601 Carmen Drive, Camarillo, California 93010

AGENDA Thursday, May 12, 2005 5:00 p.m. City of Camarillo Council Chambers 601 Carmen Drive, Camarillo, California 93010 ______

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Salute to the Flag

4. Announcements of any changes to the agenda

5. Consent Calendar

A. Minutes of March 10, 2005 Meeting (attachment) ACTION: Approval of Minutes

B. Investment Policy (attachment) Recommended for Approval by the Administrative Committee ACTION: Approve

6. Public Comments (with completion of speaker card)

7. Board Member Comments

8. Occupational Outlook for the County of Ventura (5:10 PM) Presentation by Workforce Investment Board, Amy Fonzo, Executive Director

MEMBERS

City of Camarillo City of Fillmore City of Moorpark City of Ojai Jan McDonald, Member Ernie Villegas, Member Patrick Hunter, Member Sue Horgan, Member Kevin Kildee, Alternate Ken Smedley, Alternate Clint D. Harper, Alternate Rae Hanstad, Alternate City of Oxnard City of Port Hueneme City of San Buenaventura City of Santa Paula Thomas Holden, Member Jonathan Sharkey, Member Carl Morehouse, Member Mary Ann Krause, Member Tim Flynn, Alternate Murray Rosenbluth, Alternate Brian Brennan, Alternate John Procter, Alternate City of Simi Valley City of Thousand Oaks County of Ventura______Paul Miller, Member Jacqui Irwin, Member Linda Parks, Member Steven Sojka, Alternate Dennis Gillette, Alternate John Flynn, Alternate VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 2 of 24

9. Ventura County Agricultural Water Quality Coalition - www.vcawqc.org (5:25 PM)

Presentation by Rob Roy, President and General Counsel

10. Civic Alliance Update on “Connecting the Dots: Strategies for the Future”(5:40 PM) Presentation by Hugh Ralston, Ventura County Community Foundation

11. Proposed VCOG Annual Legislative Agenda (attachment) (5:55 PM) ACTION: Approve

12. Legislation to Consider for Possible Action (attachment) (6:10 PM) ACTION: Approve

13. CIWMB Update - Proposed Revisions to Disposal Reporting System (DRS) (attachments) (6:20 PM) Presentation by Gerard Kapuscik, Ventura County Public Works ACTION: Review comments presented on the proposed DRS Regulations and authorize the Chair to sign a letter of support from the perspective of the Ventura County AB 939 LTF.

14. Agency Reports (6:40 PM) a. SCAG i. Update on Development of Regional Comprehensive Plan b. VCTC c. League of California Cities i. Report on Legislative Action Days d. Other Agencies 15. Executive Director Report (6:50 PM)

 Santa Barbara/Ventura Collaborative – Update of Next Steps  “All Hands” and Managers Meeting – June 10, 2005

15. Adjournment to June 10, 2005

VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 3 of 24 Board Meeting Minutes Thursday, March 10, 2005 5:00 p.m. City of Camarillo Council Chambers 601 Carmen Drive, Camarillo, California 93010 ______

1. Call to Order: Vice Chair Krause called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.

2. Roll Call: Present: Member Jon Sharkey City of Port Hueneme Member Carl Morehouse City of San Buenaventura Member Many Ann Krause City of Santa Paula Member Paul Miller City of Simi Valley Member Jacqui Irwin City of Thousand Oaks Member Linda Parks County of Ventura Member Jan McDonald City of Camarillo Member Patrick Hunter City of Moorpark Member Tim Flynn City of Oxnard

6. Salute to the Flag: Vice Chair Mary Ann Krause

7. Announcements of any changes to the agenda:

 Item #12 was tabled until the following meeting, as indicated on the Agenda.

5. Minutes of January 13, 2005 Meeting

ACTION: Minutes Approved

8. Public Comments:

 Hugh Ralston, Ventura County Community Foundation, regarding the Civic Alliance Road Ahead II Conference, March 24, 2005 at the CSUCI campus  Jim Kuykendahl, Channel Islands Beach Community Services District, introducing himself to the Board

7. Board Member Comments:

 Member Miller distributed a SCAG report on Southern CA Regional Strategy for Goods Movement. Ventura County and the Port of Hueneme are mentioned; he suggested members review the report.  Member Morehouse reported on a CA League of Cities Housing and Community and Econ Development Subcommittee discussion of SB 44 (Kehoe), a measure which would require the addition of an air quality element to a community’s General Plan. Mr. Morehouse requested feedback from the region on the measure. Ms. Bacharach offered to coordinate the collection of feedback to Mr. Morehouse.

8. HOME – Housing Opportunities Made Easier (5:10 PM) VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 4 of 24

 Presentation by Dawn Dyer, Chair. Materials were distributed

11. Many Mansions (5:25 PM)

 Presentation by Rick A. Schroeder, Executive Director. Materials were distributed

12. Integrated Waste Management Plan Update (5:40 PM)

 Presentation by Gerard Kapuscik, Environmental and Energy Resources Division, PWA, Ventura County who explained VCOG’s role as the AB 939 Local Task Force, the progressive diversion requirements and the “hierarchy” of salvage operations/goals. Annually, each jurisdiction must report to the State the extent to which required goals have been attained. The LTF must coordinate the regional County-Wide Siting Element review of local documents associated with the County’s five-year report Integrated Waste Management Report by June, 2006. By July of this year, and to be presented at the July 14th VCOG Board meeting, a draft template report will be prepared for the LTF/VCOG to provide regional comments to the County on the adequacy of the Plan. A public hearing process for the LTF and the member jurisdictions will be required. Materials describing the process were distributed.

13. Proposed Bylaws (to be sent separately) (5:55 PM)

ACTION: Adopted.

14. Investment Policy (to be sent separately) (6:10 PM) TABLED

ACTION: Presented for discussion and approval

13. Proposed VCOG Annual Legislative Agenda (to be sent separately) (6:15 PM)

ACTION: The Proposed Legislative Agenda was discussed. Following the discussion, to allow for comparison of the original and modified versions, it was requested that Ms. Bacharach forward to all Members the original Draft document, the errata version and the currently Proposed version of the Legislative Agenda. It was requested that the Members provide their Councils with the Proposed Legislative Agenda for review and comment/approval. The Legislative Agenda will be presented to the VCOG Board for discussion/approval at the May 12th meeting. Ms. Bacharach also proposed a matrix format, including bills for VCOG’s information and possible action in the future.

15. Santa Barbara/Ventura Collaborative – Update of Next Steps (6:30 PM)

 Ms. Bacharach reported on the February 10th City/County Planners meeting. There was a strong interest in rail and in advancing use of the Coastal Express bus service. Local preference housing statutory regulations was also discussed among other issues. The scheduling of another Collaborative meeting with Santa Barbara elected officials is being pursued.

15. Agency Reports (6:35 PM) VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 5 of 24

 VCTC: Mary Travis reported that the Congestion Management Plan was adopted last week. VCTC intends to study the need for specialized transit services. Funding of $25 million will be provided for 2005-06.

16. Executive Director Report

 Ms. Bacharach distributed to the Board a Report highlighting staff activity that had occurred since the January meeting. Background materials (e.g. the UCLA 2005 Ventura County Economic Forecast) referred to in the Report will be available for Board review upon request. She also requested that Board members submit their FPPC annual Form 700 if they have not already done so.  Member Morehouse mentioned the SCAG Community and Economic Development discussion regarding the possible revision of the RHNA process by 2008. More discussion will occur through SCAG. He also encouraged Members to monitor through the LCC to legislation that impact local jurisdictions.

17. Adjournment to May 12, 2005

PROPOSED VCOG ANNUAL LEGISLATIVE AGENDA FOR 2005 (revised based on comments received)

(Attachment 2. Proposed Legislative Agenda presented at the March Board meeting)

4/11/05 City of Ventura approved as presented. Fillmore & Thousand Oaks approved. Simi Valley did not approve.

Purpose

The goal and intent of VCOG is one of voluntary cooperation among cities and the county of Ventura for their collective benefit. In this regard, VCOG serves as an advocate in representing the members of VCOG at the regional, state and federal levels on issues of mutual importance to the Ventura County area. It also can serve as a forum for the review, consideration, study, development and recommendation of public policies and plans with regional significance.

Overriding Principles

VCOG believes that cities and counties must be able to control matters within their own jurisdictions. Therefore, VCOG will take positions on proposed legislation, rules and/or regulations that affect local control. Additionally, VCOG will take positions on issues that VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 6 of 24 directly affect the county area. And, when local decisions affect neighboring communities, VCOG supports local governments working collaboratively and regionally to address regional issues.

Process

Staff will monitor the League of California Cities’ Priority Focus, California State Association of Counties’ positions as well as other sources to identify pending legislation that may impact the member entities.

A Legislative Subcommittee of the VCOG Administrative Committee shall be created composed of the following three members: Chair, Chair Elect and Immediate Past Chair. The Chair (or Chair Elect in the Chair’s absence) is authorized to sign correspondence expressing VCOG's position on pending legislation consistent with the Legislative Program and/or other positions approved by the Governing Board provided that such correspondence has been sent to the Legislative Subcommittee for their review with a deadline for their comments but not less than 24 hours before it is finalized.

Copies of all correspondence will be distributed to each Governing Board member and their jurisdiction and a Legislative Report will be provided at Board meetings.

Pending legislation not addressed by the Legislative Agenda, member requests or staff recommendations that deviate from the Legislative Agenda, will be agendized for VCOG Governing Board consideration.

This policy will be reviewed each year with the adoption of the Legislative Agenda.

Issues Of Common Concern and Areas of VCOG Commitment

I. Fiscal Impact - VCOG is committed to:

A. Maintain the protections that are provided in Proposition 1A to protect local revenues from seizure by the state.

B. Oppose preemption of local authority.

C. Support measures that provide greater fiscal independence to cities and counties and (Camarillo Board comment) result in greater stability and predictability in local government budgeting.

D. Support legislation requiring the state and federal governments to provide full cost reimbursement to cities and counties for all mandated programs and for all programs resulting in revenue losses.

E. Encourage the use of state incentives for local government action rather than VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 7 of 24 mandates and penalties.

II. Transportation & Transit - VCOG is committed to:

A. Support legislation that would provide additional resources to cities and counties to finance local transportation systems, facilities, and improvements.

B. Protect and enhance current funding levels and local authority for existing State and Federal transportation revenues and programs

C. Support the immediate halt to transfers to the State General Fund of dedicated State Transportation funds and the timely return of all previous loans

D. Support the authority of cities and county to manage the public right-of-way and receive compensation for its use.

III. Economic Development - VCOG is committed to:

A. Support legislation that gives cities and counties resources to finance economic development efforts, such as business attraction, retention, and growth, as well as marketing and tourism.

B. Support the retention of the Naval Base Ventura County.

C. Support legislation to ensure sufficient funding to operate one-stop employment and training centers.

D. Oppose efforts to cut funding for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs and other publicly funded community services and workforce assistance programs to serve low-income and/or other disadvantaged residents.

E. Support legislation that reforms reporting requirements for redevelopment agencies by simplifying the process and eliminating reporting confusion.

IV. Land Use - VCOG is committed to:

A. Support efforts that are consistent with the doctrine of "home rule" and the local exercise of police powers, through planning and zoning processes, over local land use.

B. Support legislation that strengthens local control to prepare, adopt, and implement plans for orderly growth, development, beautification, and conservation of local planning areas, including, but not limited to, regulatory authority over zoning, subdivisions, annexations, and redevelopment areas.

V. Housing - VCOG is committed to:

A. Support efforts to develop multi-jurisdictional (federal, state, county, city) VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 8 of 24 participation, financial support, and incentives for programs that provide adequate, affordable housing for the elderly, handicapped, and low-income persons throughout the community as well as required infrastructure construction.

B. Support Housing Element reform legislation that provides greater local control and flexibility, simplifies the process, and improves its effectiveness.

C. Support legislation that eliminates the current Regional Housing Needs Allocation process and defines a more equitable process to determine a “fair share” of new housing needed to respond to growth trends in the region.

D. Support legislation that streamlines the environmental review process for mixed-use infill development without compromising environmental quality standards.

E. Support legislation that promotes and provides incentives for environmentally responsible design and construction.

VI. Environment - VCOG is committed to:

A. Support legislation that streamlines the state’s environmental review process and maintains public participation without compromising environmental quality standards.

B. Air Quality Protection

1. Support mobile source emission reduction activities to improve the environment without adverse impact on local economy.

2. Support air quality efforts that emphasize use of advanced technologies and market incentives, including use of alternative fuels and development of an infrastructure for alternative fuel vehicles.

3. Support port air emission reductions.

4. Support the development of a federal action plan for reducing air pollution from those sources solely under federal control such as ships and planes which are increasingly affecting the ability to reach local air quality attainment.

C. Solid Waste

1. Support legislation that provides cities and counties with financial assistance for programs designed to provide for the safe disposal of solid, hazardous, and special waste.

2. Support legislation that promotes source reduction measures without creating an unfunded mandate.

3. Support legislation that promotes recycling and expands the market for recycled VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 9 of 24 materials as well as making grants available to local agencies for programs that encourage the recycling/reclaiming of resources.

4. Support new resource recovery and conversion technologies, such as bio-diesel from organic waste, including removing impediments to the adoption of transformation or conversion technologies to help municipalities and the county meet and exceed their requirement to divert 50% of their solid waste away from landfills.

5. Oppose legislation that would restrict or limit local government's ability to franchise refuse and recycling collection services, to direct municipal or county solid waste flow (flow control), or to contractually require haulers to guarantee achievement of AB 939 goals

6. Support legislation that streamlines AB 939 tracking and reporting requirements.

D. Water Protection

1. Support legislation and cooperative efforts to ensure adequate water supplies for Southern California and to protect and enhance regional groundwater resources and watersheds.

2. Support state and federal funding legislation for local storm water and NPDES programs as well as incentives for the re-use of reclaimed water.

3. Support regulations for local agencies to carry out the NPDES mission that are practical and capable of being implemented including taking into account economic considerations

4. Support scientific investigation and implementation, as funding permits, of reasonable, cost-effective, and proven best management practices (BMP) and best available technologies (BAT) to mitigate storm water pollution to the maximum extent practicable

E. Natural Resources

1. Support funding and legislation for the designation and preservation of open space and preservation, restoration and enhancement of natural resources.

2. Support legislation and/or programs that provide money to local governments for energy efficiency and conservation programs.

VIII. Public Safety and Homeland Security - VCOG is committed to:

A. Support legislation that increases local law enforcement resources including providing cities and counties with a greater share of fines and forfeitures. VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 10 of 24 B. Support funding for improved public safety programs, specifically the State Grants that have provided police departments with the funds necessary to support technology improvements increasing efficiency. This includes grants that support homeland security, grants through the Office of Traffic Safety, as well as other grants that support the hiring of law enforcement personnel.

C. Support legislation that would provide additional resources for commercial truck safety inspections and the enforcement of commercial truck vehicle codes.

D. Support legislation that allows use of state and federal public safety grants for maintenance efforts in addition to service increases.

E. Support maintenance of existing health care facilities within the county for emergency response with adequate funding and staffing.

F. Support funding for all hazards, not just terrorism and encourage comprehensive All Hazards planning

IX. Labor Relations - VCOG is committed to:

A. Oppose legislation that would restrict a local government’s ability to use its own employees on public works projects when such projects have previously been advertised for bid.

B. Oppose legislation that requires the use of city or county employees rather than contracting out.

C. Oppose any legislation that would grant employee benefits that should be decided at the local bargaining table.

D. Support legislation that would reform the Workers' Compensation system to reduce employer cost through the reduction of system abuse.

E. Oppose any measure that imposes compulsory and binding interest arbitration.

F. Oppose efforts that reduce local control over public employee disputes or impose regulations of an outside agency on such disputes.

IX. General Government - VCOG is committed to:

A. Support legislation limiting the county and a city’s liability associated with hazardous recreational activities, such as skateboarding and in-line skating.

B. Support legislation that makes funds available to refurbish and improve parks.

C. Oppose legislation that increases local government’s exposure to litigation. VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 11 of 24

April 15, 2005 VIA E-MAIL: “[email protected]” ORIGINAL VIA U.S. MAIL

Diane Shimizu, DRS Regulations Contact CIWMB MS-24 P.O. Box 4025 Sacramento, CA 95812-4025

SUBJECT: VENTURA COUNTY DISPOSAL REPORTING AGENCY COMMENTS SUBSEQUENT TO APRIL 12, 2005 INFORMAL WORKSHOP ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO DISPOSAL REPORTING SYSTEM (DRS) REGULATIONS

Dear Ms. Shimizu:

The Environmental and Energy Resources Division (EERD), of the Water and Sanitation Department, Public Works Agency, County of Ventura, is charged by the Board of Supervisors with responsibility to compile disposal information, from haulers, and the operators of material recovery facilities/transfer stations and landfills pursuant to Article 9.2 Disposal Reporting System (DRS) of Title 14 CCR.

Pursuant to Section 18801 (a) (1) of Title 14 CCR, EERD serves as the State designated DRS Reporting Agency for Ventura County. The geographical scope of EERD’s performance of such duties covers all ten incorporated cities and the unincorporated area of Ventura County. As such, EERD is pleased to provide its comments regarding the proposed revisions to the State’s DRS Regulations currently under review and consideration by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB).

GENERAL COMMENTS

First of all, EERD, as the DRS Reporting Agency for Ventura County, fully supports the general purpose, scope, content and urgent need for the proposed revisions to the DRS regulations. Second, we publicly acknowledge and applaud the CIWMB for recognizing and addressing this vital need. And finally, we strongly urge the CIWMB to adopt these regulatory revisions as expeditiously as possible, and believe that they should take effect no later than January 1, 2006.

Further, we wish to publicly thank Rosario Marin, Chair, as well as Cheryl Peace and Carl Washington, Members of the CIWMB’s Sustainability and Market Development Committee for the leadership, patience, attention and responsiveness to the concerns of all DRS Regulation stakeholders shown by them during the April 12, 2005 Informal Workshop on the proposed revisions to the DRS regulations. VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 12 of 24

Finally, EERD, serving both as the DRS Reporting Agency for Ventura County, and representing the DRS stakeholder interests of the County of Ventura, one of eleven local jurisdictions in Ventura County, wishes to commend the depth of process understanding, sensitivity to local conditions, and professional regulatory courage shown by the Committee members named above. In our professional view, the DRS stakeholder interests by Ventura County’s eleven jurisdictions were well served by the “Solomnic” decisions reached by the Committee during the April 12th workshop covering the most vital areas of regulatory interest to local governments contained in the extant proposed DRS regulatory revision package.

COMMENTS ON DRS REGULATION REVISION ISSUES DISCUSSED DURING APRIL 12, 2005 INFORMAL WORKSHOP

Hauler Responsibility for Jurisdiction of Origin Identification of Waste Loads

Under AB 939, the key to credible diversion attainment documentation by California’s jurisdictions is our ability to rely on the most reasonably accurate, transparent, and documentable jurisdiction of origin information regarding disposal tonnage material flows.

Further, in our judgment, the key to accurate, reliable and verifiable jurisdiction of origin information for disposal tons under DRS is hauler responsibility to identify, in the first instance, the jurisdiction of origin where that disposal material was generated. Simply put, EERD sees no practical nor reasonable alternative to the hauler(s) having the first and ultimate responsibility to identify the jurisdiction of origin of all reportable loads correctly, since they pick-up the load at the geographic point of waste load generation.

Once the hauler delivers those waste loads, either to a material recovery and/or transfer station facility for further processing, and/or directly to the landfill for ultimate disposal, ”due diligence” responsibility for maintaining the chain of custody accuracy for jurisdiction or origin information is shared with the haulers by the operators of material recovery facility/transfer stations and landfills. Finally, it is absolutely essential that each of the DRS stakeholders mentioned above, discharge their “due diligence” responsibilities as transparently as possible, in partnership with their local DRS reporting agency, subject to the DRS guidance and direction of the CIWMB under State Statute.

Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned above, EERD believes that responsibility for the identification of the jurisdiction of origin of all reportable waste stream loads identified by the CIWMB (i.e. disposal, potential alternative daily cover, construction and demolition and disaster debris tons) bests rests with the hauler of such loads. From our point of view, there simply is no reasonable, practical or cost-effective alternative for this to change, as long as diversion attainment is grounded in accurate, timely and transparent disposal tonnage measurement under State law. Consequently, EERD supports the proposed regulations revisions proffered by CIWMB staff. VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 13 of 24

Alternative Daily and Intermediate Cover, Beneficial Use and Disaster Debris Waste Definitions

In as much as the clarification, focus and updates to the material type definitions proposed by CIWMB staff appear to us to be reflective of common sense, consistent with Statutory intent, a reasonable next step in the evolution of precision of required material stream reporting and ultimately helpful to DRS stakeholders and local reporting agencies, such as the County of Ventura, EERD supports the proposed regulations revisions found in this section.

Volumetric Conversion Factor Requirements

Given the size, complexity and variation of waste streams collected throughout California and the mix of public and private waste processing and/or disposal facilities serving those streams, it appears to EERD reasonable and prudent to provide for appropriate volumetric conversion factors. Nonetheless, it is absolutely vital that care is taken to ensure that the factors chosen adequately reflect the material flow realities of the waste stream collected, hauled and ultimately disposed and local conditions. Accordingly, since the proposed regulation revisions require operators to use the conversion factor specified in the regulations, or approved by the DRS reporting agency and/or based on annual surveys to provide more accuracy and local data, EERD supports the proposed regulations revisions found in this section.

Commercial Hauler Terminology

Once again, given the size, complexity and variation of waste streams collected throughout California, as well as the mix of public and private waste haulers allowed under State Statutes and/or local ordinances, hauling franchises and serviced agreements, it is also vital that critical terminology definitions found in the DRS regulations be as clear, descriptive and reflective of operational realities as possible. The proposed regulation revisions found in this section define a commercial hauler as: “..a person who charges for or is paid for collecting solid waste from a residential, commercial or industrial solid waste generator and transporting the waste to a solid waste facility..” Further, the proposed revised DRS regulations contain a definition of term based on and includes appropriate reference to a similar statutory definitions found in Public Resources Code Sections 49504-49505. And, since local jurisdictions are guided by the aforementioned terminology definitions in drafting local waste hauler franchise and/or service agreements, EERD supports the proposed regulations revisions found in this section.

Clean and Contaminated Soil Definitions VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 14 of 24 Current DRS regulations contain no specific definitions of these terms, and the absence of such definitions has caused problems for various DRS stakeholders. The proposed DRS regulations found in this section clearly and specifically define both terms, clean and contaminated soils. Further, the contaminated soils definition proposed refers to the designated concentration allowed under the California Water Code (CWC Section 13173). Accordingly, EERD supports the proposed regulations revisions found in this section.

Off-Site Weighing for Transfer Stations

Current DRS regulations contain no specific requirements for off-site weighing for transfer stations. The proposed DRS regulations found in this section require the installation of a weight scale at transfer stations with an annual average of more than 100 tons of solid waste per operating day (more than 200 tons per operating day in rural counties) and operating more than 52 days per year. Further, the proposed regulations allow the use of facility specific volumetric conversion factors, request for hardship exemption and/or alternative weighing system, subject to CIWMB approval.

CIWMB’s SB 2022 report to the Legislature clearly called for the adoption of regulatory requirements for scales at processing and/or disposal facilities and the weighing of as much of California’s waste stream as reasonably, practically and cost-effectively as possible. Within Ventura County, waste stream volumes flowing through both of our two permitted processing facilities and transfer stations (i.e. Gold Coast in Ventura, and Del Norte in Oxnard), are far in excess of these throughput numbers and have had measurement scales since their inception. For reasons of accuracy, reliability, transparency, and facility equity, EERD supports the proposed regulations revisions found in this section.

Request to Raise Proposed Weighing Requirement Threshold to 12 Cubic Yards

Current DRS regulations contain no specific requirements for weighing thresholds. The proposed DRS regulations found in this section require installation of a weight scale at disposal facilities with an annual average of more than 100 tons of solid waste per operating day (more than 200 tons per operating day in rural counties) and operating more than 52 days per year. Further, the proposed revisions require a load weighing threshold of 6 cubic yards and 1 ton or more incoming loads.

Some members of the hauling industry believe that the proposed threshold is too low and propose increasing it to 12 cubic yards. EERD can not support the increased threshold since newer, smaller compacter trucks hold about 12 cubic yards, and often there loads weigh several tons, which would escape measurement at the facility scale house, skewing DRS tonnage information. Accordingly, for reasons of accuracy, reliability, transparency, and facility equity, EERD can not support the increased 12 cubic yard threshold, but does support the 6 cubic yard and 1 ton or more threshold proposed by CIWMB staff.

DRS Training Requirements VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 15 of 24 Amazingly, current DRS regulations contain no specific requirements for DRS training for critical stakeholder personnel, either public or private sector. Based on real-life experience as the DRS reporting agency for Ventura County, EERD believes that the absence of any mention in existing DRS regulations of the role and importance that training has in implementing stakeholder responsibilities under the DRS, specifying the purpose, scope, format and general content of such training requirements, let alone the requirement for such training itself, has unnecessarily caused avoidable problems in the DRS system, statewide.

Significantly, CIWMB’s SB 2022 report to the Legislature recommended the requirement for DRS training to improve the accuracy and reliability of DRS data collected and reported at various waste processing and disposal facilities. In EERD’s judgment, the collaborative development of a clear, purposeful, relevant and focused training program, by CIWMB, in consultation with representatives from all relevant DRS stakeholders (i.e. DRS reporting agencies, haulers, processing and facility operators and effected local jurisdictions) is absolutely vital, fundamental to the success of the DRS system, and long overdue.

Accordingly, EERD strongly supports the proposed regulations revisions found in this section and would urge even greater proactive, results oriented, and interactive training efforts in this regard. Further, as a representative DRS stakeholder (including both serving as a local DRS reporting agency and a local effected jurisdiction) EERD would be happy to volunteer to work with appropriate CIWMB staff charged with developing statewide DRS training information subsequent to the adoption of these revised DRS regulations.

Signage Requirements

Current DRS regulations contain no specific requirements for signs at processing and/or disposal facilities explaining the existence, purpose, and importance of the Disposal Reporting System under AB 939. As you are well aware, CIWMB’s SB 2002 report to the Legislature recommended the placement of signs to educate vehicle drivers who utilize waste processing and disposal facilities, as to why DRS data is collected and to improve the accuracy of jurisdiction of origin based tonnage information collected at such facilities.

EERD agreed with the CIWMB’s SB 2022 recommendations to the Legislature, and strongly supports the proposed requirement for large, readable, and simple to understand DRS information signs at all waste processing and disposal facilities in California that receive waste from more than one jurisdiction. Further, we urge that the requirements be specific enough to emphasize that the signs be large, clearly visible to all incoming vehicles, easy to read and understand, contain simple, basic and easy to understand information, and where appropriate, in more than one language. Given the diversity of cultures and languages spoken in California, this last factor will not only increase the understanding and internalization of the import DRS messages, it is grounded in the CIWMB’s existing and evolving “environmental justice” policy initiatives. VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 16 of 24 Landfill Capacity Related Definitions and Reporting Requirements

Current DRS regulations require all landfills to report capacity related information at the time that a Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) application is submitted to the CIWMB. The proposed revision found in this section would add necessary definitions of the terms “air space utilization factor (AUF), waste to cover ratio and in-place waste density,” in the DRS regulations. These term definitions are consistent with current SWFP regulations and inclusion of them in the DRS regulation package would require that this information be submitted by landfill operators “quarterly,” along with their existing DRS reports.

As stated by CIWMB staff, the proposed revisions in this section will address the recommendations found in the 2001 California State Auditor’s report (Number 2001- 109) that CIWMB require accurate landfill capacity information in a consistent manner, and on a more frequent basis than the 5-year permit revision schedule (report recommends annually). EERD agrees with CIWMB staff that given that DRS is already in place, it is the most efficient mechanism to collect the capacity related information from landfills recommended by the State Auditor, since landfills currently submit a regular DRS disposal tonnage and material s flow report quarterly.

Also, since the State’s Auditor has identified that 5-years is too long for the CIWMB to wait to verify that the landfill capacity utilization rates projected at the time the facility was permitted have or have not been materially effected by actual utilization data, it makes sense for CIWMB to include this requirement in the proposed revisions to the DRS regulations at this time. Given EERD’s role both the DRS reporting agency for Ventura County, and its statutory responsibility for the preparation of the 5-Year Revision Update for the Countywide Siting Element (CSE) portion of the Ventura County CIWMP document (due to the CIWMB by June 2006), we support the proposed revision found in this section.

Daily Reporting Requirements

The existing DRS regulations specify periodic (at least one week per each quarter) surveys of the jurisdiction of origin of waste loads passing through the scale house at permitted disposal facilities. The existing regulations, while requiring prior CIWMB approval of any change to the designated once per quarter survey week periods (i.e. Section 18805 (a)), also allow local reporting agencies to require more frequent survey periods (i.e. daily reporting of jurisdiction of origin information), from permitted disposal facilities (i.e. Section 18805 (d)).

Beginning in 2000, EERD, in consultation and collaboration with all ten jurisdictions and the operators of our waste processing and disposal facilities spearheaded local efforts to move to daily reporting of jurisdiction of origin information in order to obtain greater accuracy, precision and reliability of jurisdiction of origin disposal data. During the last five years, this local, collaborative and proactive multi-stakeholder DRS reporting improvement effort has worked very well, and been viewed as a successful VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 17 of 24 improvement to the DRS data submitted by Ventura County’s eleven jurisdictions to the CIWMB each quarter, and in our AB 939 Annual Reports.

The proposed revisions to the DRS regulations would require that the operators of disposal facilities conduct origin surveys for every load, every day, with the following three exceptions: 1. Disposal facilities in rural counties 2. Loads delivered to the disposal facility in passenger cars or pick-up trucks (weighing one ton or less or 6 cubic yards or less in volume). 3. Disposal facilities where the host jurisdiction authorizes all tonnage to be assigned to the host jurisdiction.

Given the fact that Ventura County DRS stakeholders worked collaboratively and collectively to develop a successful daily reporting of the jurisdiction of origin of disposal loads passing through the facility gates more than 5 years ago, and based on the report of CIWMB staff that currently, more than 60% of the disposal facilities in California are using daily reporting systems, EERD strongly supports the proposed revision to DRS regulations in this section proposed by CIWMB staff.

Access to and Review of Records Requirements

Existing State statures and applicable DRS regulations require that all reporting entities (i.e. haulers, and facility operators) use a reasonable method to gather jurisdiction of origin and other disposal tonnage information, maintain those records for 3 years in one location, and allow records inspections by the reporting agency, effected jurisdictions and the CIWMB (i.e. Section 18802 of Title 14 CCR).

The proposed revisions to the regulations specify that haulers, operators and agencies shall prepare disposal reporting records and shall:

 Keep records of DRS methods and calculations and make them available at a single location in California  Keep quarterly documentation for verification of jurisdiction of origin allocations  Make records available for inspection and provide copies on request; and, subject to a limit of copying charges found in the host local jurisdiction’s public records act requirements, charge a fee for copying DRS records  Respond to DRS information requests within a specified timeframe (ten days, with the possibility of up to an additional 14 days)  Submit requests for perceived confidential or proprietary information to the CIWMB for review

EERD, both as the DRS Reporting Agency for Ventura County, and a local jurisdiction effected by the DRS reporting system, believes that the accuracy, credibility and reliability of disposal tonnage information collected by this system is best insured by the greatest transparency and unfettered access to these records as possible. Beyond VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 18 of 24 obvious requirements for information accountability to all DRS stakeholders, as stated before, EERD can not perform its “due diligence” responsibilities to verify the methods used to allocate the jurisdiction of origin of disposal tons by haulers, processing and disposal facilities if we do not have reasonable access to and ability to review such records, as is found in the proposed regulations.

Essentially, EERD’s views in this matter are best summed-up by the old Russian proverb, “..Dovyerai, no proveryai..” which translates into English as, “..Trust, but verify..” To that end, EERD strongly supports the proposed revision to DRS regulations in this section proposed by CIWMB staff.

Pre-Emption of Local Authority (Not Exceed State DRS Reporting Requirements)

Currently, the DRS regulations are silent on the issue of State preemption of more stringent local reporting requirements imposed on haulers and facility operators by local ordinances, land use permits, franchise agreements and/or service contracts. Many local jurisdictions, including all eleven jurisdictions in Ventura County, have adopted such requirements to serve a variety of locally important information needs, pursuant to existing statutory authority and local government practice.

The proposed revisions to the DRS regulations explicitly state that local agencies or jurisdictions, based on their own authority, may require haulers or operators to supply additional disposal information requirements on haulers or disposal facility operators (i.e. proposed revised Sections 18809.5, 18809.6, 18810.6, 18811.5, 18811.6, 18812.5, 18812.6, 18813.5, and 18814.6 of Title 14 CCR).

In California, governmental authority in such matters is shared between the State and local governments created by the State (i.e. cities and special districts). Counties, of course, are administrative subdivisions of the State, charged with carrying out State laws within their local regions. Essentially, the sharing of the burden governance authority burden in California follows the general principle that the State establishes the floor (i.e. State law) and the local jurisdictions may establish a higher ceiling (i.e. if authorized by the State Legislature to do so).

This implied, and sometimes explicit political intergovernmental compact between the State Legislature and local governments, has been in effect for a long time, and generally been viewed as the State’s version of the “Federalism” concept at the national level. For reasons that are very obvious, but far too numerous to mention, this compact should remain undisturbed, at least as it relates to DRS regulations. Accordingly, as strongly argued during the April 12, 2005 Workshop in Sacramento, EERD is opposed to any restrictions on the existing authority of local governments to enact appropriate, and possibly more stringent disposal reporting requirements than are established in the DRS, should they feel the need, under existing statutory authority, to do so. VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 19 of 24 Finally, as stated at the beginning of this letter, EERD strongly urges the CIWMB to adopt the proposed revisions to the DRS regulations referenced herein as expeditiously as possible, and believe that they should take effect no later than January 1, 2006. Should you, or any CIWMB Board member and/or DRS Unit staff have any questions regarding this letter, or wish to discuss EERD’s comments found in this letter in greater depth, please feel free to contact me directly at (805) 289-3106.

Sincerely,

Gerard Kapuscik, Manager Resources and Information Section, EERD

May 12, 2005

TO: VCOG Board of Directors

FROM: Jacki Bacharach, Executive Director

RE: Legislation for Consideration

BILL # DESCRIPTION VCOG POSITION BILL STATUS & LCC/CSAC POSITION AB 20 Disabled Persons. Access. Technical violations. SUPPORT (1/13/05) 2/28/05 Assembly Judiciary Committee (Leslie/LaMal Would preclude commencement of an action for Letter sent 2/11/05 fa) damages against a public facility for a de minimus (LCC & CSAC watch) deviation from a code or regulation that has no significant impact on a disabled person's right to the goods and services provided by the facility, as specified. The bill would instead provide that the remedy for a technical violation, as defined, is injunctive relief and the recovery of attorney's fees . AB 194 Brown Act Violations: remedy. The Ralph M. Brown Act RECOMMEND Assembly Local Government Committee (Dymally) authorizes a local governmental agency to have the opportunity OPPOSE Hearing Date: 5/4/05 to cure or correct any alleged Brown Act violations prior to the commencement of any judicial action. AB 194 seeks to nullify (LCC & CSAC opposed) this right, even in those situations where the violation was an inadvertent mistake or misunderstanding. @ request of the Chair

SOLID WASTE VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 20 of 24 AB 1090 Solid waste: diversion: conversion. This bill adds recovery, RECOMMEND 4/18/2005 Assembly Natural (Matthews) through recycling, composting, conversion technology, or other SUPPORT Resources Committee beneficial use technologies to the existing waste management priorities for the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). The bill also provides that local jurisdictions may use (LCC supports) conversion technologies to meet their 50% waste diversion mandates required by existing law. @ request of County EERD SB 411 Solid waste: nonbiodegradable materials: landfills. On and after RECOMMEND 4/26/2005 – Senate Rules (Alarcon) January 1, 2000, the element is required to divert 50% of the OPPOSE Committee solid waste subject to the element, from landfill disposal or transformation through source reduction,recycling, and composting activities, except as specified. The bill would require the board to develop a schedule for excluding solid waste used as an alternative daily cover and that is comprised of woody and green material from being included in meeting the 50% diversion requirements of the act.

@ request of County EERD SB 926 Sewage Sludge Managements: Prohibits any person from RECOMMEND 5/3/05 Passed Sen Environmental (Florez) importing biosolids into Kern County as of 1/1/06. OPPOSE Quality Comm.

(Sets troubling precedent by singling out one county. Undermines significant local public agency investments in beneficial reuse projects for biosolids and interferes with free commerce and free enterprise. Ignores the interdependencies of the various regions of California on each other for a wide variety of purposes.) @ request of EERD

May 12, 2005 VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 21 of 24 TO: VCOG Board of Directors

FROM: Jacki Bacharach, VCOG Executive Director & Gerard Kapuscik, County Public Works Environmental & Energy Resources Division (EERD)

SUBJECT: CIWMB Update – Proposed Disposal Reporting System (DRS)

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Receive a brief update from Gerard Kapuscik, Manager, Resources & Information System Section, EERD, summarizing the key regional integrated waste management program disposal reporting system issues contained in his April 15th letter to CIWMB (attached) on behalf of the Ventura County DRS Reporting Agency.

2. Review the comments on the proposed DRS Regulations contained in the April 15th letter and authorize the Chair to sign a letter endorsing and supporting the comments from the perspective of the Ventura County AB 939 LTF.

DISCUSSION:

VCOG, acting as the Ventura County AB 939 LTF, is authorized by Statute (i.e. Section 40950 (c) (2); Integrated Waste Management Regulations (i.e. Section 18761 (b) (1)); and relevant portions of the 1995 Transfer Plan for Consolidation of the Waste Commission into the VCOG to facilitate interjurisdictional cooperation regarding integrated waste management plans, programs, and procedures consistent with applicable sections of the California Integrated Waste Management Act (i.e. AB 939), as amended.

Currently, under AB 939, it is important that jurisdictions take measures to assure that the diversion attainment figures that they report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) each year are grounded in the most reasonably accurate, transparent, and verifiable jurisdiction of origin information reported by haulers, MRFs and landfills.

In California, the State mandated Disposal Reporting System (DRS), which is defined in state regulations, contains the essential operational procedures by which haulers, MRFs and landfills measure, allocate by jurisdiction of origin, and report disposal tons to the State, County DRS Reporting Agency, and effected jurisdictions.

In November of 2002, in response to specific direction by the State Legislature (i.e. SB 2202), the CIWMB issued the first draft of extensive revisions to the State’s DRS regulations for public review and comment by DRS stakeholders. Now, after nearly two and one-half years of both informal and formal workshops and public review comments from literally, VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 22 of 24 thousands of DRS stakeholders statewide, the final version of these regulations are ready for CIWMB action.

On May 11, 2005, the CIWMB is scheduled to consider establishing the next, and probably the last, 15-day public review and comment period regarding these regulations before they take action to adopt them, some time later this year. The following bullet points summarize the key issues contained in the most recent version of these regulations for the Board’s information:

 Clarify that haulers must be prepared to provide jurisdiction of origin information for segregated loads of certain materials (beneficial reuse, disaster, C&D, designated) only when the information is requested by the receiving facility operator  Modify Alternative Daily Cover, Alternative Intermediate Cover, beneficial reuse, and disaster waste definitions to reference existing definitions in other regulations; move information on how these wastes count in the diversion rate measurement system to another section  Change the frequency of determining a facility’s volumetric conversion factors from annually to at least once every five years and allow the conversion factors to be based on vehicle/trailer types and/or waste types  Change the term “commercial hauler” to “public contract hauler”  Eliminate terms “clean soil” and “contaminated soil” and combine in a single “soil” definition  Automatically exempt transfer stations from scale & weighing requirements if receiving landfills are weighing all required loads  Change the threshold for weighing waste from 6 cubic yards or 1 ton to 12 cubic yards of uncompacted waste (no tonnage equivalent)  Modify training sections to require that appropriate staff be trained in DRS as applicable to their job duties but eliminate the training frequency and documentation requirements  Change the DRS signage requirement from mandatory (“shall”) to discretionary (“may”)  Clarify that landfill capacity information submitted in the quarterly reports will be used by the Board in order to more accurately calculate the remaining capacity of the landfill as well as regional and statewide remaining capacity (per State Auditor’s recommendation in 2001 Report #2001-109)  Clarify that for the purpose of providing jurisdiction records for review, an entity is not required to provide records for reporting years once the Board has completed a jurisdiction’s biennial review cycle for those years

Pursuant to Section 18801 (a) (1) of Title 14 CCR, EERD serves as the State designated DRS Reporting Agency for Ventura County. The geographical scope of EERD’s performance of such duties covers all ten incorporated cities and the unincorporated area of Ventura County. Gerard Kapuscik, Manager, Resources and Information Section, EERD, VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 23 of 24 attended the CIWMB’s April 12th Informal Workshop and provided comments and input regarding these proposed DRS regulation revisions.

Subsequent to attending the April 12th workshop, Mr. Kapuscik, representing the DRS stakeholder interests of the Ventura County DRS Reporting Agency, sent a letter containing detailed comments regarding the proposed revisions covering the most vital areas of regulatory interest to local governments contained in the extant proposed DRS regulatory revision package. Mr. Kapuscik sent advanced notice of the workshop to his integrated waste management colleagues in each of the ten cities, and forwarded a copy of his April 15th letter to them via e-mail as well. A copy of his April 15th letter to the CIWMB is attached for your review and information.

It is in both the individual and collective interest of all eleven jurisdictions in Ventura County to do everything we can to encourage, facilitate and support the most accurate jurisdiction of origin information regarding the flow of waste material, beginning with the geographical point of generation, passing through any materials processing facility and/or transfer station, and ending up in landfills for disposal.

Should you have any questions regarding this VCOG Board Letter, or the Mr. Kapuscik’s April 15, 2005 letter to the CIWMB, please feel free to contact me directly at (310) 293-2612, or Gerard Kapuscik directly at (805) 289-3106.

Attachment: April 15, 2005 Letter to Diane Shimizu, CIWMB from Ventura County Reporting Agency

City of Camarillo 601 Carmen Drive  P.O. Box 248  Camarillo, CA 93011-0248

Letter of Agreement Between the City of Camarillo (City) and the Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG) for the City to Provide Accounting and Cash Management Services to the VCOG

The City of Camarillo, in its capacity as Accounting and Cash Management Services Provider, agrees to perform all Accounting Services functions related to VCOG as follows:

1. Send invoices to the member cities annually, within 30 days of receiving VCOG’s approved annual budget.

2. Send monthly statements to those cities that have unpaid balances. VCOG AGENDA May 10, 2005 Page 24 of 24

3. Pay liabilities of VCOG within 20 days of receiving approved invoices.

4. Provide a monthly trust fund revenue and expenditure report to the VCOG Executive Director by the 15th of each month.

5. Include the VCOG trust fund in the annual City of Camarillo audit.

6. Provide a copy of the comprehensive annual financial report (audited) to VCOG within 30 days of it being provided to the City of Camarillo City Council.

The City of Camarillo will provide day-to-day cash management services for VCOG. The City agrees to:

1. Hold all VCOG funds in trust.

2. Invest all VCOG idle funds in conjunction with the City’s idle funds and in compliance with the City’s Investment Policy.

3. Provide VCOG with the latest Investment Policy.

4. Provide VCOG with any amended investment policies.

5. Provide VCOG with a comprehensive monthly investment report. The report will include all investments of the City of Camarillo, of which VCOG idle funds are a part.

The City of Camarillo will debit VCOG’s trust account for $250 per quarter for the services delineated herein. Agreed to this 23rd day of March 2005.

Jerry Bankston, City Manager Date