. Noise. Will the proposal result in: 1. A significant increase in the existing ambient noise levels? X 2. Exposure of people to noise levels which exceed the City's adopted noise ordinance? 3. Exposure of people to current or future transportation noise levels which exceed standards established in the Transportation Element of the General Plan? F. Light. Glare and Shading. Will the proposal result in: 1. Substantial light or glare? X 2. Substantial shading of other properties? G. TdTld WlBr Will the proposal result in: 1. A land use which is inconsistent with the adopted community plan land use designation for the site? 2. A conflict with the goals, objectives and recommendations of the community plan in which it is located? 3. A conflict with adopted environmental plans for the area? X 4. Land uses which are not compatible with aircraft accident potential as defined by a SANDAG (ALUC) Airport Land Use Plan? 58 H. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: 1. The prevention of future extraction of sand and gravel resources? x 2. The conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural use or impairment of the agricultural productivity of agricultural land? I. Recreational Resources: Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? J. Population. Will the proposal alter the planned location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the population of an area? K. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing in the community, or create a demand for additional housing? X L. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: 1. Traffic generation in excess of specific/ community plan allocation? X 2. An increase in projected traffic which is substantial in relation to the capacity of the street system? 3. An increased demand for off-site parking? 4. Effects on existing parking? 5. Substantial impact upon existing or planned transportation systems? 6. Alterations to present circulation move- ments including effects on existing public access to beaches, parks, or other open space areas? __ X 7. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 59 M. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? , X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X f. Other governmental services? N. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or require substantial alterations to existing utilities, including: a. Power? b. Natural gas? c. Communications systems? d. Water? e. Sewer? f. Storm water drainage? X g. Solid waste disposal? X O. Energy. Will the proposal result in the use of excessive amounts of fuel or energy? X_ P. Water Conservation. Will the proposal result in: 1. Use of excessive amounts of water? X 2. Landscaping which is predominantly non-drought resistant vegetation? X 60