VOLUME 3 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT GREGORY CANYON LANDFILL San Diego County, California   APPENDIX B –PURPOSE AND NEED  Needs Assessment of the Proposed Gregory Canyon Landfill in Northern San Diego County, R3  Consulting Group, April 14, 2011  Needs Assessment of the Proposed Gregory Canyon Landfill in Northern San Diego County Prepared for: United States Army Corps of Engineers April 14, 2011 Resources, Respect, Responsibility Consulting Group, Inc. Section 1 - 1 This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope .............................................. 1 1.2 Limitations ............................................................ 1 1.3 Waste Shed.......................................................... 2 Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment 2.0 Background.................................................... 2 2.1 Contractual Issues that Affect Disposal Flows ..... 2 2.2 New and Proposed Regional Facilities That May Affect Disposal Flows ................................... 4 2.2.1 Mesquite Regional Landfill Facility (new) ............. 4 2.2.2 Eagle Mountain Landfill Facility (proposed).......... 5 2.2.3 Gregory Canyon Landfill Facility (proposed) ........ 6 2.2.4 San Diego County Proposition A Disposal Facility (proposed) ................................................ 6 2.3 Existing San Diego County Disposal and Transfer Facilities ................................................. 7 2.3.1 San Diego County Siting Element ........................ 7 2.3.2 Disposal Facilities ................................................ 8 2.3.3 Transfer Station Facilities ..................................... 9 3.0 Methodology ................................................ 10 3.1 Data Sources ..................................................... 10 3.1.1 CalRecycle Data ................................................ 10 3.1.2 Jurisdiction and Landfill Facility Surveys ............ 11 3.2 State Mandated Requirements and Disposal Reduction Projections ........................................ 12 TOC - i Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment 3.3 Population Projections ........................................ 15 3.4 2010 Base-year Tonnage and Remaining Capacity Data ..................................................... 16 3.5 Capacity Projections Model ................................ 16 4.0 Analysis ........................................................ 17 4.1 Disposal Tonnage Projections (Based on Existing Capacity) ............................................... 18 4.1.1 Base-Year Conditions ........................................ 19 4.1.2 Decreases in Tons Disposed.............................. 23 4.2 Potential Impact of GCL ..................................... 25 4.2.1 Base-Year Conditions with GCL ......................... 25 4.2.2 Decreases in Tons Disposed with GCL .............. 26 5.0 Study Findings .............................................. 27 6.0 Study Conclusions ........................................ 29 Tables and Figures TOC - ii TABLE 1 Landfill Facilities in San Diego County: 3Year Average Accepted Waste Tonnages for 2007-2009, Estimated Remaining Disposal Capacity, and Estimated Closure Date ........................................................... 9 TABLE 2 Summary of Landfills and Jurisdictions Contacted ................................................ 12 TABLE 3 Projected Disposal Tonnage, Landfill Capacity, and Years of Remaining Capacity for Waste Shed (Base-Year Conditions) .. 19 TABLE 4 Total Available Landfill Capacity by County (Base-Year Conditions) ........................... 21 TABLE 5 Years of Remaining Disposal Capacity (Base-Year Conditions) ........................... 23 TABLE 6 Years of Remaining Disposal Capacity (20% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2020) ................................................................ 24 TABLE 7 Years of Remaining Disposal Capacity (50% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2030) ................................................................ 24 TABLE 8 Years of Remaining Disposal Capacity (Base-Year with GCL) ............................. 25 TABLE 9 Years of Remaining Disposal Capacity (20% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2020 with GCL) ................................................ 26 TABLE 10 Years of Remaining Disposal Capacity (50% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2030 with GCL) ................................................ 27 TABLE 11 Regional Waste Shed Year of Capacity Depletion ................................................. 29 TABLE 12 San Diego County Year of Capacity Depletion ................................................. 29 FIGURE 1 2010 Percentage of Tons Disposed ........ 20 FIGURE 2 2010 Percentage of Available Disposal Capacity .................................................. 20 FIGURE 3 2025 Percentage of Remaining Disposal Capacity .................................................. 22 Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment Appendices Transfer/Processing Stations in Waste Shed .............................................................. Appendix A Waste-by-Rail Map ........................................ Appendix B San Diego County Five-Year CIWMP/RAIWMP Review Report ............................................... Appendix C County of San Diego Agenda Item: Landfill Initiative Measure: Title and Summary ........... Appendix D TOC - iii Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment Data Collection Survey Forms (Forms 1a and 1b) .......................................... Appendix E Google Earth Map of Disposal Facilities ......... Appendix F Disposal Facility Information Table .................Appendix G Data Collection Methodology ......................... Appendix H Population Projections ..................................... Appendix I Disposal Tonnage Projections .........................Appendix J TOC - iv 1.0 1.1 Introduction Purpose and Scope This Needs Assessment is intended solely for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and has been completed in support of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) undertaken by the Corps for the proposed Gregory Canyon Landfill (GCL) in northern San Diego County. The proposed GCL facility would have a permitted disposal capacity of 57.5 million cubic yards (approximately 28.75 tons) and accept mixed municipal waste without restrictions as to point of origin. This Needs Assessment will assist in defining the Purpose and Need Statement that will be included in the Draft EIS, as well as the overall project purpose, while also addressing comments regarding the need for the project that were received during the scoping process for the EIS. Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment The specific goal of this Needs Assessment is to provide the Corps with an independent review to address if a new regional landfill is warranted in the general vicinity of the proposed GCL site. The Corps has specifically requested that this Needs Assessment address how the proposed GCL would affect current and/or projected future disposal capacity requirements in a six county region comprised of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties. For the purposes of this Needs Assessment, this six county region is referred to as the “Waste Shed.” 1.2 Limitations This Needs Assessment is not intended to endorse any landfill, including GCL, nor is it intended to provide any legal opinion on the validity of GCL. This Needs Assessment does not account for engineering, economic or political issues, nor does it factor in the potential for expansion of current landfills. The potential expansion of current landfill facilities is not analyzed because this Needs Assessment considers disposal capacity under current permitted conditions. Litigation and/or permitting process time-frames vary; accordingly, no assumptions concerning potential landfill expansions were incorporated into this Needs Assessment. However, projections have been made with the addition of the proposed GCL disposal capacity to illustrate the potential effect on the Waste Shed and San Diego County. Additionally, although competition and economic variables play a significant role in the waste flow system, these topics have not been addressed in this Needs Assessment. Information obtained from contacted jurisdictions, haulers, and facility operators was limited to gathering information about Page - 1 Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment current diversion rates and future diversion goals, permitted capacity, disposal agreements, and waste flow restrictions. It should be noted, however, that diversion rates for each jurisdiction within the Waste Shed have not been factored into the projections or analyses. Due to the varied diversion rates amongst each jurisdiction within the Waste Shed, future decreases in disposal tonnages have been assumed and applied uniformly to the Waste Shed. This Needs Assessment is also limited by the amount of current written information available and the amount of information that was able to be documented within the time-frame of the study. The analyzed region in this Needs Assessment is large and encompasses a system that is dynamic and changes frequently; consequently, it is challenging to account for each shifting variable when conducting an analysis of this scope. 1.3 Waste Shed Within the Waste Shed, there are 212 jurisdictions (206 cities and 6 counties) that disposed of a combined total of 17.8 million tons of solid waste in 2009. The 2009 disposal number represents an approximate 12.5% decrease from the 2008 total of 20.3 million tons disposed, and a 21.4% decrease compared to the 2007 total of 22.5 million tons disposed. 1 However, this recent trend is likely related to current economic conditions and is not expected to continue. There are 45 landfill facilities permitted to accept municipal solid waste within the Waste Shed; estimated closure dates for these landfill facilities range from 2012 to 2257. With 600 million tons of disposal capacity recently made available by Mesquite Regional Landfill (MRL), located in western Imperial County, the Waste Shed has approximately 1.02 billion tons of available disposal capacity dispersed among the 45 landfill facilities. 2.0 2.1 Background Contractual Issues that Affect Disposal Flows San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties have existing disposal agreements with some or all of their respective cities and/or waste haulers. These agreements essentially direct the waste that is produced within the respective city or collected by the respective hauler to go to a landfill or transfer station facility within that county.  1 Page - 2 Orange County requires all waste disposed of within the county to go to a landfill facility within the county. There are Per the 2007, 2008, and 2009 Landfill Tonnage Reports and the Disposal Reporting System on the CalRecycle website. currently two companies that have agreements with Orange County to bring in out-of-county waste; however, these agreements expire in 2016 and Orange County does not anticipate extending or renewing any agreements to bring in out-of-county waste.2  The County of San Bernardino is in the process of negotiating new waste disposal agreements with 16 of the cities within San Bernardino County. The current contracts are set to expire between 2012 and 2019. San Bernardino County requires that their franchised hauler import between 20,000 and 100,000 tons per year of out-ofcounty waste. 3  Riverside County currently has seven-year evergreen agreements with the unincorporated area waste haulers. These agreements require the hauler to direct waste to a designated transfer station or landfill facility within Riverside County. If the waste is directed to a transfer station, the transfer station operator must direct the waste to a landfill within Riverside County. Riverside County charges an extra five dollars per ton for out-of-county waste at Riverside County owned and/or operated landfills. There is no current contractual out-of-county waste flow disposed of within Riverside County owned and/or operated landfills; any such out-of-county waste flow would require a contractual agreement. 4 Additionally Riverside County disposed of all of their municipal solid waste inCounty in 2009.5 Los Angeles and San Diego Counties do not have waste disposal agreements with their respective cities, and do not have restrictions on importation or exportation of disposed materials. Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment Imperial County does not have disposal agreements with their respective cities; however, the City of Imperial has a disposal agreement with its hauler to deliver waste to one of two landfills in-county or Copper Mountain Landfill in Arizona. For a discussion of restrictions on waste flow to MRL, please see Section 2.2.1. In addition to the above contractual restrictions on disposal flows, disposal and transfer costs, location of facilities, ownership of facilities, inter- and intra-company agreements, the ability or 2 3 4 5 Per email correspondence with Rochelle Carpenter of Orange County Waste and Recycling. Per email correspondence with Mary Patterson, Solid Waste Programs Administrator, Solid Waste Management Division, San Bernardino County Department of Public Works. Per email correspondence with Bob Anderson, Program Administrator, Riverside County Waste Management Department. Per the Disposal Reporting System on the CalRecycle website. Page - 3 Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment inability of haulers to pass on higher tip fees to their customers, and vertical integration of private companies that provide collection, transfer, and disposal services all affect disposal flows. For example, due to the cost of MRL and the intermodal facilities, it is expected that the fee for transporting and disposing of waste at MRL will be substantially higher than the current $38.26/ton fee charged at Puente Hills Landfill (PHL). Substantially higher tipping fees for the use of MRL may result in tons currently disposed at PHL to be disposed of at other regional landfills and/or other landfills pricing disposal fees to attract displaced PHL disposal tonnage. 2.2 New and Proposed Regional Facilities That May Affect Disposal Flows There is one new and three proposed landfills that may affect the disposal flows in the Waste Shed. Each of these is discussed below. It should be noted that CalRecycle, in an article entitled “Beyond 2000: California’s Continuing Need for Landfills,” states that landfills, which play a vital role in the state’s integrated waste management system, will be needed for the foreseeable future for those wastes which cannot be reduced, reused, or recycled. In light of the fact that a number of counties will exhaust their disposal capacity within 15 years, the article indicates that it takes 7 to 10 years to plan, design, and permit a new landfill. However, Los Angeles County has indicated that based on recent history, it is anticipated that any new landfills sited in California could take 15 years or more to develop from conception to operation due to environmental review, community input, time needed to obtain permits, legal challenges, and potential community vote.6 While each landfill proposal has unique circumstances, such as size, location, and controversy, that affect the length of the planning and approval process, recent landfill projects in southern California, such as MRL and Eagle Mountain Landfill, have been in the process for more than 15 years, which suggests that there are often challenges that extend and complicate the approval process. 2.2.1 Mesquite Regional Landfill Facility (new) MRL is located in Imperial County and is owned by Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD). According to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), MRL has a disposal capacity of 600 million tons, a throughput capacity of 20,000 tons per day, and a projected life-span of approximately 100 years. MRL is permitted to accept waste from Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, 6 Page - 4 Solid Waste Management in Los Angeles County, presentation by the Department of Public Works, May 10, 2007. San Bernardino, San Diego and Ventura counties. According to LACSD, MRL is operational and ready to accept waste; however, as of January 2011, MRL has not accepted any waste. A wasteby-rail system is currently being developed, in which waste from Los Angeles County will travel from an intermodal facility near the PHL (which is expected to stop receiving refuse by November 1, 2013) to an intermodal facility at MRL. LACSD expects the intermodal rail facility between PHL and MRL to be operational by the end of 2012. Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment LASCD requested an amendment to the CUP that was improved by Imperial County on April 5, 2011. The amended CUP allows for up to 4,000 tons per day of waste to be trucked via transfer trailer from Los Angeles County to MRL, and an additional 1,000 tons per day is reserved for Imperial County. This allowable trucked waste is included as part of the total throughput capacity of 20,000 tons per day. The amended CUP restricts truck-hauled waste to come only from Los Angeles and Imperial Counties; accordingly, the other counties within the Waste Shed cannot truck waste to MRL unless the additional approvals from Imperial County are obtained. Although much of the waste stream that is currently going to PHL could potentially go to MRL, according to LACSD there are no existing disposal agreements between LACSD and any waste haulers or cities/jurisdictions at this time.7 MRL’s disposal capacity is technically available, and is therefore included in the Waste Shed’s available remaining capacity value. 2.2.2 Eagle Mountain Landfill Facility (proposed) Eagle Mountain Landfill (EML) is a proposed disposal facility located in Riverside County. The following is taken from the Los Angeles County Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, 2008 Annual Report: “Eagle Mountain Landfill, Riverside County – The Sanitation Districts signed a purchase agreement for acquisition of the Landfill. However, completion of the purchase of the site is dependent on the resolution of federal litigation. The Landfill is permitted to accept 10,000 tpd for the first 10 years with the option of increasing the daily limit to 20,000 tpd after a review of environmental performance. Its total capacity is 708 million tons and its lifespan is estimated at more than 100 years. It is expected that the Landfill could receive up to 15,000 tpd from Los Angeles County during the planning period.” 7 Per phone conversation and email correspondence with Theresa Dodge, Senior Project Engineer overseeing MRL, LACSD. Page - 5 Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment At this time, no further information is known regarding the potential time-frame of federal litigation or when the disposal facility could potentially become active and is, therefore, not factored into the analysis of this Needs Assessment. APPENDIX B provides a map created by LACSD that shows the waste-by-rail routes to MRL and the proposed EML. 2.2.3 Gregory Canyon Landfill Facility (proposed) The proposed GCL facility would be located in northern San Diego County and would have a permitted disposal capacity of 57.5 million cubic yards (approximately 28.75 million tons). The proposed landfill would occupy approximately 308 acres on the 1,770 acre site, and accept mixed municipal waste without restrictions as to point-of-origin.8 It would be a Class III landfill, meaning the landfill facility will provide “adequate separation between nonhazardous solid waste and waters of the state.”9 This Needs Assessment is intended solely to address the question of whether a new landfill facility is warranted to help meet the Waste Shed’s disposal capacity needs. 2.2.4 San Diego County Proposition A Disposal Facility (proposed) In June 2010, San Diego County voters approved the East Otay Mesa Recycling Collection Center and Landfill ordinance, which provides for the siting of a new recycling center and Class III landfill. The initiative indicates that the disposal facility would occupy approximately 340 acres of a 450 acre site. 10 However, at this time, the facility has not been designed and a Solid Waste Facility Permit application has not been filed. However, preliminary information provided by the project proponent estimates that the facility would have a total capacity of approximately 180,000,000 tons and will be ready to accept waste 8 9 10 Page - 6 Information gathered from CalRecycle Solid Waste Information Systems (SWIS) database as well as the 2005 San Diego Siting Element. From CalRecycle: Regulations: Title 27, Environmental Protection-Division 2, Solid Waste Chapter 3: Criteria for All Waste Management Units, Facilities, and Disposal Sites. Information gathered from San Diego County’s Five-year CIWMP/RAIWMP Review Report as well as “Initiative Measure Title and Summary: East Otay Mesa Recycling Collection Center and Landfill Ordinance.” by 2020.11 As there is no pending application for a Solid Waste Facility Permit, the East Otay Mesa Landfill is not factored into the analysis of this Needs Assessment. APPENDIX D provides the County of San Diego Agenda Item: Certification of Petition Regarding East Otay Mesa Recycling Collection Center and Landfill Ordinance, as well as “Initiative Measure Title and Summary: East Otay Mesa Recycling Collection Center and Landfill Ordinance.” 2.3 2.3.1 Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment Existing San Diego County Disposal and Transfer Facilities San Diego County Siting Element State solid waste law requires that countywide Siting Elements be updated every five years. In addition, state solid waste law and regulations require that a siting element demonstrate that there is a countywide or region-wide minimum of 15 years of combined disposal capacity through existing or planned solid waste disposal and transformation facilities or through additional strategies. (14 CCR §18755(a)). The purpose of the Siting Element is to assist local governments and private industry in planning for integrated waste management and the siting of solid waste disposal facilities. The Siting Element must demonstrate that 15 years of countywide or regional solid waste disposal capacity can be achieved based upon the requirements of state solid waste law as provided in Public Resources Code Section 41701. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) approved the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) for the County of San Diego on February 12, 1997. The Countywide Siting Element for San Diego County was last approved by the CIWMB in 2005. The County is in the process of completing their five year review of the 2005 Siting Element. APPENDIX C provides the County’s Five Year CIWMP/RAIWMP Review Report (Review Report).12 The Review Report, which updates the data in the 2005 Siting Element, concludes that San Diego County continues to have at least 15 years of remaining disposal capacity. However, the Review Report assumes that the Sycamore Sanitary Landfill expansion will occur. Based on the analysis contained in the Review Report, a revision to the Countywide Siting Element of the 11 12 Email correspondence, Lindsay Arbone, Asset Manager, SD Commercial, LLC, March 22, 2011. The San Diego County Review Report used in this Needs Analysis is a draft report. According to Donna Turbyfill, Deputy Director, Management Services of San Diego County, the final Review Report is expected to be completed by mid-April of 2011. Page - 7 Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment CIWMP is not warranted at this time. The Review Report includes an update to the 2005 Siting Element that changes the status of the East Otay Mesa Recycling Collection Center and Landfill from a “Tentatively Reserved” disposal facility to a “Proposed New Disposal Facility.” 2.3.2 Disposal Facilities As of January 2011, San Diego County has approximately 47.5 million tons of available disposal capacity dispersed among six landfills.13 San Onofre and Las Pulgas landfills only accept waste from Camp Pendleton and do not accept waste from the commercial or public sectors. However, for the purposes of this Needs Assessment, the disposal capacities of San Onofre and Las Pulgas landfills have been incorporated into San Diego’s available disposal capacity to account for the waste produced by Camp Pendleton. Sycamore Sanitary Landfill is planning an expansion to overall site capacity as well as a three-phase expansion to increase the disposal site’s permitted daily throughput. The first expansion phase is expected to be completed in 2012 and will provide an increase from 3,965 tons per day to 6,800 tons per day. The second and third expansions are expected to occur by 2020 and 2026, and will increase the disposal site’s daily throughput capacity to 9,000 tons per day and 12,000 tons per day, respectively.14 According to Sycamore Sanitary Landfill staff, the disposal capacity expansion would increase Sycamore’s permitted disposal capacity from approximately 40 million tons to 74.5 million tons; however, such expansion is not currently permitted.15 Expansion to daily throughput capacity was incorporated into San Diego County’s Review Report; however, expansion of total site capacity of Sycamore Sanitary Landfill was not incorporated into San Diego County’s Review Report. Because San Diego County has not received any Solid Waste Facility Permit from Sycamore regarding the proposed expansions, this Needs Assessment has not factored in any potential Sycamore expansions. West Miramar Sanitary Landfill has recently extended its closure date from 2017 to 2019 due to lower than expected disposal rates, which will coincide with the second phase of Sycamore Sanitary 13 14 15 Page - 8 Information gathered from the CalRecycle Solid Waste Information Systems database. According to Donna Turbyfill, Deputy Director, Management Services of San Diego County, Sycamore Sanitary Landfill has not applied for any Solid Waste Facility Permit regarding the aforementioned expansions as of February 11, 2011. Per phone conversation with Tom Gardener, Sycamore Sanitary Landfill on February 17, 2011. Landfill’s expansion in 2020. Additionally, Otay Landfill has an official closure date of 2021; however, due to lower than expected disposal rates it is expected to remain active until 2027. Borrego Landfill has a throughput capacity of 50 tons per day and an estimate closure date of 2030, according to the most recent solid waste facility permit. Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment Table 1 shows the active landfill facilities in San Diego County, their 3-year average accepted waste tonnages for 2007 through 2009, estimated remaining disposal capacity, and estimated closure date. TABLE 1 Landfill Facilities in San Diego County: 3-Year Average Accepted Waste Tonnages for 2007-2009, Estimated Remaining Disposal Capacity, and Estimated Closure Date Average Tons Disposed (2007 – 2009) Estimated Remaining Disposal Capacity as of 12/2010 (Tons) Estimated Closure Date Ramona Landfill16 55,730 x Inactive Borrego Landfill 8,014 231,404 10/31/2030 Otay Landfill 1,274,826 16,520,263 4/30/2021 West Miramar Sanitary Landfill 1,075,218 5,010,847 1/31/2019 900,891 20,090,649 12/31/2031 San Onofre Landfill 584 621,909 11/30/2257 Las Pulgas Landfill 31,957 5,020,030 3/31/2047 3,347,220 47,495,101 Site Name Sycamore Sanitary Landfill Total APPENDIX C provides San Diego County’s Five-Year CIWMP/ RAIWMP Review Report. 2.3.3 Transfer Station Facilities Currently, San Diego County has no restrictions on waste flow into or out of the County. San Diego County has 27 transfer stations with a combined total daily throughput capacity of approximately 10 thousand tons of waste per day. Currently, there is adequate throughput capacity dispersed among San Diego County’s transfer stations to potentially transport waste out-of-county. APPENDIX A includes all transfer/processing stations for each county within the Waste Shed. 16 Note: Ramona Landfill is no longer permitted or active, but is included in this table because it accepted waste until 2009. Page - 9 Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment 3.0 Methodology The Methodology section of this Needs Analysis is organized into the following five major sections:      3.1 Data Sources; State Mandated Requirements and Disposal Reduction Projections; Population Projections; 2010 Base-Year Tonnage and Remaining Capacity Data; and Capacity Projections Model. Data Sources Data sources for the Needs Assessment consisted of:  the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle);  Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG);  San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG);  LACSD;  San Diego County; and  Surveyed jurisdictions, landfill operators, and waste haulers. 3.1.1 facility owners and CalRecycle Data All permitted solid waste facilities in California are required to report various facility data directly to CalRecycle. The required facility data includes:  Tonnage disposed, processed, or transferred;  Material types accepted;  Permitted/remaining capacity; and  Point-of-origin for materials delivered to each facility. All cities, counties, and state approved regional agencies report diversion, disposal, and program data to CalRecycle on a quarterly basis. The following three databases maintained by CalRecycle provided various pieces of information used in this Needs Assessment:   Page - 10 Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) Database; o Landfill information; California Waste Stream Profiles; Jurisdictions/cities and landfill facilities located within each county; o Contact information of landfills, jurisdictions/cities, and counties; and  Disposal Reporting System (DRS); o Disposal tonnages by point-of-origin and by destination (disposal facility). Based on information from the SWIS database, the following items were created: o Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment Itemized data collection forms for each landfill facility (including owner, operator, and contact information) that were used to conduct disposal facility surveys (APPENDIX E);  Google Earth maps showing the exact latitude and longitude of each landfill facility (APPENDIX F); and  Detailed table of all landfill facilities (APPENDIX G). Additional information regarding the methodology of data collection from the CalRecycle SWIS database, California Waste Stream Profiles, and DRS database is provided in APPENDIX H.  3.1.2 Jurisdiction and Landfill Facility Surveys Each of the 6 counties, 206 cities, and 45 permitted landfill facilities within the Waste Shed were contacted by phone and by email. APPENDIX E provides data collection forms (Forms 1a and 1b) used in the surveys. The key information that was gathered from cities and landfill facilities is listed below. For cities and counties: Exclusive disposal agreements (if any); Franchised haulers and associated contract term; Current diversion rate; “Zero-Waste” or other waste diversion goals; and Disposal agreements (if any), and associated landfill facility to which the agreement applies. For landfill facilities:           Permitted, remaining, and throughput capacity (daily or annual depending on the landfill operator’s records); Plans for expansion (if any) and associated time-frame; Closure date; Conversion factor of cubic yards to tons; and Jurisdictions/cities waste is accepted from. Page - 11 Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment The following respondents: table provides a summary of the survey TABLE 2 Summary of Landfills and Jurisdictions Contacted Landfill 46 Landfills Facilities All Attempted 14 provided requested information Counties 6 Counties All Attempted All provided requested information Jurisdictions/ Cities 206 Cities All Approx. 50% provided Attempted requested information The information received from landfill facilities was consistent with the assumption of a conversion factor of 1 ton of disposed waste per 2 cubic yards of permitted capacity (i.e., 1,000 pounds per cubic yard). This conversion factor is important because some information on the CalRecycle website and gathered from landfill surveys is provided in units of cubic yards. The projections model, however, is in units of tons; therefore, the conversion factor of 1 ton equal to 2 cubic yards was used. Each landfill facility that was contacted claimed that the factor depends on several different variables, such as moisture content, amount of time the material has been buried, and type of alternative daily cover (ADC). Accordingly, each landfill facility has a different in-place density of buried refuse that changes over time. 3.2 State Mandated Requirements and Disposal Reduction Projections In 1989, the Integrated Waste Management Act was established in California; it requires “…each city or county plan to include an implementation schedule which shows… diversion of 50 percent of all solid waste by January 1, 2000 through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities.”17 Diversion refers to the redirecting of waste that would otherwise enter a landfill through source reduction, recycling or composting. AB 939 is still in effect today, and while some jurisdictions are struggling to maintain the 50% diversion rate, others are setting goals at much higher rates. For example, the city of Oceanside is currently in the process of creating a “Zero Waste” plan to increase diversion from landfills to 75%. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) requires mandatory 17 Page - 12 From www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/Legislation/calhist/1985to1989.htm increases in commercial recycling to assist in decreasing California’s greenhouse gas emissions. According to the CalRecycle 2008 Statewide Characterization data, the commercial sector accounts for 68% of waste disposed in California. AB 32 aims to significantly increase commercial recycling and decrease disposal tonnage from the commercial sector by up to three million tons annually by 2020. AB 32 also aims to minimize organic material going to landfills by 15 to 18 million tons per year by 2020.18 Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment Current diversion rates and future diversion goals based on correspondence with cities and counties, as well as potential impacts of AB 32, were used to project potential future decreases in disposal tonnage. To analyze the Waste Shed’s projected disposal capacity to the year 2045, the following three potential future disposal tonnage conditions were created and applied uniformly to the Waste Shed: Base-Year Conditions Disposal tonnages are projected based on current conditions and increase based on population growth alone. 20% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2020 A 10% decrease in tons disposed by 2015 and a constant 20% decrease in tons disposed by 2020 and thereafter. Output values are based on population growth and adjusted by the percent reduction in disposal tonnage. 50% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2030 A steady decrease in tons disposed through 2025, and a constant 50% reduction in tons disposed by 2030 and thereafter. Output values are based on population growth and adjusted by the percent reduction in disposal tonnage. Each jurisdiction will most likely have a varied rate of change in tons disposed over the next 35 years; the projected disposal tonnage decreases uniformly apply that percentage change to the Waste Shed as a whole. The projected decreases in tons disposed are based on the following:  Correspondence with cities and counties o 18 All jurisdictions within the Waste Shed are meeting the current state mandated 50% landfill disposal requirement. However, many jurisdictions that were contacted stated that they have no plans to further From http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Climate/Organics/default.htm and http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Climate/Recycling/default.htm Page - 13 decrease landfill disposal through implementation of additional recycling programs. Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment   19 20 Page - 14 o For example, the City of Covina in Los Angeles County has stated that the only future waste diversion goal it has is to meet the current 50% diversion requirement.19 Conversely, Beverly Hills in Los Angeles County reached a 73% diversion rate in 2009, and has goals to exceed that rate.20 o Several jurisdictions, such as the City of Oceanside, have adopted Zero Waste ordinances to decrease future landfill disposal. However, most of the new Zero Waste programs have yet to be implemented. o Franchise agreements between jurisdictions and waste haulers often stipulate specific recycling and/or diversion programs. Additional/new diversion programs mandated by jurisdictions would likely require negotiations with waste haulers and amending current franchise agreements. Current and proposed legislation o AB 939 (current) – requires diversion of at least 50% of solid waste away from landfills. o AB 32 (current) – requires increases in commercial recycling and decreases in landfilled organic material by 2020. o AB 341 (proposed) – would require diversion of at least 75% of solid waste away from landfills by 2020. Diversion Infrastructure o Organic waste represents a significant amount of municipal disposal; however, there is currently a lack of permitted facilities to process diverted organic waste. o Conversion technologies, such as thermal, digestion, and hydrolysis, are processes that transform municipal solid waste into steam, heat, electricity, natural gas, and liquid fuels. Such conversion technology facilities in the U.S. are now emerging. Los Angeles County is actively pursuing Information gathered from the City of Covina’s Department of Public Works. Information gathered from the City of Beverly Hills’ Department of Public Works. the implementation of conversion technologies and reported 0.5 million tons of municipal solid waste sent to a waste-to-energy facility in 2006.21  3.3 Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) aims to create recycling systems that are designed, financed, and managed by the producers themselves. For example, battery and mercury thermostat drop-off stations have been created to divert hazardous materials away from landfills. Estimated disposal reduction due to EPR is between 2% and 5%. Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment Population Projections The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is comprised of six counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, Imperial, San Bernardino, and Ventura. SCAG provides population growth estimates to the year 2035; the methodology in calculating these estimates is based on fertility, mortality and migration for each of four ethnic groups within three population classes. The estimated population values are given in five-year intervals, and are cross-referenced with migration statistics based on the availability of jobs in the region.22 The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is comprised of 18 cities within the county of San Diego. It provides population growth forecasts to the year 2050 in ten-year intervals based on economic and demographic projections, existing landuse plans and policies, and potential land-use plan changes.23 To compile the five-year population projection intervals to the year 2045, the average difference in population between years in which data were available from SCAG or SANDAG was used. For example, the 2010 population of Agoura Hills is 23,347, and is projected to increase to 23,502 by the year 2035. Therefore, the difference in population between 2010 and 2035 is 155, and the average difference (based on five five-year intervals) is 155 divided by 5. This number, which equals 31, is added to the 2035 population value to obtain the 2040 population of Agoura Hills. This process was completed for every unknown population value between or after years of known population estimates. Population data for each city and county is provided in APPENDIX I. 21 22 23 Solid Waste Management in Los Angeles County, presentation by the Department of Public Works, May 10, 2007. From “Forecast Methodology” of the SCAG integrated growth forecasts. http://www.scag.ca.gov/forecast/methods.htm. From “Important Information About This Forecast” of the SANDAG 2050 Growth Forecast. http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/profiles/fcst/city1fcst.pdf. Page - 15 Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment The California Department of Finance provides population projections for every 10-year interval to the year 2050. The projections, however, only estimate population growth by county, not by city. The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 Census data will not be released until approximately September of 2011.24 Accordingly, the SCAG and SANDAG population projections were used. 3.4 2010 Base-year Tonnage and Remaining Capacity Data Complete calendar year 2010 tonnage data will not be available on the CalRecycle website until after the first quarter of 2011; for that reason, the three-year average tonnage values for each jurisdiction within the Waste Shed were calculated. Using tonnage disposed by point-of-origin from the years 2007 through 2009, the average tonnage was calculated and that value was used as the 2010 base-year for the respective jurisdiction. To this base-year value, potential future changes in disposal rates were applied to project future annual tonnages using the projections model. The same methodology of finding a 2010 base-year was also completed for tonnage disposed by point-of-destination, which was used in calculating remaining capacity current as of 2010. The SWIS database provides the remaining capacity of each landfill along with the date that the remaining capacity was appraised; these values were cross-checked with contacted landfill facilities. Most of the remaining capacity dates were evaluated within the last three years; however, landfill facilities have been accepting waste since that time. To assign all landfill facilities a remaining capacity current as of 2010, the 2010 baseyear tonnage was multiplied by the number of years since the remaining capacity was evaluated and subtracted from the remaining capacity value as provided by CalRecycle. For example, if a landfill had a remaining capacity date current as of 2007, the 2010 base-year tonnage of that landfill facility would be subtracted from that landfill facility’s remaining capacity three times to achieve an estimated remaining capacity as of 2010. 3.5 Capacity Projections Model The projections model was created in Microsoft Excel 2010, and used to project disposal tonnage values for each jurisdiction to the year 2045. The model provides output data in five-year intervals based on the following inputs:   24 Page - 16 Population estimates to the year 2045; Tons disposed by jurisdiction for the 2010 base-year; Per the U.S. Census Bureau website.  Landfill facility remaining capacity as of 2010; and  Potential future decreases in tons disposed. Based on these inputs, the model projects future disposal tonnages for each jurisdiction based on population growth alone, which will be referred to as base-year conditions. The model also projects future disposal tonnages for each jurisdiction based on potential decreases in tons disposed. Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment The output values of the model are contingent upon the selected disposal tonnage conditions, and consist of the following output categories: Disposal tonnages for each jurisdiction; Remaining capacity; Needed remaining capacity; Capacity gaps/surplus; and Years of remaining capacity by landfill facility, county, and the Waste Shed. Each of the above output categories are provided for every 5-year interval between 2010 and 2045.      To project how the proposed GCL would affect both the Waste Shed and San Diego County specifically, the permitted capacity of the proposed disposal facility was added to the county in which it will function, and one of the three disposal tonnage conditions was applied. For modeling purposes, GCL is projected to begin accepting waste in 2015.25 As a result, all of the aforementioned output values are provided with GCL’s capacity incorporated. 4.0 Analysis As of December 2010, the Waste Shed had approximately 1.02 billion tons of available disposal capacity. This capacity is dispersed among 45 active landfills, with closure dates ranging from 2012 to 2257. In 2009, the landfills within the Waste Shed accepted a total of 17.8 million tons. The 2009 total of tons disposed by jurisdictions within the Waste Shed was 18.2 million tons. The difference in the total tons accepted by landfill facilities (point-of-destination) and the total tons disposed of by jurisdictions (point-of-origin) is because some jurisdictions export waste to landfill facilities beyond the Waste Shed. For example, Imperial City in Imperial County exports some waste to Copper Mountain in Arizona. Moreover, landfills within the Waste Shed also import waste from beyond the Waste Shed. The difference in tonnage by point-of-origin and tonnage by point-of-destination is 1.8%, 2.4%, 25 San Diego County’s Review Report also assumes GCL will open in 2015, although the actual year is unclear. Page - 17 Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment and 2.4% when comparing 2007, 2008, and 2009 data, respectively. For the purposes of this Needs Assessment, it has been assumed that each jurisdiction’s waste will be disposed-of within the Waste Shed. The analysis section is organized into two main subsections:  Disposal tonnage projections (based on existing capacity); and  Potential impact of GCL. Each subsection provides analysis of the regional Waste Shed as well as San Diego County specifically. In addition, both the Waste Shed and San Diego County are analyzed under base-year conditions, with a 20% decrease in tons disposed by 2020, and with a 50% decrease in tons disposed by 2030. APPENDIX J provides projected disposal tonnages for each jurisdiction within the Waste Shed based on base-year conditions and potential future decreases in tons disposed. 4.1 Disposal Tonnage Projections (Based on Existing Capacity) LACSD has stated that MRL will receive waste via waste-by-rail from an intermodal facility at the soon-closing PHL. There are no current disposal agreements between LACSD and any waste haulers or jurisdictions; accordingly, it is difficult to speculate as to how much tonnage the landfill facility will receive within a given time-frame. LACSD expects that waste-by-rail will begin transporting waste from an intermodal facility at PHL no later than the closure date of PHL (November 1, 2013). Because the disposal capacity introduced by MRL is physically in Imperial County, it is incorporated into Imperial County’s remaining disposal capacity. Imperial County would no longer have immediate disposal capacity needs if MRL were intended solely for that County; however, it is a regional landfill, and is permitted to accept waste from seven counties in southern California. As stated above, there are no existing disposal agreements between LACSD and any waste haulers or jurisdictions; therefore, tonnage values from Los Angeles County or any other county could not be assumed at this time. LACSD anticipates sending waste-by-rail to MRL in 2013; however, due to the lack of current disposal agreements, MRL may not reach the full 20,000 tons per day of permitted daily throughput until approximately 2015. Therefore, for the purposes of this Needs Assessment, MRL’s available disposal capacity has been incorporated into the Waste Shed’s current available capacity, and will begin accepting waste at 20,000 tons per day in 2015. Page - 18 4.1.1 Base-Year Conditions The Base-year conditions represent the status-quo; it assumes that no decrease in disposal tonnage occurs, and that tons disposed grow linearly with population. The 2010 base-year disposal by point-of-origin is 20,678,443 tons; if this disposal tonnage were to stay consistent and grow linearly with population, and assuming no new landfill facilities become active, the Waste Shed’s 1.02 billion tons of available disposal capacity will be depleted by the year 2052. Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment Table 3, below, shows a summary of projected disposal tonnage, available landfill capacity, and years of available remaining capacity within the Waste Shed based on base-year conditions. TABLE 3 Projected Disposal Tonnage, Landfill Capacity, and Years of Remaining Capacity for Waste Shed (Base-Year Conditions) Total Projected Disposal Tonnage within Waste Shed Year Total Tons Year Total Tons 2010 2015 2020 2025 20,678,443 21,734,846 22,759,803 23,730,562 2030 2035 2040 2045 24,642,763 25,486,616 26,434,094 27,345,053 Total Available Landfill Capacity within Waste Shed Year Total Capacity Year Total Capacity 2010 2015 2020 2025 1,018,862,450 912,301,026 800,551,923 683,840,631 2030 2035 2040 2045 562,451,218 436,705,842 306,430,328 171,526,981 Years of Remaining Disposal Capacity within Waste Shed Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 Years Remaining 20.3 42.0 35.2 28.8 Year 2030 2035 2040 2045 Years Remaining 22.8 17.1 11.6 6.3 Assuming no decreases in disposal tonnage occur, available landfill capacity will be exhausted by the year 2052. The above summary table shows the outcome when considering the Waste Shed as a whole; the “total” values assume that disposal capacities are pooled and that any jurisdiction’s waste can travel to any landfill facility. Figures 1 and 2, below, show the percentage of tons disposed and remaining disposal capacity, respectively, for each county within the Waste Shed for 2010. Page - 19 Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment Figure 1 2010 Percentage of Tons Disposed Figure 2 2010 Percentage of Available Disposal Capacity Page - 20 As seen in the above figures, Imperial County disposed of approximately 1% of the Waste Shed’s total disposed waste, while Los Angeles County disposed of approximately 48%. Conversely, as of 2010 Imperial County has approximately 59% of the Waste Shed’s total available disposal capacity, while Los Angeles County has approximately 11%.Table 4, below, shows available landfill capacity for each county within the Waste Shed. Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment TABLE 4 Total Available Landfill Capacity by County (Base-Year Conditions) County 2010 2015 2020 2025 Imperial 601,367,191 600,024,411 598,474,729 596,781,046 Los Angeles 109,378,135 59,159,657 7,398,664 (45,887,675) Orange 74,226,736 57,822,953 40,921,169 23,712,722 Riverside 87,933,699 76,947,580 64,725,963 51,241,651 San Bernardino 98,461,588 88,392,893 77,451,080 65,655,423 San Diego 47,495,101 29,953,533 11,580,317 (7,662,535) 1,018,862,450 912,301,026 800,551,923 683,840,631 2030 2035 2040 2045 594,985,110 593,126,194 591,165,107 589,065,503 (100,653,009) (156,839,616) (214,478,602) (273,607,079) Orange 6,277,469 (11,321,876) (29,170,961) (47,348,271) Riverside 36,606,258 20,876,602 4,008,171 (14,030,698) San Bernardino 53,035,738 39,625,574 25,403,159 10,344,848 (27,800,348) (48,761,037) (70,496,546) (92,897,322) 562,451,218 436,705,842 306,430,328 171,526,981 Total: County Imperial Los Angeles San Diego Total As seen above, Imperial and San Bernardino are the only counties that have sufficient disposal capacity to last until 2045; each of the four other counties will be exhausted of disposal capacity within 35 years. This, however, is assuming that only Imperial County disposes of waste at MRL. Currently, Imperial County only has up to 1,000 tons per day of reserved throughput at MRL. LACSD expects that MRL will primarily serve Los Angeles County’s disposal capacity needs. Because there are no existing disposal agreements, it is unknown how much waste each county could dispose of at MRL; therefore, the disposal capacity introduced by MRL is evaluated with no restrictions as to point of origin. Currently, San Diego County has approximately 47.5 million tons of available disposal capacity; under base-year conditions, this Page - 21 Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment capacity would be depleted by 2024. Figure 3, below, shows the percentage of projected remaining disposal capacity for each county within the Waste Shed in the year 2025. Please note that Los Angeles and San Diego Counties are projected to be out of disposal capacity by 2021 and 2024, respectively; therefore, Los Angeles and San Diego Counties are not included in Figure 3. Figure 3 2025 Percentage of Remaining Disposal Capacity Los Angeles County - Out of capacity in 2021 San Diego County - Out of capacity in 2024 As seen above, San Diego County is projected to be out of disposal capacity by 2024. Although Los Angeles County is projected to be out of disposal capacity by 2021, the substantial remaining capacity shown for Imperial County is associated with MRL, which is owned and operated by LACSD and expected to largely serve Los Angeles County. Table 5, below, shows a summary of the number of remaining years of disposal capacity for the Waste Shed as well as each county. Page - 22 TABLE 5 Years of Remaining Disposal Capacity (Base-Year Conditions) Year Capacity Depleted Years Remaining Imperial 2045+ 1,40126 Los Angeles 2021 10 Orange 2032 21 Riverside 2042 31 San Bernardino 2045+ 34+ San Diego 2024 13 Waste Shed 2052 41 County Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment As seen above, the Waste Shed will be exhausted of disposal capacity by 2052, for a total of 41 years of remaining disposal capacity. San Diego County will be exhausted of disposal capacity by 2024, for a total of 13 years of remaining disposal capacity. Base-Year Key Findings:     4.1.2 The Waste Shed’s Landfill capacity will be exhausted by the year 2052; As of 2011, the Waste Shed has 41 years of remaining disposal capacity; San Diego County’s available disposal capacity will be exhausted by the year 2024; and As of 2011, San Diego County has 13 years of remaining disposal capacity. Decreases in Tons Disposed Assuming a 10% decrease in tons disposed by 2015 and a constant 20% decrease in tons disposed by 2020 and thereafter, the Waste Shed would be depleted of disposal capacity by 2060. The decrease in tons disposed would increase the Waste Shed’s remaining capacity time-frame by 8.5 years when compared to base-year conditions. Table 6, below, shows a summary of years 26 Due to the physical location of MRL in Imperial County, MRL’s available disposal capacity must be incorporated into the remaining disposal capacity of Imperial County. This number does not reflect the actual years of remaining disposal capacity for Imperial County. This value assumes that Imperial County alone uses MRL. Theresa Dodge, Senior Project Engineer overseeing MRL, LACSD, has stated that MRL will primarily serve Los Angeles County. Page - 23 Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment of remaining disposal capacity assuming a 20% decrease in tons disposed by 2020. TABLE 6 Years of Remaining Disposal Capacity (20% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2020) Year Capacity Depleted Years Remaining San Diego 2026 15 Waste Shed 2060 49 County As seen above, the Waste Shed would be exhausted of disposal capacity by 2060, for a total of 49 years of remaining capacity. San Diego County would be depleted of disposal capacity by 2026, for a total of 15 years of remaining capacity. When compared to base-year conditions, San Diego County would gain an additional 2 years of disposal capacity. Assuming a steady decrease in tons disposed through 2025, and a constant 50% reduction in tons disposed by 2030 and thereafter, the Waste Shed would be depleted of disposal capacity by 2081. This decrease in tons disposed would increase the Waste Shed’s remaining capacity time-frame by 29.2 years when compared to base-year conditions. Table 7, below, shows a summary of years of remaining disposal capacity assuming a 50% decrease in tons disposed by 2030: TABLE 7 Years of Remaining Disposal Capacity (50% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2030) Year Capacity Depleted Years Remaining San Diego 2027 16 Waste Shed 2081 70 County As seen above, the Waste Shed would be exhausted of disposal capacity by 2081, for a total of 70 years of remaining capacity. San Diego County would be depleted of disposal capacity by 2027, for a total of 16 years of remaining capacity. When compared to base-year conditions, San Diego County would gain an additional 3 years of disposal capacity. Decreases in Tons Disposed Key Findings:  Page - 24 Assuming a 20% decrease in tons disposed by 2020, the Waste Shed would be depleted of disposal capacity in 2060. As of 2011, the Waste Shed would have 49 years of remaining disposal capacity;    4.2 Assuming a 50% decrease in tons disposed by 2030, the Waste Shed would be depleted of disposal capacity in 2081. As of 2011, the Waste Shed would have 70 years of remaining disposal capacity; Assuming a 20% decrease in tons disposed by 2020, San Diego County would be depleted in of disposal capacity in 2026. As of 2011, San Diego County would have 15 years of remaining disposal capacity; and Assuming a 50% decrease in tons disposed by 2030, San Diego County would be depleted in of disposal capacity in 2027. As of 2011, San Diego County would have 16 years of remaining disposal capacity. Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment Potential Impact of GCL This section is based on the potential of GCL becoming an active landfill in 2015. If approved, GCL will have a permitted site capacity of 57,500,000 cubic yards, which, according to the conversion factor of 1 ton equal to 2 cubic yards, equals 28,750,000 tons. For the purposes of this analysis, GCL’s permitted disposal capacity has been incorporated into San Diego’s remaining disposal capacity, as well as the Waste Shed’s remaining disposal capacity. 4.2.1 Base-Year Conditions with GCL The following table shows the number of remaining years of available disposal capacity under base-year conditions and with the addition of GCL. TABLE 8 Years of Remaining Disposal Capacity (Base-Year with GCL)27 Year Capacity Depleted Years Remaining San Diego w/GCL 2031 20 Waste Shed w/GCL 2053 42 County The approval of GCL would extend San Diego’s time-frame of available disposal capacity from 2024 to 2031, approximately 7.1 27 For each county, the ”Capacity Depleted In” and “Years of Remaining Capacity” values assume that each county disposes of waste at one of the landfills located within that county. For the Waste Shed, the ”Capacity Depleted In” and “Years of Remaining Capacity” values assume that disposal capacities are pooled, and that each county can dispose of waste anywhere in the Waste Shed. Therefore, San Diego County w/GCL assumes that only San Diego County uses GCL, and Waste Shed w/GCL assumes that all six counties use GCL. Page - 25 Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment years when compared to base-year conditions and assuming only San Diego County uses the landfill. If Gregory Canyon were used by all six counties, it would extend the Waste Shed’s available disposal capacity by 1 year. Base-Year with GCL Key Findings:     4.2.2 With GCL, the Waste Shed will be depleted of remaining disposal capacity in 2053; As of 2011, the Waste Shed has 42 years of remaining disposal capacity assuming all counties utilize GCL; San Diego County’s available disposal capacity will be exhausted by the year 2031 assuming only San Diego County uses the landfill; and As of 2011, San Diego County has 20 years of remaining disposal capacity assuming only San Diego County uses the landfill. Decreases in Tons Disposed with GCL Table 9 on the following page shows the number of remaining years of available disposal capacity assuming a 20% decrease in tons disposed by 2020 and with the addition of GCL. TABLE 9 Years of Remaining Disposal Capacity (20% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2020 with GCL) Year Capacity Depleted Years Remaining San Diego w/GCL 2034 23 Waste Shed w/GCL 2062 51 County Assuming only San Diego County uses GCL, the County’s available disposal capacity would be extended until 2034, which is an 8.8 year increase from the previous 20% reduction in tons disposed value. GCL would extend the life-time of available capacity in the Waste Shed to 2062, which is a 1.3 year increase from the previous 20% reduction in tons disposed value. The following table shows the number of remaining years of available disposal capacity assuming a 50% decrease in tons disposed by 2030 and with the addition of GCL. Page - 26 TABLE 10 Years of Remaining Disposal Capacity (50% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2030 with GCL) Year Capacity Depleted Years Remaining San Diego w/GCL 2040 29 Waste Shed w/GCL 2083 72 County Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment Assuming only San Diego County uses GCL, the County’s available disposal capacity would be extended until 2040, which is a 13.6 year increase from the previous 50% reduction in tons disposed value. GCL would extend the life-time of available capacity in the Waste Shed to 2083, which is a 2.1 year increase from the previous 50% reduction in tons disposed value. Decreases in Tons Disposed with GCL Key Findings:     5.0 Assuming a 20% decrease in tons disposed by 2020, the Waste Shed would be depleted of disposal capacity in 2062. As of 2011, the Waste Shed would have 51 years of remaining disposal capacity; Assuming a 50% decrease in tons disposed by 2030, the Waste Shed would be depleted of disposal capacity in 2083. As of 2011, the Waste Shed would have 72 years of remaining disposal capacity; Assuming a 20% decrease in tons disposed by 2020, San Diego County would be depleted of disposal capacity in 2034. As of 2011, San Diego County would have 23 years of remaining disposal capacity; and Assuming a 50% decrease in tons disposed by 2030, San Diego County would be depleted of disposal capacity in 2040. As of 2011, San Diego County would have 29 years of remaining disposal capacity. Study Findings The following are the major findings of this Needs Assessment:  Under current conditions, the Waste Shed has adequate theoretical disposal capacity through 2052 as calculated on a total regional site capacity basis. However: o Of the total available disposal capacity of 1.02 billion tons for the Waste Shed, MRL accounts for approximately 60% of the total available disposal capacity. o Because of limitations placed on MRL in terms of daily capacity and waste transportation to the site, Page - 27 MRL currently cannot realistically meet the future disposal capacity needs of the Waste Shed. In addition, MRL is primarily intended to serve Los Angeles County.28 Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment o  Under current conditions, San Diego County is projected to be out of landfill capacity by 2024. o    28 Page - 28 If MRL only accepts waste originating from Los Angeles County and Imperial County, this results in disposal capacity shortfalls for San Diego County by 2024, Orange County by 2032, and Riverside County by 2042. San Bernardino County has adequate capacity beyond 2045. For San Diego County, there are no practical methods for transporting waste to MRL, as described in Section 6.0. Decreasing disposal through increased diversion programs does extend current disposal capacity as calculated on a total site capacity basis (assumes no new landfill facility): o Projecting a 20% decrease in tons disposed by 2020, the Waste Shed capacity would be extended until 2060. For San Diego County, a 20% reduction in disposal tons would extend disposal capacity until 2026. o Projecting a 50% decrease in tons disposed by 2030, the Waste Shed capacity would be extended until in 2081. For San Diego County, a 50% reduction in disposal tons would extend disposal capacity until 2027. o San Diego County would need to decrease current landfill disposal by 80%+ in order to have sufficient disposal capacity through 2045 and to avoid needing additional disposal capacity. GCL has a minimal effect on the Waste Shed’s available capacity and would only increase disposal capacity by approximately 1 to 2.1 years, depending on potential future diversion programs. GCL could increase San Diego County’s years of remaining disposal capacity by 7.1 to 13.6 years, depending on future diversion programs, and if GCL were restricted to accept in-county waste only. Per phone conversation and email correspondence with Theresa Dodge, Senior Project Engineer overseeing MRL, LACSD. Tables 11 and 12, below, summarize the key findings from the disposal tonnage projections and the potential impact of GCL for the Waste Shed and San Diego County, respectively. TABLE 11 Regional Waste Shed Year of Capacity Depletion Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment Year Capacity Depleted Projection Conditions No New Landfill With Gregory Canyon Base Conditions 2052 2053 20% disposal decrease by 2020 2060 2062 50% disposal decrease by 2030 2081 2083 TABLE 12 San Diego County Year of Capacity Depletion Year Capacity Depleted Projection Conditions No New Landfill With Gregory Canyon Base Conditions 2024 2031 20% disposal decrease by 2020 2026 2034 50% disposal decrease by 2030 2027 2040 6.0 Study Conclusions Under current conditions, the Waste Shed has adequate disposal capacity through 2045. The proposed GCL has no restrictions as to point-of-origin of waste; however, waste flow to the proposed GCL disposal site from many areas within the Waste Shed would be limited by current disposal agreements and economic practicality.29 The counties of Orange and San Bernardino have disposal agreements that direct the majority of in-County waste to be disposed of in-county. Riverside County has adequate disposal capacity to last beyond 2040; however, due to the close proximity of the proposed GCL to the southern portion of Riverside County, it may be economically practical for cities such as Murrieta and Temecula to dispose of waste at GCL. While Los Angeles County could theoretically dispose of waste at GCL, it may not be as economically viable as sending waste-by-rail to MRL, which is 29 Economic practicality refers to costs associated with waste flow, such as transportation costs and tipping fees. Page - 29 Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment primarily intended to serve Los Angeles County’s disposal needs.30 Additionally, Imperial County has adequate disposal capacity within the County because of a relatively low demand and the reserved 1,000 tons per day at MRL. Therefore, due to the above reasons and the likely economic advantages of disposing of waste locally, the majority of waste flow received by GCL would most likely come from San Diego County. Under current conditions, and assuming current rates of diversion, San Diego County is estimated to be out of disposal capacity in 2024. West Miramar Sanitary Landfill is projected to close in 2019. Sycamore Sanitary Landfill has stated that they are in the permitting process to undergo an expansion to overall disposal capacity, as well as daily throughput.31 Due to the close proximity of West Miramar to Sycamore, much of the waste currently going to West Miramar will likely go to Sycamore once West Miramar closes. The potential expansion to Sycamore’s disposal capacity would certainly benefit San Diego County’s disposal needs; however, additional disposal capacity will still be needed considering the closure of Miramar Landfill and the uncertain timeframe and planned disposal capacity of the East Otay Mesa Recycling Collection Center and Landfill (Proposition A Landfill). It is important to note that while new landfills, other than GCL, could be proposed in San Diego County, the complexity and controversial nature of landfill development is such that the planning and permitting process often takes many years.32 Currently, no landfills in northern San Diego County accept mixed municipal waste; therefore, the majority of waste received by GCL would most likely come from San Diego County, specifically northern San Diego County, and possibly south Riverside County. 30 31 32 Page - 30 Per phone conversation and email correspondence with Theresa Dodge, Senior Project Engineer overseeing MRL, LACSD. Tom Gardener of Sycamore Sanitary Landfill stated that Sycamore is in the permitting process to undergo an expansion to overall permitted disposal site capacity, as well as a three-phase expansion to permitted daily throughput. However, Donna Turbyfill, Deputy Director, Management Services of San Diego County, has stated that San Diego County has not received a Solid Waste Facility Permit for the proposed Sycamore expansions as of February 11, 2011. The expansion to overall disposal site capacity was not factored into this Needs Assessment, nor was it factored into San Diego County’s FiveYear Review Report. CalRecycle indicates that it takes 7 to 10 years to plan, design, and permit a new landfill. However, as indicated previously, recent landfill projects in southern California, such as MRL and Eagle Mountain Landfill have been in the process for more than 15 years. GCL, with the passage of Proposition C in 1994, has been in the process for over 15 years. If the proposed GCL were not developed, San Diego County waste could potentially be exported out-of-County; however, there are contractual and possible economic limitations to be considered.      Orange County does not anticipate extending agreements to bring in out-of-County waste past 2016; San Bernardino County is limited to between 20,000 and 100,000 tons per year of out-of-county waste; Riverside County could potentially accept waste from San Diego County, although an out-of-County waste agreement would be required;33 Los Angeles County does not have restrictions on waste importation; however, it may not be economically viable for San Diego County to transport waste to Los Angeles County. Additionally, Los Angeles County does not have adequate disposal capacity to last beyond 2030 under current conditions. Los Angeles County is in the process of exporting waste out-of-County, as seen with MRL and their interest in Eagle Mountain Landfill; competition due to the limited amount of disposal capacity in-county will likely drive tipping fees up. Based on this assumption, it would not be economically desirable for San Diego County haulers to incur the increased cost in tipping fees as well as transportation costs; and Imperial County facilities, other than MRL, have a small daily throughput capacity and would not sustain a significant amount of waste from San Diego County. MRL cannot accept truck-hauled waste from San Diego County and there is no existing intermodal rail facility to transport waste from San Diego County to MRL. Furthermore, San Diego County has no plans to construct an intermodal rail facility.34 Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment Based on the analysis in this Needs Assessment, the proposed GCL would have a small effect on the Waste Shed’s disposal capacity needs and is therefore not needed on a regional basis. However, given San Diego County’s current remaining disposal capacity and the limitations affecting other counties in accepting out-of-county waste, GCL would assist San Diego County in meeting their disposal capacity needs. 33 34 Per email correspondence with Bob Anderson, Program Administrator, Riverside County Waste Management Department. Per phone and email correspondence with Donna Turbyfill, Deputy Director, Management Services of San Diego County. Page - 31 This page intentionally left blank. Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment I25 Page - 32 Appendix A Transfer/Processing Stations in Waste Shed APPENDIX A County Name Materials Accepted Throughput Throughput Units Owner Imperial County Imperial Imperial Palo Verde Transfer Station Valley Environmental Services-Recycling Imperial Ocotillo Solid Waste Transfer Station Imperial Imperial Holtville Transfer Facility Allied Imperial Small Vol.CDI Proc Op Imperial CR&R Material Recovery & Transfer Op. Imperial Harris Road LLC MRF and Transfer Station Mixed Municipal Waste Mixed Municipal Waste Construction/demolition,Mixed Municipal Waste Mixed Municipal Waste Construction/demolition,Inert Construction/demolition,Green Materials,Metals,Mixed Municipal Waste Construction/demolition,Green Materials,Inert,Mixed Municipal Waste,Tires,Wood waste 60 Cu Yards/day 200 Tons/day County of Imperial, Public Works Imperial Landfill, Inc. 15 Tons/day County of Imperial, Public Works 20 Tons/day 25 Tons/day County of Imperial, Public Works Imperial Landfill, Inc. 15 Tons/day CR and R Incorporated 1,500 Cu Yards/day Harris Road LLC APPENDIX A County Name Materials Accepted Throughput Throughput Units Owner Los Angeles County Los Angeles American Waste Transfer Station Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles City Of San Gabriel Disposal Site South Gate Transfer Station City Of Santa Monica Transfer Station Azusa Land Reclamation Co. Landfill Los Angeles Compton Recycling & Transfer Station Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Pebbly Beach (Avalon) Disposal Site City Of Inglewood Transfer Station Altadena Shop La Co Dept Public Wrks Roads Dept # 553 La Co Public Wrks,roads Dept, #523a T.S. La Co Dept Public Wrks Roads Dept #556 Road Division 514 Road Division #233 Transfer Station Road Maintenance Division #232 S.V.T.S. LA County Dept Public Wrks #436TS Road Division 232A - Lomita L.A County Dept. Public Works # 339 LVTS Los Angeles LA County Rd. Maintenance Div. #241 LVTO Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles La Co Public Wrks, Roads Dept, #557 La Co Dept Public Wrks Roads Dept #551 La Co Dept Public Wrks Roads Dept #552TS La Co Dept Public Wrks Roads Dept #555TS La Co Dept Public Wrks Roads Dept #558TS Redondo Beach Transfer Station Road Division 519 Road Division 417 County of Los Angeles, R.M. Div. 446 RD 518 Los Angeles LA County Rd. Main. Div. #142 LVTO Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Road Maintenance Division #4, S.V.T.S. Road Division 416 Co of Los Angeles, R.M. Div. #448 Road Maintenance - District 1 Los Angeles Culver City Transfer/Recycling Station Los Angeles Commerce Refuse-To-Energy Facility Los Angeles Downey Area Recycling & Transfer Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Bel Air Street Maintenance Dist Yard Cahuenga Pass St Maintenance Dist Yard Alabama Street MDY (Tree Yard) Central Street MDY Eagle Rock Street MDY Hollywood Street MDY Lindley Avenue Transfer Station North Hollywood - Studio City Street MDY Palisades Street MDY San Fernando Street MDY Southeast Street MDY Sunland Street MDY Van Nuys Street MDY Wilshire Street MDY East Street Maintenance District Yard Granada Hills Street MDY Agricultural,Const./Dem.,Green Materials,Industrial,Inert,Manure,Metals, MMW Green Materials,MMW Const./Dem.,Industrial,Inert,MMW Industrial,MMW Contaminated soil Const./Dem.,Green Materials,Industrial,MMW MMW Green Materials,MMW Const./Dem.,Green Materials,MMW Green Materials,Inert,MMW Green Materials,Inert,MMW Const./Dem.,Green Materials,MMW Const./Dem.,Other designated Const./Dem.,Green Materials,MMW Const./Dem.,Inert,Other designated MMW Const./Dem.,Inert,Other designated Construction/demolition.,Green Materials,Inert,Metals,Mixed Municipal Waste,Tires Green Materials,Inert,MMW Green Materials,Inert,MMW Green Materials,MMW Green Materials,Inert,MMW Green Materials,Inert,MMW Const./Dem.,Green Materials,MMW Const./Dem.,Green Materials,MMW Const./Dem.,Green Materials,MMW Const./Dem.,Green Materials,MMW Const./Dem.,Inert Construction/demolition.,Green Materials,Inert,Metals,Mixed Municipal Waste,Tires Const./Dem.,Green Materials,Inert,MMW Const./Dem.,MMW Const./Dem.,Green Materials,MMW Const./Dem.,MMW Const./Dem.,Green Materials,Industrial,Inert,MMW,Tires Industrial,MMW Const./Dem.,Green Materials,Industrial,MMW MMW Const./Dem.,Green Materials,MMW Const./Dem.,Green Materials,MMW Const./Dem.,Green Materials,MMW Const./Dem.,Green Materials,MMW MMW Const./Dem.,Green Materials,MMW MMW Const./Dem.,Green Materials,MMW Const./Dem.,Green Materials,MMW MMW MMW Const./Dem.,MMW,Tires MMW Const./Dem.,MMW,Tires Const./Dem.,MMW,Tires 2,225 Tons/day Republic Services Of California Ii, LLC 50 1,000 400 6,500 City Of San Gabriel County Of Los Angeles Sanitation Dist City Of Santa Monica Cu Yards/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day 1,500 Tons/day 49 100 20 8 10 25 50 10 200 10 200 Tons/day Tons/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Tons/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Tons/day Cu Yards/month Tons/day Cu Yards/month B.F.I. Waste Systems Of N.A. Inc. City Of Avalon City Of Inglewood Los Angeles Co Public Works Road M. Div L.A. County Dept. Of Public Works L.A. County Dept. Of Public Works Los Angeles Co Public Works Road M. Div Los Angeles Co Public Works Road M. Div County Of Los Angeles, Dpt Of Pub. Works County of Los Angeles Dept. Public Works Los Angeles County, Dpt. Of Public Works County of Los Angeles Dept. Public Works 35 Cu Yards/day County of Los Angeles Dept. Public Works 8 8 8 10 10 46 10 10 4 10 Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Tons/day Cu Yards/day L.A. County Dept. Of Public Works L.A. County Dept. Of Public Works Los Angeles Co Dept. of Public Works L.A. County Dept. Of Public Works L.A. County Dept. Of Public Works City Of Redondo Beach Los Angeles Co Public Works Road M. Div Los Angeles Co Public Works Road M. Div Los Angeles County, Dpt. Of Public Works County of Los Angeles PW 20 Cu Yards/day County of Los Angeles Dept. Public Works 10 10 10 10 County Of Los Angeles, Dpt Of Pub. Works Los Angeles Co Public Works Road M. Div Los Angeles Co Public Works Road M. Div Los Angeles Co Public Works Road M. Div Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Tons/day Cu Yards/day 500 Tons/day City Of Culver City - San. Div. Of P.W.D 1,000 Tons/day Commerce Refuse-TO-Energy Authority 5,000 Tons/day LA County San. Dist. & Downey Area R.& T 68 60 60 60 60 68 60 68 60 60 68 68 500 68 700 1,000 City Of Los Angeles Bur Of Street Maint City Of Los Angeles Bur Of Street Maint City of Los Angeles Bureau of St. Maint. City Of Los Angeles Bur Of Street Maint City Of Los Angeles Bur Of Street Maint City Of Los Angeles Bur Of Street Maint City Of Los Angeles Bur Of Street Maint City Of Los Angeles Bur Of Street Maint City Of Los Angeles Bur Of Street Maint City Of Los Angeles Bur Of Street Maint City Of Los Angeles Bur Of Street Maint City Of Los Angeles Bur Of Street Maint City Of Los Angeles Bur Of Street Maint City Of Los Angeles Bur Of Street Maint City Of Los Angeles Bur Of Street Maint City Of Los Angeles Bur Of Street Maint Tons/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Tons/day Cu Yards/day Tons/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Tons/day Tons/day Cu Yards/day Tons/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day APPENDIX A County Name Materials Accepted Throughput Units Throughput Owner Los Angeles County Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Southwest Street MDY Silverlake Maintenance Station - LVTOp Salt Lake Transfer Station Alhambra Roll-Off Bin Transfer Station Paramount Resource Recycling Facility East Los Angeles Recycling And Transfer Southern Cal. Disposal Co. R. & T.S. Los Angeles Waste Management South Gate Transfer Los Angeles Waste Resources Recovery Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles City Terrace Recycling Transfer Station Athens Services B G Rubbish Grand Central Recycling And Transfer Sta Los Angeles Puente Hills Materials Recovery Facility Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Torrance City Services Facility City of Compton Maintenance Yard Public Service Transfer Station #1 Public Service Transfer Station #2 Robs Roll Off and Recycling City of Pasadena Public Works LVTS City of Lancaster Main. Yard. MVTS City of Lakewood LVTO Olive and Center Yard (LVTO) City of Palmdale Limited Volume S T Los Angeles City of San Fernando Corp. Yard Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles City of Glendale Corporation Yard Two Harbors Transfer (Catalina Island) Pomona Municipal Direct Transfer Fac. Recycled Wood Products Construction and Demolition Recycling City of Irwindale Limited TS Operation Los Angeles CalTrans Monrovia Maintenance LVTOp Los Angeles CalTrans Whittier Maintenance LVTOp Los Angeles CalTrans Humphreys Maintenance LVTOp Los Angeles CalTrans Garey Maintenance, Route 071 Los Angeles Los Angeles Caltrans Rosemead Maintenance LVTOp Caltrans Florence Maintenance LVTOp Los Angeles CalTrans Cerritos Maintenance LVTOp Los Angeles Caltrans Bellflower Maintenance LVTOp Los Angeles CalTrans Valencia Maintenance LVTOp Los Angeles CalTrans Lancaster Maintenance LVTOp Los Angeles Caltrans Newhall Maintenance LVTOp Los Angeles CalTrans Altadena Maintenance LVTOp Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles City of Glendale Brand Park T.S. Rent-a-Bin (Inert Type A OPeration) Rent-a-Bin (Small Vol. CDI Operation) Perez Disposal Co., Inc. City of Sierra Madre Limited Vol T. Op. Pico Rivera Material Recovery Facility Mission Recycling / West Coast Recycling Mission Recycling/West Coast Recycling Allan Company Material Recovery Facility Los Angeles EDCO Recycling and Transfer Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Nixon St. Yard- City of Lakewood American Remedial Technologies Norwalk Transfer Station Bel-Art Waste Transfer Station Southeast Resource Recovery Facility Const./Dem.,MMW,Tires MMW Green Materials,MMW Green Materials,MMW Const./Dem.,Industrial,MMW Const./Dem.,MMW Green Materials,Industrial,MMW Const./Dem.,Green Materials,Industrial,Inert,MMW Const./Dem.,Inert,MMW,Tires,Wood waste Industrial,MMW Industrial,MMW Const./Dem.,Inert Const./Dem.,Green Materials,Inert,MMW Const./Dem.,Green Materials,Industrial,Inert,MMW,Wood waste Const./Dem.,Inert,MMW Const./Dem.,Inert,MMW Green Materials Green Materials,MMW Construction/demolition. Const./Dem.,Green Materials,MMW MMW Green Materials Green Materials,MMW Inert,MMW Construction/demolition.,Green Materials,Inert,Metals Green Materials,Inert,MMW Const./Dem.,MMW MMW Const./Dem.,Inert Const./Dem.,Inert,Metals,Wood waste Green Materials,Inert,Metals,MMW,Tires Const./Dem.,Green Materials,Inert,MMW,Tires Const./Dem.,Green Materials,Inert,MMW,Tires Green Materials,Inert,Metals,MMW,Tires Construction/demolition.,Green Materials,Inert,Metals,Mixed Municipal Waste,Tires Const./Dem.,Inert,Metals,MMW,Tires Const./Dem.,Inert,Metals,MMW,Tires Construction/demolition.,Green Materials,Inert,Metals,Mixed Municipal Waste,Tires Construction/demolition.,Green Materials,Inert,Metals,Mixed Municipal Waste,Tires Construction/demolition.,Green Materials,Inert,Metals,Mixed Municipal Waste,Tires Const./Dem.,Green Materials,Inert,Metals,MMW,Tires Const./Dem.,Inert,Metals,MMW,Tires Const./Dem.,Green Materials,Inert,Metals,MMW,Tires Green Materials,Inert,MMW Inert Const./Dem. Const./Dem.,Inert Green Materials,Inert,MMW MMW MMW MMW MMW Asphalt Shingles,Construction/demolition.,Food Wastes,Green Materials,Industrial,Inert,Metals,Mixed Municipal Waste,Wood waste Const./Dem.,Green Materials,MMW Contaminated soil Green Materials,MMW Const./Dem.,Green Materials,Inert,MMW Green Materials,MMW,Other hazardous 500 100 99 40 2,450 700 1,056 Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day City Of Los Angeles Bur Of Street Maint Calif Dept Of Transpo-Sacramento City Of South Gate City Of Alhambra Metropolitan Waste Disposal Corporation Perdomo/Blt Ent. L.L.C. C/O Cons.Sv.,Inc Southern Cal. Disposal Co. R. & T.S. 2,000 Tons/day H.B.J.J., Inc. Sub. Of USA Waste 500 Tons/day Waste Resources Recovery, Inc. 700 5,000 25 5,000 Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day 4,400 Tons/day 7 13 12 8 10 9 100 15 3 20 Cu Yards/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day 7 Tons/day 120 40 150 200 3,000 55 Tons/month Cu Yards/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Cu Yards/day Arsenian, Robert M. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. Arklin, Hank Grand Central Recycling And T.S. Inc. County Of Los Angeles Sanitation Dist City of Torrance City Of Compton City of Long Beach,Public Service Bureau City of Long Beach,Public Service Bureau Perez, Roberto A. City Of Pasadena City of Lancaster Public Works City of Lakewood Dept. Public Works City of Baldwin Park City of Palmdale City of San Fernando, Public Works City of Glendale, Public Works Santa Catalina Island Company (SCIC) City of Pomona Kiralla, Chris Interior Removal Specialist, Inc. City of Irwindale, Public Works Dept. 10 Cu Yards/day State of California. CalTtrans 35 Cu Yards/day State of California. CalTtrans 35 Cu Yards/day State of California. CalTtrans 40 Cu Yards/day State of California. CalTtrans 12 Tons/day 12 Tons/day State of California. CalTtrans State of California. CalTtrans 12 Tons/day State of California. CalTtrans 9 Tons/day State of California. CalTtrans 60 Cu Yards/day State of California. CalTtrans 60 Cu Yards/day State of California. CalTtrans 60 Cu Yards/day State of California. CalTtrans 60 Cu Yards/day State of California. CalTtrans 15 1,499 24 25 7 327 300 200 750 Cu Yards/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day 1,500 Tons/day 4 25,000 100 1,500 2,240 Tons/day Tons/month Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day City of Glendale Parksand Recreation Randall, Howard Randall, Howard Perez Disposal Co. , Inc City of Sierra Madre, Public Works Samarin, Danny D.. Soils, Al Soils, Al Cedarwood-Young DBA Alan Company Lee FT: PhilEsp, LLC: Cockriel FT City of Lakewood Westech Realty, LLC Norwalk Industries Transfer Station Consolidated Disposal Services L.L.C. Serrf, Joint Powers Authority APPENDIX A County Name Materials Accepted Throughput Throughput Units Owner Los Angeles County Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Carson Transfer Station & MRF Azteca Rubbish Rent-A-Bin Falcon Refuse Center, Inc Community Recycling / Res Recovery , Inc Central LA Recycling & TS (CLARTS) Mission Road Recycling & Transfer Statio Angelus Western Paper Fibers, Inc. Harbor Street Maintenance District Yard Canoga Park Street Maintenance District Silverlake St. Maintenance District Yard Reseda/Woodlamd Hills St. Maint. D.Yard South Street Maintenance District Yard Thatcher Street Maintenance Dist. Yard Washington Blvd. Bulky Item DropOff Ct. Los Angeles East Valley Bulky Item Drop-off Center Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Falcon Woodwaste Grinding and Storage Op Looney Bins./East Valley Diversion Looney Bins/Downtown Diversion California Waste Services (CWS) Sun Valley Paper Stock MRF and ST Direct Disposal C&D Recycling San Fernando CalTrans - LVTOp. North Hollywood Caltrans - LVTOp. Tarzana Cal Trans - Limited Vol. T/S Op. CWS-Type A Inert Debris Proc. Operation Los Angeles Express Materials Rec. Fac. City Fibers -West Valley Plant City Fibers - LA Plant No. 2 Bradley East Processing/Transfer Station Caltrans Westdale LVTOp. American Reclamation CDI Processing Fac. L & S Disposal Los Angeles Athens Sun Valley Mat. Rec. & TS Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Western District Satellite Yard Cordova Construction Services Innovative Waste Control Const./Dem.,Industrial,MMW Const./Dem.,Inert Const./Dem.,Inert Const./Dem.,Industrial,MMW Const./Dem.,Industrial,MMW MMW Const./Dem.,Green Materials,MMW MMW Const./Dem.,Inert,MMW Const./Dem.,Inert,MMW Const./Dem.,Inert,MMW Const./Dem.,Inert,MMW Const./Dem.,Inert,MMW Const./Dem.,Inert,MMW Const./Dem.,Metals,MMW,Tires Metals,MMW,Tires,Tires, Passenger,Wood waste Wood waste Const./Dem. Const./Dem. Const./Dem. Industrial,MMW Const./Dem. Green Materials,Inert,MMW Green Materials,Inert,MMW Green Materials,Inert,MMW Inert MMW MMW MMW Agricultural,Green Materials,Manure Const./Dem.,Green Materials,Inert,MMW Const./Dem.,Inert Metals,MMW Const./Dem.,Green Materials,Inert,Metals,MMW,Wood waste MMW Const./Dem.,Green Materials,MMW Const./Dem.,Industrial,Inert,MMW 5,300 25 25 1,850 1,700 4,025 1,785 650 60 60 60 60 60 60 15 Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Tons/day 15 Tons/day 199 750 1,500 1,000 750 200 60 60 60 1,500 240 350 300 1,500 60 175 8 Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Cu Yards/day Tons/day Tons U.S.A. Waste Of California, Inc. Cordova, Jaun Randall, Howard and Mary Allied Waste Transfer Services of Calif. Fry, Thomas City of Los Angeles Waste Management Inc - Bradley Lf & Miss Bloom Investment City of Los Angeles, Bureau of St. Serv. City of Los Angeles, Bureau of St. Serv. City of Los Angeles, Bureau of St. Serv. City of Los Angeles, Bureau of St. Serv. City of Los Angeles, Bureau of St. Serv. City of Los Angeles, Bureau of St. Serv. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanition City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation Browning Ferris Industries of CA (BFI) City of Los Angeles Dept. Water /Power Southern California Gas Company Harbor Redondo, LLC Young, Stephen A. Agajanian, Daniel and Tamara California Dept. of Transportation California Dept. of Transportation California Dept. of Transportation Harbor Redondo LLC. Olga Wilheim Trust; Miguel Dilella City Fibers City Fibers Waste Mgt. Recycling &Disposal Ser.of CA California Dept. of Transportation Glendale Metals and Recycling, Inc. L & S Disposal 1,500 Tons/day Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. 149 Tons/day 60 Cu Yards/day 1,250 Tons/day City Of Los Angeles Bureau Of Sanitation Cordova Construction Services Inc Consolidated Disposal Services L.L.C. APPENDIX A County Name Materials Accepted Throughput Units Throughput Owner Orange County Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Stanton Recycling and Transfer Facility Rainbow Transfer/Recycling Company, Inc. CVTRegional Material. Recovery and TS Sunset Envir Inc TS/Resource Rec Fac City Of Newport Beach Transfer Station Waste Management Of Orange Madison Materials, Inc. CR&R South County MRF City of Stanton Public Works Yard Waste Mgt. of Orange LVTS City of Brea Service Center LVTO City of Costa Mesa Corporation Yard City of Laguna Beach Corporation Yard City of Fullerton Maintenance Ser. Dept. City of Cypress Maintenance Yard LVTSOp City of La Habra Public Work Dept. City of Santa Ana Corporate Yard City of San Clemente LVTS Municipal Service Center LVTS Op. City of Orange Corporate Yard LVTS Op. City of Huntington Beach, P.W.Yard City of Villa Park LVT Operation City of Seal Beach Public Works Yard Fountain Valley City Yard City of Yorba Linda LVTOp. City of San Juan Capistrano LVTOp. City of Huntington Beach # 2-LVTOp. City of Irvine Op.Support Fac. LVT Op. Caballero Yard - LVT Op. Corporate City Yard Buena park Placenta Street Sweeper Trandfer Station Vermont Street Sweeper Transfer Station Pinney Street Sweeper Transfer Satation City of Westminster Maintenance LVT Op. Cresent Street Sweeper Transfer Station City of Tustin Maintaance Yard -LVTOp. Ninth Street Sweeper Transfer Stations Western Street Sweeper TransferStataion Bellis Park Yard - LVT Op. City of La Palma Corp.Yard LVTOp. City of Los Alamitos LVT Op. City of Placentia Corp. Yard - LVTOp. Prima Deshecha Materials Recovery Fac. OC Public Works Portola Yard LVTO OC Public Works Capistrano Yard LVTO Agricultural,Construction/demolition.,Indu strial,Mixed Municipal Waste Construction/demolition.,Industrial,Mixed Municipal Waste,Wood waste Industrial,Mixed Municipal Waste Construction/demolition.,Industrial,Mixed Municipal Waste Construction/demolition.,Mixed Municipal Waste Construction/demolition.,Mixed Municipal Waste Construction/demolition.,Green Materials,Inert,Metals Construction/demolition.,Food Wastes,Green Materials,Wood waste Construction/demolition.,Inert,Metals,Mix ed Municipal Waste,Wood waste Mixed Municipal Waste Green Materials,Mixed Municipal Waste Construction/demolition.,Green Materials,Inert,Mixed Municipal Waste Mixed Municipal Waste Mixed Municipal Waste Green Materials,Mixed Municipal Waste Construction/demolition.,Green Materials,Mixed Municipal Waste Construction/demolition.,Green Materials,Mixed Municipal Waste Construction/demolition.,Green Materials,Mixed Municipal Waste Construction/demolition.,Green Materials,Mixed Municipal Waste Construction/demolition.,Green Materials,Mixed Municipal Waste Inert,Mixed Municipal Waste Mixed Municipal Waste Mixed Municipal Waste Green Materials,Mixed Municipal Waste Green Materials,Mixed Municipal Waste Green Materials,Mixed Municipal Waste Mixed Municipal Waste Inert,Mixed Municipal Waste Green Materials,Mixed Municipal Waste Green Materials,Inert,Mixed Municipal Waste Inert,Mixed Municipal Waste Inert,Mixed Municipal Waste Inert,Mixed Municipal Waste Inert,Mixed Municipal Waste Inert,Mixed Municipal Waste Green Materials,Inert,Mixed Municipal Waste Inert,Mixed Municipal Waste Inert,Mixed Municipal Waste Green Materials,Inert,Mixed Municipal Waste Inert,Mixed Municipal Waste Green Materials,Wood waste Green Materials,Inert,Mixed Municipal Waste Mixed Municipal Waste Construction/demolition. Construction/demolition. 1,800 Tons/day 2,800 Tons/day 6,000 Tons/day 3,000 300 1,500 950 980 Sunset Environmental Tons/day City Of Newport Beach Tons/day Hambarian Properties Tons/day JBW Enterprises, LLC Tons/day Rancho Mission Viejo, LLC Cu Yards/day 15 Tons/day 12 Tons/day 50 Cu Yards/day 4 Tons/day 40 Cu Yards/day 10 Tons/day 10 5 60 3 55 12 1 2 3 40 55 60 48 15 4 4 2 6 4 City of Stanton USA Waste of California, Inc, City of Brea City of Costa Masa City of Laguna Beach City of Fullerton Main..Ser. Dept. City of Cypress Public Works Dept. Cu Yards/day City of La Harba Public Works Dept. Tons/day City of Sanat Ana Corporate Yard Tons/day City of San Clemente Cu Yards/day City of Garden Grove Public Works Dept. Tons/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day City of Orange, Public Works Dept. City of Huntington Beach City of Villa Park City of Seal Beach City of Fountain Valley City of Yorba Linda, Public Works City of San Juan Capistrano City of Huntington Beach City of Irvine City of Buena Park Cu Yards/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day City of Buena Park City of Anaheim, Finance Department City of Anaheim, Finance Department City of Anaheim, Finance Department Southern California Edison City of Anaheim, Finance Department 8 Tons/day 3 Tons/day 3 Tons/day 12 Cu Yards/day 20 Cu Yards/day 3 Tons/day 45 JBST Properties, LLC Republic Waste Services of So. CA, LLC Tons/day 10 20 City Of Stanton Cu Yards/day 1,000 Tons/day 30 Cu Yards/day 30 Cu Yards/day City of Tustin City of Anaheim, Finance Department City of Anaheim, Finance Department City of Buena Park City of La Palma Pubilc Works Joint Forces Training Base City of Placentia OC Waste & Recycling Orange County Public Works Department Orange County Public Works Department APPENDIX A County Name Materials Accepted Throughput Throughput Units Owner Riverside County Riverside Pinon Flats Transfer Station Lim Vol Op. Riverside Idyllwild Collection Station Riverside Riverside Moreno Valley Solid Waste R & T Facility Perris Transfer Station and MRF Riverside Coachella Valley Transfer Station Riverside Riverside Riverside Anza Collection Station Chuckawalla Valley State Prison Rasp Fac Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Edom Hill Transfer Station Southern California Recycling Palm Springs Transfer and Recycling Fac. Palm Springs Disposal Services MACTEC Recycling Facility Desert Recycling, Inc. T.O.M. Site Palo Verde Valley Disposal Services Mixed Municipal Waste Ash,Construction/demolition.,Green Materials,Inert,Metals,Mixed Municipal Waste,Wood waste Construction/demolition.,Green Materials,Metals,Mixed Municipal Waste Green Materials,Mixed Municipal Waste Agricultural,Construction/demolition.,Gre en Materials,Industrial,Inert,Metals,Mixed Municipal Waste,Tires Construction/demolition.,Green Materials,Inert,Metals,Mixed Municipal Waste,Wood waste Mixed Municipal Waste Mixed Municipal Waste Agricultural,Construction/demolition.,Dea d Animals,Food Wastes,Green Materials,Industrial,Metals,Mixed Municipal Waste,Tires,Wood waste Green Materials,Inert,Metals Mixed Municipal Waste Mixed Municipal Waste Construction/demolition.,Wood waste Mixed Municipal Waste Inert,Mixed Municipal Waste Mixed Municipal Waste 36 Cu Yards/day US Forest Svc-Idyllwild 60 Tons/day 2,000 Tons/day 3,000 Tons/day County Of Riverside Waste Mgmt Dept Waste Management Of The Desert CR&R Incorporated 1,100 Tons/day County Of Riverside Waste Mgmt Dept Tons/day 60 Tons/day 25 Tons/day County Of Riverside Waste Mgmt Dept County Of Riverside Waste Mgmt Dept State Of Calif/Dept Of Corrections 2,700 2,600 3,040 750 10 175 1,500 14 8 Tons/day Tons/year Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Riverside Co. Waste Management Dept. Southern California Recycling Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. Palm Spring Disposal Services Rios, Gloria O. Mehring, Robert and Stephanie Pina, Salvador and Ella Benz Disposal Company Inc. APPENDIX A County Name Materials Accepted Throughput Throughput Units Owner San Bernardino County San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino Victorville Sanitary Landfill USMC - 29 Palms Disposal Facility Heap`s Peak Transfer Station Camp Rock Transfer Station San Bernardino Advance Disposal Transfer/Processing Fac San Bernardino Advance Disposal Transfer/Processing Fac San Bernardino West Valley Materials Recvr`y Facility San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino West Valley Materials Recvr`y Facility Victor Valley MRF & Transfer Station Newberry Springs Med. Vol. T/P Facility Baker Medium Volume Transfer Processing Trails End (Morongo Valley) Transfer St. Hesperia Sanitary Landfill Lvto Apple Valley Limited Volume Transfer Op. San Bernardino Sheep Creek Transfer Station San Bernardino Twentynine Palms Transfer Station San Bernardino Trona-Argus Transfer Station San Bernardino San Bernardino Public Trash Site #2 - Lvto Public Trash Site #1 San Bernardino Inland Regional MRF & TS San Bernardino Big Bear Transfer Station San Bernardino San Bernardino TPST Soil Recyclers of California Filter Recycling Services, Inc. San Bernardino City of Claremont Community Services Dep San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino Clean Mountain Site- Crestline Clean Mountain Site-Running Springs Clean Mountain Site- Green Valley Lake Clean Mountain Site-LakeArrowhead Elm Clean Mountain - Site Hwy 18 Ener Tech Environmental California LLC Chino Valley Rock Inland Empire Environmental Big Bear Disposal Medium Volume C&D Big Bear Disposal Medium Volume T/P Fac. Construction/demolition Agricultural,Const./Dem,Industrial,MMW Mixed Municipal Waste Mixed Municipal Waste Construction/demolition,Industrial,Mixed Municipal Waste,Tires,Wood waste Const./Dem Construction/demolition,Green Materials,Industrial,Mixed Municipal Waste,Wood waste Wood waste Mixed Municipal Waste Mixed Municipal Waste Metals,Mixed Municipal Waste,Tires Mixed Municipal Waste Mixed Municipal Waste Mixed Municipal Waste Construction/demolition,Green Materials,Mixed Municipal Waste,Tires Agricultural,Ash,Construction/demolition,I ndustrial,Mixed Municipal Waste,Tires Agricultural,Construction/demolition,Indu strial,Mixed Municipal Waste,Tires Mixed Municipal Waste MMW Construction/demolition,Green Materials,Industrial,Mixed Municipal Waste,Wood waste Agricultural,Ash,Construction/demolition, Dead Animals,Green Materials,Mixed Municipal Waste Contaminated soil Contaminated soil Construction/demolition,Green Materials,Mixed Municipal Waste Mixed Municipal Waste Mixed Municipal Waste Mixed Municipal Waste Agricultural,Wood waste Wood waste Sludge (BioSolids) Construction/demolition,Inert Const./Dem,MMW,Other designated Construction/demolition,Inert MMW 100 Tons/day 600 Tons/day 14 Tons/day County of San Bernardino S.W. Mgt Div County of San Bernardino S.W. Mgt Div 600 Tons/day 7,500 Tons/day 20 600 15 25 95 60 60 Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day West Valley MRF, LLC Mojave Desert & Mtn Solid Waste Authorit County of San Bernardino S.W. Mgt Div County of San Bernardino, Com. Serv.Dist County of San Bernardino S.W. Mgt Div County of San Bernardino S.W. Mgt Div County of San Bernardino S.W. Mgt Div 198 Tons/day County of San Bernardino S.W. Mgt Div 200 Tons/day County of San Bernardino S.W. Mgt Div 88 Tons/day County of San Bernardino S.W. Mgt Div 60 Cu Yards/day 100 Tons 1,950 Tons/day 400 Tons/day 1,350 Tons/day 25 Tons/day 99 Tons/day 60 60 60 60 60 1,080 1,500 900 40 50 Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Cu Yards/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day Tons/day City Of Big Bear Lake Oso Grande Properties Republic Waste Services of So. CA, LLC County of San Bernardino S.W. Mgt Div Soil Safe of California, Inc. Filter Recycling Services, Inc. City of Claremont Rim of the World School District Rim of the World School District Green Valley Lake Mutual Water Company Rim of the World School District Rim of the World School District City Of Rialto Ontario Land Investment, LLC 55 Tippecanoe Partnership L.P. Fred M. Ransom Fred M. Ransom APPENDIX A County Name Materials Accepted Throughput Throughput Units Owner San Diego County San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego Viejas Rural Large Vol. Transfer Station EDCO Transfer Station Campo Limited Vol. Transfer Operation Escondido Resource Recovery EDCO Station Fallbrook Recycling Facility Ramona MRF And Transfer Station Waste Management Of North County Universal Refuse Removal Recycling & T.S Amswede Recycling EDCO CDI Recycling SANCO Resource Recovery Waste Mgt.North Co. Limited Vol.Trans Op Daily Disposal Services Emergency Debris EDCO Recycling SANCO Recycling Coast Waste Management, Inc. LVTS Op. Waste Management of San Diego -LVTO EDCO Waste and Recycling - LVT Op. Escondido Disposal, Inc. Santee Limited Volume Trnsfer Operation EDCO Bin Yard Otay CDI MVPF City Of San Diego Water Operations City of San Diego Env.Ser.Dept. LVTO LEED Recycling, Inc. Palomar Transfer Station, Inc Mixed municipal 307 Cu Yards/day Construction/demolition,Industrial,Mixed municipal 1,500 Tons/day Mixed municipal 15 Tons/day Construction/demolition,Green Materials,Mixed municipal 2,500 Tons/day Construction/demolition,Green Materials,Industrial,Mixed 200 municipal Tons/day Construction/demolition,Mixed municipal 500 Tons/day Construction/demolition,Green Materials,Mixed municipal 370 Tons/day 4,500 Tons 1,000 Construction/demolition,Inert,Metals,Wood waste 25 Tons/day Construction/demolition 175 Tons/day Construction/demolition 1,000 Tons/day Construction/demolition,Inert,Metals 15 Tons/day Ash,Construction/demolition,Metals,Mixed municipal 500 Tons/day Mixed municipal 516 Tons/day Mixed municipal 735 Tons/day Mixed municipal 5 Tons/day Mixed municipal 15 Tons/day Mixed municipal 15 Tons/day Mixed municipal 15 Tons/day Inert,Mixed municipal 10 Tons/day Mixed municipal 15 Tons/day Asphalt Shingles,Construction/demolition,Inert,Wood waste 174 Tons/day 50 Tons/day Green Materials,Mixed municipal 80 Cu Yards/day Asphalt Shingles 1,700 Tons/month Construction/demolition,Green Materials,Industrial,Mixed 800 municipal Tons/day Allied Waste Industries, Inc. EDCO Disposal Corporation County Of San Diego Solid Waste Division City Of La Mesa EDCO Disposal Corporation JEMCO Waste Management Of North County Universal Refuse Removal Stenvall, Tom Federal Boulevard Properties Federal Boulevard Properties Keenan, James W. , c/o Walter E. Rusinek Ottonello, Mike and Janet Burr, Edward and Sandra Jemco Equipment County of San Diego, DWP Airports City of El Cajon Federal Boulevard Properties Jemco Equipment Corporation California Dept. of Transportation Dalbergia Street Properties Otay Landfill Inc. City Of San Diego City of San Diego Env. Ser. Dept. Eastgate Miramar Associates County of San Diego, Airport Division All of Appendix A data herein has been gathered from the CalRecycle Solid Waste Information Systems (SWIS) Database downloadable file Appendix Waste-by?Rail Map Courtesy of Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts APPENDIX Courtesy of Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts Wasteigy Rail Landfills 'ull- Venture '1 Lee Angeles taunt]; i Cnuntyr "t i ?5 HI a II..- Jr- an :1n. ?at; We HIE - '1 4x ll". ?22 "a mange 1-. ??n?unty . a Peel?e ~17- it SenDiegu Cnunty .5. _5 i_ . Uninn Paci?c Main Line i? Privete Hail Line I Mexiee Jeehue Tree letienel Perk t1 EAGLE i meuummi '15" Imperial . taunt]; . Appendix San Diego County Five-Year Review Report Five–Year CIWMP/RAIWMP Review Report DRAFT January 11, 2010 SECTION 1.0 COUNTY OR REGIONAL AGENCY INFORMATION I certify that the information in this document is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and that I am authorized to complete this report and request approval of the CIWMP or RAIWMP Five–Year Review Report on behalf of: County or Regional Agency Name County County of San Diego San Diego Authorized Signature Title Type/Print Name of Person Signing Date Donna Turbyfill Deputy Director Phone (858) 874-4108 Person Completing This Form (please print or type) Title Phone Stephanie Ewalt Recycling Specialist II (858) 874-4285 Mailing Address City State Zip 5469 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 305 San Diego CA 92123 E-mail Address Stephanie. Ewalt@sdcounty.ca.gov TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 2.0 Description BACKGROUND 3.0 LOCAL TASK FORCE REVIEW 4.0 TITLE 14, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS SECTION 18788 (3) (A) THROUGH (H) ISSUES Page 3 4 4.1 Changes in Demographics in the County or Regional Agency 4 4.2 Changes in Quantities of Waste within the County or Regional Agency; and Changes in Permitted Disposal Capacity and Quantities of Waste Disposed in the County or Regional Agency Changes in Funding Source for Administration of the Siting Element and Summary Plan Changes in Administrative Responsibilities 6 4.3 4.4 11 11 12 4.6 Programs that were Scheduled to be Implemented but were not Changes in Available Markets for Recyclable Materials 4.7 Changes in the Implementation Schedule 13 4.5 13 5.0 OTHER ISSUES (OPTIONAL) 13 6.0 REVISION SCHEDULE 14 7.0 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 14 SECTION 2.0 – BACKGROUND This is the County of San Diego’s second Five-Year Review Report since the approval of CIWMP. The following changes have occurred since the approval of the County of San Diego’s planning documents or the last Five -Year CIWMP. None of the following have occurred. Diversion goal reduction New regional agency Changes to regional agency New city (none) Other SECTION 3.0 LOCAL TASK FORCE REVIEW a. In accordance with Title 14 CCR, Section 18788, the Local Task Force (LTF) reviewed each element and plan included in the CIWMP or RAIWMP and finalized its comments: At the LTF meetings. Electronically (fax, e-mail) Other (Explain): b. The County of San Diego received the written comments from the LTF on c. A copy of the LTF comments: Is included as Appendix . Was submitted to the CIWMB on . . SECTION 4.0 - TITLE 14, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS SECTION 18788 (3) (A) THROUGH (H) San Diego County CIWIMP documents, accompanied by individual annual reports, continue to serve as appropriate reference tools for implementing and monitoring compliance with AB939. The goals, objectives, and policies in the elements are still applicable. The subsections below address the areas of change specified in the regulations, and provide specific analysis regarding the continued adequacy of the planning documents including a determination regarding any need for a revision to one or more of the planning documents. SECTION 4.1 – CHANGES IN DEMOGRAPHICS IN THE COUNTY OR REGIONAL AGENCY Tables 1a and 1b below depict the County of San Diego’s demographic data. The rate of change for population and employment is shown from 2000 to 2008. San Diego County experienced a high rate of population and economic growth from 2000 to 2008. Population changes vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Countywide, population increased 11% with one jurisdiction growing by 50% (San Marcos) since 2000 and one jurisdiction dropping 4% (Coronado). The Countywide employment rate grew by 7%. The jurisdictions in the County of San Diego have responded to increases in population with a variety of different measures, including adding new or improved solid waste management and more recycling programs, instituting mandatory recycling requirements, and providing technical assistance for residents and businesses, all of which help meet AB939 requirements. Seventeen of the 19 San Diego jurisdictions exceeded the 50% diversion requirement by 2006 (Table 4). The highest diversion rate reached in the county was Solana Beach with 68%. Lemon Grove and Chula Vista fell below the 50% diversion requirement, and continue to work with the State to increase their diversion rates. Tables 2 and 3 illustrate changes in the quantities of waste generated and disposed within the county. Table 2 illustrates the countywide waste generation in 2000 and 2006 including the rate of change between those years. Table 3 shows San Diego’s solid waste disposal tonnages in 2000 and in 2008 and also includes the rate of change. Table 4 summarizes each jurisdiction’s progress in implementing the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and compliance with the 50% diversion rate requirement. In 2007, AB1016 changed the diversion reporting from a percentage calculation to a target of daily pounds per capita disposal based on each jurisdiction’s average waste generation from 2003 through 2006. In Table 4, years 2007 and 2008 are displayed as 50% equivalent per capita disposal. Further analysis of generation and disposal of solid waste appear in Section 4.2 Table 1a. Demographics of Jurisdictions in San Diego County from 2000 through 2008 Population Jurisdiction Carlsbad Chula Vista Coronado Del Mar El Cajon Encinitas Escondido Imperial Beach La Mesa Lemon Grove National Oceanside Poway San Diego San Marcos Santee Solana Beach Unincorporated County Vista Countywide 2000 2008 2000-2008 2000-2008 Total Population 78,247 173,556 24,100 4,389 94,869 58,014 133,559 26,992 54,749 24,918 54,260 161,039 48,044 1,223,400 54,977 52,946 12,979 Total Population 103,406 230,397 23,030 4,561 97,555 63,615 143,259 28,092 56,445 25,511 56,144 178,102 50,744 1,333,617 82,419 55,850 13,447 Difference 25,159 56,841 -1,070 172 2,686 5,601 9,700 1,100 1,696 593 1,884 17,063 2,700 110,217 27,442 2,904 468 % Change 32% 33% -4% 4% 3% 10% 7% 4% 3% 2% 3% 11% 6% 9% 50% 5% 4% 442,919 89,857 2,813,833 489,958 95,400 3,131,552 47,039 5,543 317,719 11% 6% 11% Source: 2000 and 2008 Population Figures: SANDAG Website: http://datawarehouse.sandag.org/ Table 1b. Employment in San Diego County from 2000 through 2008 Employment Factor Countywide Employment 2000 1,407,152 2008 % Change 1,501,080 7% Source: 2000 and 2008 Employment, Figures: SANDAG Website: http://datawarehouse.sandag.org/ SECTION 4.2 CHANGES IN QUANTITIES OF WASTE WITHIN THE COUNTY OR REGIONAL AGENCY; AND CHANGES IN PERMITTED DISPOSAL CAPACITY AND WASTE DISPOSED IN THE COUNTY OR REGIONAL AGENCY. Between 2000 and 2006, the quantity of solid waste generated within the County increased by 33% from 2000 to 2006, totaling 2,154,506 tons (Table 2). All jurisdictions generated more solid waste. Jurisdictions with the greatest increases over the seven years were Chula Vista, Oceanside, San Marcos, and Santee. Countywide solid waste disposal dropped by one percent between 2000 and 2008. The 2005 Siting Element of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) measured an annual rate of increase in the disposal rate to landfills of approximately 5.4 percent from 1995 to 2003. At that time, the growth was expected to slow to a 3.4% increase per year from 2005 to 2017, accommodating projected changes in population growth (Figure 1), and assuming a 50 percent diversion rate. In 2005, regression analysis predicted an increase from 3.7 million tons landfilled in 2002 to 6.1 million tons disposed in landfills by 2017. By 2017, county daily permitted tonnage at the landfills would be saturated. This did not include proposed expansions at Sycamore Landfill. Considering the 2002 permitted daily tonnages, and predicted landfill expansions, plus exports minus predicted imports, the mean value of the regression predicted sufficient landfill space will be available until 2028. In 2005, the proposed Gregory Canyon Landfill was assumed to come on line later that year, but opening has been delayed. In this analysis, Gregory Canyon is assumed to open in 2015, though the actual year is unclear. In 2005 landfilled tonnages were at their peak in San Diego County, and tonnage has fallen dramatically from 2006 through 2010 by about one million tons. No single factor has been identified for this precipitous drop, but the economic recession has caused more people and businesses to discard less waste. Another strong reason for the reduced landfilling rate has been increased conservation and recycling activities. Xeriscape landscaping, which reduces production of green waste, is more widely used, compost facilities have expanded, jurisdictions have implemented mandatory recycling ordinances, and there are several new construction and demolition recycling facilities. The one million-ton decrease in solid waste disposal between 2006 and 2010 had a significant effect on the statistical prediction for landfill space needs in the county. The tonnage reduction and two new major landfill expansions, one at Miramar Landfill and one at Sycamore Landfill, have changed the county’s capacity (Figure 1). Following the approved method of prediction in the previous Siting Element (2005) a linear regression model was used to plot future disposal trends by using disposal data from 1995 through 2009. The trend line projects a gradual increase in disposal from 2010 to 2030. The 2 data fit a linear regression for predictability (R = 0.3338) through the required 15 years estimation period (2010 – 2025). Using current tonnage figures through 2009 in Figure 1, the decrease in disposal tonnage from 2006 though 2009 results in approximately one million additional tons capacity, which equates to approximately two million cubic yards of additional landfill space. Table 2 - Solid Waste Generation Tonnage Comparison for San Diego County 2000 to 2006 2000-2006 2000-2006 2000 2006 Difference % Change Jurisdiction Carlsbad Chula Vista Coronado Del Mar El Cajon Encinitas Escondido Imperial Beach La Mesa Lemon Grove* National City Oceanside Poway San Diego San Marcos Santee 264,304 307,568 43,264 228,243 440,359 212,116 16% 93% 91,864 118,604 26,740 29% 17% 29,841 34,943 5,102 219,618 276,813 57,195 26% 140,997 177,226 36,229 26% 250,584 316,120 65,536 26% 34,392 42,536 8,144 24% 104,714 133,080 28,366 27% 35,976 44,689 8,713 24% 129,395 162,638 33,243 26% 249,588 405,545 155,957 62% 160,494 181,642 21,148 13% 3,299,472 4,211,231 911,759 28% 156,773 239,316 82,543 53% 89,468 134,590 45,122 50% Solana Beach 35,484 45,997 10,513 30% Unincorporated County Vista* County Total 819,238 1,195,560 376,322 46% 216,395 244,889 28,494 13% 6,558,840 8,713,346 2,154,506 33% Sources Source: 2000 and 2006 Figures: CalRecycle: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Tools/mars/DrmcMain.asp * Board approved on Good Faith Effort. Generation may not be accurate. Table 3. Solid Waste Disposal Tonnage Comparison for San Diego County 2000 to 2008 Jurisdiction Carlsbad Chula Vista Coronado Del Mar El Cajon Encinitas Escondido Imperial Beach La Mesa Lemon Grove National City Oceanside Poway San Diego San Marcos Santee Solana Beach Unincorporated San Diego County Vista County Total 2000 2008 2000 - 2008 Difference 2000 - 2008 % Change 109,479 122,397 12,919 12% 150,767 174,583 23,815 16% 40,859 47,870 7,011 17% 14,603 10,376 -4,228 -29% 97,985 105,222 7,237 7% -3% 70,646 68,583 -2,063 133,573 141,991 8,417 6% 17,952 12,894 -5,058 -28% 63,943 37,265 -26,678 -42% 22,733 21,557 -1,177 -5% 61,122 52,009 -9,113 -15% 135,458 136,715 1,257 1% 56,414 62,420 6,006 11% 1,723,501 1,544,891 -178,610 -10% 84,067 89,132 5,065 6% 60,281 52,184 -8,097 -13% 19,240 16,412 -2,828 -15% 461,371 613,270 151,898 33% 110,040 104,187 -5,854 -5% 3,434,036 3,413,957 -20,079 -1% Sources: 2000 and 2008 Figures: CalRecycle: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Reports/DRS/Origin/WFOrgin.aspx Table 4. Solid Waste Diversion Rates for all San Diego County Jurisdictions 1995 to 2008 Carlsbad Chula Vista Coronado Del Mar El Cajon Encinitas Escondido Imperial Beach La Mesa Lemon Grove National City Oceanside Poway San Diego San Marcos Santee Solana Beach Unincorporated County Vista San Diego County Average 1995 57% 42% 36% 40% 43% 46% 49% 40% 47% 19% 34% 48% 55% 35% 47% 39% 48% 1996 48% 42% 27% 36% 51% 49% 45% 41% 41% 34% 48% 47% 56% 45% 45% 52% 52% 1997 50% 41% 23% 35% 42% 51% 48% 42% 50% 37% 38% 49% 53% 49% 51% 45% 53% 1998 44% 39% 12% NA 60% 40% 43% 40% 48% 7% 38% 47% 51% 46% 48% 30% 42% 1999 50% 36% 51% NA 63% 47% 43% 44% 42% 15% 47% 47% 53% 45% 44% 35% 47% 2000 59% 34% 56% 51% 55% 50% 47% 50% 43% 39% 53% 46% 65% 48% 47% 33% 46% 2001 55% 53% 54% 50% 51% 49% 42% 45% 45% 30% 50% 45% 44% 51% 42% 36% 50% 2002 55% 54% 53% 51% 50% 49% 41% 48% 38% 31% 52% 41% 57% 44% 43% 47% 53% 2003 48% 51% 50% 54% 51% 48% 49% 45% 30% 46% 50% 40% 54% 45% 48% 43% 45% 48% 50% 55% 45% 51% 48% 42% 44% 49% 51% 50% 43% 45% 45% 41% 47% 44% 48% 47% 50% 2004 57% 50% 57% 58% 54% 55% 53% 49% 42% 52% 53% 57% 56% 52% 52% 51% 56% 2005 55% 48% 55% 52% 55% 54% 49% 54% 50% 47% 53% 58% 63% 52% 53% 54% 56% 2006 57% 54% 54% 56% 59% 56% 53% 57% 54% 44% 53% 59% 62% 55% 57% 61% 68% 2007* 7.0 4.7 11.6 17.1 6.2 6.4 5.2 3.0 4.8 4.7 5.4 4.6 7.3 7.1 6.6 5.6 7.6 2008* 6.5 4.2 11.4 12.5 5.9 5.9 5.3 2.5 3.6 4.6 5.1 4.2 6.7 6.3 5.9 5.1 6.7 54% 45% 50% 34% 50% 46% 50% 41% 54% 47% 7.2 6.5 6.7 6.0 48% 47% 53% 53% 56% 6.8 6.1 Source: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Tools/MARS/JurDrSta.asp?VW=In * Staff Reviewed Only - New measurement: per capita disposal per person per day. Population Disposal number used (PPD - annual) Figure 1. San Diego Countywide Disposal Capacity (1995 - 2030) 12,000 Spike in data indicate Sycamore's first expansion of daily permitted capacity. Actual Disposal (1995 through 2009) Current In-County Landfill Capacity - State Permitted Tons Sharp declines indicate closure of Miramar in 2019. Current In County Landfill Capacity -State Permitted Tons PLUS Sycamore Expansion 10,000 Sharp declines indicate closure of Otay in 2027. In-County Landfill Capacity + Sycamore Expansions + Gregory Canyon Landfill Original 2005 Regression Analysis 3rd phase Sycamore Expansion to 12,000 permitted tons per day. 2010 San Diego County Disposal Projection Tons (x1,000) 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 2010 Regression Equation: y-62.988x - 122619 R2 = 0.3338 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Years 2015 2020 2025 2030 Annual disposal is predicted to increase from approximately 3.9 million tons in 2010 to approximately 5.25 million tons in 2030. The methods for the predictive model are as follows for Figure 1: (1) The annual disposal for years 1995 though 2009 was identified and plotted; (2) 2 Regression analysis determined the slope (y = 62.988x - 122619), with an R of 0.3338; (3), The total permitted daily landfill capacity for San Diego landfills, including Sycamore, Borrego, Otay and Miramar was determined by consulting Local Enforcement Agencies and landfill operators. The total annual tonnage capacity of landfills was calculated by multiplying tons permitted daily and permitted days of operation per year. Results. In Figure 1, the plotted line indicated with squares represents the total in-county capacity which the State currently permits. The plotted line indicated by triangles represents the total in-county capacity which the State currently permits plus the Sycamore Landfill expansions assumed to begin in late 2010. The following assumptions were made during this analysis. • • • • • Permitted daily capacity provided by Local Enforcement Agencies was used to determine remaining landfill space. Note: permitted daily capacity is different than airspace and permits can and may be issued to expand capacity or days of operation. Otay Landfill has 27 million cubic yards of capacity as of March 2010 and has a closure date of 2027. Miramar Landfill is assumed to close in 2019. Sycamore Landfill has 43 million cubic yards of capacity. Sycamore’s first expansion is assumed to be completed in 2012 and follow a graduated expansion in permitted tons per day. Additional expansion phases will occur as needed and will coincide with needs such as Miramar and Otay closures. It is assumed that in 2012, permitted tons per day will increase to 6,800 tons per day; in 2020 to 9,000 tons per day; and in 2026, to 12,000 tons per day. A countywide disposal of 3,047,044 tons is assumed for 2009. The disposal growth projection trend line and the permitted total capacity plot line, including the Sycamore Landfill and Miramar expansions, cross in 2028 (Figure 1). When these two lines cross, disposal will meet permitted capacity. This illustrates that the County of San Diego has enough daily permitted disposal capacity for the next 18 years, thereby meeting the State requirements that the County maintain 15 years of disposal capacity. Given the above analysis and continued improvements in recycling, San Diego County continues to have 15 years of disposal capacity. Revision to the Countywide Siting Element of the CIWMP is not warranted at this time. Section 4.3 - CHANGES IN FUNDING SOURCE FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE SITING ELEMENT (SE) AND SUMMARY PLAN (SP) Since approval of the CIWMP Siting Element and Summary Plan in September 2005, the County has not experienced any significant changes in funding sources for administration and therefore revision of the planning documents is not warranted. Section 4.4 - CHANGES IN ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES Since the last approval of the CIWMP Siting Element and Summary Plan in September 2005 the County has not experienced any significant changes in administrative responsibilities. Revision of the planning documents is not warranted. Section 4.5 - PROGRAMS THAT WERE SCHEDULED TO BE IMPLEMENTED BUT WERE NOT This section addresses programs that were scheduled to be implemented but were not, a statement as to why they were not implemented, the progress of programs that were implemented, a statement as to whether programs are meeting their goals, and if not what contingency measures are being enacted to ensure compliance with Public Resources Code section 41751. 1. Progress of Program Implementation a. Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) All program implementation information has been updated in the CalRecycle’s Electronic Annual Reports (EAR). b. Nondisposal Facility Element (NDFE) All jurisdictions are in compliance. Two jurisdictions (Escondido and Lemon Grove) are currently updating their Non Disposal Facility Elements due to new developments, which were documented in their Annual Reports. The Unincorporated County NDFE was updated in November, 2008 (Appendix A). c. Countywide Siting Element (SE) The following items should be noted as changes from the Siting Element approved by the CalRecycle in 2005. i. ii. iii. iv. There has been a significant decrease in estimated disposed tonnage annually from the original estimates in 2005. Given recycling efforts combined with the economic downturn, San Diego has been able to provide sufficient countywide disposal although population has steadily increased. The Miramar Landfill height increase extends its closure date to 2019 rather than 2011. Sycamore Landfill expansion. Although the plans for expansion are described in the 2005 Siting Element, plans for graduated increases in daily permitted tonnages have changed. The first expansion is assumed to be completed in 2012 and follow a schedule of graduated increases in permitted tons per day. Increases will occur as needed and will coincide with needs such as the closure of other regional landfills at Miramar (2019) and Otay (2027). This document assumes that in 2012, permitted tons per day will increase to 6,800; in 2020 to 9,000; and in 2026, to a maximum of 12,000 tons per day. The 2005 Siting Element assumed that the Gregory Canyon Landfill would be operational in 2006. To date (December 2010) additional environmental analysis is being done pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act for federal purposes, and the project is proceeding through applicable State permitting processes. Gregory Canyon has been included as part of the capacity analysis. It should also be noted that the contact information for this proposed landfill has changed to the following: Facility Name: Gregory Canyon Landfill Facility Owner: Gregory Canyon Limited, LLC Attention: James Simmons, Authorized Representative 160 Industrial Street, Suite 200 San Marcos, CA 92078 Facility Operator: Gregory Canyon Limited, LLC Attention: James Simmons, Authorized Representative 160 Industrial Street, Suite 200 San Marcos, CA 92078 v. Considering the Miramar and Sycamore expansions, Gregory Canyon and closure of Otay 2027, the County of San Diego would have sufficient landfill space beyond 2028. The following item should be noted as an update to the Siting Element approved by the CalRecycle in 2005. vi. With the passing of Proposition A during the June 8th, 2010 election San Diego County voters approved the East Otay Mesa Recycling Collection Center and Landfill. The main features of the East Otay Mesa site include a recycling collection center, a lined landfill, a scale area, a facilities and operation area, a borrow and stockpile area, a leachate collection system, chipping and grinding area, and storm-water retention facilities. The passing of Proposition A required that the San Diego County Integrated Waste Management Plan be updated to include the East Otay Mesa Recycling Center and Landfill as a future disposal site. The Siting Element currently lists the East Otay facility in Chapter 7 as a “Tentatively Reserved Solid Waste Disposal Facility.” The East Otay Mesa site is updated from “Tentatively Reserved” to a “Proposed New Disposal Facility.” This language is added to reflect that effective change that was made by the voters. d. Summary Plan There have been no significant information changes that would warrant amendment of the countywide Summary Plan. 2. Statement regarding whether Programs are Meeting their Goals The programs have been reviewed, and are meeting their goals. Section 4.6 - CHANGES IN AVAILABLE MARKETS FOR RECYCLABLE MATERIALS A survey of San Diego recycling markets was distributed to local recycling companies. Overall, recycling markets for the region have improved and market status does not warrant a revision of the planning documents. Responses of the recyclers’ survey were as follows: San Diego County, like much of the country, experienced a severe decrease in all available recycling markets starting in fall 2008. This decrease was due to a drop in the economy and a decline in demand from overseas buyers. However, as of March, 2010 the markets have stabilized and are improved from the CIWMP submitted in 2005 (which used 2002 data). When local recycling companies were asked to rate the recycling markets as either “Excellent,” “Good,” “Average,” “Fair,” or “Poor,” they responded that markets were “Good.” More specifically, aluminum, paper, cardboard, plastic, and metal have all increased in value since 2002. Glass prices have worsened. The most limiting factor to recycling markets is lower volumes due to the worsened economy. Recycling markets in San Diego are generally strong. Section 4.7 - CHANGES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE No implementation schedule is warranted. SECTION 5.0 - OTHER ISSUES AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION APPENDICES: A. Letters from jurisdictions reflecting no need for document updates. SECTION 6.0 - ANNUAL REPORT REVIEW Annual Reports for each jurisdiction in the county have been reviewed, specifically those sections that address the adequacy of the CIWMP or RAIWMP elements. No jurisdictions reported the need to revise one or more of these planning documents. See APPENDIX A for letters from jurisdictions confirming this statement. SECTION 7.0 - REVISION SCHEDULE (if required) – N/A Appendix County of San Diego Agenda Item: Landfill Initiative Measure: Title and Summary . BOARD OF SUPERVISORS GREG COX First District DIANNE JACOB Second District COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO - AGENDA ITEM RON ROBERTS Fourth District BILL HORN . Fifth District DATE: October 13, 2009 TO: Board of Supervisors SUBJECT2. CERTIFICATION OF PETITION REGARDING EAST OTAY MESA RECYCLING COLLECTION CENTER AND LANDFILL ORDINANCE .(District: All) SUMMARY: Overview I i I The ?East Otay Mesa Recycling Collection Center and Land?ll Ordinance? was ?led with the Registrar of Voters on August 18, 2009. The Registrar examined the petition in accordance with the California. Election Code, found it contains a suf?cient number of Valid signatures, and is now certifying the results to the Board of Supervisors. The I Board has the following options in accordance with State law: 1) to adopt the ordinance; 2) to submit the measure to the voters at the June 8, 2010 Election; or, 3) to order an impact report to be prepared and presented to the Board, from which the Initiative must either be adopted or be placed on the ballot. Recommendation(s) CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER . 1. Receive the certi?cation from the Registrar of Voters that the petition contains a suf?cient number of valid signatures. - - - 2. Direct staff to prepare an impact report pursuant to Elections Code section 9111, and present it to the Board on November 3, 2009 with a recommendation to either adopt the ordinance or provide for the necessary resolution calling for an election 11- to place the initiative providing for the siting of a new recycling center and class . Solid waste land?ll in the East Otay. Mesa area of unincorporated San? Diego County on the June 8, 2010 ballot. Fiscal Impact - Preparation of the impact report will require an estimated 50 hours of staff time involving a number of County departments, the costs for which can be managed within existing budgeted resources. Placing this initiative measure on the June 8, 2010 ballot would result in an increase of approximately $300,000 in the County?s share Of costs Documentum Version 2 SUBJECT: CERTIFICATION OF PETITION REGARDING EAST OTAY MESA 1 1 RECYCLING COLLECTION CENTER AND LANDFILL ORDINANCE (District: All) for this election and no additional staff years. Funds for this request are included in the 'Registrar of Voters? Fiscal Year 2009-11 Adopted Operational Plan. The funding source is General Purpose Revenue. . Business Impact Statement- Advisory Board Statement - BACKGROUND: - The initiative petition to provide for the siting of a new recycling center and class solid waste landfill in the East Otay Mesa area of unincorporated San Diego-County was ?led by the proponents with the Registrar of Voters on August 18, 2009. County Counsel had previously prepared a Title and Summary?to be included on the petition that was circulated for signatures (Attachinent A). The summary prepared by County Counsel includes the chief purpose and points of the measure. - The Registrar of Voters veri?ed the petition signatures using a statistical sample in accordance with California Elections Code Section 9115. It was determined that the number of valid signatures required for quali?cation was'suf?cient. The results of this veri?cation have been ?led with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Attachment B). The Board now has the following options in accordance with California Elections Code section 9118: I - Option One: Adopt the ordinance without alteration. Option Two: Submit the measure, without alteration, to the voters at the'next Statewide election, which would be June 8, 2010. Option Three: Order an impact report pursuant to California Elections Code .Section 9111. such a report must be returned to the Board of Supervisors within the time you prescribe, but no later than 30 days following the October 13, 2009 certi?cation of results to your Board, which is November 12, 2009; Staff is recommending that the Board direct them to prepare a report on the impacts of the proposed initiative to enable the Board to make an informed decision as to whether to adopt the proposed initiative by ordinance or to place it, on the June 8, 2010 ballot. - Linkage to the County of San Diego Strategic Plan SUBJECT: CERTIFICATION OF PETITION REGARDING (B MESA RECYCLING COLLECTION CENTER jg? ANCE (District: All) BOARD OF Sim-i" I ZUUHUBT '5 Hm1137. AGENDA ITEM INFORMATION J, 35:: RA IRRE CLERK OF THE BOARD CONCU MES) 0F SUP 1 1 COUNTY COUNSEL REVIEW Yes Written Disclosure per County Charter Yes NO Section 10001 Required . FINANCE DIRECTOR . [Emsl CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER - Yes . Requires Votes Yes NO CY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIRECTOR Yes COUNTY TECHNOLOGY OFFICE [1 Yes DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES. Yes Other Concurrence(s): Land Use and Environmental Group ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Registrar of Voters CONTACT Michael'Vu, Assistant Registrar of Voters Name Name (858) 694-3402 . Phone Phone ?858) 694-8888 Fax Fax 0-34 7 Mail Station Mail Station michael.Vu@sdcounty.ca. gov E-mail E-mail AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: . SEILER Registrar of Voters CERTIFICATION OF PETITION REGARDING EAST OTAY MESA RECYCLING CENTER - AND .LANDFILL ORDINANCE (District: All) - Today?s-proposed action to receive the certi?cation-results of the East Otay Mesa Recycling Collection Center and Land?ll Initiative Ordinance and to act on the initiative Ordinance pursuant - to Election Code 9118 suppOrts the Environment Strategic Initiative in the County of San Diego?s 2009-2014 Strategic Plan by following land use strategies that balance all the needs cf County residents'ef Administrative Of?cer A - Title and Summary - Certi?cation of Results SUBJECT: CERTIFICATION OF PETITION REGARDING .EAST OTAY MESA 1 1 RECYCLING COLLECTION CENTER AND LANDFILL ORDINANCE (District: All) AGENDA ITEM INFORMATION SHEET (continued) PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS: I BOARD POLICIES APPLICABLE: BOARD POLICY STATEMENTS: ORACLE AWARD AND CONTRACT REQUISITION - - - Attachment. A 1. INITIATIVE MEASURE TITLE AND SUMMARY Prepared by the Of?ce of County Counsel EAST OTAY MESA RECYCLING COLLECTION CENTER AND LANDFILL ORDINANCE This measure states its intent to provide for the siting of a new recycling Center and class solid waste land?ll in the East Otay Mesa area of unincorporated San Diego County, approximately 2 miles east of the Siempre Viva Road exit from Interstate 905, one quarter mile from LOop Road and east of planned State Route 11. The facility would occupy approximately 340 acres of a 450 acre site (leaving 110 acres undeveloped), and would include a recycling collectioncenter, lined land?ll, scale area, facilities and operation area (including a visitors' center, of?ce building, maintenance of?ce, shop and yard, and a land?ll gas collection and recovery system), borrow and stockpile area, leachate collection system, chipping and grinding area, storm-water retention facilities, and a new access route from Loop Road. The facility would be open for the receipt of refuse a minimum of nine hours a day, six days a Week, excepting holidays. The measure would amend the County General Plan and all sub-regional and I community plans which apply to the East Otay Mesa site, to designate the site as 'Public/Semi-Public Lands with a Solid Waste Facility Designator. It would also amend the County Zoning Ordinance, to change the site's zoning from 888 and S90 to Solid Waste Facility. It would also state ?the County's approval _of an amendment to the San Diego County Integrated Waste Management Plan to add the site as a recycling and disposal site. The measure would state that the facility is required to be constructed and - Operated in accordance with applicable local regulations in effect on the date the measure .is approved, and applicable federal and state regulations. It requires that consultation, permits and approvals be obtained as required under identi?ed federal, state, regional and loCal requirements, including environmental review required for those approvals. Mitigation measures would be adopted, including a land?ll gas system and protections relating to water quality, earthquakes, air quality, noise, odor, dust, biological resources, visual impacts and cultural impacts. The measure states that the site shall remain private land unless purchased or condemned by a public agency. The measure contains ?ndings regarding the need for new recycling and solid waste disposal facilities to serve San Diego County. The measure may be amended or repealed only by majority of voters voting at an election, and contains various additional provisibns relating to its interpretation and implementation. "Otay Mesa Land?ll TITLE AND SUMMARY revised 5-18?09" DEBORAH SEILER - Registrar of Voters MICHAEL vu REGISTRAR OF VOTERS Assistant Registrar 5201 Ruf?n Road. Suite l, San Dlego. California 92123-1693 September 14, 2009 David Wick, Proponent 5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 4000 San Diego, CA 92121 Re: East Otay Mesa Recycling Collection Center and Land?ll Ordinance Office: Fax: TDD: Toll Free: The OTAY MESA RECYCLING COLLECTION CENTER AND LANDFILL was ?led with the Registrar of Voters on August 18, 2009. In accordance with the Secretary of State guidelines, the Registrar of Voters conducted a veri?cation of 3 percent of the signatures selected at random from the petition in accordance with California Elections Code Section 9115. Based on the results of the random sample, the number of projected valid signatures on the petition is 88,461. This number is above 110%of the valid signatures required for quali?cation and, therefore, the petition is determined to be QUALIFIED. CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS: - Number of sections submitted ..4,318 - Number of signatures submitted .. 125,843 0 Number of signatures veri?ed of 125,843) ..3,775 0 Number of signatures found not to be valid (includes 10 duplicate) .798 0 Number of signatures found to be valid ..2,977 anber of signatures required for quali?cation . anber of projected valid signatures ..88,461 If you have any questions, please contact me at (858) 694?3401. Sincerely, Registrar of Voters cc: Board of Supervisors 1600 Paci?c Highway, #335 San Diego, CA 92101 -2470 grits. Attachment (858) 565-5800 (858) 694-2055 (858) 694-3441 (800) 696-0136 INITIATIVE MEASURE TITLE AND SUMMARY Prepared by the Office of County Counsel EAST OTAY MESA RECYCLING COLLECTION CENTER AND LANDFILL ORDINANCE This measure states its intent to provide for the siting of a new recycling center and class solid waste land?ll in the East Otay Mesa area of unincorporated San Diego County, approximately 2 miles east of the Siempre Viva Road exit from Interstate 905, one quarter mile from Loop Road and east of planned State Route 11. The facility would occupy approximately 340 acres of a 450 acre site (leaving 110 acres undeveloped), and would include a recycling collection center, lined land?ll, scale area,.facilities and operation area (including a visitors' center, of?ce building, maintenance of?ce, shop and yard, and a land?ll gas collection and recovery system), borrow and stockpile area, leachate collection system, chipping and grinding area, storm-water reten- tion facilities, and a new access route from Loop Road. The facility would be open for the receipt of refuse a minimum of nine hours a day, six days a week, excepting holidays. The measure would amend the County General Plan and all sub-regional and community plans which apply to the East Otay Mesa site, to designate the site as Public/Semi-Public Lands with a Solid Waste Facility Designator. It would also amend the County Zoning Ordinance, to change the site's zoning from S88 and S90 to Solid Waste Facility. It would also state the County's approval of an amendment to the San Diego County Integrated Waste Management Plan to add the site as a recycling and disposal site. The measure would state that the facility is required to be constructed and operated in accordance with applicable local regulations in effect on the date the measure is approved, and applicable federal and state regulations. It requires that consultation, permits and approvals be obtained as required under identi?ed fed- eral, state, regional and local requirements, including environmental review required for those approvals. Mitigation measures would be adopted, including a land?ll gas system and protections relating to water qual- ity, earthquakes, air quality, noise, odor, dust, biological resources, visual impacts and cultural impacts. The measure states that the site shall remain private land unless purchased or condemned by a public agency. The measure contains ?ndings regarding the need for new recycling and solid waste disposal facilities to serve San Diego County. The measure may be amended or repealed only by majority of voters voting at an election, and contains various additional provisions relating to its interpretation and implementation. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Proposition (This preposition will appear on the ballot in the following form.) PROP EAST OTAY MESA RECYCLING COLLECTION CENTER AND LANDFILL ORDINANCE. Shall the East Otay Mesa Recycling Collection Center and Land?ll initiative Ordinance be adopted? EAST OTAY MESA RECYCLING COLLECTION CENTER AND LANDFILL INITIATIVE The People of San Diego County Do Hereby Ordain as Follows: SECTION 1. INTENT. It is the intent of this initiative measure: A. To provide for the siting of a new recycling collection center and class solid waste land?ll to allow the residents and businesses in San Diego County to recycle and dispose of their solid waste in an environmentally sound and economically competitive manner. B. To ensure that the recycling collection center and land?ll are designed, constructed, and operated in a safe and ef?cient manner by requiring full compliance with all environmental laws and regulations. The Project will be monitored during its life on a regular basis by regulatory agencies including, but not limited to, the Integrated Waste Management Board, the San Diego County Air Pollution Control Dis- trict and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. C. To amend the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and other ordinances and policies of the County of San Diego to allow the construc- tion and operation of a recycling collection center and class [11 solid waste land?ll on approximately 450 acres of land within the East Otay Mesa area in the unincorporated area of San Diego County located approximately 2 miles east of the Siempre Viva Road exit from Interstate 905 and one-quarter mile from Loop Road and east of planned State Route 11. The general location of the East Otay Mesa site is shown on Figure 1 attached to this measure. D. To amend the San Diego County Integrated Waste Management Plan and its elements and amendments to add the East Otay Mesa Recycling Center and Land?ll and facility as a recycling and disposal site. SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. A. The 2005 San Diego County Integrated Waste Management Plan, County Siting Element has documented the critical need for new recycling and solid waste facilities to serve the growing San Diego County population. B. The Otay Annex land?ll is the only remaining land?ll serving southern San Diego County which includes the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, National City, and Coronado, and the unincorporated areas of southern San Diego County. I C. There is limited capacity in existing land?lls. D. Many of the San Diego County land?lls have been successfully operated by a private party for the County of San Diego. E. The East Otay Mesa site is located in a sparsely populated area of San Diego County. Approximately 10 acres of the site will re- main undeveloped. F. The proposed recycling center and land?ll in East Otay Mesa will be entitled, developed, and constructed at no cost to the taxpayer. Costs of operation will be charged to users. G. The voters hereby ?nd and determine that the project will be compatible with other uses in the area and the County's General Plan for uses in the area upon implementation of the mitigation measures required by this measure. SECTION 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT. The Project will include the following components: A. General Description of the Project. The recycling collection center and land?ll will occupy approximately 340 acres of the East Otay Mesa site not including the approximately 110 acres which will remain undeveloped. The main features of the Project include a recycling collection center, a lined land?ll, a scale area, a facilities and operation area, a borrow and stockpile area, a leachate collection system, chipping and grinding area, and storm-water reten- tion facilities. The facilities and operation area will include a visitors' center, an of?ce building, a maintenance of?ce, a shop and yard, a fuel- ing station, a storage area, a water tank truck wash and wash-water treatment area, a land?ll gas collection and recovery system, and a leachate collection tank. The Project Proponent shall be entitled to adjust the size and location of solid waste operations and to alter the pro- posed facilities based on a detailed site plan to be submitted to the Integrated Waste Management Board for its review and approval as part of the solid waste facilities permit. The recycling and solid waste facilities shall remain open for the receipt of refuse a minimum of nine (9) hours a day, six (6) days a week, excepting recognized federal, state and local holidays. The Project?s recycling and solid waste operations component shall include the receipt, handling, processing, and/or disposal of solid waste or recyclable materials; cover operations; site grading and/or excavation, including blasting and rock crushing; and heavy equipment operation. Other site activities will include the operation of gas and leachate collection and treatment systems, remedial activities required by a regula- tory agency, maintenance within the maintenance yard, and other activities that will support recycling and solid waste operations. At least ?ve (5) days each week, a site clean-up team will inspect for, and clean up, all litter and illegal dumping which occurs on or adjacent to, the land?ll access road and Loop Road. The clean up team shall consist of at least one truck with a minimum crew of two persons. Trained, full-time personnel will be engaged exclusively and continuously in the inspection of incoming refuse loads for hazardous waste. These personnel shall be stationed at the working face of the land?ll whenever the land?ll is open to accept waste and shall inspect loads as they are tipped. Hazardous wastes encountered in this fashion shall be handled and disposed of in accordance with state regulations. The pro- ject will use recycled water from Otay Mesa Water District. The Project includes construction of a new access route from Loop Road. B. Implementation. Amendments to County General Plan. Upon the effective date of this initiative, the land use element of the County General Plan and all sub-regional and community plans which apply to the East Otay Mesa site and any related maps shall be amended to designate the East Otay Mesa site Public/Semi-public lands with a Solid Waste Facility Designator. Notwithstanding the Public/Semi-public designation, the East Otay Mesa site shall remain private lands unless purchased or condemned by a public agency. Amendment to County Zoning Ordinance. Upon the effective date of this initiative, the County Zoning Ordinance shall be amended to change the Project site?s current zoning from 588 and $90 to the zoning classi?cation Solid Waste Facility The SWF zoning classi?cation shall be amended to allow the East Otay Mesa Recycling Collection Center and Land?ll to be established. Amendments to the San Diego County Integrated Waste Management Plan. The San Diego County Integrated Waste Management Plan and its elements and amendments are hereby amended to add the East Otay Mesa Recycling Collection Center and Land?ll facility as a recycling and disposal site and to meet the requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 as amended. The approval of this initiative measure shall constitute approval pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 41760, and adoption pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 18783, of this amendment to the Waste Man- agement Plan. Amendments to Other County Ordinances and Legislative Acts. All other County ordinances, rules and regulations which constitute legislative acts shall be amended as necessary to accommodate the Pro- ject as set forth in this initiative. Development Regulations. The Project shall be constructed and operated in accordance with the permits and approvals described in Section 4 below, applicable local policies, rules and regulations, all as may be amended by implementation of this initiative, and applicable federal and state policies, rules and regulations. SECTION 4. PERMITS. To ensure that the Project is designed, constructed and operated in a safe and ef?cient manner, the Project shall be required to secure the fol- lowing permits and approvals to the extent required by state or federal law: A. Environmental Review. The Project Proponent shall complete any environmental review required by federal or state law to secure the remaining permits and approv- als. 2 B. C0nsultation with Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 1 I I The Project Proponent shall consult with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in accordance ?106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. C. U.S. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers. The Project Proponent shall secure a permit relating to ?404 of the Clean Water Act from the Army Corps of Engineers. D. U.S. Fish Wildlife Service. The Project Proponent shall conduct a ?7 consultation with the Department of Interior, U.S. Fish Wildlife Service in compliance With the Endangered Species Act and shall coordinate the ?404 permit with the U.S. Fish Wildlife Service as required by federal law. E. California Department of Fish and Game. The Project Proponent shall secure a Strearnbed Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish Game and any other required permits. F. California State Water Resources Control Board. The Project Proponent shall secure a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, a Section 401 Water Quality Certi?cation, and a Water Appropriation Permit. G. Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Project Proponent shall secure a Waste Discharge Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. H. California Integrated Waste Management Board. The Project Proponent shall obtain a Solid Waste Facility Permit from the California Integrated Waste Management Board and from the local enforcement agency for the California Integrated Waste Management Board. I. County of San Diego. The Project Proponent shall secure a Grading Permit and a Building Permit from the County of San Diego. J. San Diego Air Pollution Control District. The Project Proponent shall secure all permits required by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District to construct and operate the solid waste facilities authorized by this measure. K. Utility Services. The Project Proponent shall comply with the requirements of local utility suppliers in securing electric, telephone, water and ?re protection services. Sewer service will be provided by chemical toilets used by workers at the land?ll. The Project Proponent will be required to provide the sewage disposal service, removing ef?uent once per week by pumper truck from the chemical toilets for treatment and disposal away from the site. L. Law Enforcement. The Project Proponent shall secure a blasting permit as necessary from the San Diego County Sheriff?s Department. M. Financial Guarantees. The Project Proponent shall provide a closure and post-closure plan complying with federal and state law and shall provide bonds or other ?nancial guarantees to ensure performance as required by federal and state law. N. Other Permits and Approvals. The Project Proponent shall secure all other permits and approvals as required by federal or state law. SECTION 5. MITIGATION MEASURES. To ensure that the Project is constructed and operated in a manner which minimizes its environmental impacts, the following mitigation meas- ures are hereby adopted as a condition of voter approval of the Project: A. Land?ll Gas System. The Project shall inelude a network of vertical extraction wells, lateral transmission pipes to a gas recovery facility, and perimeter gas moni- toring probes. With this system the land?ll gas will be extracted from the land?ll and combusted in an enclosed ?are. B. Water Quality. The Project shall comply with all requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure protection of surface and underground water quality. C. Earthquakes. All structures located at the East Otay Mesa site shall be designed by a quali?ed engineer to withstand the maximum probable earthquake to avoid potential impacts associated with earthquakes and ground shaking. D. Air Quality. Air quality impacts associated with the Project shall be mitigated by meeting all requirements imposed by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District for the Authority to Construct and Authority to Operate permits. E. Noise Abatement. The Project Proponent shall prepare a Noise Abatement Plan to include: 1. Physical design provisions to ensure that ambient noise levels do not exceed 65 CNEL at the boundaries of the East Otay Mesa site; 2. Installation of land?ll equipment and vehicles with noise suppressing equipment to assist in meeting the above restrictions; 3. Provisions for at least 24 hour in advance written notice of any blasting on-site to residents within a one-mile radius of the blast site; and, 4. Where ambient noise levels exceed 65 CNEL at the boundaries of the East Otay Mesa site, the Project Proponent shall retain a quali?ed noise expert to evaluate the noise level and recommend mitigation measures. These mitigation measures shall be implemented by the Project Proponent. F. Odor Control. To control odors on-site, the Project Proponent shall submit an Odor Control Plan to the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District for review and approval. 3 G. Dust Control Plan. . . To control dust from Project operations, the Project Proponent shall submit a Dust Control Plan to the San Diego County Air Pollution Con- trol District for review and approval. H. Biological Impacts. I All sensitive species and habitat impacted by the Project shall be mitigated in accordance with requirements Imposed by the Unlted States Fish Wildlife Service as part ofthe ?7 consultation. I. Visual Impacts. . In order to mitigate visual impacts associated with the Project, the Project Proponent shall employ extensive use of landscaping native vegetation, and rounding/undulation of slopes on the refuse column and changes in slope angles. All landscaping shall be performed by a licensed landscape architect in the State of California. This licensed architect shall prepare a detailed landscape plan designed to minimize visual impact associated with the Project to the maximum feasible extent. The plan prepared by the licensed architect shall be implemented by the Project Proponent upon completion. J. Cultural Impacts. Impacts to Native American resources impacted by the Project shall be mitigated through the development of a Memorandum of Agreement between the Project Proponent and the appropriate regulatory agencies in accordance with of the National Historic Preservation Act. To mitigate archaeological impacts caused by the Project, the Project Proponent shall retain a quali?ed archaeologist to investigate and recom- mend apprOpriate mitigation measures. These mitigation measures shall be implemented by the Project Preponent. K. Additional Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures included as part of any subsequent environmental review of the Project shall be included as additional mitigation meas- ures for the Project. The Project Proponent shall submit a mitigation and monitoring program that meets state and federal law to the Integrated Waste Management Board for review and approval as part of the solid waste facilities permit. SECTION 6. COUNTY COOPERATION. The County of San Diego shall cooperate with the Project Proponent wherever possible in issuing permits and approvals so that the Project can proceed in a timely fashion. The County of San Diego is hereby authorized and directed to amend other elements of the General Plan, sub-regional plans, community plans, Zoning Ordinance, Waste Management Plan and other ordinances and any other legislative acts affected by this initiative as soon as possible and in the manner and time required by State Law to ensure consistency between this initiative and other elements of the County's General Plan, sub-regional and community plans, Zoning Ordinance and other County ordinances and policies. SECTION 7. DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this measure, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: A. "Project Proponent" means the proposed operator of the facility or its assignee or authorized representatives. B. East Otay Mesa site" means the approximately 450 acres of land located east of State Route 905 and approximately 2 miles east of the Siempre Viva Road exit from Interstate 905; one quarter mile east of Loop Road; one-quarter mile north of the International Border with Mexico; and west of planned State Route ll occupying portions of Sections 28, 32, and 33 of Town5hip IS South Range I East of the San Bernardino Meridian. C. "Integrated Waste Management Board" means the State of California Integrated Waste Management Board. D. "Project" means the recycling collection center and land?ll and associated structures and improvements as described in Section 3 of this initiative measure as may be subsequently modi?ed by a detailed site plan submitted by Project Proponent to the Integrated Waste Man- agement Board as part of the solid waste facilities permit. E. "Recycling collection center" means a facility for the buy-back of source separated materials but not the processing of mixed waste. SECTION 8. PURCHASE BY PUBLIC AGENCY. The East Otay Mesa site shall remain private land until purchased by a public agency or Joint Powers Authority for its fair market value. Nothing contained herein shall restrict the right of any public agency to exercise its eminent domain power as authorized by law to acquire the East Otay Mesa site. SECTION 9. AMENDMENT OR REPEAL. This measure may be amended or repealed only by a majority of the voters voting in an election thereon. SECTION 10. INTERPRETATION AND SEVERABILITY. This measure shall be interpreted so as to be con5istent with all federal and state laws, rules and regulations. If any section, sub-section, sen- tence, clause, phrase, part or portion of this measure is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a ?nal judgment of court of competent juris- diction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this measure. The voters hereby declare that this measure and each section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof would have adopted or passed irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts or portions are declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 11. CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER BALLOT MEASURES. In the event that another ballot measure is placed on the same ballot as this measure purporting to deal with the same subject matter, and if both measures should pass, the voters expressly declare their intent that both measures shall be put into effect except to the extent that speci?c provrsrons of such measures are in direct con?ict. In the event of such a direct con?ict the measure which obtained more votes will Control as to the con?icting provisions only. The voters expressly declare this to be their intent, notwithstanding any language to the contrary in any other ballot measure. ant-tan- 4 Figure 1 Current Otay Mesa . Land?ll Georg: F- Bil-Icy Detention Facility East Olay Mesa Donovan State Prison Calpinc Power Brown Field Proposed Land?ll 5" Notice of Intention to Circulate Petition Notice is hereby given by the persons whose names appear hereon of their intention to circulate the peti- tion within the County of San Diego for the purpose of amending the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and other ordinances and the policies of the County of San Diego to allow construction and operation of a recy- cling collection center and class solid waste land?ll on approximately 450 acres of land within the East Otay Mesa area; and to amend the San Diego County Integrated Waste Management Plan and its elements and amendments to add the East Otay Mesa Recycling Center and Land?ll facility. if? David Wick Proponent 5 Appendix Data Collection Survey Forms Form 1a Gregory Canyon Landfill Assessment Research Data Collection Form (for surveyed cities/counties) Name of Business or Organization: Address: Business or Organization Type City, State, Zip: Contact Name & Title: Contact Phone: Contact FAX/E-Mail 1) Current population: 2) Projected growth: 3) Exclusive disposal agreement: 4) CalRecycle current diversion rate: 5) ZW or other Waste Diversion goals: Flow Control Agreement? Expires: Facility(ies): Extension of Flow Control Agreement? Date: Number Times Contacted: Yes / No Yes / No By Phone: Tonnage Franchised Hauler(s) Name Res/Com/RO Other Haulers Total: Additional Notes: Contract Disposal Term Recycle Green Waste By Email: Recipient Other (List (Facilities) Type) Form 1b Gregory Canyon Landfill Assessment Research Data Collection Form (for haulers/facilities) Name of Business or Organization: Address: Business or Organization Type City, State, Zip: Contact Name & Title: Contact Phone: Contact FAX/E-Mail Date: Business or Organization Type: Number Times Contacted: 1) Owner/Operator: 2) Type of Facility 3) Permitted Capacity 4) Remaining Capacity: 5) Plans for Expansion: Time Period: Conversion Factor (Tonnage to Cu. Yds.): Close Date: By Phone: By Email: Green Waste Other (List Type) Materials Accepted: Tonnage Jurisdictions/Cities Accepts From Contract Term Total: Additional Notes: Disposal Recycle Appendix Google Earth Map of Disposal Facilities within the Waste Shed APPENDIX F Disposal Facilities Within The Waste Shed Facility Name Imperial County 1 Imperial Solid Waste Site 2 Calexico Solid Waste Site 3 Niland Solid Waste Site 4 Hot Spa Solid Waste Site 5 Salton City Solid Waste Site 6 Picacho Cut And Fill Site 7 Allied Imperial Landfill 8 Mesquite Regional Landfill (Planned) Los Angeles County 9 Antelope Valley Public Landfill I 10 Scholl Canyon Sanitary Landfill 11 Burbank Landfill Site No. 3 12 Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center 13 Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill 14 Puente Hills Landfill 15 Calabasas Sanitary Landfill 16 Pebbly Beach (Avalon) Disposal Site 17 San Clemente Island Landfill 18 Sunshine Canyon City/County Landfill 19 Antelope Valley Public Landfill II 20 Savage Canyon Landfill Orange County 21 Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill 22 Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill 23 Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary LF Riverside County 24 Badlands Sanitary Landfill 25 Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill 26 Oasis Sanitary Landfill 27 Desert Center Landfill 28 Blythe Sanitary Landfill 29 Mecca Landfill II 30 El Sobrante Landfill 31 Eagle Mountain Landfill (Planned) San Bernardino County 32 California Street Landfill 33 Victorville Sanitary Landfill 34 Barstow Sanitary Landfill 35 Colton Sanitary Landfill 36 Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill 37 Landers Sanitary Landfill 38 USMC - 29 Palms Disposal Facility 39 Fort Irwin Sanitary Landfill 40 San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill San Diego County 41 Borrego Landfill 42 Otay Landfill 43 West Miramar Sanitary Landfill 44 Sycamore Sanitary Landfill 45 San Onofre Landfill 46 Las Pulgas Landfill Appendix Disposal Facility Information Table Confidential Property of R3 Consulting Group Internal Draft, Not For Public Use Appendix G Landfills Within Waste Shed 2007-2009 Landfill Summary Tonnage Report and Remaining Disposal Capacities as of December 2010 Site Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Imperial County Imperial Solid Waste Site Calexico Solid Waste Site Palo Verde Solid Waste Site Niland Solid Waste Site Hot Spa Solid Waste Site Salton City Solid Waste Site Picacho Cut And Fill Site Allied Imperial Landfill Mesquite Regional Landfill Total: Los Angeles County Antelope Valley Public Landfill I Scholl Canyon Sanitary Landfill Burbank Landfill Site No. 3 Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Puente Hills Landfill Calabasas Sanitary Landfill Pebbly Beach (Avalon) Disposal San Clemente Island Landfill Sunshine Canyon SLF County Sunshine Canyon City/County Antelope Valley Public Landfill II Savage Canyon Landfill Sunshine Canyon City Landfill Bradley Landfill West And West Total: Orange County Prima Deshecha Sanitary Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary LF Total: Riverside County Badlands Sanitary Landfill Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill Oasis Sanitary Landfill Desert Center Landfill Blythe Sanitary Landfill Mecca Landfill II El Sobrante Landfill Total: San Bernardino County California Street Landfill Victorville Sanitary Landfill Barstow Sanitary Landfill Colton Sanitary Landfill Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill Landers Sanitary Landfill USMC - 29 Palms Disposal Fort Irwin Sanitary Landfill San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill Total: San Diego County Ramona Landfill Borrego Landfill Otay Landfill West Miramar Sanitary Landfill Sycamore Sanitary Landfill San Onofre Landfill Las Pulgas Landfill Total: Grand Total: 2007 Tons Accepted 2008 Tons Accepted 2009 Tons Accepted 2007-2009 3 Year Average Tonnage Disposed 2007-2009 3 Year Average Cubic Yards* Disposed Throughput (Tons/day) Estimated Remaining Disposal Capacity as of 12/13/2010 (Tons) Close Date (Estimated) 989 1,682 769 788 285 180 825 182,005 0 187,523 1,911 2,884 0 898 132 0 607 156,878 0 163,310 1,719 2,243 0 1,041 220 1,312 706 140,782 0 148,023 1,540 2,270 256 909 212 497 713 159,888 0 166,285 3,079 4,539 513 1,818 425 995 1,425 319,777 332,571 207 150 x 55 10 50 15 1,135 20,000 21,622 85,777 556,550 18,391 27,687 172,853 34,947 470,988 600,000,000 601,367,191 9/1/2015 7/31/2071 x 6/1/2040 4/1/2036 12/31/2017 1/1/2000** 3/1/2012 12/31/2097 76,550 400,233 38,094 417,076 1,543,085 3,756,718 462,837 3,213 857 1,166,889 411,382 276,793 79,693 213,293 177,676 9,024,389 49,726 337,676 37,850 356,075 1,504,471 3,149,907 369,252 3,263 162 1,176,690 671,358 255,707 78,859 0 0 7,990,996 0 257,406 37,712 253,095 687,713 2,638,241 271,476 3,199 0 737,243 1,616,325 266,742 75,354 0 0 6,844,506 42,092 331,772 37,885 342,082 1,245,090 3,181,622 367,855 3,225 340 1,026,941 899,688 266,414 77,969 71,098 59,225 7,953,297 84,184 663,543 75,771 684,164 2,490,179 6,363,244 735,710 6,450 679 2,053,881 1,799,377 532,828 155,937 142,195 118,451 15,906,594 1,400 3,400 240 1,700 6,000 13,200 3,500 49 10 x 12,100 1,800 350 x x 43,749 1,110,244 5,386,457 2,402,191 8,176,042 9,669,641 14,418,378 8,314,290 39,150 101,851 53,450,935 1,705,274 4,603,683 109,378,135 7/1/1999** 12/31/2024 1/1/2053 8/2/2012 11/24/2019 10/31/2013 9/30/2025 1/1/2020 1/1/2032 x 12/31/2037 1/1/2008** 12/31/2048 x x 584,815 1,874,594 2,059,859 4,519,268 521,090 1,603,342 1,886,256 4,010,688 476,731 1,706,924 1,440,108 3,623,763 527,545 1,728,287 1,795,408 4,051,240 1,055,091 3,456,573 3,590,815 8,102,479 4,000 8,000 8,500 20,500 41,054,673 10,647,758 22,524,305 74,226,736 12/31/2067 12/31/2013 12/31/2022 619,969 633,785 1,222 17 21,444 1,220 2,173,216 3,450,873 476,408 632,203 1,474 16 16,895 5 2,110,066 3,237,067 435,379 548,837 1,345 13 15,741 0 1,889,484 2,890,799 510,585 604,942 1,347 15 18,027 408 2,057,589 3,192,913 1,021,171 1,209,883 2,694 31 36,053 817 4,115,177 6,385,826 4,000 3,000 400 60 400 400 16,054 44,314 7,185,881 8,872,558 68,064 11,562 1,072,463 15,760 70,707,411 87,933,699 1/1/2016 4/30/2021 10/31/2186 1/1/2011 5/31/2034 1/1/2007** 1/1/2045 56,336 325,139 60,453 208,362 771,699 94,881 8,631 8,230 186,598 1,720,329 55,525 286,710 66,028 176,721 731,706 58,374 7,917 7,796 144,423 1,535,200 65,330 258,358 62,666 151,616 529,533 47,396 8,483 0 130,879 1,254,261 59,064 290,069 63,049 178,900 677,646 66,884 8,344 5,342 153,967 1,503,263 118,127 580,138 126,098 357,799 1,355,292 133,767 16,687 10,684 307,933 3,006,527 829 3,000 1,500 3,100 7,500 1,200 100 100 1,000 18,329 3,104,682 40,464,931 273,054 1,171,100 33,082,354 315,665 5,385,469 9,446,233 5,218,100 98,461,588 1/1/2042 10/1/2047 5/1/2071 1/1/2017 4/1/2033 1/1/2013 1/1/2076 1/1/2405 5/1/2016 60,027 8,532 1,359,338 1,248,122 987,078 97 31,238 3,694,432 22,596,814 75,101 8,822 1,275,077 1,073,127 889,443 639 33,397 3,355,606 20,292,867 32,061 6,688 1,190,062 904,404 826,153 1,017 31,235 2,991,620 17,752,972 55,730 8,014 1,274,826 1,075,218 900,891 584 31,957 3,347,219 20,214,218 111,459 16,028 2,549,651 2,150,435 1,801,783 1,169 63,913 6,694,439 40,428,435 x 50 5,830 8,000 3,965 50 400 18,295 166,809 x 231,404 16,520,263 5,010,847 20,090,649 621,909 5,020,030 47,495,101 1,018,862,450 Inactive 10/31/2030 4/30/2021 1/31/2019 12/31/2031 11/30/2257 3/31/2047 Note: Facilities marked in RED are either no longer permitted or active, but are included in this table to show tons accepted for a given year. Note: All projections are calculations based on 3 year average (2007-2009) and have not been adjusted for changes in disposal, diversion or population. All projections and data herein are subject to change as more up-to-date data is made available. All base data herein has been gathered from CalRecycle. * Conversion factor of 1000 pounds (1/2 ton) to 1 Cubic Yard has been corroborated through correspondence with landfill facilities as well as CalRecycle staff ** Closure dates are estimated on the CalRecycle Website as of most recent permit renewal, therefore some closure dates have not been updated because of litigation or special circumstances (Per Megan Fisher of CalRecycle) Note: Numbers on left-hand side can be used to identify location of facility in APPENDIX F Appendix Data Collection Methodology APPENDIX H Additional Data Collection Methodology SWIS Database To gather information on each of the 45 landfill facilities within the Waste Shed, the CalRecycle SWIS database was utilized. As defined on the CalRecycle website: Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment “The Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) database contains information on solid waste facilities, operations, and disposal sites throughout the State of California. The types of facilities found in this database include landfills, transfer stations, material recovery facilities, composting sites, transformation facilities, waste tire sites, and closed disposal sites. For each facility, the database contains information about location, owner, operator, facility type, regulatory and operational status, authorized waste types, local enforcement agency and inspection and enforcement records.” CalRecycle offers the SWIS database in a two-megabyte Microsoft Excel file, which was used to consolidate much of the information required to carry out the Needs Analysis. The consolidated file includes twenty-four categories, including but not limited to: Facility name; Facility category (i.e. disposal, composting, transfer/processing, etc.);  Materials accepted;  Permitted capacity;  Remaining capacity;  Estimated close date;  Facility Owner; and  Facility Operator1. Each facility in the SWIS database is assigned a SWIS number that is unique to that facility (facilities may perform more than one activity at each site, therefore one SWIS number may account for a disposal facility and a composting facility). The SWIS file downloaded from the CalRecycle website is separated into three   1 Some information is not up-to-date on the CalRecycle website and the downloaded SWIS file due to permit turnover time. Permit renewal or updates can take up to five years or more because of litigation or special circumstances (Per correspondence Megan Fisher, Integrated Waste Management Specialist, CalRecycle). Appendix H - 1 Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment tabs, entitled “Owner”, “Unit,” and “Site,” each of which contains respective information on every facility in the SWIS database. By using the Filter and Sort functions in Excel, were isolated the facilities within the six counties that comprise the Waste Shed were isolated and the information was consolidated into a new Excel file. Based on information in the consolidated SWIS file, the following items were created: Itemized data collection forms for each landfill facility (including owner, operator, and contact information) that were used to conduct disposal facility surveys (APPENDIX E);  Google Earth maps showing the exact latitude and longitude of each landfill facility (APPENDIX F); and  Detailed table of all landfill facilities (APPENDIX G). The consolidated SWIS file is separated into six tabs, one for each county, and includes all facility types (i.e. Disposal, TransferProcessing, Composting, etc.). The focus of this Needs Assessment, however, is in landfill facilities; therefore, a landfill information table has been provided in APPENDIX G.  California Waste Stream Profiles The California Waste Stream Profiles (CWSP) database on the CalRecycle website contains summaries of county, jurisdiction, and facility waste streams. Counties contain solid waste jurisdictions that act as reporting entities to CalRecycle. Each solid waste jurisdiction, county and landfill facility must report the following information to CalRecycle on a quarterly basis: For counties, CWSP provides:  Contact information;  Solid waste jurisdictions;  Cities/jurisdictions located within county;  Landfill facilities located within county; and  Landfill facilities used by county. For cities, CWSP provides: Contact information; Diversion rates up to 2006, and preliminary rates for 20072009;  Diversion and solid waste program information;  Amount and classification of disposal; and  Landfill facilities located within jurisdiction. For active landfill facilities, CWSP provides:    Appendix H - 2 Contact information; Hours of operation (used to calculate annual throughput); and  LEA contact information. Disposal Reporting System (DRS)  CalRecycle also provides the DRS, which is defined as: Gregory Canyon Landfill Needs Assessment “Disposal Reporting System (DRS) reports are based on information reported by permitted facility operators and compiled by county/regional agency disposal reporting coordinators. CalRecycle staff enters this data into the DRS database, triple checks the entry to ensure it matches the tonnage submitted by each county, and then releases the finalized data in yearly increments. Only finalized data are shown in these reports.” The DRS reports are categorized into waste flow by origin and waste flow by destination reports, the majority of which can be downloaded in a Microsoft Excel format. Using the information from the DRS database, tables consisting of the following information were created:    Single- and multi-year county-wide disposal tonnage by origin; Single- and multi-year disposal tonnage by destination landfill facility; and Jurisdiction disposal by landfill facility (where each jurisdiction disposed of their waste) from 1999-2009. Appendix H - 3 Appendix Population Projections APPENDIX i APPENDIX I Imperial County Population Projections City/County Imperial County Imperial Valley Resource Management Agency* Total: Population 2010 Population 2015 Population 2020 Population 2025 Population 2030 Population 2035 Population 2040 Population 3 Year Average 2045 (Tons) 202,270 247,028 276,030 297,648 312,316 320,448 344,084 367,719 237,080 202,270 247,028 276,030 297,648 312,316 320,448 344,084 367,719 237,080 Note: All population data between 2010 and 2035 are projected estimates from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Estimates are based on fertility, mortality, and migration for each of four ethnic groups within three population classes (residents, domestic migrants, international migrants). Projected population data for the years 2040 and 2045 are based on the average difference in population between projection years 2010 through 2035. *The Imperial Valley Resource Management Agency encompasses all jurisdictions within Imperial County. Tonnage data is not available for the individual cities, and is therefore consolidated into one category. APPENDIX i APPENDIX I Los Angeles County Population Projections City/County Population 2010 Population 2015 Population 2020 Population 2025 Population 2030 Population 2035 Population 2040 Population 3 Year Average 2045 (Tons) Los Angeles County Agoura Hills Alhambra Arcadia Avalon Azusa Baldwin Park Bell Bell Gardens Bellflower Bradbury Burbank Calabasas Carson Cerritos Claremont Commerce Compton Covina Cudahy Culver Diamond Bar Downey El Monte El Segundo Gardena Glendale Glendora Hawaiian Gardens Hawthorne Huntington Park Industry Inglewood Irwindale La Canada Flintridge La Habra Heights La Mirada La Puente La Verne Lakewood Lancaster Lawndale Lomita Long Beach Los Angeles IWMA* Lynwood Malibu Maywood Monrovia Montebello Monterey Park Norwalk Palmdale Paramount Pasadena Pico Rivera Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Estates San Dimas San Fernando San Gabriel San Marino Santa Clarita Santa Fe Springs Santa Monica Signal Hill South El Monte South Pasadena Temple City Unincorporated Vernon Walnut West Covina West Hollywood Westlake Village Whittier County Total: 23,347 23,357 23,400 23,440 23,472 23,502 23,533 23,564 24,497 90,813 93,115 94,852 96,602 98,319 99,952 101,780 103,608 49,822 58,158 59,674 61,265 62,803 64,287 65,704 67,213 68,722 52,867 3,637 3,971 4,208 4,474 4,721 4,959 5,223 5,488 3,387 49,174 51,003 52,372 53,784 55,148 56,460 57,917 59,374 48,007 82,767 84,025 85,399 86,722 87,995 89,212 90,501 91,790 55,378 39,147 39,290 39,490 39,679 39,858 40,028 40,204 40,380 24,656 46,567 46,810 47,120 47,414 47,693 47,958 48,236 48,514 37,988 79,656 81,551 83,551 85,483 87,347 89,130 91,025 92,920 38,993 993 1,031 1,071 1,109 1,147 1,182 1,220 1,258 3,854 112,103 116,430 120,890 125,213 129,390 133,391 137,649 141,906 106,812 23,750 24,813 25,701 26,700 27,603 28,472 29,416 30,361 60,067 101,507 104,233 107,089 109,850 112,512 115,059 117,769 120,480 254,729 55,184 55,270 55,438 55,591 55,731 55,861 55,996 56,132 55,430 37,356 37,896 38,490 39,061 39,609 40,134 40,690 41,245 28,119 13,524 13,539 13,573 13,606 13,637 13,667 13,696 13,724 130,516 99,522 99,603 99,828 100,038 100,246 100,451 100,637 100,823 106,834 50,732 53,503 55,628 57,854 59,977 62,008 64,263 66,518 46,033 26,558 27,199 27,875 28,528 29,160 29,765 30,406 31,048 17,885 41,081 41,258 41,494 41,718 41,929 42,128 42,337 42,547 55,761 61,041 62,676 64,247 65,771 67,240 68,595 70,106 71,617 35,877 115,973 118,011 120,208 122,324 124,358 126,300 128,365 130,431 109,527 130,412 135,813 141,183 146,429 151,455 156,123 161,265 166,407 118,007 17,268 17,495 17,500 17,505 17,510 17,515 17,564 17,614 49,461 62,452 65,579 67,708 69,968 72,140 74,269 76,632 78,996 123,998 210,950 214,200 217,744 221,154 224,431 227,561 230,883 234,205 185,980 53,598 55,019 56,366 57,611 58,852 60,002 61,283 62,564 44,587 16,189 16,442 16,717 16,981 17,235 17,478 17,736 17,994 8,452 94,042 98,586 103,236 107,748 112,119 116,312 120,766 125,220 65,336 67,062 68,896 70,817 72,675 74,469 76,184 78,008 79,833 48,957 807 807 809 811 812 814 815 817 117,937 118,466 120,185 120,678 121,065 121,669 122,200 122,947 123,694 89,048 1,774 1,982 2,190 2,394 2,591 2,780 2,981 3,182 43,549 21,575 21,627 21,712 21,791 21,862 21,930 22,001 22,072 21,443 6,241 6,381 6,590 6,852 7,103 7,364 7,589 7,813 6,375 51,772 55,766 58,780 62,003 65,045 67,963 71,201 74,439 40,110 44,923 47,827 50,220 52,696 55,044 57,287 59,760 62,233 58,297 34,227 35,240 36,317 37,712 39,051 40,457 41,703 42,949 31,650 84,060 84,354 84,420 84,425 84,430 84,435 84,510 84,585 21,730 160,650 181,493 202,406 222,761 242,523 261,501 281,671 301,841 128,525 34,477 35,348 36,264 37,152 38,010 38,835 39,707 40,578 21,838 21,303 21,415 21,557 21,691 21,816 21,936 22,063 22,189 10,670 503,251 517,226 531,854 545,980 559,598 572,614 586,487 600,359 302,599 4,813,863 4,903,804 4,998,662 5,089,958 5,178,002 5,262,070 5,351,711 5,441,353 4,115,038 73,874 74,519 74,524 74,529 74,534 74,539 74,672 74,805 19,189 14,402 14,991 15,598 16,188 16,761 17,310 17,892 18,473 41,067 29,783 29,867 29,995 30,113 30,227 30,334 30,444 30,554 18,292 39,763 40,269 40,831 41,371 41,886 42,378 42,901 43,424 38,918 65,728 65,983 65,989 65,994 65,999 66,005 66,060 66,116 78,876 68,636 72,618 76,042 79,205 82,373 85,303 88,636 91,970 49,625 111,889 113,484 115,236 116,922 118,543 120,092 121,733 123,373 66,548 182,663 220,121 257,545 293,971 329,321 363,252 399,370 435,488 116,240 60,128 62,878 65,463 68,023 70,475 72,781 75,312 77,842 48,751 149,854 152,719 155,786 158,759 161,648 164,433 167,349 170,265 197,239 68,427 69,943 71,392 72,740 74,077 75,296 76,670 78,044 72,857 1,985 1,988 1,994 2,000 2,006 2,012 2,017 2,023 5,442 8,336 9,150 9,215 9,273 9,307 9,311 9,506 9,701 12,487 37,481 38,828 42,477 46,348 49,996 53,457 56,652 59,847 38,053 25,452 25,798 26,179 26,546 26,898 27,235 27,592 27,948 21,376 42,500 44,605 45,784 47,113 48,396 49,679 51,115 52,551 33,881 13,623 13,634 13,667 13,695 13,720 13,743 13,767 13,791 12,638 181,974 193,866 205,935 217,660 229,023 239,923 251,513 263,103 145,268 18,778 19,561 20,364 21,144 21,898 22,620 23,388 24,157 128,003 91,335 91,443 91,689 91,913 92,120 92,314 92,510 92,706 99,595 11,405 11,772 12,155 12,527 12,887 13,234 13,600 13,966 16,163 22,785 23,097 23,440 23,770 24,087 24,388 24,709 25,029 38,395 25,899 26,002 26,145 26,280 26,410 26,534 26,661 26,788 17,431 36,098 36,746 37,444 38,116 38,760 39,375 40,030 40,686 28,227 1,188,319 1,282,624 1,378,395 1,471,609 1,561,983 1,648,694 1,740,769 1,832,844 1,018,939 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 208,310 32,353 33,567 34,408 35,301 36,166 36,989 37,916 38,843 26,240 115,338 121,123 127,037 132,745 138,266 143,539 149,179 154,819 76,919 38,223 38,515 38,864 39,197 39,515 39,821 40,141 40,460 33,990 9,058 9,191 9,335 9,474 9,608 9,735 9,870 10,006 14,215 87,689 88,957 89,982 90,900 91,853 92,746 93,757 94,769 135,766 10,615,730 10,971,602 11,329,829 11,678,552 12,015,889 12,338,620 12,683,293 13,027,871 9,859,567 Note: All population data between 2010 and 2035 are projected estimates from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Estimates are based on fertility, mortality, and migration for each of four ethnic groups within three population classes (residents, domestic migrants, international migrants). Projected population data for the years 2040 and 2045 are based on the average difference in population between projection years 2010 through 2035. *The Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) is comprised of the following member cities: Artesia, Beverly Hills, Duarte, Hermosa Beach, Hidden Hills, Los Angeles, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, Pomona, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Rosemead, Sierra Madre, South Gate, and Torrance. APPENDIX I Orange County Population Projections City/County Population 2010 Population 2015 Population 2020 Population 2025 Population 2030 Population 2035 Population 2040 Population 3 Year Average 2045 (Net Tons) Orange County Aliso Viejo 47,223 49,143 49,721 49,943 50,188 50,214 50,812 51,410 18,755 Anaheim 365,985 387,414 401,750 414,763 425,781 438,645 453,177 467,709 425,789 Brea 42,973 45,417 46,031 46,295 46,751 46,997 47,802 48,607 68,065 Buena Park 86,396 87,875 89,044 89,577 90,103 90,295 91,075 91,855 79,692 Costa Mesa 120,501 122,828 124,692 125,675 126,492 126,958 128,249 129,541 126,405 Cypress 51,101 52,412 53,827 54,397 54,934 55,159 55,971 56,782 61,992 Dana Point 38,169 38,946 39,509 39,766 40,173 40,393 40,838 41,283 36,543 Fountain Valley 59,392 61,009 62,278 63,086 63,969 64,525 65,552 66,578 47,649 Fullerton 142,940 146,194 148,862 150,411 152,494 153,398 155,490 157,581 139,781 Garden Grove 181,032 185,265 188,623 190,409 192,315 192,532 194,832 197,132 171,051 Huntington Beach 212,957 217,822 220,892 222,569 224,788 225,815 228,387 230,958 188,538 Irvine 235,633 256,721 264,222 265,965 268,246 269,802 276,636 283,470 264,134 La Habra 65,304 66,958 67,812 68,186 68,616 68,711 69,392 70,074 57,269 La Palma 16,837 17,154 17,357 17,438 17,527 17,622 17,779 17,936 10,313 Laguna Beach 25,886 26,371 26,670 26,787 26,950 27,045 27,277 27,509 40,873 Laguna Hills 34,364 34,922 35,736 35,912 36,210 36,382 36,786 37,189 25,916 Laguna Niguel 69,994 71,433 72,442 72,766 73,129 73,163 73,797 74,431 51,966 Laguna Woods 19,327 19,679 20,133 20,244 20,406 20,485 20,717 20,948 14,219 Lake Forest 78,718 78,952 79,853 80,018 80,482 80,598 80,974 81,350 82,924 Los Alamitos 12,564 12,831 13,020 13,124 13,237 13,312 13,462 13,611 21,014 Mission Viejo 102,056 103,344 105,014 105,623 106,140 106,176 107,000 107,824 75,034 Newport Beach 88,340 91,320 93,195 95,428 96,892 97,766 99,651 101,536 104,056 Orange 150,313 154,480 157,245 158,622 159,607 160,313 162,313 164,313 179,384 Unincorporated 166,893 198,935 214,384 229,703 236,469 237,211 251,275 265,338 121,604 Placentia 54,847 55,984 58,366 59,891 61,456 62,111 63,564 65,017 49,932 Rancho Santa Margarita 51,972 52,685 53,312 53,675 53,941 53,985 54,388 54,790 33,604 San Clemente 68,999 70,731 72,597 73,174 73,839 74,151 75,181 76,212 58,580 San Juan Capistrano 39,201 40,229 40,741 40,892 41,117 41,153 41,543 41,934 45,699 Santa Ana 364,683 371,043 376,353 378,397 380,356 380,613 383,799 386,985 332,601 Seal Beach 26,626 27,115 27,444 27,570 27,776 27,871 28,120 28,369 24,830 Stanton 39,749 41,548 43,453 44,796 45,716 46,137 47,415 48,692 39,498 Tustin 80,728 86,621 88,245 88,694 89,110 89,154 90,839 92,524 61,447 Villa Park 6,247 6,277 6,331 6,378 6,444 6,492 6,541 6,590 5,417 Westminster 96,485 98,384 99,794 100,496 101,486 102,017 103,123 104,230 70,251 Yorba Linda 70,513 73,713 74,987 75,613 76,399 76,789 78,044 79,299 67,382 Total: 3,314,948 3,451,755 3,533,935 3,586,283 3,629,539 3,653,990 3,721,798 3,789,607 3,202,206 Note: All population data between 2010 and 2035 are projected estimates from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Estimates are based on fertility, mortality, and migration for each of four ethnic groups within three population classes (residents, domestic migrants, international migrants). Projected population data for the years 2040 and 2045 are based on the average difference in population between projection years 2010 through 2035. APPENDIX I Riverside County Population Projections City/County Riverside County Banning Beaumont Blythe Calimesa Canyon Lake Cathedral City Coachella Corona Desert Hot Springs Hemet Indian Wells Indio La Quinta Lake Elsinore Moreno Valley Murrieta Norco Palm Desert Palm Springs Perris Rancho Mirage Riverside Unincorporated San Jacinto Temecula Total: Population 2010 Population 2015 Population 2020 Population 2025 Population 2030 Population 2035 Population 2040 Population 3 Year Average 2045 (Tons) 35,645 42,121 47,683 53,713 59,392 63,787 69,415 75,044 26,042 33,951 45,029 52,591 63,660 74,686 77,438 86,135 94,833 26,983 23,123 24,170 25,897 26,496 27,011 27,626 28,527 29,427 9,486 11,605 15,193 18,267 21,348 25,504 28,831 32,276 35,721 5,647 11,137 11,277 11,409 11,533 11,618 11,710 11,825 11,939 7,453 55,745 60,293 65,222 69,431 74,052 76,838 81,057 85,275 46,472 46,981 60,759 75,540 90,122 104,703 119,383 133,863 148,344 30,457 150,177 154,631 157,556 161,749 165,260 167,900 171,445 174,989 188,145 39,540 50,836 55,894 60,817 65,723 70,311 76,465 82,619 13,042 85,741 100,831 107,529 120,349 132,576 144,891 156,721 168,551 66,797 5,309 5,708 6,025 6,311 6,523 6,711 6,991 7,272 12,687 77,967 86,890 93,115 99,476 105,873 112,020 118,831 125,641 82,959 45,272 50,049 52,922 54,788 56,440 57,937 60,470 63,003 38,901 51,138 61,045 69,558 78,044 85,376 92,438 100,698 108,958 43,710 189,700 206,657 220,390 234,410 246,804 258,350 272,080 285,810 129,486 103,726 109,715 114,370 119,689 123,550 127,962 132,809 137,656 66,071 29,058 30,693 32,052 33,437 34,531 35,085 36,290 37,496 37,214 54,435 59,588 64,860 67,206 70,303 73,131 76,870 80,609 72,562 49,239 51,756 56,288 60,499 65,403 70,853 75,176 79,499 68,654 55,799 64,220 71,468 78,671 84,881 90,951 97,981 105,012 59,257 18,983 22,585 26,764 32,096 32,542 32,847 35,620 38,393 30,656 300,523 312,924 335,468 353,162 372,782 385,794 402,848 419,902 342,862 617,242 710,478 854,662 988,192 1,104,572 1,243,634 1,368,912 1,494,191 537,694 51,322 68,732 80,922 87,000 92,177 96,106 105,063 114,020 29,596 99,387 103,150 112,551 117,800 121,495 124,146 129,098 134,050 89,965 2,242,745 2,509,330 2,809,003 3,089,999 3,343,777 3,596,680 3,867,467 4,138,254 2,062,796 Note: All population data between 2010 and 2035 are projected estimates from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Estimates are based on fertility, mortality, and migration for each of four ethnic groups within three population classes (residents, domestic migrants, international migrants). Projected population data for the years 2040 and 2045 are based on the average difference in population between projection years 2010 through 2035. APPENDIX I San Bernardino County Population Projections City/County Population 2010 Population 2015 Population 2020 Population 2025 Population 2030 Population 2035 Population 2040 Population 3 Year Average 2045 (Tons) San Bernardino County Adelanto Apple Valley Barstow Big Bear Lake Chino Chino Hills Colton Fontana Grand Terrace Hesperia Highland Loma Linda Montclair Needles Ontario Rancho Cucamonga Redlands Rialto San Bernardino Unincorporated Twentynine Palms Upland Victorville Yucaipa Yucca Valley Total: 40,742 56,674 71,877 86,629 100,814 114,398 129,129 143,860 19,753 71,630 77,115 82,005 86,749 91,311 95,681 100,491 105,301 57,453 31,972 40,043 47,810 55,346 62,593 69,533 77,045 84,557 25,744 7,032 7,842 8,583 9,303 9,995 10,657 11,382 12,107 15,347 81,998 87,313 93,823 100,142 106,220 112,038 118,046 124,054 93,985 79,298 80,382 81,039 81,678 82,292 82,880 83,596 84,313 39,477 58,815 65,543 71,880 78,029 83,942 89,604 95,762 101,920 46,649 174,719 185,804 195,866 205,630 215,018 224,011 233,869 243,728 168,789 12,926 13,406 13,801 14,188 14,557 14,911 15,308 15,705 9,799 102,895 126,456 148,751 170,384 191,186 211,108 232,751 254,393 68,043 55,345 59,208 62,708 66,105 69,371 72,497 75,927 79,358 31,008 25,481 28,997 32,259 35,426 38,470 41,385 44,566 47,747 15,905 39,271 42,704 45,849 48,901 51,833 54,643 57,717 60,792 32,579 5,658 5,752 5,775 5,797 5,819 5,840 5,876 5,913 130 187,060 213,839 246,304 277,799 308,088 337,095 367,102 397,109 243,128 171,980 172,405 172,409 172,414 172,417 172,420 172,508 172,596 146,298 73,441 76,602 80,973 85,214 89,288 93,196 97,147 101,098 68,813 107,849 115,846 123,080 130,100 136,845 143,308 150,400 157,492 88,342 213,318 224,924 235,616 245,989 255,959 265,515 275,954 286,394 201,885 346,523 380,393 408,654 436,081 462,447 487,697 515,932 544,167 304,393 35,352 42,900 49,991 56,872 63,488 69,823 76,717 83,611 21,321 75,951 77,666 78,927 80,146 81,322 82,444 83,743 85,041 60,846 106,649 122,205 138,023 153,376 168,134 182,275 197,400 212,525 96,941 52,729 55,215 57,359 59,440 61,441 63,357 65,483 67,608 32,522 23,415 26,514 29,403 32,207 34,903 37,485 40,299 43,113 19,129 2,182,049 2,385,748 2,582,765 2,773,945 2,957,753 3,133,801 3,324,151 3,514,502 1,908,279 Note: All population data between 2010 and 2035 are projected estimates from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Estimates are based on fertility, mortality, and migration for each of four ethnic groups within three population classes (residents, domestic migrants, international migrants). Projected population data for the years 2040 and 2045 are based on the average difference in population between projection years 2010 through 2035. APPENDIX I San Diego County Population Projections City/County San Diego County Carlsbad Chula Vista Coronado Del Mar El Cajon Encinitas Escondido Imperial Beach La Mesa Lemon Grove National City Oceanside Poway San Diego Unincorporated San Marcos Santee Solana Beach Vista Total: Population 2010 Population 2015 Population 2020 Population 2025 Population 2030 Population 2035 Population 2040 Population 2045 3 Year Average (Tons) 106,804 112,231 117,657 120,604 123,551 125,470 127,389 128,385 120,924 237,595 252,511 267,427 278,236 289,044 303,314 317,583 323,982 179,220 23,916 25,132 26,348 26,574 26,800 27,174 27,548 27,743 46,213 4,660 4,730 4,799 4,858 4,916 4,985 5,053 5,101 11,135 99,637 104,630 109,623 119,085 128,547 136,018 143,488 144,002 102,323 65,171 66,883 68,594 70,823 73,052 74,222 75,392 76,026 69,256 147,514 150,922 154,329 159,798 165,267 168,779 172,290 174,938 138,751 28,680 28,455 28,230 29,402 30,574 31,832 33,089 34,644 13,605 58,150 60,125 62,100 64,042 65,984 69,651 73,317 75,549 41,216 26,131 26,410 26,688 27,430 28,171 29,442 30,713 31,429 20,851 57,799 60,050 62,300 65,803 69,306 74,011 78,715 84,393 54,408 183,095 189,275 195,455 202,529 209,602 212,024 214,445 215,905 138,536 52,056 53,063 54,070 56,011 57,951 58,532 59,112 59,460 60,935 1,376,173 1,459,351 1,542,528 1,615,891 1,689,254 1,753,089 1,816,924 1,881,247 1,558,857 503,320 524,305 545,290 581,060 616,829 642,615 668,401 681,433 594,486 84,391 87,597 90,802 96,050 101,298 102,873 104,448 105,078 88,339 58,044 61,281 64,517 67,193 69,868 71,631 73,393 73,535 51,046 13,783 14,005 14,227 14,576 14,924 15,252 15,579 15,761 15,895 97,513 98,765 100,016 102,539 105,062 115,936 126,809 135,673 102,518 3,224,432 3,379,716 3,535,000 3,702,500 3,870,000 4,016,844 4,163,688 4,274,278 3,408,516 Note: All population data for 2010, 2020, 2030 and 2040 are projected estimates from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Estimates are based on economic and demographic projections, existing land-use plans and policies, and potential landuse plan changes. Projected population data for the years 2015, 2025, 2035 and 2045 are based on the average difference in population between the available projection years of 2010 through 2050. Appendix J Disposal Tonnage Projections: Base-Year Conditions 20% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2020 50% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2030 APPENDIX J Imperial County Projected Disposal (Tons) Based on Base-Year Conditions City/County 2010 Imperial County Imperial Valley Resource Management Agency* Total: 237,080 237,080 2015 289,540 289,540 2020 323,534 323,534 2025 348,872 348,872 2030 366,064 366,064 2035 375,596 375,596 2040 403,299 403,299 2045 431,002 431,002 APPENDIX J Los Angeles County Projected Disposal (Tons) Based on Base-Year Conditions City/County 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Los Angeles County Agoura Hills Alhambra Arcadia Avalon Azusa Baldwin Park Bell Bell Gardens Bellflower Bradbury Burbank Calabasas Carson Cerritos Claremont Commerce Compton Covina Cudahy Culver Diamond Bar Downey El Monte El Segundo Gardena Glendale Glendora Hawaiian Gardens Hawthorne Huntington Park Industry Inglewood Irwindale La Canada Flintridge La Habra Heights La Mirada La Puente La Verne Lakewood Lancaster Lawndale Lomita Long Beach Los Angeles IWMA* Lynwood Malibu Maywood Monrovia Montebello Monterey Park Norwalk Palmdale Paramount Pasadena Pico Rivera Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Estates San Dimas San Fernando San Gabriel San Marino Santa Clarita Santa Fe Springs Santa Monica Signal Hill South El Monte South Pasadena Temple City Unincorporated Vernon Walnut West Covina West Hollywood Westlake Village Whittier County Total: 24,497 49,822 52,867 3,387 48,007 55,378 24,656 37,988 38,993 3,854 106,812 60,067 254,729 55,430 28,119 130,516 106,834 46,033 17,885 55,761 35,877 109,527 118,007 49,461 123,998 185,980 44,587 8,452 65,336 48,957 117,937 89,048 43,549 21,443 6,375 40,110 58,297 31,650 21,730 128,525 21,838 10,670 302,599 4,115,038 19,189 41,067 18,292 38,918 78,876 49,625 66,548 116,240 48,751 197,239 72,857 5,442 12,487 38,053 21,376 33,881 12,638 145,268 128,003 99,595 16,163 38,395 17,431 28,227 1,018,939 208,310 26,240 76,919 33,990 14,215 135,766 9,859,567 24,508 51,085 54,245 3,698 49,793 56,220 24,746 38,186 39,921 4,001 110,935 62,756 261,570 55,516 28,525 130,660 106,920 48,547 18,316 56,001 36,838 111,452 122,894 50,112 130,206 188,846 45,769 8,584 68,493 50,296 117,937 90,340 48,656 21,494 6,518 43,205 62,065 32,586 21,806 145,200 22,390 10,727 311,002 4,186,681 19,356 42,746 18,344 39,413 79,182 52,504 67,497 140,077 50,981 201,010 74,471 5,450 13,707 39,420 21,666 35,559 12,648 154,761 133,340 99,713 16,683 38,921 17,500 28,734 1,099,802 208,310 27,225 80,777 34,249 14,424 137,729 10,166,448 24,553 52,038 55,692 3,919 51,129 57,139 24,872 38,439 40,900 4,156 115,184 65,002 268,737 55,685 28,972 130,989 107,162 50,475 18,771 56,321 37,761 113,527 127,753 50,126 134,433 191,970 46,889 8,728 71,724 51,698 118,230 90,711 53,762 21,579 6,732 45,540 65,170 33,582 21,823 161,931 22,970 10,798 319,798 4,263,966 19,358 44,477 18,422 39,964 79,190 54,980 68,539 163,892 53,077 205,047 76,014 5,467 13,804 43,125 21,986 36,499 12,678 164,395 138,814 99,981 17,226 39,499 17,596 29,280 1,181,922 208,310 27,907 84,721 34,560 14,650 139,316 10,476,032 24,595 52,998 57,090 4,167 52,508 58,024 24,991 38,679 41,846 4,304 119,303 67,528 275,666 55,839 29,402 131,307 107,387 52,495 19,211 56,625 38,657 115,525 132,500 50,140 138,920 194,976 47,925 8,866 74,859 53,054 118,522 91,002 58,770 21,657 6,999 48,037 68,384 34,872 21,824 178,215 23,532 10,865 328,291 4,338,410 19,359 46,160 18,495 40,492 79,196 57,267 69,541 187,073 55,153 208,960 77,449 5,483 13,891 47,055 22,294 37,559 12,704 173,755 144,131 100,226 17,753 40,055 17,687 29,805 1,261,849 208,310 28,631 88,528 34,856 14,868 140,737 10,778,092 24,628 53,940 58,439 4,397 53,839 58,876 25,104 38,906 42,758 4,451 123,283 69,812 282,346 55,980 29,815 131,606 107,611 54,422 19,637 56,912 39,520 117,446 137,048 50,155 143,233 197,865 48,957 8,998 77,895 54,364 118,668 91,456 63,606 21,728 7,256 50,394 71,431 36,110 21,826 194,025 24,076 10,927 336,480 4,409,960 19,360 47,794 18,565 40,996 79,202 59,557 70,506 209,568 57,141 212,763 78,873 5,500 13,942 50,759 22,590 38,581 12,728 182,826 149,271 100,451 18,263 40,589 17,775 30,309 1,339,342 208,310 29,333 92,209 35,139 15,079 142,213 11,069,717 24,660 54,836 59,727 4,618 55,120 59,690 25,211 39,122 43,631 4,587 127,095 72,010 288,738 56,110 30,210 131,896 107,831 56,264 20,044 57,182 40,317 119,280 141,272 50,169 147,460 200,625 49,914 9,125 80,809 55,616 118,960 91,855 68,246 21,796 7,522 52,654 74,341 37,410 21,827 209,208 24,598 10,988 344,306 4,478,408 19,362 49,359 18,631 41,478 79,209 61,676 71,427 231,161 59,010 216,428 80,170 5,516 13,948 54,273 22,873 39,604 12,749 191,527 154,192 100,663 18,755 41,096 17,858 30,790 1,413,693 208,310 30,000 95,726 35,411 15,278 143,595 11,349,058 24,693 55,839 61,099 4,865 56,543 60,553 25,322 39,349 44,559 4,734 131,152 74,398 295,540 56,246 30,628 132,172 108,030 58,311 20,476 57,466 41,205 121,231 145,925 50,310 152,153 203,554 50,980 9,260 83,903 56,948 119,165 92,416 73,185 21,866 7,752 55,163 77,550 38,563 21,846 225,345 25,150 11,051 352,648 4,551,082 19,396 51,017 18,698 41,990 79,275 64,086 72,403 254,145 61,062 220,266 81,633 5,531 14,240 57,516 23,173 40,749 12,771 200,779 159,430 100,876 19,273 41,636 17,944 31,302 1,492,644 208,310 30,752 99,487 35,695 15,490 145,161 11,646,956 24,725 56,842 62,471 5,111 57,965 61,415 25,433 39,576 45,486 4,881 135,208 76,787 302,341 56,382 31,046 132,448 108,230 60,357 20,908 57,750 42,093 123,181 150,578 50,452 156,845 206,483 52,045 9,394 86,997 58,280 119,370 92,978 78,124 21,937 7,981 57,672 80,759 39,715 21,866 241,482 25,702 11,114 360,989 4,623,756 19,431 52,676 18,766 42,501 79,342 66,496 73,378 277,129 63,114 224,104 83,096 5,546 14,532 60,760 23,472 41,894 12,793 210,031 164,668 101,090 19,792 42,177 18,029 31,815 1,571,595 208,310 31,504 103,249 35,979 15,703 146,727 11,944,855 APPENDIX J Orange County Projected Disposal (Tons) Based on Base-Year Conditions City/County Orange County Aliso Viejo Anaheim Brea Buena Park Costa Mesa Cypress Dana Point Fountain Valley Fullerton Garden Grove Huntington Beach Irvine La Habra La Palma Laguna Beach Laguna Hills Laguna Niguel Laguna Woods Lake Forest Los Alamitos Mission Viejo Newport Beach Orange Unincorporated Placentia Rancho Santa Margarita San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Santa Ana Seal Beach Stanton Tustin Villa Park Westminster Yorba Linda Total: 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 18,755 425,789 68,065 79,692 126,405 61,992 36,543 47,649 139,781 171,051 188,538 264,134 57,269 10,313 40,873 25,916 51,966 14,219 82,924 21,014 75,034 104,056 179,384 121,604 49,932 33,604 58,580 45,699 332,601 24,830 39,498 61,447 5,417 70,251 67,382 3,202,206 19,518 450,720 71,936 81,056 128,846 63,582 37,287 48,946 142,963 175,050 192,845 287,773 58,719 10,507 41,638 26,337 53,035 14,478 83,170 21,461 75,981 107,567 184,357 144,950 50,967 34,065 60,051 46,897 338,402 25,286 41,285 65,933 5,443 71,634 70,440 3,333,124 19,747 467,398 72,908 82,134 130,801 65,299 37,826 49,964 145,572 178,223 195,563 296,181 59,468 10,631 42,111 26,950 53,784 14,812 84,119 21,777 77,208 109,775 187,657 156,207 53,136 34,470 61,635 47,494 343,245 25,593 43,178 67,169 5,490 72,661 71,658 3,411,845 19,835 482,538 73,326 82,626 131,832 65,990 38,072 50,612 147,087 179,911 197,048 298,135 59,796 10,681 42,295 27,083 54,024 14,893 84,293 21,951 77,656 112,405 189,300 167,369 54,524 34,705 62,125 47,670 345,109 25,711 44,513 67,511 5,531 73,172 72,256 3,461,586 19,933 495,356 74,049 83,111 132,689 66,641 38,462 51,321 149,124 181,712 199,012 300,692 60,173 10,735 42,553 27,308 54,294 15,012 84,782 22,140 78,036 114,130 190,476 172,299 55,949 34,877 62,689 47,932 346,895 25,903 45,427 67,828 5,588 73,893 73,007 3,504,027 19,943 510,322 74,438 83,288 133,178 66,914 38,672 51,767 150,008 181,917 199,921 302,436 60,256 10,794 42,703 27,438 54,319 15,070 84,904 22,265 78,063 115,159 191,318 172,839 56,545 34,905 62,954 47,974 347,130 25,991 45,845 67,861 5,630 74,279 73,380 3,530,430 20,181 527,229 75,713 84,008 134,533 67,899 39,098 52,590 152,053 184,090 202,198 310,096 60,854 10,890 43,069 27,742 54,790 15,241 85,300 22,515 78,669 117,380 193,705 183,087 57,868 35,165 63,829 48,430 350,035 26,224 47,115 69,144 5,672 75,085 74,579 3,596,075 20,418 544,135 76,988 84,727 135,888 68,884 39,524 53,414 154,099 186,263 204,475 317,757 61,451 10,986 43,435 28,046 55,260 15,411 85,696 22,765 79,274 119,601 196,092 193,334 59,190 35,426 64,704 48,885 352,941 26,456 48,384 70,426 5,715 75,890 75,779 3,661,720 APPENDIX J Riverside County Projected Disposal (Tons) Based on Base-Year Conditions City/County Riverside County Banning Beaumont Blythe Calimesa Canyon Lake Cathedral City Coachella Corona Desert Hot Springs Hemet Indian Wells Indio La Quinta Lake Elsinore Moreno Valley Murrieta Norco Palm Desert Palm Springs Perris Rancho Mirage Riverside Unincorporated San Jacinto Temecula Total: 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 26,042 26,983 9,486 5,647 7,453 46,472 30,457 188,145 13,042 66,797 12,687 82,959 38,901 43,710 129,486 66,071 37,214 72,562 68,654 59,257 30,656 342,862 537,694 29,596 89,965 2,062,796 30,773 35,788 9,916 7,392 7,546 50,263 39,389 193,725 16,768 78,553 13,641 92,453 43,006 52,178 141,061 69,885 39,308 79,431 72,164 68,200 36,472 357,010 618,914 39,635 93,371 2,286,842 34,837 41,798 10,624 8,888 7,635 54,372 48,972 197,389 18,436 83,771 14,399 99,076 45,475 59,454 150,435 72,850 41,048 86,459 78,483 75,897 43,221 382,730 744,516 46,665 101,881 2,549,310 39,242 50,595 10,870 10,387 7,718 57,881 58,425 202,642 20,060 93,759 15,082 105,845 47,078 66,707 160,005 76,239 42,822 89,586 84,354 83,546 51,832 402,916 860,837 50,170 106,632 2,795,231 43,391 59,359 11,081 12,409 7,775 61,733 67,878 207,041 21,678 103,284 15,589 112,651 48,498 72,974 168,465 78,698 44,223 93,715 91,192 90,141 52,552 425,301 962,219 53,155 109,977 3,014,977 46,602 61,546 11,334 14,028 7,836 64,056 77,395 210,348 23,191 112,878 16,038 119,192 49,784 79,010 176,346 81,508 44,933 97,484 98,791 96,587 53,044 440,146 1,083,359 55,421 112,376 3,233,234 50,714 68,458 11,703 15,705 7,913 67,573 86,782 214,789 25,221 122,094 16,708 126,438 51,960 86,071 185,718 84,596 46,476 102,469 104,818 104,053 57,522 459,603 1,192,492 60,586 116,859 3,467,321 54,826 75,371 12,073 17,381 7,990 71,089 96,170 219,230 27,251 131,311 17,378 133,685 54,137 93,131 195,090 87,683 48,020 107,453 110,846 111,519 62,000 479,059 1,301,625 65,751 121,341 3,701,409 APPENDIX J San Bernardino County Projected Disposal (Tons) Based on Base-Year Conditions City/County 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 19,753 57,453 25,744 15,347 93,985 39,477 46,649 168,789 9,799 68,043 31,008 15,905 32,579 130 243,128 146,298 68,813 88,342 201,885 304,393 21,321 60,846 96,941 32,522 19,129 1,908,279 27,478 61,853 32,243 17,115 100,077 40,017 51,985 179,498 10,163 83,623 33,172 18,100 35,427 132 277,933 146,660 71,775 94,892 212,869 334,145 25,873 62,220 111,081 34,055 21,661 2,084,046 34,848 65,775 38,497 18,732 107,539 40,344 57,012 189,218 10,462 98,366 35,133 20,136 38,036 133 320,129 146,663 75,870 100,818 222,988 358,970 30,150 63,230 125,459 35,378 24,021 2,257,907 42,001 69,580 44,565 20,303 114,782 40,662 61,889 198,651 10,756 112,672 37,036 22,113 40,568 133 361,064 146,667 79,844 106,568 232,805 383,062 34,300 64,207 139,415 36,661 26,311 2,426,615 48,878 73,239 50,400 21,814 121,748 40,968 66,579 207,720 11,036 126,428 38,866 24,013 43,000 134 400,432 146,670 83,661 112,093 242,240 406,223 38,290 65,149 152,830 37,895 28,514 2,588,819 55,464 76,744 55,988 23,258 128,417 41,260 71,069 216,408 11,304 139,602 40,618 25,833 45,332 134 438,133 146,672 87,323 117,387 251,284 428,403 42,110 66,048 165,683 39,077 30,623 2,744,175 62,606 80,603 62,037 24,841 135,303 41,617 75,954 225,932 11,605 153,914 42,539 27,818 47,882 135 477,134 146,747 91,025 123,196 261,164 453,205 46,268 67,088 179,432 40,388 32,922 2,911,355 69,749 84,461 68,086 26,423 142,189 41,974 80,838 235,455 11,906 168,226 44,461 29,804 50,433 136 516,135 146,822 94,727 129,005 271,044 478,007 50,426 68,128 193,180 41,699 35,221 3,078,534 San Bernardino County Adelanto Apple Valley Barstow Big Bear Lake Chino Chino Hills Colton Fontana Grand Terrace Hesperia Highland Loma Linda Montclair Needles Ontario Rancho Cucamonga Redlands Rialto San Bernardino Unincorporated Twentynine Palms Upland Victorville Yucaipa Yucca Valley Total: APPENDIX J San Diego County Projected Disposal (Tons) Based on Base Year Conditions City/County 2010 San Diego County Carlsbad Chula Vista Coronado Del Mar El Cajon Encinitas Escondido Imperial Beach La Mesa Lemon Grove National City Oceanside Poway San Diego Unincorporated San Marcos Santee Solana Beach Vista Total: 120,924 179,220 46,213 11,135 102,323 69,256 138,751 13,605 41,216 20,851 54,408 138,536 60,935 1,558,857 594,486 88,339 51,046 15,895 102,518 3,408,516 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 127,068 190,471 48,563 11,301 107,451 71,075 141,957 13,498 42,616 21,073 56,526 143,212 62,114 1,653,077 619,271 91,695 53,892 16,151 103,834 3,574,845 133,212 201,722 50,913 11,467 112,578 72,894 145,162 13,391 44,016 21,296 58,645 147,888 63,293 1,747,296 644,057 95,050 56,738 16,407 105,149 3,741,175 136,549 209,875 51,349 11,607 122,295 75,262 150,306 13,947 45,392 21,887 61,942 153,240 65,564 1,830,398 686,306 100,544 59,091 16,809 107,802 3,920,167 139,885 218,028 51,786 11,747 132,012 77,631 155,450 14,503 46,769 22,479 65,240 158,592 67,836 1,913,499 728,554 106,037 61,444 17,211 110,454 4,099,159 142,058 228,791 52,509 11,911 139,684 78,874 158,753 15,100 49,368 23,493 69,668 160,424 68,515 1,985,808 759,011 107,686 62,994 17,589 121,886 4,254,123 144,231 239,555 53,231 12,074 147,356 80,118 162,056 15,696 51,967 24,507 74,097 162,256 69,195 2,058,117 789,467 109,335 64,544 17,967 133,318 4,409,087 145,359 244,382 53,607 12,188 147,884 80,791 164,546 16,434 53,548 25,078 79,441 163,360 69,602 2,130,979 804,859 109,994 64,669 18,176 142,636 4,527,534 APPENDIX J Imperial County Projected Disposal (Tons) Based on a 20% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2020 City/County 2010 Imperial County Imperial Valley Resource Management Agency* Total: 237,080 237,080 2015 260,586 260,586 2020 258,827 258,827 2025 279,098 279,098 2030 292,851 292,851 2035 300,477 300,477 2040 322,639 322,639 2045 344,802 344,802 APPENDIX J Los Angeles County Projected Disposal (Tons) Based on a 20% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2020 City/County 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 24,497 49,822 52,867 3,387 48,007 55,378 24,656 37,988 38,993 3,854 106,812 60,067 254,729 55,430 28,119 130,516 106,834 46,033 17,885 55,761 35,877 109,527 118,007 49,461 123,998 185,980 44,587 8,452 65,336 48,957 117,937 89,048 43,549 21,443 6,375 40,110 58,297 31,650 21,730 128,525 21,838 10,670 302,599 4,115,038 19,189 41,067 18,292 38,918 78,876 49,625 66,548 116,240 48,751 197,239 72,857 5,442 12,487 38,053 21,376 33,881 12,638 145,268 128,003 99,595 16,163 38,395 17,431 28,227 1,018,939 208,310 26,240 76,919 33,990 14,215 135,766 9,859,567 22,057 45,977 48,821 3,328 44,813 50,598 22,272 34,367 35,929 3,601 99,841 56,480 235,413 49,965 25,673 117,594 96,228 43,693 16,485 50,401 33,154 100,307 110,605 45,100 117,186 169,961 41,192 7,726 61,644 45,266 106,144 81,306 43,790 19,345 5,866 38,884 55,859 29,328 19,625 130,680 20,151 9,654 279,902 3,768,013 17,421 38,472 16,509 35,472 71,264 47,254 60,747 126,069 45,883 180,909 67,024 4,905 12,336 35,478 19,500 32,003 11,383 139,285 120,006 89,742 15,015 35,029 15,750 25,861 989,822 187,479 24,502 72,699 30,825 12,982 123,956 9,149,803 19,642 41,631 44,553 3,135 40,903 45,711 19,898 30,751 32,720 3,325 92,147 52,001 214,990 44,548 23,178 104,791 85,730 40,380 15,017 45,057 30,209 90,821 102,203 40,101 107,547 153,576 37,512 6,982 57,379 41,358 94,584 72,569 43,009 17,263 5,385 36,432 52,136 26,866 17,458 129,545 18,376 8,638 255,838 3,411,173 15,486 35,582 14,738 31,971 63,352 43,984 54,831 131,114 42,462 164,038 60,811 4,374 11,043 34,500 17,589 29,199 10,143 131,516 111,051 79,985 13,781 31,599 14,077 23,424 945,537 166,648 22,325 67,777 27,648 11,720 111,453 8,380,826 19,676 42,399 45,672 3,333 42,006 46,419 19,993 30,943 33,477 3,443 95,442 54,023 220,533 44,671 23,522 105,046 85,910 41,996 15,369 45,300 30,925 92,420 106,000 40,112 111,136 155,981 38,340 7,092 59,887 42,444 94,818 72,802 47,016 17,326 5,599 38,429 54,707 27,898 17,460 142,572 18,826 8,692 262,633 3,470,728 15,487 36,928 14,796 32,394 63,357 45,813 55,633 149,658 44,122 167,168 61,959 4,387 11,113 37,644 17,836 30,047 10,163 139,004 115,305 80,181 14,202 32,044 14,150 23,844 1,009,479 166,648 22,905 70,822 27,885 11,895 112,590 8,622,473 19,703 43,152 46,751 3,517 43,071 47,101 20,083 31,125 34,207 3,561 98,626 55,850 225,877 44,784 23,852 105,285 86,089 43,537 15,709 45,529 31,616 93,957 109,639 40,124 114,586 158,292 39,166 7,199 62,316 43,491 94,934 73,165 50,885 17,382 5,805 40,315 57,144 28,888 17,461 155,220 19,261 8,742 269,184 3,527,968 15,488 38,235 14,852 32,797 63,361 47,646 56,404 167,655 45,713 170,210 63,098 4,400 11,153 40,607 18,072 30,865 10,182 146,261 119,417 80,361 14,611 32,471 14,220 24,247 1,071,473 166,648 23,466 73,768 28,111 12,063 113,770 8,855,773 19,728 43,869 47,782 3,695 44,096 47,752 20,169 31,298 34,905 3,670 101,676 57,608 230,990 44,888 24,168 105,517 86,265 45,012 16,035 45,745 32,253 95,424 113,018 40,135 117,968 160,500 39,931 7,300 64,647 44,493 95,168 73,484 54,596 17,436 6,018 42,123 59,473 29,928 17,462 167,367 19,679 8,790 275,445 3,582,727 15,489 39,487 14,905 33,182 63,367 49,341 57,141 184,929 47,208 173,143 64,136 4,413 11,158 43,418 18,298 31,683 10,199 153,222 123,354 80,530 15,004 32,877 14,287 24,632 1,130,954 166,648 24,000 76,581 28,329 12,222 114,876 9,079,246 19,754 44,671 48,879 3,892 45,234 48,442 20,258 31,480 35,647 3,787 104,921 59,519 236,432 44,997 24,502 105,737 86,424 46,649 16,381 45,973 32,964 96,984 116,740 40,248 121,722 162,843 40,784 7,408 67,122 45,558 95,332 73,933 58,548 17,493 6,201 44,130 62,040 30,850 17,477 180,276 20,120 8,841 282,118 3,640,866 15,517 40,814 14,959 33,592 63,420 51,269 57,922 203,316 48,850 176,213 65,307 4,425 11,392 46,013 18,538 32,599 10,217 160,624 127,544 80,701 15,419 33,309 14,355 25,042 1,194,115 166,648 24,602 79,590 28,556 12,392 116,129 9,317,565 19,780 45,473 49,977 4,089 46,372 49,132 20,346 31,661 36,389 3,904 108,167 61,429 241,873 45,106 24,837 105,958 86,584 48,286 16,726 46,200 33,674 98,545 120,463 40,361 125,476 165,186 41,636 7,515 69,598 46,624 95,496 74,382 62,499 17,549 6,385 46,137 64,607 31,772 17,493 193,185 20,562 8,892 288,791 3,699,005 15,545 42,141 15,013 34,001 63,473 53,197 58,703 221,703 50,491 179,283 66,477 4,437 11,626 48,608 18,778 33,515 10,235 168,025 131,735 80,872 15,833 33,741 14,423 25,452 1,257,276 166,648 25,203 82,599 28,783 12,562 117,382 9,555,884 Los Angeles County Agoura Hills Alhambra Arcadia Avalon Azusa Baldwin Park Bell Bell Gardens Bellflower Bradbury Burbank Calabasas Carson Cerritos Claremont Commerce Compton Covina Cudahy Culver Diamond Bar Downey El Monte El Segundo Gardena Glendale Glendora Hawaiian Gardens Hawthorne Huntington Park Industry Inglewood Irwindale La Canada Flintridge La Habra Heights La Mirada La Puente La Verne Lakewood Lancaster Lawndale Lomita Long Beach Los Angeles IWMA* Lynwood Malibu Maywood Monrovia Montebello Monterey Park Norwalk Palmdale Paramount Pasadena Pico Rivera Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Estates San Dimas San Fernando San Gabriel San Marino Santa Clarita Santa Fe Springs Santa Monica Signal Hill South El Monte South Pasadena Temple City Unincorporated Vernon Walnut West Covina West Hollywood Westlake Village Whittier County Total: APPENDIX J Orange County Projected Disposal (Tons) Based on a 20% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2020 City/County Orange County Aliso Viejo Anaheim Brea Buena Park Costa Mesa Cypress Dana Point Fountain Valley Fullerton Garden Grove Huntington Beach Irvine La Habra La Palma Laguna Beach Laguna Hills Laguna Niguel Laguna Woods Lake Forest Los Alamitos Mission Viejo Newport Beach Orange Unincorporated Placentia Rancho Santa Margarita San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Santa Ana Seal Beach Stanton Tustin Villa Park Westminster Yorba Linda Total: 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 18,755 425,789 68,065 79,692 126,405 61,992 36,543 47,649 139,781 171,051 188,538 264,134 57,269 10,313 40,873 25,916 51,966 14,219 82,924 21,014 75,034 104,056 179,384 121,604 49,932 33,604 58,580 45,699 332,601 24,830 39,498 61,447 5,417 70,251 67,382 3,202,206 17,566 405,648 64,742 72,950 115,961 57,224 33,558 44,051 128,667 157,545 173,561 258,996 52,847 9,456 37,475 23,703 47,731 13,030 74,853 19,314 68,383 96,810 165,921 130,455 45,870 30,658 54,046 42,208 304,561 22,758 37,157 59,340 4,899 64,471 63,396 2,999,812 15,798 373,919 58,327 65,708 104,641 52,239 30,261 39,971 116,458 142,578 156,450 236,945 47,574 8,505 33,688 21,560 43,027 11,849 67,296 17,421 61,767 87,820 150,125 124,966 42,509 27,576 49,308 37,995 274,596 20,475 34,543 53,735 4,392 58,129 57,326 2,729,476 15,868 386,030 58,661 66,101 105,466 52,792 30,458 40,490 117,670 143,928 157,638 238,508 47,837 8,545 33,836 21,667 43,219 11,915 67,435 17,560 62,125 89,924 151,440 133,895 43,619 27,764 49,700 38,136 276,087 20,569 35,610 54,009 4,425 58,537 57,805 2,769,269 15,946 396,285 59,239 66,489 106,152 53,313 30,769 41,057 119,299 145,369 159,210 240,553 48,138 8,588 34,042 21,846 43,435 12,010 67,826 17,712 62,429 91,304 152,381 137,839 44,759 27,901 50,151 38,346 277,516 20,722 36,342 54,262 4,471 59,114 58,406 2,803,222 15,954 408,258 59,551 66,631 106,543 53,532 30,938 41,413 120,006 145,533 159,937 241,949 48,205 8,635 34,162 21,950 43,455 12,056 67,923 17,812 62,450 92,128 153,055 138,272 45,236 27,924 50,363 38,380 277,704 20,793 36,676 54,289 4,504 59,423 58,704 2,824,344 16,144 421,783 60,570 67,206 107,626 54,319 31,279 42,072 121,643 147,272 161,759 248,077 48,683 8,712 34,455 22,194 43,832 12,193 68,240 18,012 62,935 93,904 154,964 146,469 46,294 28,132 51,063 38,744 280,028 20,979 37,692 55,315 4,538 60,068 59,663 2,876,860 16,335 435,308 61,590 67,782 108,710 55,107 31,619 42,731 123,279 149,010 163,580 254,205 49,161 8,789 34,748 22,437 44,208 12,329 68,557 18,212 63,419 95,681 156,873 154,667 47,352 28,341 51,763 39,108 282,353 21,165 38,708 56,341 4,572 60,712 60,623 2,929,376 APPENDIX J Riverside County Projected Disposal (Tons) Based on a 20% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2020 City/County Riverside County Banning Beaumont Blythe Calimesa Canyon Lake Cathedral City Coachella Corona Desert Hot Springs Hemet Indian Wells Indio La Quinta Lake Elsinore Moreno Valley Murrieta Norco Palm Desert Palm Springs Perris Rancho Mirage Riverside Unincorporated San Jacinto Temecula Total: 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 26,042 26,983 9,486 5,647 7,453 46,472 30,457 188,145 13,042 66,797 12,687 82,959 38,901 43,710 129,486 66,071 37,214 72,562 68,654 59,257 30,656 342,862 537,694 29,596 89,965 2,062,796 27,696 32,209 8,924 6,653 6,792 45,237 35,450 174,352 15,091 70,698 12,277 83,208 38,705 46,960 126,955 62,897 35,377 71,488 64,948 61,380 32,825 321,309 557,023 35,672 84,034 2,058,158 27,869 33,438 8,499 7,110 6,108 43,498 39,177 157,911 14,749 67,017 11,519 79,261 36,380 47,563 120,348 58,280 32,839 69,167 62,786 60,718 34,577 306,184 595,613 37,332 81,505 2,039,448 31,394 40,476 8,696 8,310 6,174 46,305 46,740 162,114 16,048 75,007 12,066 84,676 37,662 53,366 128,004 60,991 34,258 71,669 67,484 66,837 41,465 322,333 688,670 40,136 85,306 2,236,184 34,713 47,487 8,865 9,928 6,220 49,387 54,302 165,633 17,342 82,627 12,471 90,121 38,798 58,379 134,772 62,958 35,378 74,972 72,954 72,113 42,041 340,240 769,775 42,524 87,981 2,411,982 37,282 49,237 9,067 11,223 6,269 51,245 61,916 168,279 18,553 90,303 12,830 95,353 39,827 63,208 141,077 65,207 35,946 77,987 79,033 77,270 42,436 352,117 866,687 44,337 89,901 2,586,587 40,571 54,767 9,363 12,564 6,330 54,058 69,426 171,831 20,177 97,675 13,366 101,151 41,568 68,856 148,574 67,677 37,181 81,975 83,855 83,243 46,018 367,682 953,993 48,469 93,487 2,773,857 43,861 60,297 9,658 13,905 6,392 56,871 76,936 175,384 21,801 105,048 13,903 106,948 43,310 74,505 156,072 70,147 38,416 85,962 88,677 89,216 49,600 383,248 1,041,300 52,601 97,073 2,961,127 APPENDIX J San Bernardino County Projected Disposal (Tons) Based on a 20% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2020 City/County 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 19,753 57,453 25,744 15,347 93,985 39,477 46,649 168,789 9,799 68,043 31,008 15,905 32,579 130 243,128 146,298 68,813 88,342 201,885 304,393 21,321 60,846 96,941 32,522 19,129 1,908,279 24,730 55,668 29,018 15,403 90,070 36,015 46,787 161,548 9,147 75,261 29,855 16,290 31,884 119 250,140 131,994 64,597 85,403 191,582 300,730 23,286 55,998 99,973 30,650 19,495 1,875,641 27,879 52,620 30,797 14,986 86,031 32,275 45,609 151,374 8,370 78,693 28,106 16,109 30,429 106 256,103 117,330 60,696 80,654 178,390 287,176 24,120 50,584 100,368 28,302 19,217 1,806,326 33,601 55,664 35,652 16,243 91,825 32,530 49,511 158,920 8,605 90,137 29,629 17,690 32,454 107 288,851 117,334 63,875 85,255 186,244 306,450 27,440 51,365 111,532 29,329 21,049 1,941,292 39,103 58,591 40,320 17,451 97,399 32,774 53,263 166,176 8,828 101,142 31,093 19,211 34,400 107 320,345 117,336 66,929 89,675 193,792 324,978 30,632 52,119 122,264 30,316 22,811 2,071,055 44,371 61,395 44,790 18,607 102,733 33,008 56,856 173,126 9,043 111,681 32,494 20,666 36,265 108 350,506 117,338 69,858 93,910 201,027 342,722 33,688 52,838 132,547 31,262 24,499 2,195,340 50,085 64,482 49,630 19,873 108,242 33,294 60,763 180,745 9,284 123,131 34,032 22,255 38,306 108 381,707 117,398 72,820 98,557 208,931 362,564 37,015 53,670 143,545 32,310 26,338 2,329,084 55,799 67,569 54,469 21,138 113,752 33,579 64,670 188,364 9,525 134,580 35,569 23,843 40,346 109 412,908 117,458 75,781 103,204 216,835 382,405 40,341 54,503 154,544 33,359 28,177 2,462,827 San Bernardino County Adelanto Apple Valley Barstow Big Bear Lake Chino Chino Hills Colton Fontana Grand Terrace Hesperia Highland Loma Linda Montclair Needles Ontario Rancho Cucamonga Redlands Rialto San Bernardino Unincorporated Twentynine Palms Upland Victorville Yucaipa Yucca Valley Total: APPENDIX J San Diego County Projected Disposal (Tons) Based on a 20% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2020 City/County 2010 San Diego County Carlsbad Chula Vista Coronado Del Mar El Cajon Encinitas Escondido Imperial Beach La Mesa Lemon Grove National City Oceanside Poway San Diego Unincorporated San Marcos Santee Solana Beach Vista Total: 120,924 179,220 46,213 11,135 102,323 69,256 138,751 13,605 41,216 20,851 54,408 138,536 60,935 1,558,857 594,486 88,339 51,046 15,895 102,518 3,408,516 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 114,361 171,424 43,707 10,171 96,706 63,967 127,761 12,148 38,355 18,966 50,874 128,890 55,903 1,487,769 557,344 82,525 48,503 14,536 93,450 3,217,361 106,570 161,378 40,730 9,174 90,063 58,315 116,129 10,713 35,213 17,037 46,916 118,310 50,634 1,397,837 515,246 76,040 45,391 13,126 84,120 2,992,940 109,239 167,900 41,079 9,286 97,836 60,210 120,245 11,158 36,314 17,510 49,554 122,592 52,452 1,464,318 549,045 80,435 47,273 13,448 86,242 3,136,134 111,908 174,422 41,429 9,398 105,610 62,105 124,360 11,603 37,415 17,983 52,192 126,873 54,269 1,530,800 582,843 84,830 49,155 13,769 88,364 3,279,328 113,647 183,033 42,007 9,529 111,747 63,099 127,002 12,080 39,494 18,795 55,734 128,339 54,812 1,588,647 607,209 86,149 50,395 14,071 97,509 3,403,299 115,385 191,644 42,585 9,660 117,885 64,094 129,645 12,557 41,573 19,606 59,277 129,805 55,356 1,646,494 631,574 87,468 51,635 14,373 106,654 3,527,270 116,287 195,505 42,886 9,750 118,307 64,633 131,637 13,147 42,839 20,063 63,553 130,688 55,682 1,704,783 643,887 87,995 51,735 14,541 114,109 3,622,027 APPENDIX J Imperial County Projected Disposal (Tons) Based on a 50% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2030 City/County 2010 Imperial County Imperial Valley Resource Management Agency* Total: 237,080 237,080 2015 260,586 260,586 2020 242,650 242,650 2025 226,767 226,767 2030 183,032 183,032 2035 187,798 187,798 2040 201,649 201,649 2045 215,501 215,501 APPENDIX J Los Angeles County Projected Disposal (Tons) Based on a 50% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2030 City/County 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 24,497 49,822 52,867 3,387 48,007 55,378 24,656 37,988 38,993 3,854 106,812 60,067 254,729 55,430 28,119 130,516 106,834 46,033 17,885 55,761 35,877 109,527 118,007 49,461 123,998 185,980 44,587 8,452 65,336 48,957 117,937 89,048 43,549 21,443 6,375 40,110 58,297 31,650 21,730 128,525 21,838 10,670 302,599 4,115,038 19,189 41,067 18,292 38,918 78,876 49,625 66,548 116,240 48,751 197,239 72,857 5,442 12,487 38,053 21,376 33,881 12,638 145,268 128,003 99,595 16,163 38,395 17,431 28,227 1,018,939 208,310 26,240 76,919 33,990 14,215 135,766 9,859,567 22,057 45,977 48,821 3,328 44,813 50,598 22,272 34,367 35,929 3,601 99,841 56,480 235,413 49,965 25,673 117,594 96,228 43,693 16,485 50,401 33,154 100,307 110,605 45,100 117,186 169,961 41,192 7,726 61,644 45,266 106,144 81,306 43,790 19,345 5,866 38,884 55,859 29,328 19,625 130,680 20,151 9,654 279,902 3,768,013 17,421 38,472 16,509 35,472 71,264 47,254 60,747 126,069 45,883 180,909 67,024 4,905 12,336 35,478 19,500 32,003 11,383 139,285 120,006 89,742 15,015 35,029 15,750 25,861 989,822 187,479 24,502 72,699 30,825 12,982 123,956 9,149,803 18,415 39,029 41,769 2,939 38,347 42,854 18,654 28,829 30,675 3,117 86,388 48,751 201,553 41,764 21,729 98,241 80,371 37,857 14,079 42,241 28,321 85,145 95,815 37,594 100,825 143,978 35,167 6,546 53,793 38,774 88,672 68,033 40,321 16,184 5,049 34,155 48,878 25,187 16,367 121,448 17,227 8,098 239,848 3,197,974 14,518 33,358 13,817 29,973 59,392 41,235 51,404 122,919 39,808 153,785 57,010 4,100 10,353 32,344 16,490 27,374 9,509 123,296 104,111 74,986 12,919 29,624 13,197 21,960 886,441 156,232 20,930 63,541 25,920 10,988 104,487 7,857,024 15,987 34,449 37,108 2,708 34,130 37,716 16,244 25,141 27,200 2,798 77,547 43,893 179,183 36,295 19,111 85,350 69,802 34,122 12,487 36,806 25,127 75,091 86,125 32,591 90,298 126,735 31,151 5,763 48,658 34,485 77,039 59,151 38,200 14,077 4,550 31,224 44,449 22,667 14,186 115,840 15,296 7,062 213,389 2,819,967 12,583 30,004 12,022 26,320 51,477 37,223 45,202 121,597 35,849 135,824 50,342 3,564 9,029 30,586 14,491 24,413 8,258 112,941 93,685 65,147 11,540 26,036 11,497 19,373 820,202 135,401 18,610 57,543 22,656 9,664 91,479 7,005,760 12,314 26,970 29,219 2,198 26,920 29,438 12,552 19,453 21,379 2,226 61,641 34,906 141,173 27,990 14,907 65,803 53,805 27,211 9,818 28,456 19,760 58,723 68,524 25,077 71,616 98,933 24,479 4,499 38,948 27,182 59,334 45,728 31,803 10,864 3,628 25,197 35,715 18,055 10,913 97,013 12,038 5,464 168,240 2,204,980 9,680 23,897 9,282 20,498 39,601 29,779 35,253 104,784 28,570 106,381 39,436 2,750 6,971 25,379 11,295 19,291 6,364 91,413 74,635 50,226 9,132 20,294 8,887 15,154 669,671 104,155 14,666 46,105 17,569 7,539 71,106 5,534,858 12,330 27,418 29,863 2,309 27,560 29,845 12,605 19,561 21,816 2,294 63,548 36,005 144,369 28,055 15,105 65,948 53,915 28,132 10,022 28,591 20,158 59,640 70,636 25,084 73,730 100,313 24,957 4,563 40,404 27,808 59,480 45,928 34,123 10,898 3,761 26,327 37,171 18,705 10,913 104,604 12,299 5,494 172,153 2,239,204 9,681 24,680 9,315 20,739 39,604 30,838 35,713 115,580 29,505 108,214 40,085 2,758 6,974 27,136 11,437 19,802 6,374 95,764 77,096 50,331 9,378 20,548 8,929 15,395 706,847 104,155 15,000 47,863 17,705 7,639 71,798 5,674,529 12,346 27,919 30,549 2,432 28,271 30,276 12,661 19,675 22,279 2,367 65,576 37,199 147,770 28,123 15,314 66,086 54,015 29,155 10,238 28,733 20,602 60,615 72,963 25,155 76,076 101,777 25,490 4,630 41,952 28,474 59,583 46,208 36,592 10,933 3,876 27,582 38,775 19,281 10,923 112,673 12,575 5,525 176,324 2,275,541 9,698 25,509 9,349 20,995 39,638 32,043 36,201 127,072 30,531 110,133 40,817 2,766 7,120 28,758 11,586 20,374 6,386 100,390 79,715 50,438 9,637 20,818 8,972 15,651 746,322 104,155 15,376 49,744 17,848 7,745 72,581 5,823,478 12,363 28,421 31,235 2,555 28,983 30,708 12,716 19,788 22,743 2,440 67,604 38,393 151,171 28,191 15,523 66,224 54,115 30,179 10,454 28,875 21,046 61,591 75,289 25,226 78,423 103,241 26,022 4,697 43,499 29,140 59,685 46,489 39,062 10,968 3,991 28,836 40,380 19,857 10,933 120,741 12,851 5,557 180,495 2,311,878 9,715 26,338 9,383 21,251 39,671 33,248 36,689 138,564 31,557 112,052 41,548 2,773 7,266 30,380 11,736 20,947 6,397 105,016 82,334 50,545 9,896 21,088 9,015 15,907 785,797 104,155 15,752 51,624 17,990 7,851 73,364 5,972,427 Los Angeles County Agoura Hills Alhambra Arcadia Avalon Azusa Baldwin Park Bell Bell Gardens Bellflower Bradbury Burbank Calabasas Carson Cerritos Claremont Commerce Compton Covina Cudahy Culver Diamond Bar Downey El Monte El Segundo Gardena Glendale Glendora Hawaiian Gardens Hawthorne Huntington Park Industry Inglewood Irwindale La Canada Flintridge La Habra Heights La Mirada La Puente La Verne Lakewood Lancaster Lawndale Lomita Long Beach Los Angeles IWMA* Lynwood Malibu Maywood Monrovia Montebello Monterey Park Norwalk Palmdale Paramount Pasadena Pico Rivera Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Estates San Dimas San Fernando San Gabriel San Marino Santa Clarita Santa Fe Springs Santa Monica Signal Hill South El Monte South Pasadena Temple City Unincorporated Vernon Walnut West Covina West Hollywood Westlake Village Whittier County Total: APPENDIX J Orange County Projected Disposal (Tons) Based on a 50% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2030 City/County Orange County Aliso Viejo Anaheim Brea Buena Park Costa Mesa Cypress Dana Point Fountain Valley Fullerton Garden Grove Huntington Beach Irvine La Habra La Palma Laguna Beach Laguna Hills Laguna Niguel Laguna Woods Lake Forest Los Alamitos Mission Viejo Newport Beach Orange Unincorporated Placentia Rancho Santa Margarita San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Santa Ana Seal Beach Stanton Tustin Villa Park Westminster Yorba Linda Total: 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 18,755 425,789 68,065 79,692 126,405 61,992 36,543 47,649 139,781 171,051 188,538 264,134 57,269 10,313 40,873 25,916 51,966 14,219 82,924 21,014 75,034 104,056 179,384 121,604 49,932 33,604 58,580 45,699 332,601 24,830 39,498 61,447 5,417 70,251 67,382 3,202,206 17,566 405,648 64,742 72,950 115,961 57,224 33,558 44,051 128,667 157,545 173,561 258,996 52,847 9,456 37,475 23,703 47,731 13,030 74,853 19,314 68,383 96,810 165,921 130,455 45,870 30,658 54,046 42,208 304,561 22,758 37,157 59,340 4,899 64,471 63,396 2,999,812 14,810 350,549 54,681 61,601 98,101 48,974 28,370 37,473 109,179 133,667 146,672 222,136 44,601 7,973 31,583 20,213 40,338 11,109 63,090 16,332 57,906 82,331 140,743 117,155 39,852 25,852 46,226 35,621 257,433 19,195 32,384 50,377 4,118 54,495 53,743 2,558,884 12,893 313,650 47,662 53,707 85,691 42,894 24,747 32,898 95,607 116,942 128,081 193,788 38,867 6,943 27,492 17,604 35,116 9,681 54,791 14,268 50,476 73,064 123,045 108,790 35,441 22,558 40,381 30,986 224,321 16,712 28,933 43,882 3,595 47,562 46,966 2,250,031 9,966 247,678 37,024 41,556 66,345 33,321 19,231 25,660 74,562 90,856 99,506 150,346 30,087 5,368 21,276 13,654 27,147 7,506 42,391 11,070 39,018 57,065 95,238 86,149 27,974 17,438 31,345 23,966 173,448 12,951 22,714 33,914 2,794 36,946 36,504 1,752,014 9,971 255,161 37,219 41,644 66,589 33,457 19,336 25,883 75,004 90,958 99,961 151,218 30,128 5,397 21,351 13,719 27,160 7,535 42,452 11,133 39,031 57,580 95,659 86,420 28,273 17,453 31,477 23,987 173,565 12,996 22,923 33,931 2,815 37,140 36,690 1,765,215 10,090 263,614 37,857 42,004 67,266 33,950 19,549 26,295 76,027 92,045 101,099 155,048 30,427 5,445 21,534 13,871 27,395 7,620 42,650 11,258 39,334 58,690 96,853 91,543 28,934 17,583 31,914 24,215 175,018 13,112 23,557 34,572 2,836 37,542 37,290 1,798,037 10,209 272,068 38,494 42,363 67,944 34,442 19,762 26,707 77,049 93,131 102,237 158,878 30,726 5,493 21,717 14,023 27,630 7,706 42,848 11,383 39,637 59,800 98,046 96,667 29,595 17,713 32,352 24,442 176,471 13,228 24,192 35,213 2,857 37,945 37,889 1,830,860 APPENDIX J Riverside County Projected Disposal (Tons) Based on a 50% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2030 City/County Riverside County Banning Beaumont Blythe Calimesa Canyon Lake Cathedral City Coachella Corona Desert Hot Springs Hemet Indian Wells Indio La Quinta Lake Elsinore Moreno Valley Murrieta Norco Palm Desert Palm Springs Perris Rancho Mirage Riverside Unincorporated San Jacinto Temecula Total: 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 26,042 26,983 9,486 5,647 7,453 46,472 30,457 188,145 13,042 66,797 12,687 82,959 38,901 43,710 129,486 66,071 37,214 72,562 68,654 59,257 30,656 342,862 537,694 29,596 89,965 2,062,796 27,696 32,209 8,924 6,653 6,792 45,237 35,450 174,352 15,091 70,698 12,277 83,208 38,705 46,960 126,955 62,897 35,377 71,488 64,948 61,380 32,825 321,309 557,023 35,672 84,034 2,058,158 26,128 31,348 7,968 6,666 5,726 40,779 36,729 148,042 13,827 62,828 10,799 74,307 34,106 44,591 112,826 54,638 30,786 64,844 58,862 56,923 32,416 287,047 558,387 34,999 76,411 1,911,983 25,507 32,887 7,066 6,752 5,017 37,623 37,976 131,717 13,039 60,943 9,803 68,799 30,601 43,360 104,003 49,555 27,834 58,231 54,830 54,305 33,691 261,896 559,544 32,610 69,311 1,816,900 21,696 29,679 5,541 6,205 3,887 30,867 33,939 103,520 10,839 51,642 7,794 56,326 24,249 36,487 84,232 39,349 22,112 46,857 45,596 45,071 26,276 212,650 481,109 26,578 54,988 1,507,489 23,301 30,773 5,667 7,014 3,918 32,028 38,697 105,174 11,596 56,439 8,019 59,596 24,892 39,505 88,173 40,754 22,466 48,742 49,396 48,294 26,522 220,073 541,679 27,710 56,188 1,616,617 25,357 34,229 5,852 7,852 3,956 33,786 43,391 107,395 12,611 61,047 8,354 63,219 25,980 43,035 92,859 42,298 23,238 51,234 52,409 52,027 28,761 229,801 596,246 30,293 58,429 1,733,661 27,413 37,685 6,036 8,690 3,995 35,545 48,085 109,615 13,625 65,655 8,689 66,842 27,068 46,565 97,545 43,842 24,010 53,727 55,423 55,760 31,000 239,530 650,812 32,875 60,671 1,850,704 APPENDIX J San Bernardino County Projected Disposal (Tons) Based on a 50% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2030 City/County 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 19,753 57,453 25,744 15,347 93,985 39,477 46,649 168,789 9,799 68,043 31,008 15,905 32,579 130 243,128 146,298 68,813 88,342 201,885 304,393 21,321 60,846 96,941 32,522 19,129 1,908,279 24,730 55,668 29,018 15,403 90,070 36,015 46,787 161,548 9,147 75,261 29,855 16,290 31,884 119 250,140 131,994 64,597 85,403 191,582 300,730 23,286 55,998 99,973 30,650 19,495 1,875,641 26,136 49,331 28,873 14,049 80,654 30,258 42,759 141,914 7,847 73,775 26,350 15,102 28,527 100 240,097 109,997 56,903 75,614 167,241 269,227 22,612 47,422 94,095 26,533 18,016 1,693,430 27,301 45,227 28,967 13,197 74,608 26,430 40,228 129,123 6,991 73,237 24,074 14,374 26,369 87 234,692 95,334 51,898 69,269 151,323 248,990 22,295 41,734 90,620 23,830 17,102 1,577,299 24,439 36,620 25,200 10,907 60,874 20,484 33,289 103,860 5,518 63,214 19,433 12,007 21,500 67 200,216 73,335 41,831 56,047 121,120 203,111 19,145 32,574 76,415 18,948 14,257 1,294,409 27,732 38,372 27,994 11,629 64,208 20,630 35,535 108,204 5,652 69,801 20,309 12,916 22,666 67 219,066 73,336 43,661 58,694 125,642 214,201 21,055 33,024 82,842 19,538 15,312 1,372,088 31,303 40,301 31,018 12,420 67,652 20,809 37,977 112,966 5,802 76,957 21,270 13,909 23,941 68 238,567 73,374 45,512 61,598 130,582 226,602 23,134 33,544 89,716 20,194 16,461 1,455,677 34,874 42,230 34,043 13,211 71,095 20,987 40,419 117,728 5,953 84,113 22,231 14,902 25,216 68 258,068 73,411 47,363 64,503 135,522 239,003 25,213 34,064 96,590 20,849 17,611 1,539,267 San Bernardino County Adelanto Apple Valley Barstow Big Bear Lake Chino Chino Hills Colton Fontana Grand Terrace Hesperia Highland Loma Linda Montclair Needles Ontario Rancho Cucamonga Redlands Rialto San Bernardino Unincorporated Twentynine Palms Upland Victorville Yucaipa Yucca Valley Total: APPENDIX J San Diego County Projected Disposal (Tons) Based on a 50% Decrease in Tons Disposed by 2020 City/County 2010 San Diego County Carlsbad Chula Vista Coronado Del Mar El Cajon Encinitas Escondido Imperial Beach La Mesa Lemon Grove National City Oceanside Poway San Diego Unincorporated San Marcos Santee Solana Beach Vista Total: 120,924 179,220 46,213 11,135 102,323 69,256 138,751 13,605 41,216 20,851 54,408 138,536 60,935 1,558,857 594,486 88,339 51,046 15,895 102,518 3,408,516 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 114,361 171,424 43,707 10,171 96,706 63,967 127,761 12,148 38,355 18,966 50,874 128,890 55,903 1,487,769 557,344 82,525 48,503 14,536 93,450 3,217,361 99,909 151,291 38,185 8,601 84,434 54,670 108,871 10,044 33,012 15,972 43,983 110,916 47,470 1,310,472 483,043 71,288 42,554 12,306 78,862 2,805,881 88,757 136,419 33,377 7,545 79,492 48,920 97,699 9,066 29,505 14,227 40,262 99,606 42,617 1,189,758 446,099 65,353 38,409 10,926 70,071 2,548,109 69,943 109,014 25,893 5,874 66,006 38,815 77,725 7,252 23,384 11,240 32,620 79,296 33,918 956,750 364,277 53,019 30,722 8,606 55,227 2,049,580 71,029 114,396 26,254 5,955 69,842 39,437 79,376 7,550 24,684 11,747 34,834 80,212 34,258 992,904 379,505 53,843 31,497 8,794 60,943 2,127,062 72,115 119,778 26,616 6,037 73,678 40,059 81,028 7,848 25,983 12,254 37,048 81,128 34,597 1,029,059 394,734 54,667 32,272 8,983 66,659 2,204,544 72,679 122,191 26,804 6,094 73,942 40,395 82,273 8,217 26,774 12,539 39,720 81,680 34,801 1,065,489 402,430 54,997 32,335 9,088 71,318 2,263,767