2026_01_13_study_sessionJanuary 13, 2026
Board of Directors Study Session
09:00 AM
Costa Mesa Sanitary District - 290 Paularino Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626
The livestream of the meeting can be viewed by visiting the District's YouTube channel at
www.youtube.com/CostaMesaSanitary.
Public Comments: Members of the public can submit any comments in real time during the
meeting or prior to the meeting in writing for the Board of Directors' consideration by sending
them to the District Clerk at publiccomment@cmsdca.gov. Those comments will be made part
of the official public record of
the meeting.
Obtaining Agenda Materials: The public is entitled to copies of all documents that are made
part of the agenda packet. If any document or other writing pertaining to an agenda item is
distributed to all or a majority of the Board after the packet is prepared, a copy of that writing
may be obtained from the District
Clerk's Office.
In Compliance with ADA: Contact District Clerk, Noelani Middenway, at (949) 645-8400, 48
hours prior to meeting if assistance is needed (28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II).
OPENING ITEMS
Call to Order
President Scheafer
Roll Call
If absences occur, consider whether to deem those absences excused based on facts
presented for the absence – such determination shall be the permission required by
law.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
This time has been set aside for persons in the audience to make comments on items
A.
1.
2.
B.
within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District that are not listed
on this agenda. Members of the public will have the opportunity to address the Board of
Directors about all other items on this agenda at the time those items are considered.
Under the provisions of the Brown Act, the Board of Directors is prohibited from taking
action on oral requests but may refer the matter to staff or to a subsequent meeting. The
Board of Directors will respond after public comment has been received. Please state your
name. Each speaker will be limited to four (4) continuous minutes.
ITEMS OF STUDY
Receive and File FY 2025-26 Waste Composition Studies and 2025
Summary
Page 4
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receive and file FY 2025-26 Waste
Composition Studies and 2025 Summary
Receive and File the Code Enforcement Officer Report for December
2025
Page 50
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receive and file the Code Enforcement
Officer's Report for December 2025 as presented
Receive and File Update on Discovery Cube School Education Program Page 62
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receive and file update on Discovery
Cube School Education Program as presented
Consider Appointing One (1) Citizens Advisory Committee Member to Fill
2026-2027 Vacancy
Page 65
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors consider appointing one (1) applicant to
serve the remainder of the vacant Citizens Advisory Committee term ending March
2027.
Consider Amending the Director Compensation Provisions of CMSD’s
Operations Code
Page 97
Recommendation: Consider Amending the Director Compensation Provisions of
CMSD’s Operations Code
CLOSING ITEMS
Oral Communications and Director Comments
Adjournment
The next Study Session of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District Board of Directors will be
C.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
D.
1.
2.
2 of 3
held at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, February 10, 2026 in the District's Boardroom, located
at 290 Paularino Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626.
3 of 3
1
Staff Report
To:Board of Directors
Via:Scott Carroll, General Manager
From:Marissa Pereyda, Solid Waste Manager
Date:January 13, 2026
Subject: Receive and File FY 2025-26 Waste Composition Studies and 2025
Summary
Summary
CityGreen Consulting, LLC has completed eight of the sixteen waste composition studies
planned in FY 2025-26 to evaluate contamination levels in landfill and recycling carts.
Recycling route contamination ranged from 13% to 31%, while landfill route contamination
ranged from 34% to 43%. A summary and analysis of the eight studies conducted in
September and October 2025 is provided below and in the attached reports. Michael Balliet,
President of CityGreen Consulting, LLC will provide an oral report of the findings and
recommendations. A summary of all waste composition studies conducted in calendar year
2025 is also included.
Staff Recommendation
That the Board of Directors receive and file this report.
Analysis
The District contracts with CityGreen Consulting, LLC (CityGreen) for franchise hauler
compliance, SB 1383 and regulatory compliance, Implementation Record management,
recordkeeping software, and waste composition studies. Waste composition studies consist of
sorting, weighing, and categorizing a random sample from a waste collection route for the
purpose of determining contamination levels and identifying the need for education, outreach,
and other contamination minimization actions.
During a waste composition study, collection route material is transported to CR&R's transfer
station in Stanton and dumped onto a clean sorting area. The load material is spread out, and
a grid pattern is established over the load. Grid locations are selected at random to collect
samples for sorting. The material from the selected grid is loaded into a trash barrel and a
sorting team then segregates the material into the following six categories: (1) green waste, (2)
food waste, (3) paper and cardboard that is dry and easily recycled, (4) other recyclable items
(plastic, metal, and glass), (5) cardboard and paper that is wet/contaminated by food waste,
2
and (6) all remaining material that is considered "trash." The material from each category is
then weighed to determine the composition of the sample load.
CityGreen conducted four studies (two recycling and two landfill) in September 2025 and four
studies (two recycling and two landfill) in October 2025. The general locations of the studies
are included below, and route maps are included in the attached reports.
•Recycling #1 and Landfill #1: The recycling and landfill route is east of Newport
Boulevard, and primarily south of 19th Street with some alley-served properties.
•Recycling #2 and Landfill #2: The recycling route area is north of South Coast Drive
(and the 405) and bordered on the east by Susan Street and Bear Street to the west.
The great majority of this route is south of Sunflower Avenue. The landfill route includes
one-third of the recycling route, adds a single-family residential area immediately east of
College and south of Gisler by the 405 freeway and Harbor, and adds a multi-family
neighborhood near Sunflower and Fairview.
•Recycling #3 and Landfill #3: The recycling route area is west of Newport Boulevard
and bordered by Victoria Street to the north and W. 18th Street to the south. The landfill
route area encompasses approximately two-thirds of the corresponding recycling route,
due to the heavier nature of trash.
•Recycling #4 and Landfill #4: The recycling route area is on the east side of Costa Mesa
and a portion of Newport Beach. The landfill route area encompasses approximately
two-thirds of the corresponding recycling route, due to the heavier nature of trash.
The average level of prohibited container contaminants in the four recycling studies is 24%.
For the recycling cart, prohibited container contaminants include green waste, food waste, and
trash. The pounds and percentage of each material type from the four recycling studies are
included below.
Recycling 1 Recycling 2 Recycling 3 Recycling 4
9/9/2025 9/12/2025 10/13/2025 10/15/2025
Material Type Lbs.%Lbs.%Lbs.%Lbs.%
Green Waste 0.70 0.34%0.00 0.00%0.40 0.17%0.10 0.05%
Food Waste 1.00 0.49%10.50 5.19%5.30 2.30%2.20 1.06%
Trash 60.80 29.79%35.00 17.28%25.40 11.02%59.10 28.41%
Total
Prohibited
Container
Contaminants
62.50 30.62%45.50 22.47%31.10 13.49%61.40 29.52%
Wet/Food
Contaminated
Paper &
Cardboard
0.30 0.15%2.00 0.99%4.60 2.00%8.40 4.04%
Recyclable
Paper &
Cardboard
101.80 49.88%105.60 52.15%89.90 39.00%62.00 29.81%
Other
Recyclables
39.50 19.35%49.40 24.40%104.90 45.51%76.20 36.63%
3
Total
Recyclable
Material
141.60 69.38%157.00 77.54%199.40 86.51%146.60 70.48%
Total Pounds 204.10 202.50 230.50 208.00
The average level of prohibited container contaminants in the four landfill studies is 37%. For
the landfill cart, prohibited container contaminants include green waste, food waste, recyclable
paper and cardboard, and other recyclable items like plastic, metal, and glass. The pounds
and percentage of each material type from the four landfill studies are included below.
Landfill 1 Landfill 2 Landfill 3 Landfill 4
9/9/2025 9/12/2025 10/13/2025 10/15/2025
Material Type Lbs.%Lbs.%Lbs.%Lbs.%
Green Waste 7.00 3.18%0.10 0.04%18.50 7.80%19.20 7.03%
Food Waste 27.60 12.52%43.20 18.63%33.00 13.92%50.60 18.51%
Total
Prohibited
Organics
34.60 15.70%43.30 18.67%51.50 21.72%69.80 25.50%
Recyclable
Paper &
Cardboard
16.30 7.40%21.70 9.36%17.20 7.25%21.50 7.87%
Other
Recyclables
27.70 12.57%18.30 7.89%12.70 5.36%27.70 10.14%
Total
Prohibited
Recyclables
44.00 19.96%40.00 17.25%29.90 12.61%49.20 17.86%
Total
Prohibited
Container
Contaminants
78.60 35.66%83.30 35.92%81.40 34.33%119.00 43.48%
Wet/Food
Contaminated
Paper &
Cardboard
25.80 11.71%22.90 9.87%24.80 10.46%26.00 9.51%
Trash 116.00 52.63%125.70 54.20%130.90 55.21%128.70 47.09%
Total Pounds 220.40 231.90 237.10 273.70
A summary of total prohibited container contamination for calendar year 2025 is included
below and a detailed report is attached.
Study Date Landfill Recycling
3/10/2025 24.26%45.83%
3/10/2025 21.97%48.93%
4/15/2025 37.66%40.25%
4/15/2025 37.42%42.49%
6/24/2025 44.54%30.82%
4
6/25/2025 33.55%36.04%
6/26/2025 37.69%43.76%
9/9/2025 35.66%30.62%
9/12/2025 35.92%22.47%
10/13/2025 34.33%13.49%
10/15/2025 43.48%29.52%
Average 35.13%34.93%
The District and CR&R mail an educational letter and “What Goes Where” guide to all homes
on waste composition study routes with 25% or more prohibited container contamination.
District staff is working on additional outreach and education programs to enhance three-cart
education over the coming year. CityGreen recommends expanded contamination cart tagging
and service refusal for highly contaminated carts. Staff is working with CR&R to develop a
proposed cart tagging and service refusal plan for FY 2026–27. Additional waste composition
studies will be performed in FY 2025–26 to continue monitoring contamination levels, and staff
will continue presenting waste composition study results to the Board.
Legal Review
Not applicable.
Environmental Review
Review of waste composition studies is an administrative matter and is exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et. seq.). Section 15300.4 of CEQA allows an agency while establishing its own
procedures "to list those specific activities which fall within each of the exempt classes," and
the District has adopted "CEQA Guidelines and Implementing Procedures" that state on page
6 "Projects" does not include...C. Continuing administrative or maintenance activities.
Financial Review
The cost for CityGreen to conduct one waste composition study is $750. The FY 2025-26
budget includes funds for CityGreen to conduct 16 studies ($12,000).
Public Notice Process
Copies of this report are on file and will be included in the complete agenda packet for the
January 13, 2026, Board of Directors Study Session at District Headquarters and posted on
the District’s website.
Alternative Actions
Refer item back to staff with further instructions.
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
FY 2025-2026 Recycling Route Composition Study #1
September 9, 2025
The first waste composition study of the FY 2025-2026 period, for the new blue-container
recycling program, was performed on September 9, 2025. The Tuesday R-15 recycling route is
east of Newport Boulevard, and primarily south of 19th street on older streets with some alley
served properties.
The total collected weight presented for sampling was 3.30 tons. A random grid pattern was used
to select a 204.10 -pound sample for sorting.
A sorting team segregated this material into the same categories used for our trash route studies:
(1) Green Waste; (2) Food Waste; (3) Cardboard and Paper that are wet/contaminated by food
waste; (4) Other Recycle Items; (5) Paper and Cardboard that is dry and easily recycled; and (6)
Non-recyclable trash. The R-15 route is for recyclable items only, so food waste, green waste or
trash are considered “prohibited container contaminants”. Wet cardboard and paper are
considered recyclable in our survey, as they may have been contaminated in transit. Also, we do
not want to classify a proper material type as “prohibited”, as it might unfairly represent the
source separation efforts of residents on that route.
The sample taken was considered representative of the load delivered, with no large items that
would skew survey results. Below is the sort summary:
Based upon our sampling, 30.62% of the materials collected by this route consisted of prohibited
container contaminants and trash. Ideally, we would like to see contamination brought below
20%. Shown below is the full breakdown of material types sorted:
2
Organic waste (yard waste and food waste) is only 0.83% of the sample, which is very good, while
non-recyclable trash made up 29.79% of the sorted sample. An ideal level of trash would be no
more that 15% of the sample, so better source separation efforts are needed. Expanded
messaging to source separate dry recyclables would be helpful. However, we think the primary
education push for the Wednesday R-3 route should be the need to keep trash out of the
recycling container.
Given the significantly lower overall diversion rates experienced during this transition from mixed
waste processing to source separation, the District may want to consider expanded use of
contaminated cart tags and possibly not collecting containers that are found to be primarily trash.
Cart tagging efforts should be considered on the morning of collection days at a random sampling
of 25 carts. A “red” tag could be developed for use, which would instruct drivers not to collect
overly contaminated carts. This tag would also explain that the resident must properly separate
their recyclable materials and remove all trash from this container before it will be collected.
Once trash removal is completed, they can call for a special pick-up.
While unpopular and costly, such enforcement efforts are likely going to be needed if you want
to improve waste diversion to previous levels.
3
4
Food Waste
Food Waste (1 pound or 0.49%) was virtually non-existent in the load
from which the sample was taken. Obviously, residents are doing a very
good job keeping this material out of the recycling container.
Green Waste
Virtually no landscape waste found in our sample. The “green waste”
material (0.34%) was primarily flower clippings and very little green
waste material was observable in the load provided for sampling.
Paper and Cardboard Wet/Contaminated
Wet/Food contaminated paper was only 0.15% of our sample at 0.30
pounds. This material included food wrappers and cardboard,
contaminated by food waste. This material should have gone in the
organics cart.
Paper and Cardboard (Dry)
Dry and easily recyclable
paper and cardboard made
up nearly 50% of our sample
at 101.80 pounds (49.88%).
We found a good mix of
recyclable paper and
cardboard boxes.
5
Other Recyclable Items
Other recyclable items in the sample totaled 39.50
pounds or 19.35% of our sample. This is good but not
great participation, as the ideal composition level is
closer to 30%. In combination with 50% to 55%
cardboard and paper, that would bring the route to
the 80%+ recyclable content we would like to see. At
only 59% recyclables, this route is at approximately
75% of ideal composition.
Trash
The “trash” material encountered
included some wet kitchen waste,
primarily in bags, suggesting it was clearly
placed in the wrong container. It is
unknown why this was done, but it could
possibly have been because there was no
room in the trash container.
Sort Summary
The Tuesday R-15 route appears to have many residents that are doing a good job source
separating recyclables. However, the percentage of trash (29.79%) in the sample is keeping the
route from reaching the 80% recyclables level we think is ideal. While increased education
material distribution may improve participation on this route, we believe tagging contaminated
carts is likely what will be needed to improve participation to the level needed to replicate
previous waste diversion levels.
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
FY 2025-2026 Recycling Route Composition Study #2
September 12, 2025
The second waste composition study of the FY 2025-2026 period, for the new blue-container
recycling program, was performed on September 12, 2025. The Friday R-3 recycling route is north
of South Coast Drive (and the 405) and bordered on the east by Susan Street and Bear Street to
the west. The great majority of this route is south of Sunflower Avenue.
The total collected weight presented for sampling was 3.39 tons. A random grid pattern was used
to select a 202.50 -pound sample for sorting.
A sorting team segregated this material into the same categories used for our trash route studies:
(1) Green Waste; (2) Food Waste; (3) Cardboard and Paper that are wet/contaminated by food
waste; (4) Other Recycle Items; (5) Paper and Cardboard that is dry and easily recycled; and (6)
Non-recyclable trash. The R-3 route is for recyclable items only, so food waste, green waste or
trash are considered “prohibited container contaminants”. Wet cardboard and paper are
considered recyclable in our survey, as they may have been contaminated in transit. Also, we do
2
not want to classify a proper material type as “prohibited”, as it might unfairly represent the
source separation efforts of residents on that route.
The sample taken was considered representative of the load, with no large items that would skew
survey results. Below is the sort summary:
Based upon our sampling, 22.47% of the materials collected by this route consisted of prohibited
container contaminants and trash. This level is nearly ideal. Shown below is the full breakdown
of material types sorted:
Organic waste (yard waste and food waste) is 5.19% of the sample, which is higher than we would
like to see. This suggests some residents are using the recycling cart for “extra” trash. Non-
recyclable trash made up only 17.28% of the sorted sample, which is very good. The ideal level
of trash and organic waste contamination, in combination, is 15% to 20% of the sample. At
3
22.47%, the Friday R-3 route is very close to this benchmark. We think continued messaging to
source separate dry recyclables and keep organics and trash out of this cart is likely enough to
get this route to contamination levels under 20%.
As discussed previously, given the significantly lower overall diversion rates experienced during
this transition from mixed waste processing of recyclables to source separation, the District may
want to consider expanded use of contamination cart tags and possibly not collecting containers
that are primarily trash. Cart tagging efforts should be considered on the morning of collection
days at a random sampling of carts. A “red” tag could be developed for use, which would instruct
drivers not to collect overly contaminated carts. This tag would also explain that the resident
must properly separate their recyclable materials and remove all trash from this container for it
to be collected. When that has been accomplished, they can then call for a special pick-up. I
would suggest CR&R be allowed to charge a special pick-up fee. The inconvenience of sorting
trash from their recycling cart, combined with the extra cost for collection, would likely cure
excessive contamination issues by this resident.
While unpopular and costly, such enforcement efforts are likely needed if you wish to improve
waste diversion to previous levels.
We do not believe the Friday R-3 route should be included in route reviews or cart-tagging at this
juncture. The District should focus resources on routes with significant issues. The R-3 route is
nearly at an ideal level, so I would suggest revisiting their performance in 12 to 18 months.
4
Food Waste
Food Waste (10.50 pounds or 5.19%) was minimal, but still well
above the 1% to 2% amount we would consider ideal. Residents
on this route are doing decent job keeping this material out of the
recycling container. It appears a small number of residents are not
using the recycling container properly.
Green Waste
There was no landscape waste found in our sample. Separation efforts for yard waste are
excellent on this route.
Paper and Cardboard Wet/Contaminated
Wet/Food contaminated paper was only 0.99% of our sample at
2.00 pounds. This material was all food wrappers, contaminated
by food waste. This material should have gone in the organics
cart. However, the amount found was considered an acceptable
level of contamination.
Paper and Cardboard (Dry)
Dry and easily recyclable paper and
cardboard made up over 50% of our
sample at 105.60 pounds (52.15%).
We found a good mix of recyclable
paper and cardboard boxes. This
route’s participation level appears
to be well above average and very
close to the goal level of 80%.
5
Other Recyclable Items
Other recyclable items in the sample totaled 49.40
pounds or 24.40% of our sample. This is very close to
the ideal composition level of 25% to 30%. In
combination with 52.15% cardboard and paper,
almost brings this route to the 80%+ recyclable
content we would like to see. At 77.53% recyclables,
this route is nearly at an ideal composition level.
Trash
The material encountered included some wet
kitchen waste, primarily in bags, suggesting it
was clearly placed in the wrong container. It is
unknown why this was done, but it could
possibly have been because there was no room
in the trash container.
Sort Summary
The Tuesday R-15 route has well above average participation and these residents are doing a
great job source separating recyclables. The percentage of trash (17.28%) just slightly above
optimal (15%). Food waste contamination (5.19%) was the only real negative we encountered.
We would keep education and outreach efforts at current levels and believe the District can skip
route reviews for this area for the next 12 to 18 months so contamination reduction efforts can
be focused elsewhere.
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
FY 2025-2026 Recycling Route Composition Study #3
October 13, 2025
The third waste composition study of the FY 2025-2026 period, for the new blue-container
recycling program, was performed on October 13, 2025. The Monday R-1 recycling route is west
of Newport Boulevard and bordered by Victoria Street to the north and W. 18th Street to the
south. Please see the map below for more details.
The total collected weight presented for sampling was 3.27 tons. A random grid pattern was used
to select a 230.50 -pound sample for sorting.
A sorting team segregated this material into the same categories used for our trash route studies:
(1) Green Waste; (2) Food Waste; (3) Cardboard and Paper that are wet/contaminated by food
waste; (4) Other Recycle Items; (5) Paper and Cardboard that is dry and easily recycled; and (6)
Non-recyclable trash. The R-1 route is for recyclable items only, so food waste, green waste and
trash are considered “prohibited container contaminants”. Wet cardboard and paper are
2
considered recyclable in our survey, as they may have been contaminated in transit. Also, we do
not want to classify a potentially proper material type as “prohibited”, as it might unfairly
represent the source separation efforts of residents on that route.
The sample taken was considered representative of the load, with no large items that would skew
survey results. Below is the sort summary:
Based upon our sampling, only 13.49% of the materials collected by this route consisted of
prohibited container contaminants and trash. This level is excellent and the best sort result this
year. Shown below is the full breakdown of material types sorted:
Organic waste (yard waste and food waste) is only 2.47% of the sample, which is considered ideal.
Non-recyclable trash made up only 11.02% of the sorted sample, which is also excellent. The
target level of trash and organic waste contamination, in combination, is 15% to 20% of the
3
sample. At 13.49%, the Monday R-1 route exceeds this benchmark. We would consider this route
SB 1383 compliant with regards to contamination minimization.
We do not believe the Monday R-1 route should be included in route reviews or cart-tagging at
this juncture. The District should focus resources on routes with contamination rates above 25%.
The R-1 route is at the ideal level, so no revisiting of their performance is needed until late 2026
or early 2027.
4
Food Waste
Food Waste (5.30 pounds or 2.30%) was minimal, and at a
level we would consider ideal. Residents on this route are
doing an excellent job keeping this material out of the
recycling container. Mistakes will happen, but anything below
5% is considered acceptable.
Green Waste
There was less than one pound of landscape waste found in our
sample, which is excellent.
Paper and Cardboard Wet/Contaminated
Wet/Food contaminated paper was only 2.00% of our
sample at 4.60 pounds. This material was primarily
food wrappers that could have gone in the organics
cart. However, we would not discourage placement of
paper in the blue bin.
Paper and Cardboard (Dry)
Dry and easily recyclable paper and
cardboard made up 39% of our
sample at 89.90 pounds. The sample
was primarily cardboard boxes, but
we also found a good amount of dry
recyclable paper. This route’s
participation level is well above
average overall, exceeding the goal
level of 80% of blue-container
material.
5
Other Recyclable Items
Other recyclable items in the sample totaled 104.90
pounds or 45.51% of our sample. This is an excellent
composition level. In combination with all cardboard
and paper (wet and dry), this brings the route to an
86.51% recyclables content. This route is at an ideal
composition level, with a very good mix of containers
and highly recyclable paper products.
Trash
The material encountered was
primarily plastic bags and textiles.
The relatively low weight (11.02%) of
material, and the presence of textiles
is not considered problematic.
Hopefully, textile markets improve so
this becomes an acceptable material
in blue container programs.
Sort Summary
The Monday R-1 route has excellent participation, and these residents are doing a great job
source separating recyclables and keeping contaminants out of this container. The percentage of
trash (11.02%) is well below optimal (15%), as is organic waste contamination (2.47%). There
were no negatives in the sample we encountered, and we would consider this route to be SB
1383 compliant. We would keep education and outreach efforts at current levels and believe the
District can skip route reviews for this area for the next 12 to 18 months so contamination
reduction efforts can be focused where needed.
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
FY 2025-2026 Recycling Route Composition Study #4
October 15, 2025
The fourth waste composition study of the FY 2025-2026 period, for the new blue-container
recycling program, was performed on October 15, 2025. The Wednesday R-1 recycling route is
on the east side of the Costa Mesa and a portion of Newport Beach. Please see the map below
for more detail.
The total collected weight presented for sampling was 3.06 tons. A random grid pattern was used
to select a 208-pound sample for sorting.
A sorting team segregated this material into the same categories used for our trash route studies:
(1) Green Waste; (2) Food Waste; (3) Cardboard and Paper that are wet/contaminated by food
waste; (4) Other Recycle Items; (5) Paper and Cardboard that is dry and easily recycled; and (6)
Non-recyclable trash. The R-1 route is for recyclable items only, so food waste, green waste and
trash are considered “prohibited container contaminants”. Wet cardboard and paper are
2
considered recyclable in our survey, as they may have been contaminated in transit. Also, we do
not want to classify a potentially proper material type as “prohibited”, as it might unfairly
represent the source separation efforts of residents on that route.
The sample taken was considered representative of the load, with no large items that would
unfairly skew survey results. Below is the sort summary:
Based upon our sampling, 29.52% of the materials collected by this route consisted of prohibited
container contaminants and trash. This level is considered too excessive for this route to be
deemed SB 1383 compliant. Shown below is a breakdown of materials:
Organic waste (yard waste and food waste) is only 1.11% of the sample, which is excellent.
However, non-recyclable trash made 28.41% of the sorted sample. In part this is due to a couple
of larger items and packaging material designed to keep deliveries cool.
3
The Wednesday R-1 route did include some visible kitchen waste and other discards that would
suggest some residents are using their recycle cart. Since we recommend using a 25%
contamination measurement to potentially exclude route reviews, the nearly 30% prohibited
container contaminant total of this sort requires a route review. In, addition, the corresponding
trash route (Wednesday T-1) exhibited poor source separation, with trash carts containing
25.54% contamination from organics (green and food waste) and 17.86% contamination by dry
recyclables. In addition to a route review and cart tagging, additional education on proper
material placement is needed by residents on this route.
To clarify, SB 1383 requires contamination mitigation measures by local governments. This can
include route reviews and/or waste composition studies. Route reviews a physical examination
of individual carts, where composition studies sample material from the route as a whole. If
composition studies are used, and the resulting composition shows an unacceptable level of
contamination, then additional action is needed to address and correct the issue. We believe a
route review that provides tags (contamination notices) is the more effective follow-up, as
opposed to a contamination mailer to customers on that route only.
Since SB 1383 is seeking a 75% reduction in organic waste to landfills, we suggest a 25%
contamination rate be used to determine (by waste composition study) if a route is compliant.
This level is slightly higher than the target level of 15% to 20% that we believe demonstrates very
good participation. Nonetheless, we believe the 25% contamination level shows a level of
participation that is sufficient and does not require further contamination minimization efforts
via the route review process.
4
Food Waste
Food Waste (2.20 pounds or 1.06%) was minimal, and at a level we
would consider ideal. Residents on this route are doing an excellent
job keeping this material out of the recycling container. Mistakes will
happen, but anything below 5% is considered acceptable.
Green Waste
Green waste was virtually non-existent. Our sample only contained
0.10 pounds of flower clippings or landscape trimmings.
Paper and Cardboard Wet/Contaminated
Wet/Food contaminated paper was only 4.04% of our
sample at 8.40 pounds. This material included a small
amount of food wrappers that could have gone in the
organics cart.
Paper and Cardboard (Dry)
Dry and easily recyclable paper and
cardboard made up 29.81% of our
sample at 62 pounds. The sample was
virtually all cardboard boxes with only
small amount of dry recyclable paper.
This route appears to have very good
participation from a large percentage
of customers.
5
Other Recyclable Items
Other recyclable items in the sample totaled 76.20
pounds and was the largest single component in our
sample at 36.63%. This is a good composition level,
suggesting well over half this route is following the
program.
Trash
The material encountered
contained some kitchen waste,
larger items, and packaging
material to keep deliveries cold. The
total weight figure (59.10 pounds of
28.41%) may have been skewed by
this packaging material. However, it
is clearly a non-recyclable material,
placed in the wrong container, so
we see no acceptable rational for
revising overall contamination to
deem this route “compliant”.
Sort Summary
The Wednesday R-1 route no doubt has a number of residents that are doing a great job source
separating recyclables. However, the percentage of trash encountered (28.41%) is above the
threshold, so a route review or a contamination notice mailer is needed. Organic waste
contamination (1.11%) was very low. This route is very close to SB 1383 compliant. We think cart
tagging and education should bring contamination down to the level needed for compliance in
the short-term.
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
FY 2025-2026 Trash Route Composition Study #1 – September 9, 2025
Performed by: CityGreen Consulting, LLC
The first waste composition study of 2025 was performed on the T-15 Tuesday trash route at the
CR&R facility in Stanton September 9, 2025. The Tuesday R-15 trash route is east of Newport
Boulevard, and primarily south of 19th street on older streets with some difficult to service
properties requiring a smaller collection truck.
The total collected weight presented for sampling was 2.54 tons. A random grid pattern was used
to select a 220.40-pound sample for sorting.
A sorting team then segregated this material into: (1) Green Waste; (2) Food Waste; (3)
Cardboard and Paper that are wet/contaminated and not recyclable; (4) Easy to Recycle Items;
(5) Paper and Cardboard that is dry and easily recycled; and (6) Non-recyclable trash. The T-15
route is for trash only, so any organics (food or green waste) or clearly recyclable material (dry
paper/OCC and other recyclables, excluding “wet” material) would be considered “prohibited
container contaminants”.
Based upon our sampling, 35.66% of the materials collected by this route consisted of items that
should have been placed in other containers (organics or recycling):
This sample found green (yard) waste (3.18%) above the ideal 1% to 2% level. The level of food
waste (12.52%) was three times the 4% level we consider ideal. However, it does reflect that
decent amount of source separation of food waste is occurring along this route.
The level of clearly recyclable blue container materials (19.96%) encountered was high, and if
wet paper and cardboard (11.71%) were added, potential blue container recyclable material
would constitute 31.67% of the trash container’s contents. That level is problematic and indicates
a low level of participation in the new blue container recycling program.
2
Only 52.63% of our “trash” sample, is clearly “trash”. Therefore, the Tuesday T-15 route is doing
a poor job of source separating materials for collection. Both the organic-cart material (15.70%)
and blue cart recyclables (19.96% to 31.67%) contamination levels are well above the 15%
combined contamination level we would consider ideal for black container contamination.
The table below provides the weights and respective percentages for sort number one:
Shown on the following page is a map of the Tuesday T-15 collection area:
3
4
Food Waste
Food Waste (27.60 pounds) made up 12.52% of the sampled material.
This suggest some source separation of this material is occurring.
However, the amount encountered is about three-times what we
would consider ideal. Most food waste was found in bags that clearly
originated from kitchen areas, suggesting this is an
education/motivation issue that should be resolved through
additional outreach and contamination notices.
Green Waste
The green waste encountered was minimal, at only 3.18% of the
sample, suggesting very little yard waste is put in the trash container.
No special education on yard waste recycling is needed, above what
is provided in your green cart outreach material.
Wet Paper and Cardboard
Wet/Food contaminated paper was primarily food
wrappers and napkins that should go in the organics cart.
The 11.71% composition level found in our sample is
considered a byproduct of the less-than-ideal food waste
recycling on this route. Ideally both materials should be at
half the amount encountered or less.
Paper and Cardboard (Dry)
Dry and easily recyclable paper and
cardboard (7.40%) was at a level that
suggests a good percentage of
residents are participating in the blue
container program. This amount is still
twice the ideal level, so more work is
needed. However, the participation
on this route is considered better than
average.
5
Other Recyclables
At 12.57% of our sample, CA redemption value containers
and other non-organic recyclables are being source
separated at a about 1/3rd the level considered ideal. In
combination with the amount of dry paper and cardboard
sampled, this route has twice the level of contamination by
recyclables considered ideal (19.77% vs. 10%). Including wet
paper and cardboard encountered, this route’s
contamination level for potential blue container materials is
31.67%.
Sort Summary
The Tuesday T-15 trash route sort shows many residents along this route are doing a reasonable
job of keeping organics and recyclables out of the trash. However, the route has twice the
amount of recyclables and three times the amount of food waste that is considered an acceptable
level of contamination. Focus is needed on educating residents who are not participating in
source separation efforts and eventually tagging contaminated carts if education alone does not
get contamination levels down to a 15% to 20% level.
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
FY 2025-2026 Trash Route Composition Study #2 – September 12, 2025
Performed by: CityGreen Consulting, LLC
The second waste composition study of 2025 was performed on the T-3 Friday trash route at the
CR&R facility in Stanton September 12, 2025. The Friday T-3 trash route encompasses only 1/3rd
of the corresponding R-3 route, and adds a single-family residential area immediately east of
College and south of Gisler by the 405 freeway and Harbor. It also adds a multi-family
neighborhood near Sunflower and Fairview.
The total collected weight presented for sampling was 9.07 tons. A random grid pattern was used
to select a 231.90-pound sample for sorting.
A sorting team then segregated this material into: (1) Green Waste; (2) Food Waste; (3)
Cardboard and Paper that are wet/contaminated and not recyclable; (4) Easy to Recycle Items;
(5) Paper and Cardboard that is dry and easily recycled; and (6) Non-recyclable trash. The T-15
route is for trash only, so any organics (food or green waste) or clearly recyclable material (dry
paper/OCC and other recyclables, excluding “wet” material) would be considered “prohibited
container contaminants”.
Based upon our sampling, 45.79% of the materials collected by this route consisted of items that
clearly should have been placed in other containers (organics or recycling):
This sample found yard waste (0.04%) well below the ideal 1% to 2% level. However, the level of
food waste present (18.63%) was over four times the 4% level we consider ideal. This reflects
very little source separation of food waste along this route.
The level of clearly recyclable blue container materials (17.25%) encountered was high, and if
wet paper and cardboard (9.87%) were added, potential blue container recyclable material
would constitute 27.12% of the trash container’s contents. This suggest some residents are doing
2
a good job, but improvement in using the new blue container recycling program is still very much
needed.
Only 54.20% of our “trash” sample, is clearly “trash”. Overall, the Friday T-3 route is doing a poor
job of source separating materials into proper containers. Both the organic-cart material
(18.67%) and blue cart recyclables (17.25% to 27.12%) contamination levels are above the 15%
combined contamination level we would consider ideal.
The table below provides the weights and respective percentages for sort number two:
Shown on the following page is a map of the Friday T-3 collection area:
3
4
Food Waste
Food Waste (43.20 pounds) made up 18.63% of the sampled material.
This suggest very little source separation of this material is occurring.
Food waste was primarily found in bags that clearly originated from
kitchen areas. Education alone may not resolve the issues on this
route. Container tagging is likely needed. Route reviews should
compare issues at the large multi-family are to single-family
residences.
Green Waste
The green waste encountered was virtually non-existent, at only
0.04% of the sample. While this suggests very good yard waste
separation, we believe that the multi-family portions of this
route have little or no green waste. Regardless, education should
focus on food waste recycling as yard waste contamination is a
non-issue.
Wet Paper and Cardboard
Wet/Food contaminated paper was primarily food wrappers and
napkins that should go in the organics cart. The 9.87%
composition level found in our sample is about twice the amount
considered ideal. Food waste recycling education should also
encourage the recycling of food soiled paper in the organics cart.
Paper and Cardboard (Dry)
Dry and easily recyclable paper and cardboard (9.36%) was at a
level that suggests many residents are participating in the blue
container program (also supported by the lack of larger
cardboard boxes). Continued education is needed, but we would
consider this route as better than average at recycling paper and
cardboard.
5
Other Recyclables
At 7.89% of our sample, CA redemption value containers
and other non-organic recyclables are being source
separated at half the level considered ideal. In
combination with the amount of dry paper and cardboard
sampled on this route, while considered better-than-
average, we still see contamination by recyclables to be
well above ideal (17.25% vs. 10%). Including wet paper
and cardboard encountered, this route’s contamination
level for potential blue container materials is 27.12%.
Sort Summary
The Friday T-3 trash route sort suggests residents along this route are doing a reasonable job of
keeping recyclables out of the trash. However, the amount of food waste disposed in the trash
cart is unacceptable. Focus is needed on educating residents who are not participating in source
separation efforts. However, we believe this route should receive targeted reviews and cart
tagging to put residents not participating on notice. As discussed, a comparison between multi-
family and single-family properties on this route may help to better target outreach.
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
FY 2025-2026 Trash Route Composition Study #3 – October 13, 2025
Performed by: CityGreen Consulting, LLC
The third waste composition study of 2025 was performed on the Monday T-1 trash route at the
CR&R facility in Stanton October 13, 2025. The Monday T-1 trash route only encompasses
approximately 2/3rds of the corresponding Monday R-1 route, due to the heavier nature of trash.
The total collected weight presented for sampling was 8.91 tons. A random grid pattern was used
to select a 237.10-pound sample for sorting.
A sorting team segregated this material into: (1) Green Waste; (2) Food Waste; (3) Cardboard and
Paper that is wet/contaminated and not recyclable; (4) Easy to Recycle Items; (5) Paper and
Cardboard that is dry and easily recycled; and (6) Non-recyclable trash. The T-1 route is for trash
only, so any organics (food or green waste) or clearly recyclable material (dry paper/OCC and
other recyclables, excluding “wet” material) would be considered “prohibited container
contaminants”.
Based upon our sampling, 34.33% of the materials collected by this route consisted of items that
clearly should have been placed in other containers (primarily organics):
This sample found yard waste (7.80%) well above the ideal 1% to 2% level. Food waste (13.92%)
was also well above the 4% level we consider ideal (5% and 10% respectively would be the
maximum “acceptable” level of contamination). There definitely needs to be improvement with
regards to organics recycling as the 21.72% combined contamination level is what is placing this
route out-of-compliance.
The level of clearly recyclable blue container materials (12.61%) encountered was above the ideal
(10%), but not significantly so. This suggests residents are doing a very good job source separating
recyclables. This level of “blue container” material contamination is considered acceptable, so
the area of education focus should be on organics for this route.
2
Only 55.21% of our “trash” sample, is clearly “trash.” If we include wet paper and cardboard, the
percentage of acceptable discards reaches 65.67%. This is approximately 10% below where this
route would need to be to be considered SB 1383 compliant.
The table below provides the weights and respective percentages for sort number three:
Shown on the following page is a map of the Monday T-1 collection area:
3
4
Food Waste
Food Waste (33 pounds) made up 13.92% of our sample.
Food waste was primarily found in bags that clearly
originated from kitchen areas. Thus, a number of residents
on this route are not placing food waste in their organics
cart. Route reviews are needed as this route exceeds the
overall contamination level needed to be considered
compliant. Container tagging should focus on improper
food waste discards
Green Waste
The green waste encountered was from landscape
trimmings and included palm material which is not
acceptable in the organics cart. Thus, actual route
“contamination” is likely only 1/3rd of the 7.80%
suggested by our sample. This is still above “ideal” for
what is a longstanding program.
Wet Paper and Cardboard
Wet/Food contaminated paper was primarily
material that should go in the organics cart.
The 10.46% composition level found is
symptomatic of the poor food waste
recycling habits of some residents on this
route. Food waste recycling education
should also encourage the recycling of food
soiled paper in the organics cart.
5
Paper and Cardboard (Dry)
Dry and easily recyclable paper and
cardboard (7.25%) was at a level that reflects
the great participation observed in the blue
container program (also supported by the
lack of larger cardboard boxes). Annual
education is still needed, but we would
consider this route well above average.
Other Recyclables
At 5.36% of our sample, this also reflects good blue-
container program participation by most. However,
the level of contamination observed is likely due to
the high amount of bagged kitchen waste. This
suggests the same households placing food waste in
the trash are likely the same placing beverage
containers and simply not participating in either
program. Container tagging is needed.
Sort Summary
The Monday T-1 trash route shows residents are doing a reasonably good job of keeping
recyclables out of the trash. As noted, green waste separation is likely better than the sort results
suggest. However, the amount of food waste disposed in the trash cart is above the acceptable
threshold and should be the focus of cart-tagging and education efforts. The trash cart samples
show 65.57% correct material placement, which could be as high as 70% when adjusted for green
waste sampling. Both are fairly close to the 75% level that would make this route compliant.
Therefore, we think cart-tagging should help quickly bring this route into compliance.
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
FY 2025-2026 Trash Route Composition Study #4 – October 15, 2025
Performed by: CityGreen Consulting, LLC
The fourth waste composition study of 2025 was performed on the Wednesday T-1 trash route
at the CR&R facility in Stanton October 15, 2025. The Wednesday T-1 trash route encompasses
2/3rds of the corresponding Monday R-1 route, due to the heavier nature of trash versus
recyclables.
The total collected weight presented for sampling was 10.48 tons. A random grid pattern was
used to select a 273.30-pound sample for sorting.
A sorting team segregated this material into: (1) Green Waste; (2) Food Waste; (3) Cardboard and
Paper that is wet/contaminated and not recyclable; (4) Easy to Recycle Items; (5) Paper and
Cardboard that is dry and easily recycled; and (6) Non-recyclable trash. The T-1 route is for trash
only, so any organics (food or green waste) or clearly recyclable material (dry paper/OCC and
other recyclables, excluding “wet” material) would be considered “prohibited container
contaminants”.
Based upon our sampling, 43.48% of the materials collected by this route consisted of items that
clearly should have been placed in other containers (primarily organics):
This sample found yard waste (7.03%) well above the ideal 1% to 2% level. Food waste (18.51%)
was also well above the 4% level we consider ideal (5% and 10% respectively would be the
maximum “acceptable” level of contamination). Significant improvement with regards to
organics recycling is needed, as this material is over 25% of trash cart contents. Organics along
places this route out-of-compliance.
The level of clearly recyclable blue container materials (17.98%) encountered was also well above
the ideal (10%). This suggests residents generally are not participating in food waste recycling
and are only slightly more engaged in source separating their recyclables.
2
Only 47.09% of our “trash” sample, is clearly “trash”. If we include wet paper and cardboard, the
percentage of acceptable discards reaches only 56.52%. This is nearly 20% below where this route
would need to be to be considered SB 1383 compliant.
The table below provides the weights and respective percentages for sort number four:
Shown on the following page is a map of the Wednesday T-1 collection area:
3
4
Food Waste
Food Waste (50.60 pounds) made up 18.51% of
our sample. Food waste was primarily found in
bags that clearly originated from kitchen areas.
This percentage suggest a majority of residents
on this route are not placing food waste in their
organics cart. Route reviews are needed, along
with container tagging for improper food waste
discards
Green Waste
The 7.03% contamination by green waste
encountered was from landscape trimmings
that were all acceptable in the organics cart.
Thus, sample route “contamination” from this
survey is actual and problematic. Many of the
lots on this route have large yards. The District
may want to consider examining the organics
carts along with the trash carts on this route
review. We suspect there may be more than a
few households with full organics carts that are using their trash carts for “overflow” green waste
material. These customers should be urged/required to get a second organic waste cart.
Wet Paper and Cardboard
Wet/Food contaminated paper was virtually all
material that should go in the organics cart. The
9.51% composition level found is about twice
the ideal and likely due to placement of food
waste in kitchen trash containers. Food waste
recycling education should also encourage the
placement of food soiled paper in the organics
cart.
5
Paper and Cardboard (Dry)
Dry and easily recyclable paper and cardboard
(7.87%) was at a level that reflects very good
participation in the blue container program (also
supported by the lack of larger cardboard boxes).
Annual education is still needed, but we would
consider this route to be doing an excellent job
recycling cardboard, but only OK with regards to
paper.
Other Recyclables
At 10.14% of our sample, this reflects a poorer level
of participation with than paper/OCC. This is likely
due to the high amount of bagged kitchen waste in
this load. It is suspected that the same households
placing food waste in their kitchen trash are likely
the placing beverage containers in the same
container.
Sort Summary
The Wednesday T-1 trash route shows residents are doing a good job of keeping cardboard boxes
out of the trash. However, beverage container contamination, along with wet paper observed,
suggests too many residents are not separating their kitchen waste. The high food waste
contamination (18.51%) encountered suggests low participation in food waste recycling on this
route. In addition, given the large lot sizes on a large portion of this route and the amount/type
of green waste encountered, we suspect some customers require additional organics carts.
2025 Waste Composition Study Summary - Recycling
FY 2024-25
Material Type Pounds %Pounds %Pounds %Pounds %Pounds %Pounds %Pounds %
Green Waste 6.50 3.05%12.20 5.35%2.30 1.10%0.00 0.00%0.80 0.35%0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00%
Food Waste 10.80 5.06%18.60 8.15%7.50 3.58%9.30 3.96%8.50 3.68%0.90 0.44%6.90 3.10%
Trash 80.50 37.72%80.80 35.42%74.60 35.57%90.50 38.53%61.91 26.79%73.18 35.60%90.60 40.66%
Total Prohibited
Container
Contaminants 97.80 45.83%111.60 48.93%84.40 40.25%99.80 42.49%71.21 30.82%74.08 36.04%97.50 43.76%
Wet/Food
Contaminated Paper &
Cardboard 4.20 1.97%7.00 3.07%2.20 1.05%4.90 2.09%12.00 5.19%56.30 27.39%6.10 2.74%
Recyclable Paper &
Cardboard 77.80 36.46%49.70 21.79%65.70 31.33%83.60 35.59%59.20 25.62%1.20 0.58%66.40 29.80%
Other Recyclables 33.60 15.75%59.80 26.22%57.40 27.37%46.60 19.84%88.70 38.38%74.00 36.00%52.80 23.70%
Total Recyclable
Material 115.60 54.17%116.50 51.07%125.30 59.75%135.10 57.51%159.90 69.19%131.50 63.97%125.30 56.24%
Total Pounds 213.40 228.10 209.70 234.90 231.11 205.58 222.80
FY 2025-26
Material Type Pounds %Pounds %Pounds %Pounds %
Green Waste 0.70 0.34%0.00 0.00%0.40 0.17%0.10 0.05%
Food Waste 1.00 0.49%10.50 5.19%5.30 2.30%2.20 1.06%
Trash 60.80 29.79%35.00 17.28%25.40 11.02%59.10 28.41%
Total Prohibited
Container
Contaminants 62.50 30.62%45.50 22.47%31.10 13.49%61.40 29.52%
Wet/Food
Contaminated Paper &
Cardboard 0.30 0.15%2.00 0.99%4.60 2.00%8.40 4.04%
Recyclable Paper &
Cardboard 101.80 49.88%105.60 52.15%89.90 39.00%62.00 29.81%
Other Recyclables 39.50 19.35%49.40 24.40%104.90 45.51%76.20 36.63%
Total Recyclable
Material 141.60 69.38%157.00 77.54%199.40 86.51%146.60 70.48%
Total Pounds 204.10 202.50 230.50 208.00
Recycling #1 Recycling #2 Recycling #3 Recycling #4
3/10/2025 3/10/2025 4/15/2025 4/15/2025
Recycling #5 Recycling #6 Recycling #7
6/24/2025 6/25/2025 6/26/2025
Recycling #1 Recycling #2 Recycling #3 Recycling #4
9/9/2025 9/12/2025 10/13/2025 10/15/2025
2025 Waste Composition Study Summary - Landfill
FY 2024-25
Material Type Pounds %Pounds %Pounds %Pounds %Pounds %Pounds %Pounds %
Green Waste 1.30 0.45%34.20 13.26%2.30 1.10%23.10 10.62%37.10 15.81%14.60 6.10%1.20 0.52%
Food Waste 33.50 11.66%14.60 5.66%21.32 10.16%38.70 17.78%43.60 18.58%29.42 12.29%46.70 20.35%
Total Prohibited
Organics 34.80 12.11%48.80 18.91%23.62 11.26%61.80 28.40%80.70 34.39%44.02 18.39%47.90 20.87%
Recyclable Paper &
Cardboard 10.80 3.76%3.10 1.20%33.50 15.97%9.82 4.51%9.50 4.05%22.70 9.48%25.00 10.89%
Other Recyclables 24.10 8.39%4.80 1.86%21.90 10.44%9.80 4.50%14.30 6.10%13.60 5.68%13.60 5.93%
Total Recyclable
Material 34.90 12.15%7.90 3.06%55.40 26.41%19.62 9.02%23.80 10.15%36.30 15.16%38.60 16.82%
Total Prohibited
Container
Contaminants 69.70 24.26%56.70 21.97%79.02 37.66%81.42 37.42%104.50 44.54%80.32 33.55%86.50 37.69%
Trash 181.10 63.04%170.20 65.97%100.08 47.70%114.98 52.84%115.40 49.19%137.78 57.55%118.80 51.76%
Wet/Food
Contaminated Paper &
Cardboard 36.50 12.70%31.10 12.05%30.70 14.63%21.20 9.74%14.70 6.27%21.30 8.90%24.20 10.54%
Total Pounds 287.30 258.00 209.80 217.60 234.60 239.40 229.50
FY 2025-26
Material Type Pounds %Pounds %Pounds %Pounds %
Green Waste 7.00 3.18%0.10 0.04%18.50 7.80%19.20 7.03%
Food Waste 27.60 12.52%43.20 18.63%33.00 13.92%50.60 18.51%
Total Prohibited
Organics 34.60 15.70%43.30 18.67%51.50 21.72%69.80 25.50%
Recyclable Paper &
Cardboard 16.30 7.40%21.70 9.36%17.20 7.25%21.50 7.87%
Other Recyclables 27.70 12.57%18.30 7.89%12.70 5.36%27.70 10.14%
Total Prohibited
Recyclables 44.00 19.96%40.00 17.25%29.90 12.61%49.20 17.98%
Total Prohibited
Container
Contaminants 78.60 35.66%83.30 35.92%81.40 34.33%119.00 43.48%
Wet/Food
Contaminated Paper &
Cardboard 25.80 11.71%22.90 9.87%24.80 10.46%26.00 9.51%
Trash 116.00 52.63%125.70 54.20%130.90 55.21%128.70 47.09%
Total Pounds 220.40 231.90 237.10 273.70
Landfill #7
3/10/2025 3/10/2025 4/15/2025 4/15/2025 6/24/2025 6/25/2025 6/26/2025
Landfill #1 Landfill #2 Landfill #3 Landfill #4 Landfill #5 Landfill #6
Landfill #1 Landfill #2 Landfill #3 Landfill #4
9/9/2025 9/12/2025 10/13/2025 10/15/2025
1
Staff Report
To: Board of Directors
Via: Scott Carroll, General Manager
From: David Griffin, Code Enforcement Officer
Date: January 13, 2026
Subject: Code Enforcement Officer Report - December 2025
Summary
This report summarizes major points for three ordinance enforcement topics covering
scavenging, graffiti on carts, and trash container enforcement. For the month of December
2025, the District’s Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) focused their efforts on patrols in various
parts of the community. The goal is to identify and deter instances of scavenging and
residential trash carts left within the public view.
Staff Recommendation
That the Board of Directors receive and file this report.
Analysis
In the month of December, Officer Griffin observed three individuals searching in carts on 16th
Street, Continental Avenue, and Knox Street. All individuals were advised of the District's
scavenging ordinance and given verbal warnings before they went on their way.
In the month of December, Officer Griffin issued 122 first warnings notices (yellow tag) to
residential properties for having their trash carts in public view.
Officer Griffin observed zero instance(s) of graffiti on trash carts in the month of December.
To address concerns, Officer Griffin is patrolling the community by 6:30 A.M.
Legal Review
Not applicable.
Environmental Review
Consideration of the monthly Code Enforcement Officer Report is an administrative matter and
is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public
Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.). Section 15300.4 of CEQA allows an agency while
2
establishing its own procedures "to list those specific activities which fall within each of the
exempt classes," and the District has adopted "CEQA Guidelines and Implementing
Procedures" that state on page 6 "Projects" does not include... C. Continuing administrative or
maintenance activities.
Financial Review
The District’s Solid Waste Budget includes one full-time Code Enforcement Officer.
Public Notice Process
Copies of this report are on file and will be included in the complete agenda packet for the
January 13, 2026, Board of Directors Study Session at District Headquarters and posted on
the District’s website.
Alternative Actions
Refer item back to staff with further instructions.
Docusign Envelope ID: 8407EAC6-23DE-48AD-B532-8B7325E5EB5D
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
….an Independent Special District
Memorandum
To: Board of Directors
Via: Scott Carroll, General Manager
From: David Griffin, Code Enforcement Officer
Date: January 13, 2026
Subject: December 2025 Code Enforcement Activity
This report summarizes major points for three ordinance enforcement topics covering
scavenging, graffiti, and trash container enforcement. For the month of December, the
CMSD Code Enforcement Officer focused his efforts on patrols in various parts of the
community. The goal is to identify and deter instances of scavenging and residential
trash carts left within the public view.
In the month of December, the District saw a number of complaints filed with CMSD
Code Enforcement staff regarding scavenging activity in the city. As with most
scavenging complaints, the alleged violations take place in the early morning hours. In
order to address resident concerns, the Code Enforcement Officer is patrolling streets
by 6:30 am.
Included below are instances of scavenging that were detected while the Officer was
investigating specific complaints.
Scavenging Ordinance:
Operations Code Section 7.01.030.
Rubbish Removal - Scavenging Prohibited. The District and its duly authorized agents
or any contractor with whom the District may at any time enter into a contract or
franchise therefor, and the agents, servants, and employees of said contractor while
any said contract or franchise is in force shall have the exclusive right to gather, collect
and remove all waste material from all residential premises served by the District and
no other persons than those above shall gather, collect, and remove any trash or
waste material or convey or transport any trash or waste material in or along or over
any public street, alley, or highway in the District, or take any waste material from any
receptacle in which the same has been placed for collection or removal or interfere
Protecting our community's health and the environment by providing solid waste and sewer collection services. www.cmsdca.gov
Docusign Envelope ID: 8407EAC6-23DE-48AD-B532-8B7325E5EB5D
Board of Directors
January 13, 2026
Page 2 of 10
with or disturb any such receptacle or remove any such receptacle from any location
where same is place by the owner thereof; provided, however, that nothing in this
section shall be deemed to prohibit the occupant of any dwelling house from himself
removing any trash or waste material accumulated on the premises occupied by him
as a dwelling house and disposing of the same in a lawful manner, or to prohibit any
person from gathering, collecting and removing from the premises occupied by him
any trash or waste material or other objects of debris considered to be large items.
Once trash or waste material has been placed in a container and placed curbside for
collection, no person shall scavenge or remove any item from said container except for
the District's contractor/franchisee. (Ord. 27, 1997)
December
Proactive Scavenging Investigations: 3
Docusign Envelope ID: 8407EAC6-23DE-48AD-B532-8B7325E5EB5D
Board of Directors
January 13, 2026
Page 3 of 10
218 E 16th St.- While on patrol of Tuesdays trash route. I saw an adult male
going into trash carts. Stopped and made contact with individual. Advised him of
Ordinance on scvaneging, and to return items he had taken. He complied, and
left the area without incident.First contact.
Docusign Envelope ID: 8407EAC6-23DE-48AD-B532-8B7325E5EB5D
Board of Directors
January 13, 2026
Page 4 of 10
2059 Contenental Ave.- While on patrol of Mondays routes. Found a
Man going into carts. Made contact and advised him this is prohibited
Activity within the city limits. And to return items taken in my presence.
He complelied and left area without incident. First contact.
Docusign Envelope ID: 8407EAC6-23DE-48AD-B532-8B7325E5EB5D
Board of Directors
January 13, 2026
Page 5 of 10
255 Knox St.- During the course of my patrols found an adult female going into
CMSD carts. Made contact and advised her she could be cited for this activity.
She apologized and left on foot without incident. First contact.
Docusign Envelope ID: 8407EAC6-23DE-48AD-B532-8B7325E5EB5D
Board of Directors
January 13, 2026
Page 6 of 10
Trash Container Enforcement:
In the month of December, there were a few customer complaints reported to the
District Headquarters regarding trash carts in public view. The following is a list of
locations where trash cart violations were found and addressed by the Courtesy Notice
process.
Trash Carts In Public View Ordinance:
Operations Code Section 7.01.080.
Removal of Trash Containers. (a) Residential containers placed in the street shall be
removed from the curb by midnight the day of collection and shall be stored in the rear
or side yard of the property so as to be out of view from the street. Containers placed
in the alley for collection shall be removed from the alley by midnight the day of
collection and shall be stored so as to be out of the public alley, completely on private
property, and out of view from the public street. (Ord. 100, 2014)
(b) A hardship exception or variance may be obtained by any person whose property is
uniquely situated to not allow container removal from the public alley or who has a
personal hardship not allowing such storage. A hardship waiver form must be
completed explaining the reason(s) for a hardship. Such a hardship exception or
variance shall be approved in a letter or other memorialization from the General
Manager or designee. Such memorialization shall list the reasons and may be limited
in time. (Ord. 27, 1997) (Ord. 93, 2012)
Total Cases: 122
The following locations received warnings:
(2) Anaheim St.
(2) Arnold St.
(2) Atlanta Way
(1) Bernard St.
(1) Bucknell Rd.
(1) Canoe Pond
(6) Canyon Dr.
(3) Cape Pacific
(4) Church St.
Docusign Envelope ID: 8407EAC6-23DE-48AD-B532-8B7325E5EB5D
Board of Directors
January 13, 2026
Page 7 of 10
(1) Capital St.
(2) Columbia Dr.
(3) Cutter Way
(2) Darrell St.
(12) Elden Ave.
(5) Fordham Dr.
(3) Fullerton Ave.
(4) Flower St.
(1) Grant Ave.
(1) Hamilton St.
(3) Helena Cir.
(1) Iowa St.
(1) Jeffrey Dr.
(1) Jennifer Ln.
(1) Joann St.
(5) Knox St.
(2) Mesa Dr.
(2) Newport Blvd.
(3) Orange Av.
(1) Oriole Dr.
(3) Paularino Ave.
Docusign Envelope ID: 8407EAC6-23DE-48AD-B532-8B7325E5EB5D
Board of Directors
January 13, 2026
Page 8 of 10
(2) Pamela Ct.
(1) Parsons St.
(1) Rhode Island Cr.
(9) Santa Ana Ave.
(1) Shalimar Dr.
(5) Towne St.
(4) Tulip Ln.
(1) Valley Cir.
(6) Victoria St.
(1) Vassar Pl.
(5) Viola Pl.
(2) Westbrook Pl.
(4) Whittier Ave.
(1) E 16th St.
(3) E 21st St.
END OF TRASH CONTAINER ENFORCEMENT REPORT
Docusign Envelope ID: 8407EAC6-23DE-48AD-B532-8B7325E5EB5D
Board of Directors
January 13, 2026
Page 9 of 10
NO CASES OF GRAFFITI ON A TRASH CARTS WERE OPENED IN THE MONTH
OF DECEMBER.
Docusign Envelope ID: 8407EAC6-23DE-48AD-B532-8B7325E5EB5D
Board of Directors
January 13, 2026
Page 10 of 10
(0) Friday
Scavenging Report – December 2025
1
Staff Report
To: Board of Directors
Via: Scott Carroll, General Manager
From: Marissa Pereyda, Solid Waste Manager
Date: January 13, 2026
Subject: Receive and File Update on Discovery Cube School Education Program
Summary
The District seeks to provide organics recycling education to schools within its service area to
promote recycling and food waste reduction among students and to comply with SB 1383
requirements. The District allocated approximately $30,000 of SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant
Program (OWR4) funds for an educational services consultant to perform SB 1383 school
assemblies and presentations. The District entered into an agreement with Discovery Cube on
February 1, 2025, with the contract set to expire on March 31, 2026. A summary of past and
proposed school assemblies and program expenditures is included in this report.
Staff Recommendation
That the Board of Directors receive and file this report.
Analysis
Staff presented two SB 1383 school education programs, The EcoHero Show and Discovery
Cube's Greener Pathways Program, at the September 23, 2024, Board of Directors Meeting
and the Board elected to move forward with Discovery Cube’s program.
Discovery Cube's Greener Pathways program teaches elementary school students (grades 1-
6) about SB 1383, organic waste recycling, and composting through interactive educational
activities. Each student receives an educational booklet to accompany the assembly, and
students who participate in the assembly and complete a recycling survey receive one free
child admission (with purchase of adult admission) to Discovery Cube in Santa Ana. The goal
of the Greener Pathways program is to inspire students to become Earth Guardians,
individuals dedicated to protecting the environment, reducing waste, and promoting
sustainable living.
Discovery Cube handles all communication with eligible schools, including promotion,
scheduling, logistics, and data collection. Greener Pathways program costs are included
below.
2
•Annual Fee: $1,850 ($1 per student)
•In-Person or Virtual Assemblies: $10 per student
•Educational Booklet: $5 per student
Discovery Cube was not successful in scheduling assemblies during calendar year 2025, aside
from three assemblies scheduled by Whittier Elementary in May 2025. One assembly has
been conducted so far in calendar year 2026 at Adams Elementary. A summary of assemblies
to date, including the number of students reached, is included below.
Assembly Date No. of Students School Cost
Annual Fee $1,850
5/12/2025 157 Whittier Elementary $2,355
5/14/2025 61 Whittier Elementary $915
5/15/2025 76 Whittier Elementary $1,140
1/7/2026 90 Adams Elementary $1,350
Students Reached 384 Expenditures to Date $7,610
Discovery Cube provides a survey to teachers following each assembly to assess program
satisfaction. Teachers are asked to rate on a 1-5 scale, with 5 being the highest score, if the
assembly was educational and entertaining. For the May 2025 assemblies, teachers provided
the responses below.
Grade
Level
No. of
Students
Educational Entertaining Overall
Score
Comments
1 & 2 157 5.00 4.00 4.50 “Fantastic program! Thank
you!”
4 76 4.75 4.25 4.50 “Very charismatic and
educational.”
5 61 4.00 4.00 4.00 “Great program that engaged
the students throughout. The
length was perfect, not too
long and not too short.”
Overall, teacher feedback reflects a high level of satisfaction with the program’s educational
value and student engagement.
Discovery Cube has provided a list of assemblies scheduled for January through March 2026,
included below. With these proposed assemblies, Discovery Cube is currently projected to
expend $17,090 of the $29,600 budget, with $12,510 remaining. Discovery Cube has affirmed
their commitment to scheduling additional assemblies to fulfill the District’s contract. Staff will
continue to monitor assembly progress and expenditures.
Assembly Date No. of Students School Cost
1/30/2026 42 Paularino Elementary $630
2/2/2026 90 Sonora Elementary $1,350
3
2/3/2026 359 Whittier Elementary $5,385
2/23/2026 60 Killybrooke Elementary $900
3/17/2026 40 Paularino Elementary $600
3/17/2026 41 Victoria Elementary $615
Students Reached
(Proposed)
632 Proposed Expenditures $9,480
Legal Review
Not applicable.
Environmental Review
Review of the Discovery Cube Greener Pathways Program is an administrative matter and is
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public
Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). Section 15300.4 of CEQA allows an agency while
establishing its own procedures "to list those specific activities which fall within each of the
exempt classes," and the District has adopted "CEQA Guidelines and Implementing
Procedures" that state on page 6 "Projects" does not include...C. Continuing administrative or
maintenance activities.
Financial Review
The District’s FY 2025-26 Budget includes $29,600 of SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant
Program (OWR4) funds to cover the cost of the Discovery Cube Greener Pathways Program.
To date, $7,610 has been expended and $21,990 remain available.
Public Notice Process
Copies of this report are on file and will be included in the complete agenda packet for the
January 13, 2026, Board of Directors Study Session at District Headquarters and posted on
the District’s website.
Alternative Actions
Refer item back to staff with further instructions.
1
Staff Report
To:Board of Directors
Via:Scott Carroll, General Manager
From:Gina Terraneo, Senior Management Analyst
Date: January 13, 2026
Subject: Consider Appointing One (1) Citizens Advisory Committee Member to Fill
2026-2027 Vacancy
Summary
Staff is presenting nine (9) applications received as of Thursday, December 11, 2025 for the one
(1) current vacancy on the District’s Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) for the term ending in
March 2027.
Staff Recommendation
That the Board of Directors consider appointing one (1) applicant to serve the remainder of the
vacant Citizens Advisory Committee term ending March 2027.
Analysis
The CAC is an advisory body that provides recommendations to the Board of Directors and
District staff, evaluates the effectiveness of current programs and policies, and assists in
formulating new programs and policies. It consists of 11 members that are appointed by the
Board of Directors and serve a staggered 2-year term.
Attached to the staff report for the Board’s review are the redacted applications submitted by the
following District residents:
Applicant Name Voting Division
Corey Alan Fleming 3
Craig Preston 5
Darrell Neft 1
Donald Neal 5
Erik W. Roberts 2
2
Steven Miller 5
Thomas Thurston 1
Thuc Nguyen 1
Elizabeth Waterston 1
The District did not provide a deadline for the vacancy application period; however, should the
District receive additional submissions, applicants will be notified that there are six (6) CAC
positions up for appointment in April of 2026 and all applications (including those not selected
for this recruitment) can be kept on file for the upcoming term. Below is the list of current CAC
members, along with their positions, voting divisions, and terms.
Member Position Voting Division Term
Sue Lester Chair 5 2025-2027
Michael Tou Vice Chair 3 2024-2026
Jeff Arbour Member 1 2025-2027
Cindy Brenneman Member 3 2025-2027
Xerxez Calilung Member 5 2024-2026
Rosemarie Chora Member 4 2024-2026
Craig J. Holmes Member 1 2024-2026
Birger "Dickie" Fernández Member 2 2024-2026
Paul R. Lancaster Member 4 2024-2026
Brooke Natzke Member 4 2025-2027
Vacant Member 2025-2027
Legal Review
Not applicable.
Environmental Review
Appointing members to the CAC is an administrative matter, which will not result in direct or
indirect physical changes to the environment similar to grading or construction and is not
considered a project under CEQA.
Financial Review
There is no financial impact related to appointing members to the CAC. All CAC related
expenses are sufficiently budgeted.
3
Public Notice Process
Copies of this report are on file and will be included in the complete agenda packet for the
January 13, 2026 Board of Directors Study Session at District Headquarters and posted on the
District’s website.
Alternative Actions
1. Direct staff to continue accepting applications and bring the matter back to the Board at
a future date.
1
Donald R. Neal, Jr.
Work Experience
Director, Corporate Real Estate (2019 to Present) Southern California Edison Rosemead, California Responsible for managing over a thousand buildings totaling over 7 million square feet. Develop strategies to build new facilities, remodel existing facilities, regulate occupancy, and operate and maintain the entire portfolio. Manage over 160 employees, annual capital budget of over $150 million and O&M budget of $50 million. Director, Environmental Services (2012-2013, 2015-2019) Southern California Edison
Rosemead, California Responsible for environmental licensing and compliance for one of the largest integrated electric utilities in the U.S. Oversee all environmental programs including standards development, major projects licensing and monitoring, and multidisciplinary environmental performance in the areas of air, water, waste, and remediation. Supervise over 140 employees and responsible for a budget of over $150 million. Director, Corporate Environmental, Health and Safety (2013-2015) Southern California Edison Rosemead, California Responsible executive for one of the largest electric utilities in the U.S. Formulates EHS requirements, runs the EHS compliance management system, promotes environmental compliance and safety culture. Directs over 200 staff and contingent workers and a budget in excess of $150 million. Created contractor safety program, safety observation program, and safety incident reporting system. Vice President, Environmental, Health and Safety (2006-2012) Calpine Corporation Houston, Texas Responsible executive for Calpine’s national portfolio of 92 power plants with a total capacity of 28,000 megawatts. Oversee all EHS programs and physical security including policy and standards development, government and regulatory affairs, Sarbanes Oxley compliance, SEC reporting, and integration with business plan objectives. Develops programs to ensure that plants implement EHS requirements established by OSHA, EPA, DOT and state agencies related to occupational safety and health, transportation safety, air and water pollution prevention, waste management, and hazardous materials management. Established contractor safety program, safety culture program, lockout/tagout and incident management system. Directs over 25 EHS corporate and regional staff and over 100 plant EHS coordinators and a direct capital and operating budget of over $20 million.
Director, Environmental, Health and Safety, Eastern Region (2003-2006) Calpine Corporation Boston, Massachusetts Lead EHS professional for Calpine’s Eastern Region comprised of over 20 power plants. Responsible for licensing new facilities, overseeing EHS compliance during construction and subsequent operation, and interfacing with functional areas within Calpine including government and regulatory affairs, power operations, engineering and construction, corporate communications and legal.
Environmental Manager, Eastern Region (2000-2003) Calpine Corporation Boston, Massachusetts Responsible for licensing new power plant projects during Calpine’s expansion into the Eastern United States. Managed environmental consultants, negotiated permit conditions with environmental agencies and local governments and managed the compliance assurance program during construction and subsequent operation. Supported due diligence associated with project acquisition. Negotiated reduced air pollution control equipment and monitoring requirements for the Ontelaunee Energy Center saving the project several million dollars in capital costs.
2
Donald R. Neal, Jr. (continued)
Senior Program Director (1998-2000) Earth Tech, Inc.
Concord, Massachusetts Responsible for managing 16 environmental consultants in the Environmental, Sciences and Planning (ESP)
organization. Project manager for licensing and environmental due diligence of energy projects in the eastern United States. Defined EHS risks and liabilities associated with power generation asset acquisition and divestiture
along with associated linear projects (transmission, natural gas, water and wastewater).
Senior Consultant (1991-1998) Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Cambridge, Massachusetts As a member of ADL’s Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Directorate provided assistance to public and
private-sector clients developing and implementing EHS management systems. In this capacity worked side by side with EHS managers and facility managers to develop the essential elements of effective EHS programs including
planning, training, regulatory tracking and translation, budgeting, procedures, reporting, auditing, corrective action systems and risk assessment.
Senior Associate (1988-1991) CSI Resource Systems, Inc.
Boston, Massachusetts Senior Associate responsible for environmental permitting and performance evaluation of municipal waste
combustion facilities and other waste management facilities. Managed preparation of environmental impact assessments and permit applications for all media. Represented clients in agency negotiations and public hearings.
Manager (1986-1988) ENSR Consulting and Engineering (formerly ERT) Acton, Massachusetts
Managed the Natural Sciences Section, which provided technical support to clients in the areas of wetlands, water pollution control, and land disturbance. Managed environmental permitting assignments for clients in a variety of
industries.
Systems Analyst (1983-1986) GCA Technology Division (now TRC)
Bedford, Massachusetts Designed, implemented and maintained real-time data acquisition and control systems for continuous emissions
monitoring of air pollutants. Systems analyst responsible for developing software to produce detailed acid rain emissions inventory for U.S. EPA.
Education/Training
M.S., Biology, University of Massachusetts, Boston (1983)
B.S., Biology, University of Massachusetts, Boston (1980)
Certificate in Safety Management, American Society of Safety Engineers (2009)
Appointments/Professional Memberships
Member U.S. EPA Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (2010-2016)
Chairman Milton Conservation Commission (1990-2009)
Member California Advisory Board, The Trust for Public Land (2015-2020)
Note: This contact information will not be posted on CMSD’s website or distributed to the public. However,
this information is still subject to be release pursuant to the California Public Records Request Act.
Applications submitted for recruitment will not be held past Board appointments.
2. Contact Information
Name
Street
City Zip
Phone (Cell) (Home)
Email
By checking this box and typing my name below, I am electronically signing my application.
Signature Date
Submit application by mail, email or bring application to CMSD Headquarters.
Headquarters Address: District Clerk’s Office
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
290 Paularino Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (949) 645-8400
nmiddenway@cmsdca.gov
THUC X. NGUYEN
| Page 1
CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
A self-motivated, diverse achiever, uniquely combining with over 30 years Aerospace industrial / production /
manufacturing engineering and supervisory experience. Develop, implement and maintain various manufacturing plans,
Bill of Materials, work instructions and illustrations to define and document as-built configuration. Develop
manufacturing concepts and strategies to support business objectives. Develop and integrate suppliers, processes,
materials, data and technology to meet manufacturing and delivery requirements. Broad background includes versatility
within production operations improvement, problem solving, scheduling, integration, business environments, budgets,
and customer satisfaction. I’m also well-versed in performance metrics including cost, schedule, and quality reporting.
With the career experiences and community activities for the past few decades, I think I am qualifying to be A
Citizens Advisory Committee. I can help planning the future of the communities, to utilize citizen boards,
commissions, committees and other groups to aid the process of effective, responsible and efficient
government.
Professional Overview
Northrop Grumman Aerospace System, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 8-20-2018 to Present
Sr. Principal Planning & Scheduling Analyst – F35 Composite Structural:
Responsibilities include, but are not limited to:
• Develop, analyze, and maintain the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and Integrated Master Plan (IMP) if required
compliant with IPMR DI-MGMT-8186A and Earned Value. Management System (EVMS) compliance requirements.
• Ensure program schedules are horizontally and vertically integrated.
• Provide schedule planning analysis including:
– DCMA 14-point
– Critical Path and Driving Path Analysis
– Schedule Risk Analysis (SRA)
– Schedule Performance and Health Metrics and Analysis
• Provide weekly and monthly status, analysis, and reports to Program Management and our customers.
• Establish and/or create Performance tracking tools as required.
• Provide Configuration control of the Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB).
• Support audits, Integrated Baseline Reviews (IBR) and Joint Surveillance Reviews (JSR) audits
The successful candidate will possess the following:
• Ability to perform detailed schedule, resource, work, and cost analysis and make recommendations to solve problems
• Ability to create presentation content and present to various levels of leadership
• Ability to effectively work with multiple functional teams, supplier teams, and the Program/Project Manager
bizmanagement.
Marvin Engineering Company, Inc., Inglewood, CA 90302 Sep 2017 - Aug 2018
Sr. Industrial Engineer:
Project Manager: Transfer the current paint shop to the new state of the art quarto paint booths: Sanding; Primer;
Robotic; Topcoat & Touch-up. Monitor new equipment; order new equipment; build custom paint rack stands; revise
some products paint process flow to adopt new paint booth. Tracking budget, schedule, and ROI.
Support JSF / F-35 production line: AAP Air-to-Air Pylon / AGP Air-to-Ground Pylon / ARL Advanced Rail Launcher build
sequence flow.
Support Apache production line: M299/M310 Longbow Missile Launcher (2-Rails & 4-Rails); LAU-7/-121/-127/-128
Missile Launcher build sequence flow. (BAC 50 Mil.)
• Provides capacity planning, rate tool analysis, and production readiness assessments.
• Study organization charts and various project information to determine functions and responsibilities of workers and
work units to identify areas of inefficiency, waste, or duplication.
• Establish work measurement programs to analyze standards for labor utilization.
Continues to Page 2…
THUC X. NGUYEN
| Page 2
Professional Overview continued…
• Analyzes and designs sequence of operations and work flow to improve efficiencies in plant and production facilities,
as well as equipment layouts; may assist facilities engineers in the planning and design of facilities. Establishes methods
to maximize utilization of labor, equipment, and tooling resources. Develops and implements plans for facility
modifications, build revisions and updates to operating methods and production processes.
• Conducts studies pertaining to cost control, cost reduction, and manufacturing optimization.
• Maintain awareness and understanding of documents published in the QMS Library, with specific competency on the
following:
a. Operations Process Control (WI-500)
b. Foreign Object Elimination (WI-507)
• Maintains and generates metrics to measure of program and/or functional schedule and cost performance.
• Develop project plans; coordinate projects. Develop workable implementation plans.
• Maintains Support organization's goals, vision, and values. Experience with EVMS, SAP, and/or MES
AVCorp Composite Fabrication, Inc., Gardena, California - Defense Programs
Sr. I.E./M.E.: May 2016 – Jul 2017
Provides production support to F35-JSF and ATLAS V Nose Fairing Frontline Assembly and Final Assembly (BAC 25 Mil.)
• Familiar with production drawing, interpreting them for production workers, suggesting errors to designers, and
communicating issues with suppliers and customers at all levels.
• Provide production support for the F35 JSF All composite panels
• Provide production support for the ATLAS V Nose Fairing
• Facility Lay-out and Tooling to support rate increase
Schedule and sequence operations for responsible work packages and provide corresponding manpower
requirements, provide feedback on identified opportunity for improvement on work sequence.
• Use LEAN principle and assessment practice to apply to JSF F-35 Frontline Assembly work sequence improvement,
reducing production rework and repair hours. Weekly GEMBA walk with Defense Site Executive.
• Utilize Microsoft Project, Word, PowerPoint and Excel creating daily charts and reports for the Program
• Review and revise Work Order Process use LEAN Principle
The Boeing Company, Everett, Washington - IDS KC-46 Program
Industrial Engineer 4: Dec 2015 – Apr 2016
Provides production support for KC-46 Finishing Center, Final Assembly installation, On Aircraft Test Procedures OATPs
• Supporting KC-46 Finishing Center, Fight Ramp Production and Engineering.
• Familiar with production drawing, interpreting them for production workers, suggesting errors to designers, and
communicating issues with suppliers and customers at all levels.
• Provide production support for the KC-46 Tanker Finishing Center Assembly installation, On Aircraft Test Procedures
OATPs.
• Support KC-46 Finishing Center Facility Lay-out
• Schedule and sequence jobs for responsible work packages and provide corresponding manpower requirements,
provide feedback on identified opportunity for improvement on work sequence.
• Use LEAN principle and assessment practice to apply to KC-46 Finishing Center work sequence improvement, reducing
production rework and repair hours.
The Boeing Company, Long Beach, California - BDS C17 Division - Flight Ramp
Industrial Engineer 4: Apr 1997 – Dec 2015
Provides production support for C-17 Paint, Flight Ramp and Delivery: Final Assembly installation, On Aircraft Test
Procedures OATPs
• Maintains Supported C-17 flight ramp production and engineering.
Continues to Page 3…
THUC X. NGUYEN
| Page 3
Professional Overview continued…
• Maintains Fully familiar with production drawing, interpreting them for production workers, suggesting errors to
designers, and communicating issues with suppliers and customers at all levels.
• Maintains Provide production support for the C-17 Globe Master III Airlift Final Assembly installation, On Aircraft Test
Procedures OATPs, Paint, Delivery Center (Deliver 279 C-17 Aircraft).
• Establish department level estimates at completion (EACs) and maintains package level budget at completion (BACs
$9.6 million yearly).
• Maintain balanced scorecard metrics for C-17 Paint and Flight Ramp IPT (VSP).
• Generate business plans for program cost saving initiatives $225,000 (Creative Edge - CE).
• Schedule and sequence jobs for responsible work packages and provide corresponding manpower requirements,
provide feedback on identified opportunity for improvement on work sequence.
• Use LEAN principle and assessment practice to apply to C-17 Paint and Flight Ramp work sequence improvement,
reducing production rework and repair hours (450 total labor hours).
• Developed and applied Industrial Engineering concepts, techniques, analysis and decision tools to promote and
implement changes in manufacturing, engineering and service operations.
• Applies advanced engineering principles in the development of models, data bases and spreadsheets to solve complex
problems and provide consultation to senior leadership in order to guide the decision-making process.
• Participate in C-17 rate reduction plan (from 15 to 10 C-17 per year) for Final Assembly.
• Employee Involvement (EI) focal for Paint and Flight Ramp responsible to people are most enabled to contribute to
continuous improvement and the ongoing success of their work organization.
• Military Aircraft Operations Experience
• Documented experience working in a robust IPT environment
McDonnell Douglas Company, Long Beach, CA – BDS C-17 Division – System Installation & Final Assembly
Sr. Industrial Engineer: Feb 1993 – Mar 1997
Provide production support for Frontline C-17 final assembly – electrical, structural, mechanical assemblies and systems
installation. Include analysis of the use and integration of facilities, equipment, materials, systems, and personnel.
• Perform manload and budget analyses based on headcount and work requirement variance.
• Schedules and sequences jobs for responsible work packages and provide corresponding manpower
requirements, provide feedback on identified opportunity for improvement on work sequence.
• Prepare capital equipment justification and recommendation and develop yearly integrated master plans and
schedules for C-17 Major Join and Final Assembly.
• Ensure project is completed within budget and on schedule. Develops new engineering methods (e.g., mathematical
models, simulation, statistics) to define optimal process designs and efficient utilization of resources (e.g., facilities,
personnel, materials, equipment) in the creation and validation of products. Develops new concepts for use in analyzing
and designing value stream improvements, including capability, capacity (e.g., make/buy, supplier selection, risk
analysis, supplier performance), throughput, work flow and logistics (e.g., critical path, lead-time, transportation, factory
layout).
McDonnell Douglas Company, Long Beach, CA – MD-11 Commercial Division
Production Manager MD-11: Jun 1990 – Feb 1993
Responsible for team building and coaching of MD-11 final assembly line – electrical, interior, and Structural after major
join using my knowledge of Mc Donnell Douglas Principle of team building and coaching of 50 UAW workers (K2A, K2C,
K2J, and K5M) to meet or exceed Quality; Cost; Schedule
McDonnell Douglas Company, Long Beach – MD-80 Commercial Division
Manufacturing Method Engineer MME: Sep 1988 – May 1990
Provide production support to MD-80 final assembly – systems installation:
• Organizing and coordinating direct labor productivity and method improvement study on aircraft production line.
Continues to Page 4…
THUC X. NGUYEN
| Page 4
Professional Overview continued…
• Support Assembly Production Management. Established methods for maximum utilization of production facilities and
personnel.
• Conduct detailed studies in variety of assembly areas pertaining to cost reduction and recommending changes in
design, tooling, and assembly methods, material, or equipment
• Implemented cost reduction projects generating a saving of $516,000 in 1989 on MD-80 Product.
Additional Skills
• Maintains Excellent computer skills and familiarity with common PC software such as Microsoft Office (MS Word,
Excel, Project, Power Point)
• Maintains Value Stream Mapping (VSM) Leader Certification Program – June 15, 2010
• Accelerated Improvement Workshop (AIW) – On the Job Training (OJT) – September 28, 2007
• Lean Manufacturing Principles Workshop (LMA): 5S, Standard Work, Point-of-Use, Set-up Reduction, Visual Controls
Education (all degrees earned while working full time)
• Master of Project Management (MPM) - Project Management
Keller Graduate School of Management University Long Beach, California - Graduated December 2007
• Master of Business Administration (MBA) - Technology Management
American InterContinental University Los Angeles, California - Graduated June 2004
• Master of Science (MSQA) - Quality Assurance Management
California State University Dominguez Hills, California - Graduated June 2002
• Bachelor of Science (BS) – Industrial Engineering Technology
California State University Long Beach, California - Graduated June 1986
Fluent in English & Vietnamese
Awards
• 35 years of perfect attendance
• Received Silver Eagle Award for participating in C-17 Paint Stacker Guardrail Safety Improvement Team April 2014.
The project finished 3 weeks before plan saving $100,000
• Outstanding AIW performance participation cash award in April 2009
• Received Silver Eagle Award for participating in C-17 Flight On Aircraft Testing Procedure OATP Improvement Team
2009. The project saved the Final Assembly Department 375 labor hours annually
1
Staff Report
To: Board of Directors
Via: Scott Carroll, General Manager
From: Alan Burns, District Counsel
Date: January 13, 2026
Subject: Consider Amending the Director Compensation Provisions of CMSD’s Operations
Code
Summary
The Board has adopted District Operations Code §3.01.030 which provides for pre-approved
requests for attendance at certain meetings and events that would qualify for the per diem
allowance authorized under the Health and Safety Code. The Board may want to fine tune the
criteria and process so that directors and staff have greater guidance on what qualifies for the
per diem compensation.
Staff Recommendation
That the Board of Directors consider the following:
1. Clarify 3.01.030 further and adopt revised request for compensation forms that further
describe the justification for the per diem.
2. Direct that meetings with the General Manager qualifies for the per diem
3. Specify that remote meeting attendance qualifies.
4. Brief reports be required at Board meetings on non-specified meetings
5. Direct staff to prepare a revised ordinance for adoption and revised forms for
implementation.
Analysis
State law allows directors to be paid a per diem amount up to six times in one month “for each
day’s attendance at meetings of the Board or for each day’s service rendered as a director by
request of the Board.” (Health and Safety Code 6489)
A director is therefore entitled to be paid for each meeting of the Board, without a request and
subject to the limit of six in one month. With respect to other services rendered, the law
requires a “request of the Board.” The Board operates under the Brown Act, and action of the
Board must be agendized and noticed for action at a public meeting, usually 72 hours in
advance. This has proven impractical for the Board because meetings are sometimes set on
2
short notice and it is impractical to obtain a quorum of the Board and the staff necessary to
conduct a Board meeting to obtain the approval. This has led to the Board pre-approving
certain meetings that were likely to recur. The pre-approval of those meetings has worked well.
There remained, however, other meetings that arose for which the same dilemma existed-
short notice making it impractical to call a meeting. In these situations, the meeting type is not
specified. The first such exception was (28) which provides that “any other meeting which
directly involves the district.” This exception worked reasonably well, but new situations arose
in which the topic did not directly involve the district, but the District would obtain some benefit
from the attendance. This exception became subsection (29) which provides for compensation
for “any other meeting that indirectly involves the district by subject matter provided the director
seeking compensation shall describe in his compensation request how the subject matter
related to the District.
THE EXCEPTIONS
The exceptions seem to work on paper, but the substantiation has not been provided in all
cases. Staff proposes to fix that by re-working the forms so that the onus is on the director
submitting the request for per diem compensation to provide the factual justification for
compensation and specify which subsection of 3.01.030 that is being used to claim the per
diem. This should ensure that only meetings with some relevance to what the District does will
be claimed, and that general subject matter meetings with more attenuated relevance will not.
Additionally, staff recommends that a brief report be made at the following board meeting of
the event and how it related to the District.
That should take care of the majority of the issues, but in reviewing the way the requests have
been processed, staff noticed that it was operating under an assumption that was incorrect. It
was believed by some that meetings with the GM were covered by the per diem, and in fact,
they are not. Furthermore, there may have been a misunderstanding that meetings with other
staff meetings were also covered, and they are not. More recently, directors have believed that
a meeting between themselves qualified for compensation, and it does not. The Board will
need to determine how many of these “meetings” should qualify and if there are any conditions
that should be met for payment. Staff is recommending that only meetings with the General
Manager be compensated.
THE REMOTE MEETING ISSUE
Ever since the COVID pandemic, the law has allowed remote meetings by zoom or other
platform. This has led to Board members “attending” other meetings remotely, by zoom or
3
other platform. When the Board established the meetings for which the per diem could apply,
remote meetings were not being used. It might be advisable to clarify if remote attendance
qualifies.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Staff recommends that the ordinance be revised to provide for all the existing
exceptions, but to beef up the form submitted justifying the per diem compensation.
2. Staff also recommends that for meetings qualifying under subsection (28) and (29), that
a brief report be made at the following board meeting of how attendance related to the
District.
3. Staff recommends that if the Board desires that directors get paid to meet with certain
persons, that we create a new exception for the General Manager. If the Board desires
that meetings with other persons qualifies for the per diem, you should direct staff, and
an ordinance amendment can be prepared. Staff does recommend adding the General
Manager as a person who qualifies for the per diem, but not other persons would
qualify.
4. Staff recommends that we clearly provide in the Operations Code that remote
attendance by zoom or other similar platform qualifies for the per diem if an exception
otherwise exists.
Legal Review
District Counsel has prepared this report in consultation with staff.
Environmental Review
The adoption of an ordinance is an administrative affair and is exempt from the CEQA process.
The District has adopted its own exemption under CEQA Regs. 15300.4 for administrative
activities. This is such an exempt activity.
Financial Review
There is a possibility that this ordinance item could have a financial impact. The reason it will
probably not have a financial impact is that the Board is limited in its compensation eligibility to
six meetings per month and most months each director does have six meetings that forms the
basis for compensation.
Currently, the Board of Directors are compensated $295 per day, not to exceed a total of six
days in a month for a total monthly compensation of $1,770.
Public Notice Process
Copies of this report are on file and will be included in the complete agenda packet for the
January 13, 2026 Board of Directors study session meeting at District Headquarters and
posted on the District’s website.
4
Alternative Actions
If Board desires, restrict or expand the number of meetings that qualify, or add more justifications for
payment.