Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash

R1

By December 30, 2018, the County of Orange and the City of Brea should initiate formal negotiations to ensure identification and resolution of potential issues with the Olinda Alpha Landfill Memorandum of Understanding. (F1, F2, F3)

R15

TONNAGE N 0.2 O T 10 0 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 FISCAL YEAR Note: FY17-18 is estimated Source: 1 Waste Management Commission Meeting Agency of March 8, 2018 The distribution of the imported trash is rebalanced among the three landfills periodically. In 2017, 95% of the imported trash was divided between Olinda Alpha and Frank Bowerman Landfills, with the remainder sent to Prima Deshecha. Over the last two years, the imported trash received by OA Landfill has decreased, but it continues to receive nearly half of the total. (See Table 4) Table 4: Distribution of Imported Trash per Landfill FY 2017/18 FY 2016/17 *(1st two quarters) Total Total Tonnage Tonnage Trash Trash (million tons) (million tons) (%) (%) OA Landfill 60 1.06 47 0.43* FB Landfill 35 0.61 47 0.43* PD Landfill 5 0.09 6 0.05* Total 100 1.76 100 0.91* Source: 2 Waste Management Commission Meeting Agency of March 8, 2018 Olinda Alpha: The Crunch Point OA Landfill will reach its permitted capacity before the other two landfills. The amount of space remaining at the OA Landfill is approximately 18%. Both FB and PD retain large available capacity: FB has 67% remaining capacity and PD, 99% remaining capacity (Waste Management Commission, Agenda of December 14, 2017 Meeting). As a result of recycling and other mitigation measures, recent capacity estimates project a closure date of 2028 or later for OA Landfill. However, the MOU between the County and the City of Brea specifies a closure date of 2021. The renewal process, including revision of the specified closure date, is lengthy, involving multiple state and county reviews. Without a renewal agreement, the continued operation of the OA landfill may be jeopardized, even though it is not at permitted capacity. Implications for the City of Brea Half of the total waste truck trips in Orange County, more than quarter of a million per year, travel over Valencia Avenue, the only access road to OA Landfill. Two large Brea master planned communities, Olinda Ranch and Blackstone, border Valencia Avenue. Amenities for these communities include public parks, hiking and equestrian trails and wildlife corridors. In 2009, after lengthy negotiations, the County and the City of Brea implemented a $35 million package of odor, noise, and traffic mitigation measures, as well as landscape upgrades along Valencia Avenue in exchange for continued operation of OA. A further extension of the MOU between the OA Landfill and the City of Brea means continuing the daily stream of large trash trucks entering and leaving the landfill. Although the County has made great strides in addressing community landfill concerns, these remain long term considerations for many of those residents. The negotiations between the County and City of Brea to reauthorize use of OA could be as complicated as in the past. Implications for the Entire County The closure of the OA Landfill would upset the balance of the entire county landfill system, not just north Orange County and the City of Brea. All self-haul vehicles and heavy trash truck traffic to and from the OA Landfill would be diverted to Irvine and south county via existing highways and local streets. OCWR reports that there were 267,000 truck trips to OA Landfill in 2017. Such a large number of heavy truck trips to the FB and PD Landfills would significantly increase freeway and local street traffic, hastening the degradation of the road infrastructure. Adding travel distance and time would increase operating costs, resulting in higher trash bills to Orange County residents and businesses. Conclusion As Orange County’s population continues to grow, so will its waste stream. While the landfills still have capacity, it is in the best interests of residents to keep the Orange County solid waste disposal system intact and extend its life as long as possible. Three major factors affect the system:  risk of Olinda Alpha Landfill closure in 2021, which would have major negative impact on the system  imported waste, which adds to the burden of the landfills  volatility in the market for recyclable material, which could have a negative effect While there is little that can be done at a local level with regard to the recyclables market, managing the other factors is even more crucial to the future growth and quality of life for Orange County. Commendation Orange County Waste and Recycling is to be commended for operating an efficient and cost effective system of landfills and hazardous waste disposal centers that constitutes an important economic asset to Orange County. FINDINGS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at five principal findings, as follows: F1. The Orange County waste disposal system is efficient, well balanced, geographically distributed, and works to mitigate disturbance to nearby neighborhoods. F2. The Orange County landfill system would be disrupted by the closure of any one of the landfills. F3. The Olinda Alpha Landfill is a possible candidate for closure in 2021 if negotiations with City of Brea prove unsuccessful. F4. Importing trash from outside of the County, initiated to help the County survive the 1994 bankruptcy, continues even though the bankruptcy bonds were retired as of July 2017. F5. Continued importation of trash tends to decrease Orange County landfill life. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations. R1. By December 30, 2018, the County of Orange and the City of Brea should initiate formal negotiations to ensure identification and resolution of potential issues with the Olinda Alpha Landfill Memorandum of Understanding. (F1, F2, F3) R2. By June 30, 2019, Orange County Waste and Recycling should update and publish a cost/benefit analysis on the imported trash revenue stream surplus and the future costs associated with earlier closures in the landfill system. (F4, F5) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.” Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Findings: Orange County Board of Supervisors: Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 City of Brea City Council Findings: F1, F2, F3 Recommendations: Orange County Board of Supervisors: Recommendations: R1, R2 City of Brea City Council: Recommendations: R1

R1

By December 30, 2018, the County of Orange and the City of Brea should initiate formal negotiations to ensure identification and resolution of potential issues with the Olinda Alpha Landfill Memorandum of Understanding. (F1, F2, F3)

R15

TONNAGE N 0.2 O T 10 0 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 FISCAL YEAR Note: FY17-18 is estimated Source: 1 Waste Management Commission Meeting Agency of March 8, 2018 The distribution of the imported trash is rebalanced among the three landfills periodically. In 2017, 95% of the imported trash was divided between Olinda Alpha and Frank Bowerman Landfills, with the remainder sent to Prima Deshecha. Over the last two years, the imported trash received by OA Landfill has decreased, but it continues to receive nearly half of the total. (See Table 4) Table 4: Distribution of Imported Trash per Landfill FY 2017/18 FY 2016/17 *(1st two quarters) Total Total Tonnage Tonnage Trash Trash (million tons) (million tons) (%) (%) OA Landfill 60 1.06 47 0.43* FB Landfill 35 0.61 47 0.43* PD Landfill 5 0.09 6 0.05* Total 100 1.76 100 0.91* Source: 2 Waste Management Commission Meeting Agency of March 8, 2018 Olinda Alpha: The Crunch Point OA Landfill will reach its permitted capacity before the other two landfills. The amount of space remaining at the OA Landfill is approximately 18%. Both FB and PD retain large available capacity: FB has 67% remaining capacity and PD, 99% remaining capacity (Waste Management Commission, Agenda of December 14, 2017 Meeting). As a result of recycling and other mitigation measures, recent capacity estimates project a closure date of 2028 or later for OA Landfill. However, the MOU between the County and the City of Brea specifies a closure date of 2021. The renewal process, including revision of the specified closure date, is lengthy, involving multiple state and county reviews. Without a renewal agreement, the continued operation of the OA landfill may be jeopardized, even though it is not at permitted capacity. Implications for the City of Brea Half of the total waste truck trips in Orange County, more than quarter of a million per year, travel over Valencia Avenue, the only access road to OA Landfill. Two large Brea master planned communities, Olinda Ranch and Blackstone, border Valencia Avenue. Amenities for these communities include public parks, hiking and equestrian trails and wildlife corridors. In 2009, after lengthy negotiations, the County and the City of Brea implemented a $35 million package of odor, noise, and traffic mitigation measures, as well as landscape upgrades along Valencia Avenue in exchange for continued operation of OA. A further extension of the MOU between the OA Landfill and the City of Brea means continuing the daily stream of large trash trucks entering and leaving the landfill. Although the County has made great strides in addressing community landfill concerns, these remain long term considerations for many of those residents. The negotiations between the County and City of Brea to reauthorize use of OA could be as complicated as in the past. Implications for the Entire County The closure of the OA Landfill would upset the balance of the entire county landfill system, not just north Orange County and the City of Brea. All self-haul vehicles and heavy trash truck traffic to and from the OA Landfill would be diverted to Irvine and south county via existing highways and local streets. OCWR reports that there were 267,000 truck trips to OA Landfill in 2017. Such a large number of heavy truck trips to the FB and PD Landfills would significantly increase freeway and local street traffic, hastening the degradation of the road infrastructure. Adding travel distance and time would increase operating costs, resulting in higher trash bills to Orange County residents and businesses. Conclusion As Orange County’s population continues to grow, so will its waste stream. While the landfills still have capacity, it is in the best interests of residents to keep the Orange County solid waste disposal system intact and extend its life as long as possible. Three major factors affect the system:  risk of Olinda Alpha Landfill closure in 2021, which would have major negative impact on the system  imported waste, which adds to the burden of the landfills  volatility in the market for recyclable material, which could have a negative effect While there is little that can be done at a local level with regard to the recyclables market, managing the other factors is even more crucial to the future growth and quality of life for Orange County. Commendation Orange County Waste and Recycling is to be commended for operating an efficient and cost effective system of landfills and hazardous waste disposal centers that constitutes an important economic asset to Orange County. FINDINGS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at five principal findings, as follows: F1. The Orange County waste disposal system is efficient, well balanced, geographically distributed, and works to mitigate disturbance to nearby neighborhoods. F2. The Orange County landfill system would be disrupted by the closure of any one of the landfills. F3. The Olinda Alpha Landfill is a possible candidate for closure in 2021 if negotiations with City of Brea prove unsuccessful. F4. Importing trash from outside of the County, initiated to help the County survive the 1994 bankruptcy, continues even though the bankruptcy bonds were retired as of July 2017. F5. Continued importation of trash tends to decrease Orange County landfill life. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations. R1. By December 30, 2018, the County of Orange and the City of Brea should initiate formal negotiations to ensure identification and resolution of potential issues with the Olinda Alpha Landfill Memorandum of Understanding. (F1, F2, F3) R2. By June 30, 2019, Orange County Waste and Recycling should update and publish a cost/benefit analysis on the imported trash revenue stream surplus and the future costs associated with earlier closures in the landfill system. (F4, F5) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.” Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Findings: Orange County Board of Supervisors: Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 City of Brea City Council Findings: F1, F2, F3 Recommendations: Orange County Board of Supervisors: Recommendations: R1, R2 City of Brea City Council: Recommendations: R1

R1

By December 30, 2018, the County of Orange and the City of Brea should initiate formal negotiations to ensure identification and resolution of potential issues with the Olinda Alpha Landfill Memorandum of Understanding. (F1, F2, F3)

R15

TONNAGE N 0.2 O T 10 0 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 FISCAL YEAR Note: FY17-18 is estimated Source: 1 Waste Management Commission Meeting Agency of March 8, 2018 The distribution of the imported trash is rebalanced among the three landfills periodically. In 2017, 95% of the imported trash was divided between Olinda Alpha and Frank Bowerman Landfills, with the remainder sent to Prima Deshecha. Over the last two years, the imported trash received by OA Landfill has decreased, but it continues to receive nearly half of the total. (See Table 4) Table 4: Distribution of Imported Trash per Landfill FY 2017/18 FY 2016/17 *(1st two quarters) Total Total Tonnage Tonnage Trash Trash (million tons) (million tons) (%) (%) OA Landfill 60 1.06 47 0.43* FB Landfill 35 0.61 47 0.43* PD Landfill 5 0.09 6 0.05* Total 100 1.76 100 0.91* Source: 2 Waste Management Commission Meeting Agency of March 8, 2018 Olinda Alpha: The Crunch Point OA Landfill will reach its permitted capacity before the other two landfills. The amount of space remaining at the OA Landfill is approximately 18%. Both FB and PD retain large available capacity: FB has 67% remaining capacity and PD, 99% remaining capacity (Waste Management Commission, Agenda of December 14, 2017 Meeting). As a result of recycling and other mitigation measures, recent capacity estimates project a closure date of 2028 or later for OA Landfill. However, the MOU between the County and the City of Brea specifies a closure date of 2021. The renewal process, including revision of the specified closure date, is lengthy, involving multiple state and county reviews. Without a renewal agreement, the continued operation of the OA landfill may be jeopardized, even though it is not at permitted capacity. Implications for the City of Brea Half of the total waste truck trips in Orange County, more than quarter of a million per year, travel over Valencia Avenue, the only access road to OA Landfill. Two large Brea master planned communities, Olinda Ranch and Blackstone, border Valencia Avenue. Amenities for these communities include public parks, hiking and equestrian trails and wildlife corridors. In 2009, after lengthy negotiations, the County and the City of Brea implemented a $35 million package of odor, noise, and traffic mitigation measures, as well as landscape upgrades along Valencia Avenue in exchange for continued operation of OA. A further extension of the MOU between the OA Landfill and the City of Brea means continuing the daily stream of large trash trucks entering and leaving the landfill. Although the County has made great strides in addressing community landfill concerns, these remain long term considerations for many of those residents. The negotiations between the County and City of Brea to reauthorize use of OA could be as complicated as in the past. Implications for the Entire County The closure of the OA Landfill would upset the balance of the entire county landfill system, not just north Orange County and the City of Brea. All self-haul vehicles and heavy trash truck traffic to and from the OA Landfill would be diverted to Irvine and south county via existing highways and local streets. OCWR reports that there were 267,000 truck trips to OA Landfill in 2017. Such a large number of heavy truck trips to the FB and PD Landfills would significantly increase freeway and local street traffic, hastening the degradation of the road infrastructure. Adding travel distance and time would increase operating costs, resulting in higher trash bills to Orange County residents and businesses. Conclusion As Orange County’s population continues to grow, so will its waste stream. While the landfills still have capacity, it is in the best interests of residents to keep the Orange County solid waste disposal system intact and extend its life as long as possible. Three major factors affect the system:  risk of Olinda Alpha Landfill closure in 2021, which would have major negative impact on the system  imported waste, which adds to the burden of the landfills  volatility in the market for recyclable material, which could have a negative effect While there is little that can be done at a local level with regard to the recyclables market, managing the other factors is even more crucial to the future growth and quality of life for Orange County. Commendation Orange County Waste and Recycling is to be commended for operating an efficient and cost effective system of landfills and hazardous waste disposal centers that constitutes an important economic asset to Orange County. FINDINGS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at five principal findings, as follows: F1. The Orange County waste disposal system is efficient, well balanced, geographically distributed, and works to mitigate disturbance to nearby neighborhoods. F2. The Orange County landfill system would be disrupted by the closure of any one of the landfills. F3. The Olinda Alpha Landfill is a possible candidate for closure in 2021 if negotiations with City of Brea prove unsuccessful. F4. Importing trash from outside of the County, initiated to help the County survive the 1994 bankruptcy, continues even though the bankruptcy bonds were retired as of July 2017. F5. Continued importation of trash tends to decrease Orange County landfill life. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations. R1. By December 30, 2018, the County of Orange and the City of Brea should initiate formal negotiations to ensure identification and resolution of potential issues with the Olinda Alpha Landfill Memorandum of Understanding. (F1, F2, F3) R2. By June 30, 2019, Orange County Waste and Recycling should update and publish a cost/benefit analysis on the imported trash revenue stream surplus and the future costs associated with earlier closures in the landfill system. (F4, F5) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.” Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Findings: Orange County Board of Supervisors: Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 City of Brea City Council Findings: F1, F2, F3 Recommendations: Orange County Board of Supervisors: Recommendations: R1, R2 City of Brea City Council: Recommendations: R1

R2

By June 30, 2019, Orange County Waste and Recycling should update and publish a cost/benefit analysis on the imported trash revenue stream surplus and the future costs associated with earlier closures in the landfill system. (F4, F5) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.” Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05 are required from: Responses Required:

R15

TONNAGE N 0.2 O T 10 0 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 FISCAL YEAR Note: FY17-18 is estimated Source: 1 Waste Management Commission Meeting Agency of March 8, 2018 The distribution of the imported trash is rebalanced among the three landfills periodically. In 2017, 95% of the imported trash was divided between Olinda Alpha and Frank Bowerman Landfills, with the remainder sent to Prima Deshecha. Over the last two years, the imported trash received by OA Landfill has decreased, but it continues to receive nearly half of the total. (See Table 4) Table 4: Distribution of Imported Trash per Landfill FY 2017/18 FY 2016/17 *(1st two quarters) Total Total Tonnage Tonnage Trash Trash (million tons) (million tons) (%) (%) OA Landfill 60 1.06 47 0.43* FB Landfill 35 0.61 47 0.43* PD Landfill 5 0.09 6 0.05* Total 100 1.76 100 0.91* Source: 2 Waste Management Commission Meeting Agency of March 8, 2018 Olinda Alpha: The Crunch Point OA Landfill will reach its permitted capacity before the other two landfills. The amount of space remaining at the OA Landfill is approximately 18%. Both FB and PD retain large available capacity: FB has 67% remaining capacity and PD, 99% remaining capacity (Waste Management Commission, Agenda of December 14, 2017 Meeting). As a result of recycling and other mitigation measures, recent capacity estimates project a closure date of 2028 or later for OA Landfill. However, the MOU between the County and the City of Brea specifies a closure date of 2021. The renewal process, including revision of the specified closure date, is lengthy, involving multiple state and county reviews. Without a renewal agreement, the continued operation of the OA landfill may be jeopardized, even though it is not at permitted capacity. Implications for the City of Brea Half of the total waste truck trips in Orange County, more than quarter of a million per year, travel over Valencia Avenue, the only access road to OA Landfill. Two large Brea master planned communities, Olinda Ranch and Blackstone, border Valencia Avenue. Amenities for these communities include public parks, hiking and equestrian trails and wildlife corridors. In 2009, after lengthy negotiations, the County and the City of Brea implemented a $35 million package of odor, noise, and traffic mitigation measures, as well as landscape upgrades along Valencia Avenue in exchange for continued operation of OA. A further extension of the MOU between the OA Landfill and the City of Brea means continuing the daily stream of large trash trucks entering and leaving the landfill. Although the County has made great strides in addressing community landfill concerns, these remain long term considerations for many of those residents. The negotiations between the County and City of Brea to reauthorize use of OA could be as complicated as in the past. Implications for the Entire County The closure of the OA Landfill would upset the balance of the entire county landfill system, not just north Orange County and the City of Brea. All self-haul vehicles and heavy trash truck traffic to and from the OA Landfill would be diverted to Irvine and south county via existing highways and local streets. OCWR reports that there were 267,000 truck trips to OA Landfill in 2017. Such a large number of heavy truck trips to the FB and PD Landfills would significantly increase freeway and local street traffic, hastening the degradation of the road infrastructure. Adding travel distance and time would increase operating costs, resulting in higher trash bills to Orange County residents and businesses. Conclusion As Orange County’s population continues to grow, so will its waste stream. While the landfills still have capacity, it is in the best interests of residents to keep the Orange County solid waste disposal system intact and extend its life as long as possible. Three major factors affect the system:  risk of Olinda Alpha Landfill closure in 2021, which would have major negative impact on the system  imported waste, which adds to the burden of the landfills  volatility in the market for recyclable material, which could have a negative effect While there is little that can be done at a local level with regard to the recyclables market, managing the other factors is even more crucial to the future growth and quality of life for Orange County. Commendation Orange County Waste and Recycling is to be commended for operating an efficient and cost effective system of landfills and hazardous waste disposal centers that constitutes an important economic asset to Orange County. FINDINGS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at five principal findings, as follows: F1. The Orange County waste disposal system is efficient, well balanced, geographically distributed, and works to mitigate disturbance to nearby neighborhoods. F2. The Orange County landfill system would be disrupted by the closure of any one of the landfills. F3. The Olinda Alpha Landfill is a possible candidate for closure in 2021 if negotiations with City of Brea prove unsuccessful. F4. Importing trash from outside of the County, initiated to help the County survive the 1994 bankruptcy, continues even though the bankruptcy bonds were retired as of July 2017. F5. Continued importation of trash tends to decrease Orange County landfill life. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations. R1. By December 30, 2018, the County of Orange and the City of Brea should initiate formal negotiations to ensure identification and resolution of potential issues with the Olinda Alpha Landfill Memorandum of Understanding. (F1, F2, F3) R2. By June 30, 2019, Orange County Waste and Recycling should update and publish a cost/benefit analysis on the imported trash revenue stream surplus and the future costs associated with earlier closures in the landfill system. (F4, F5) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.” Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Findings: Orange County Board of Supervisors: Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 City of Brea City Council Findings: F1, F2, F3 Recommendations: Orange County Board of Supervisors: Recommendations: R1, R2 City of Brea City Council: Recommendations: R1

R2

By June 30, 2019, Orange County Waste and Recycling should update and publish a cost/benefit analysis on the imported trash revenue stream surplus and the future costs associated with earlier closures in the landfill system. (F4, F5) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.” Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05 are required from: Responses Required:

R15

TONNAGE N 0.2 O T 10 0 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 FISCAL YEAR Note: FY17-18 is estimated Source: 1 Waste Management Commission Meeting Agency of March 8, 2018 The distribution of the imported trash is rebalanced among the three landfills periodically. In 2017, 95% of the imported trash was divided between Olinda Alpha and Frank Bowerman Landfills, with the remainder sent to Prima Deshecha. Over the last two years, the imported trash received by OA Landfill has decreased, but it continues to receive nearly half of the total. (See Table 4) Table 4: Distribution of Imported Trash per Landfill FY 2017/18 FY 2016/17 *(1st two quarters) Total Total Tonnage Tonnage Trash Trash (million tons) (million tons) (%) (%) OA Landfill 60 1.06 47 0.43* FB Landfill 35 0.61 47 0.43* PD Landfill 5 0.09 6 0.05* Total 100 1.76 100 0.91* Source: 2 Waste Management Commission Meeting Agency of March 8, 2018 Olinda Alpha: The Crunch Point OA Landfill will reach its permitted capacity before the other two landfills. The amount of space remaining at the OA Landfill is approximately 18%. Both FB and PD retain large available capacity: FB has 67% remaining capacity and PD, 99% remaining capacity (Waste Management Commission, Agenda of December 14, 2017 Meeting). As a result of recycling and other mitigation measures, recent capacity estimates project a closure date of 2028 or later for OA Landfill. However, the MOU between the County and the City of Brea specifies a closure date of 2021. The renewal process, including revision of the specified closure date, is lengthy, involving multiple state and county reviews. Without a renewal agreement, the continued operation of the OA landfill may be jeopardized, even though it is not at permitted capacity. Implications for the City of Brea Half of the total waste truck trips in Orange County, more than quarter of a million per year, travel over Valencia Avenue, the only access road to OA Landfill. Two large Brea master planned communities, Olinda Ranch and Blackstone, border Valencia Avenue. Amenities for these communities include public parks, hiking and equestrian trails and wildlife corridors. In 2009, after lengthy negotiations, the County and the City of Brea implemented a $35 million package of odor, noise, and traffic mitigation measures, as well as landscape upgrades along Valencia Avenue in exchange for continued operation of OA. A further extension of the MOU between the OA Landfill and the City of Brea means continuing the daily stream of large trash trucks entering and leaving the landfill. Although the County has made great strides in addressing community landfill concerns, these remain long term considerations for many of those residents. The negotiations between the County and City of Brea to reauthorize use of OA could be as complicated as in the past. Implications for the Entire County The closure of the OA Landfill would upset the balance of the entire county landfill system, not just north Orange County and the City of Brea. All self-haul vehicles and heavy trash truck traffic to and from the OA Landfill would be diverted to Irvine and south county via existing highways and local streets. OCWR reports that there were 267,000 truck trips to OA Landfill in 2017. Such a large number of heavy truck trips to the FB and PD Landfills would significantly increase freeway and local street traffic, hastening the degradation of the road infrastructure. Adding travel distance and time would increase operating costs, resulting in higher trash bills to Orange County residents and businesses. Conclusion As Orange County’s population continues to grow, so will its waste stream. While the landfills still have capacity, it is in the best interests of residents to keep the Orange County solid waste disposal system intact and extend its life as long as possible. Three major factors affect the system:  risk of Olinda Alpha Landfill closure in 2021, which would have major negative impact on the system  imported waste, which adds to the burden of the landfills  volatility in the market for recyclable material, which could have a negative effect While there is little that can be done at a local level with regard to the recyclables market, managing the other factors is even more crucial to the future growth and quality of life for Orange County. Commendation Orange County Waste and Recycling is to be commended for operating an efficient and cost effective system of landfills and hazardous waste disposal centers that constitutes an important economic asset to Orange County. FINDINGS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at five principal findings, as follows: F1. The Orange County waste disposal system is efficient, well balanced, geographically distributed, and works to mitigate disturbance to nearby neighborhoods. F2. The Orange County landfill system would be disrupted by the closure of any one of the landfills. F3. The Olinda Alpha Landfill is a possible candidate for closure in 2021 if negotiations with City of Brea prove unsuccessful. F4. Importing trash from outside of the County, initiated to help the County survive the 1994 bankruptcy, continues even though the bankruptcy bonds were retired as of July 2017. F5. Continued importation of trash tends to decrease Orange County landfill life. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations. R1. By December 30, 2018, the County of Orange and the City of Brea should initiate formal negotiations to ensure identification and resolution of potential issues with the Olinda Alpha Landfill Memorandum of Understanding. (F1, F2, F3) R2. By June 30, 2019, Orange County Waste and Recycling should update and publish a cost/benefit analysis on the imported trash revenue stream surplus and the future costs associated with earlier closures in the landfill system. (F4, F5) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.” Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Findings: Orange County Board of Supervisors: Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 City of Brea City Council Findings: F1, F2, F3 Recommendations: Orange County Board of Supervisors: Recommendations: R1, R2 City of Brea City Council: Recommendations: R1