HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 1993/01/11COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 1/12/93
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Accepting a County of San
Diego Technical Assistance Program Grant to Expand
Chula Vista's Business Recycling Outreach Project
and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a
Service Agreement with the County.
Resolution Amending FY 1992-93 Budget to add a
Temporary, Part-time Position in Unclassified
Service in the Waste Management Program and
Appropriating Funds Therefor.
SUBMITTED BY: Conservation Coordinator
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No_)
In January, 1992, the City Council of Chula Vista adopted a
mandatory recycling ordinance requiring demolition and construction
industries to recycle by October 1992. Additionally, the ordinance
requires offices and office complexes 20,000 square feet or more
and all restaurants, bars and motels with food and beverage
services to recycle by July, 1993.
Last October, staff developed a proposal for the expansion of
commercial and industrial recycling projects in the City; Council
authorized a $16,434 grant application be submitted to the San
Diego County Recycling Technical Assistance Program (TAP) for
project funding. The City has now been notified that it has
received full funding of its grant proposal; Attachment A contains
the funding intent notice.
Under prior year grants from the County of San Diego's Technical
Assistance Program (FY 1990-1991 and FY 1991-1992) the City began
its Business Recycling Outreach Project. The Project has provided
a strong foundational basis for the development of the Citywide
commercial and industrial recycling programs. It is now staff's
intent to use the new TAP grant (FY 1993) to expand the Business
Recycling Outreach Project to assist all businesses required to
recycle under the mandatory recycling ordinance, as well as to
assist other interested businesses in establishing recycling.
This report describes the proposal to expand the Business Recycling
Outreach Project and requests Council approval of hard match funds
of $4200 to be appropriated from the Waste Management Trust Fund.
ON: Adopt the Resolutions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Resource Conservation
Commission will review this report for its January 11th meeting.
An oral presentation of the RCC's discussion of this issue can be
presented at the Council meeting upon request.
DISCUSSION:
In fiscal year 1990-91, the City was awarded a TAP grant of $15,000
to implement the Model Office Recycling Program and establish the
Business Recycling Outreach Project which allowed staff to target
ten offices for recycling program set-up. In fiscal year 1991-92
the City was awarded another TAP grant, for $11,373, to expand the
Business Recycling Outreach Project to include not only outreach to
offices, but restaurants, bars and other hospitality establishments
as well as demolition and construction firms. This current grant
will end in April, 1993.
With funding from the new grant (FY 1992-93), staff proposes to
expand the Business Recycling Outreach Project to include outreach
and assistance to all businesses required to recycle under the
Mandatory Recycling Ordinance, as well as retail establishments,
schools, recreational areas and landscapers. For example, there
are some 330 restaurants in the City that will be required to
recycle under the mandatory recycling ordinance. Additionally,
there are at least 18 office complexes 20,000 square feet or more
that are not currently recycling, not including single offices such.
as banks that will also fall under the requirements of the
mandatory ordinance. The proposed expansion of the Business
Recycling Outreach Project will also benefit the City in helping
meet the AB 939 diversion goals.
The grant funds, amounting to $16,434, will be utilized to fund the
salary, benefits and mileage reimbursement of the Project Intern,
for 20-25 hours per week for a maximum of one year. Project staff,
to include the Intern and the City's Conservation Coordinator, will
conduct business-to-business information dissemination about
recycling, the County and City mandatory recycling ordinances,
source reduction, waste exchange and other aspects of commercial
recycling and waste reduction.
Project staff will target establishments for recycling program set-
up; conduct waste audits; and, develop and distribute guidebooks
and other educational and promotional materials. Project staff
will also conduct managerial and employee recycling trainings and
organize commercial recycling roundtables, meetings and
presentations. A detailed description of the proposed Project is
contained in Attachment B.
Providing the businesses with recycling guides and related project
information, as well as promotional materials (posters, table
tents, container labels, etc.) will not only reduce recycling costs
to the businesses, it will promote recycling to other businesses
2
and customers, and assist in educating employees of the respective
businesses. Procurement of recycled products will be a primary
component of the expanded Project fostering the importance of
recycled product procurement for "closing the recycling loop."
The grant will also allow the purchase of a computer and software,
which will greatly assist Project staff performance. The
utilization of a data processing system for the "materials exchange
bank" will foster use of the bank regionwide. A listing of
available "waste" by-products will be maintained, as well as
listings of those "waste" materials that are "wanted" as
feedstocks. The information will be forwarded to the California
Integrated waste Management Board for inclusion in their CALMAX
waste exchange program. Waste exchanges assist businesses who have
usable "waste" materials, from wood and drywall to furniture and
office supplies, by listing these materials for exchange instead of
having to recycle or dispose of the materials.
FISCAL IMPACT: The total cost of the proposed expanded Business
Recycling Outreach Project is $35,385, although this amount
includes a "soft match" of $14,751 for staff time which therefore
is currently appropriated. Included in this soft match is the time
to be spent on the project by the Conservation Coordinator
(approximately 10 hrs./wk.), Principal Management Assistant Snyder
(approximately 1 hr./wk.), Public Information Coordinator
(approximately 1 hr./wk..) and Printing Staff (approximately 15
hrs. total). The remaining Project costs of $20,634 require
appropriation at this time in order to accept the grant and proceed
with the Project.
The grant funding, amounting to $16,434 will reimburse the City for
the estimated costs associated with the Project Intern (salary &
benefits @ $10,284; mileage @ $598) and capital expenditures
(computer, modem and software @ $5,552). These funds can be
appropriated directly to the Waste Management Program budget unit.
It is required under the County's Technical Assistance Grant
Program that matching funds of 50 percent be appropriated for
projects receiving grant funds. At least 25 percent of these funds
must be in the form of cash or capital outlays ("hard match") and
25 percent as "soft match," such as in-kind donation of services.
The City's "hard match" will provide funding for phone and modem
charges associated with the Project, graphics, design and copying
and printing costs and postage, requiring an additional
appropriation of $4,200 (graphics design and layout @ $600;
printing and copying @ $1,800; phone, modem and computer on-line
service costs @ 1,500; and, postage @ $300). It is proposed that
this additional appropriation come from the Waste Management Trust
fund. A detailed Project budget is contained in Attachment C.
3
c ~-
.Inucs c. tarp
rnnscron OEPARTFAEN7 OF PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING
l~tm r+v ~zo
MI ]lf.P i 1] ,555 Ovl.ltl nN0 nv[NVE, uux.UwG t 1
I' U. UOX e5sai5, SnN DIEGO, CAUFORNU19Pte6.5u)5
December 8, 1992
NOTICE OF INTENT
TO AWARD
RF,QUEST FOR GRANT APPL[CAT IONS (RFGA) N0.30045 -TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
GRANTS (TAP IV), DEPARTMRN'f OF PUBLIC WORKS -SOLID WASTE D[VISiON.
"!'his is NOTICE that the County of San Diego announces iu intent to award grants to the following firms:
Eitmj~nutyJMu nicipalitvty
Gridcore Systems International
5100,000.00
100,000.00
97,000.00
75,000.00
16.434,00
Full funding.
Full funding.
Full funding.
Full funding.
Full funding.
Textile Recycling i.td.
Lee's Landscaping
Wyroc
City of Chttla Vista, CA
Total of full grants awarded:
588.434.04
Questions or comment with regard to this Notice of lntenr roAward should be directed to the undersigned
at (619) 495-5522 or at the address on the letterhead. #.
JAMES G. TAPP, Director
Purchasing and Contracting
Ii. M. MARTINI
Contracting Ojfu
ee: Mc Krista Mays-ttenkcls, DPWSW Div. (MS 0383).
Mr Nelson Olives, DPW-SW Div. (MS 0383).
RFGA No. 30045 File.
p ramd e..«a.dd wr•.
ZO'd 6T0'oN £Z~ST Z6'8 ~aQ £TT8-9L5-6T9-9NISHH~?lfld 093IQ NtiS J.1Nf100
Attachment B
Project Descriptions
1) Business Recycling Outreach Project
The proposal will expand Chula Vista's Business Recycling Outreach
Project ("Project") to allow for recycling program development at all
businesses required to begin recycling by July 1992 under the City and
County mandatory recycling ordinances. This will include offices or
office complexes 20,000 square feet or more, and all restaurants and
hospitality establishments currently not recycling. Additionally,
Project staff will continue to work with demolition and construction
industry to ensure that all businesses in this sector are recycling.
Project staff will distribute the City's Office Recycling Guide,
Demolition and Construction Recycling Guide (now being finalized) and
the Restaurant Recycling Guide (currently being developed) to all
businesses requesting information. Additionally, Project staff will
be available to assist in waste audits, program development,
promotional and educational material distribution and employee
training.
A new aspect of the Business Recycling Outreach Project to be
developed will include outreach to retail establishments, schools,
recreational areas and landscapers. Businesses in these sectors have
not yet been actively targeted for recycling program development.
Project staff will promote recycling at all area malls and retail
centers. Particularly important will be outreach to area landscapers,
as landscape debris is required to be recycled under the Mandatory
Recycling Ordinance as of January, 1993.
2) Regional Materials Exchange Bank
A Regional Materials Exchange Bank, now being developed as part of TAP
fiscal year 1991-1992 funding, will be expanded to foster a greater
awareness of the concept of materials reuse as a viable source
reduction strategy. Staff will request information from businesses on
material by-products ("wastes") of respective manufacturing or
operational activities that could be utilized by other industries, as
well as to ascertain industries that utilize or could potentially
utilize industrial by-products in their manufacturing process. The
"bank" listings would then be distributed to area industries.
The City will work in conjunction with the State's CALMAX materials
exchange program to facilitate the distribution of this local listing
throughout the State, as well as provide State-wide information for
use by local establishments. Charitable organizations, "second-hand"
stores and market opportunities in Mexico will also be included in the
Materials Exchange Bank to encourage donation of used office
equipment, furniture, clothing, school and office supplies and other
useful items.
5
Attachment C
Prooram Budoet
CAPITAL ERPENDITURES
Modem
Auto Switch
Jet III Printer
Dell Computer
Paradox
Word Perfect 5.1
Total Capital Expenditures
PERSONNEL
Project Intern
Salary 378 hrs. x $7.55/hr. _
766 hrs. x $7.93/hr. _
Subtotal: 1,1441
Benefits $2,854 x 5.2$ _
$6,074 x 5.2$ _
Subtotal:
Overhead $2,854 x 10~ _
$6,074 x 10~ _
Subtotal:
Mileage 50 mi/wk. x 46 wks. = 2,300
2,300 x .26/mile =
Total Personnel
TOTAL GRANT REQUEST
~ 22 hours per week x 52 weeks = 1,144 total
$144
$119
$1,450
$3,115
$477
$247
$5,552
$2,854
$6,074
$8,928
$148
$316
$464
$285
$607
$892
$598
+~r~
$1b,434
6
MATCHING FUNDS (16,434 x 50$ _ $8,217 required)
Hard match ($4,109 required)
CashZ $4,200
• $450 for phone charges associated with the Project
• $1,050 for costs associated with modem hook-up,
on-line computer services and tax for computer purchase
• $600 for graphics design and lay-out
• $400 for printing of logo decals & bin labels
• $400 for printing of recycling guides
• $300 for printing of Re-Use Guide
• $300 for printing of table tents (restaurants)
• $400 for copying and additional printing needs
• $300 for postage costs
Soft Match
Conservation Coordinator
$21.14/hr. x 10 hr/wk. x 50 wks. _ $10,570
Principal Management Assistant
$26.80/hr. x 1 hr./wk. x 50 wks. _ $1,340
Public Information Coordinator
$25.53/hr. x 1 hr./wk. x 50 wks. _ $1,277
Printing Staff
$14.87/hr. x 15 hrs. _ $223
Overhead3 (10~ x 13,410) $1,341
Subtotal Soft Match = $14,751
TOTAL MATCHING FUNDSs $18,951
TOTAL GRANT FUNDS REQUESTED: $16,434
PROGRAM TOTAL: $~,$
e All prices are estimated.
Standard formula, includes clerical assistance, personnel assistance, office supplies and other essential staff and equipment.
7
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 01/12/93
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving Subcontract
Agreement with the County of San Diego to Perform
Tasks for the City's Household Hazardous Waste
Education Project and Authorizing the Mayor to
Execute the Subcontract Agreement and Authorizing
the City Manager to Exercise the Option to Extend
the Subcontract as Deemed Appropriate.
SUBMITTED BY: Conservation Coordinator
REVIEWED HY: City Manager (4/Sths Vote: Yes X No
BACRGROUND: Last July, Council approved acceptance of a $25,050
grant received by State of California, Integrated Waste Management
Board ("Board") to develop a Household Hazardous Waste Reduction,
Alternatives and Disposal Educational' Awareness Project ("RAD
Project").
California State Health and Safety Code prohibits the disposal of
hazardous waste, including household hazardous waste, at solid
waste landfills. Chula Vistans dispose of an estimated 400 tons of
household hazardous waste each year, most of which ends up at the
Otay Landfill. Through the RAD Project, staff is fostering a
greater awareness about the importance of reducing our hazardous
waste usage as well as proper disposal of hazardous waste.
Additionally, AB 939 requires jurisdictions to participate in
household hazardous waste educational activities.
In August, an intern was hired to assist the Conservation
Coordinator in implementing the RAD Project. Contacts with the
School Districts, businesses and various civic organizations have
been made to begin to provide information to Chula Vista residents
and school children about the importance of using alternatives to
toxic household hazardous products when available and to properly
dispose of household hazardous waste.
Council action is now required to approve a subcontract with the
County of San Diego, Department of Health Services, Household
Hazardous Materials Management Program to perform tasks originally
planned in the grant to be handled by the County and not able to be
completed by City staff.
Approve the resolutions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Resource Conservation
Commission will review this report at their January 11th, 1992
meeting. Minutes can be forwarded to Council after the RCC action;
a brief oral report of the RCC member's comments may be given to
Council at this meeting, if requested.
DISCUSSION:
Through the Household Hazardous Waste Reduction, Alternatives, and
Disposal Educational Awareness Project ("RAD Project") staff has
begun to provide information and educational materials to school
children and adults in the Chula Vista community. The RAD Project
involves targeting classrooms for household hazardous waste
curricula usage, conducting presentations, arranging for use of a
mobil educational display unit throughout the City, distributing
consumer awareness materials and small business hazardous materials
awareness outreach.
As originally proposed and approved by Council, the RAD Project
utilizes materials and services developed by the County of San
Diego, including professional development trainings for teachers,
school and community presentations, and curricula and educational
materials, in order to foster a consistent, regional approach to
hazardous waste reduction. A detailed work statement for the RAD
Project is contained in the proposed subcontract agreement
(Attachment A).
As Council has approved, a portion of the grant funds, $7,695, is
being utilized to fund the salary, benefits and mileage
reimbursement of the RAD Project intern. Grant funds amounting to
$1,226 are also being used to purchase a mobile educational
display, and $526 will be utilized to purchase educational stickers
for young children.
Additionally Council approved, in concept, the allocation of
$10,428 of the grant funding to be utilized to subcontract with the
County of San Diego, Department of Health Services, Household
Hazardous Materials Program to assist RAD Project staff (the
Conservation Coordinator and RAD Project Intern) in providing
classroom presentations, teacher in-service trainings and
corresponding curricula, and presentations to adults (both in
English and in Spanish), as well as $5,175 to purchase consumer
awareness brochures (English and Spanish).
Staff now requests Council approval to authorize the subcontract
with the County. The tasks to be performed require specific
expertise and time not able to be completed by RAD Project staff,
and originally intended for subcontracting to the County's
Household Hazardous Materials Program. No other agency can provide
the range of services, curricula and regional approach necessitated
by the scope of our RAD Project. Project staff will work with the
County and attend all presentations to ensure that specific issues
of concern in Chula Vista are addressed.
2
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact as a result of this
action. The total cost of the proposed Household Hazardous Waste
Reduction, Alternatives, and Disposal Educational Awareness Project
is $33,383, which has already been appropriated. This includes
$25,050 for Project activities which will be fully reimbursed
through the grant, as well as the $300 in hard match from the City,
and soft match funds from both the City and County. The
subcontract with the County, proposed at $15,603 is appropriated,
and will be completely reimbursed by the grant funding.
3
A t t a c h m e n t A
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE REDUCTION,
ALTERNATIVES AND DISPOSAL (RAD) PROJECT
Project Objectives and Subcontractor Tasks
Obiective 1. TO FOSTER AN INCREASED AWARENESS IN SCHOOL CHILDREN OF THE
PROBLEMS CREATED BY THE PRESENCE OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE (HHW) IN
THE HOME, COMMUNITY AND IN THE ENVIRONMENT.
Action Steps
1. Establish an ongoing relationship with Chula Vista Elementary and
Sweetwater Union High School Board of Education members, administration
personnel, principals and other appropriate personnel in order to begin
institutionalization of HHW curricula and awareness in area schools.
A. DHS to participate in meetings with interested personnel
(principals, administrators, teachers), as necessary. (In Rind)
2. Survey schools (principally administrators, teachers) to determine
which classrooms are currently using the HHW Curricula developed by DHS
and create a synopsis of the various ways that the curricula is used for
all grade levels.
A. DHS to provide list of schools classrooms which have previously
been provided in-service training and curricula. (In Rind)
3. DHS to provide curricula and related materials, in-service trainings
and presentations to teachers and school children throughout Chula
Vista.
A. DHS to review City of Chula Vista's draft letter describing
project and its availability. (In Rind)
1. Letter will be directed at school principals, curricula
administrators, etc., for distribution to teachers.
2. Letters would describe appropriate curricula for targeted
grade level.
B. DHS to provide the following:
1. Kindergarten through Third Grade:
* 2-3 teacher in-service trainings, not to exceed S400.
* In-service curricula materials for 35-40 teachers, not
to exceed 5375.
* 2-3 classroom presentations, not to exceed S560.
10
* Curricula materials for 2-3 classroom presentations,
not to exceed S25.
2. Fourth through Sixth Grade:
* 2-3 teacher in-service trainings, not to exceed S855.
* In-service curricula materials for 75 teachers, not to
exceed 53750
* 5 classroom presentations, not to exceed S765
* Curricula materials for 5 classroom presentations, not
to exceed S250
3. Middle/Junior High School:
* 2-3 teacher in-service trainings, not to exceed S522
* In-service curricula materials for 25 teachers, not to
exceed S1,126
* 2-3 classroom presentations, not to exceed S393
* Curricula materials for 2-3 classroom presentations,
not to exceed S113
4. Spanish language Field Test in Middle/Junior High School:
* 1 class, not to exceed S495
* Curricula for field test, not to exceed 55
4. Distribute HHW informational brochures as take-home materials
directed toward an increased awareness in both school children and
adults of the problems related to the presence of HHW.
A. DHS to provide HHW written informational materials developed by
the DHS. (In Rind)
5. Develop additional educational materials for school children directed
toward an increased awareness of the problems relating to HHW,
alternative nontoxic solutions, and proper disposal awareness. This
includes the development of a proper disposal "sticker campaign,"
coloring activities, and consumer awareness guides developed
specifically for children and young adults.
A. DHS to provide HHW County logo. (In Rind)
B. DHS to review drafted sticker design, coloring sheet design and
consumer awareness guide development. (In Rind)
Objective 2. TO FOSTER AN INCREASED AWARENESS IN ADULTS OF THE PROBLEMS
CREATED BY THE PRESENCE OF HHW IN THE HOME, COMMUNITY AND IN THE
ENVIRONMENT.
Action Steps
1. Distribute DHS informational brochures and fact sheets and the City
informational flier which outline the problems generated by the improper
handling and disposal of HHW and provide suggestions for nontoxic
alternatives, including distribution of literature in Spanish.
A. DHS to provide literature for City staff to distribute. (In
Rind)
11
2. Disseminate HHW reduction, alternatives, and proper disposal
information targeting adults by means of a mobile educational display
unit to be set up in public locations such as shopping malls, public
buildings, retail centers and at community fairs. The mobile display
unit would rotate to a new location approximately every two weeks, not
including community events.
A. DHS to review mobile display unit for initial setup. (In Rind)
3. DHS to present HHW educational presentations to targeted adult groups
within the City to include spanish speaking individuals, senior
citizens, and at least one high school, as follows:
A. DHS shall participate in presentations which include spanish
speaking individuals, senior citizens, and at least one High
School, as follows:
* 5 adult presentations in English, not to exceed 5567
* 2 adult presentations in Spanish, not to exceed S228
4. Utilize established Neighborhood watch Program and volunteer
infrastructure, as well as develop new volunteer contacts, for direct
community outreach through literature dissemination, forums and
neighborhood event participation. The goal is to create a network of
200 or more volunteers distributing HHW information in neighborhoods
throughout the City.
5. Utilize the City of Chula Vista's existing recycling programs, in
particular the Business Recycling Outreach Project, to foster adult HHW
awareness by specifically targeting employees residing within the City
and surrounding area.
A. DHS to provide technical assistance as necessary. (In Rind)
6. Utilize the Business Recycling Outreach Project to foster greater
awareness about toxics in the work place, particularly in small
businesses.
A. DHS to provide technical assistance as necessary (In Rind)
7. Utilize proposed expanded Business Recycling Outreach Project (if
awarded grant funding through the County) to establish a waste exchange
program for secondary materials, to include hazardous materials.
A. DHS to provide technical assistance as necessary (In Rind)
12
Objective 3. TO FOSTER CONSUMER AWARENESS OF NONTOXIC ALTERNATIVES TO
THE USE OF TOXIC PRODUCTS COMMONLY FOUND IN HOUSEHOLDS.
Action Steps
1. DHS to provide copies of the Home Safe Home Fact Sheet Series and
other written materials to be agreed upon, which outlines safe
substitutes for common household products that are considered toxic.
A. DHS to provide fact sheets, as well as additional materials, in
English, not to exceed 53 450
B. DHS to provide fact sheets, as well as additional materials, in
Spanish, not to exceed S1 725
2. Disseminate fact sheets (English and Spanish) by means of the mobile
educational display to be set up in public locations such as shopping
malls, through community presentations and events, and by mail upon
request.
3. Establish consumer awareness of nontoxic product alternatives to
toxic products within school educational programs, adult presentations
and at literature distribution points through development of nontoxic
alternative product guides designed for the child and young adult
consumer (See Objective 1, Action Step 5).
4. Target one local store for consumer awareness of toxic household
products and nontoxic alternatives commonly found in stores. This
aspect of the proposed Project would provide the basis for a model
consumer awareness program through the establishment of an ongoing HHW
awareness literature distribution display at the targeted store and
"point-of-purchase" signage in order to foster greater awareness of the
availability of safe alternatives in retail stores.
A. DHS to provide technical assistance as necessary (In Rind)
Objective 4. TO EDUCATE THE WASTE GENERATOR ABOUT THE PROPER DISPOSAL OF
HHW AND SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE NUMBER OF CHULA VISTA RESIDENTS
PARTICIPATING IN PROPER DISPOSAL OF HHW.
Action Steps
1. As part of the educational awareness for all ages described in the
above Objectives, City and DHS will include in all presentations
information on the importance of the following: 1) if toxic products
must be used, to only purchase what is necessary; 2) use toxic products
until the containers are empty; and, 3) properly dispose of any unused
portions of hazardous products.
2. Disseminate information regarding the proper means of disposal of HHW
in the City of Chula Vista and South Bay Region through presentations,
13
mobile educational display unit set-up, and literature distribution
locations, as described in the above Action Steps.
3. Promote the increased use of the County of San Diego's HHW hotline.
A. DHS to include messages on HHW hotline which are directly
focusing on Chula Vista. (In Rind)
B. The capability of hearing messages in Spanish shall also be
provided by DHS. (In Rind)
4. Work with local media to promote household hazardous awareness
collection events in the South Bay region and to periodically advertize
the availability of collection at APTEC, including development of at
least two Public Service Announcements and news releases on a bimonthly
basis.
A. Work with DHS to include Project specific information in regular
South Bay news releases. (In Rind)
5. Promote increased awareness and use of the APTEC HHW disposal
facility in Chula Vista and the County mobile HHW collection events in
the South Bay area.
A. DHS to include a message about the APTEC facility in the HHW
hotline. (In Rind)
6. Promote increased usage of recycled paint from the County's HHM
program in anti-graffiti programs and community clean-ups.
Objective 5. TO INSTITUTIONALIZE HHW CURRICULA AS A PART OF THE CHULA
VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT'S AND THE SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT'S EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING AS WELL AS FOSTERING ONGOING ADULT
HHW AWARENESS.
Action Steps
1. As described in Objective One, the City would begin to establish an
ongoing relationship with appropriate school board members and
administrators in order to achieve the City's main goal of establishing
HHW awareness and curricula usage in all area schools as an ongoing
feature of educational programming.
2. As described in Objective One, the City would utilize DHS for the
purpose of presenting teacher in-service trainings and classroom
presentations to familiarize teachers with the County's HHM curriculum.
Through the Project evaluation and ongoing follow-up, City staff would
monitor the continued use of the curricula during and following the
Project and encourage additional adoption of the curricula in other
classrooms through teacher networking, "word-of-mouth," and continued
targeting of school board officials and administrators for curricula
usage.
14
3. Provide HHM educational information to the school district through
the Project that can be easily reproduced for continued distribution to
school children who will then take the information home to their
parents, during and following the Project.
4. Maintain ongoing literature dissemination at all literature drop-off
points developed through the Project for continued adult HHW awareness
both during and following the Project.
5. Incorporate HHW information in all recycling and related
presentations given by City staff during and following the Project.
6. Monitor Project effectiveness, as described in the Grant Proposal
Element 12, Project Evaluation.
15
Matching ("In-Kind") Funds (Detailed)
In-kind donation of printed materials:
Literature Printing
- World is Full...(English) 1000 @ $200
- World is Full...(Spanish) 500 @ $100
- Seven Fact Sheets...(English) 400 @ $420
- Seven Fact Sheets...(Spanish) 200 @ $210
TOt81
$930
County of San Diego, media assistance, printed materials and staff
consultation:
Local news releases (South Bay television, radio, and print media)
- $100. per release x 6 releases= $600
(Does not include staff time to develop release)
Printing of Mobile Collection Event Schedules
- $.05 x 2000 schedules = $100
Technical Consultation
- $75/hour x 15 hours = $1125
Total $1825
TOTAL MATCHING FUNDS $2755
16
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meets Date r /,¢/}LL
ITEM TITLE:
Report Regarding
Proposed .~:,
Comme`lA~,~;^~~d~~trial
and Multi-Family Recycling Programs i"n t~eri°~~t~r`Q~
Chula Vista. ,r +0fi„`~~" .~^
~ "i~ ~~
SUBMITTED BY:
Conservation Coordinator ,.;: r.
'.
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No_)
Council Referral #2400
BACRGROUND
In order to meet the AB 939 mandate and the County's prohibition on
landfilling designated recyclables, City Council adopted a
mandatory recycling ordinance in January, 1992 (CVMC Ch. 8.25).
This law requires yard waste to be separated for recycling by
April, 1993 (when fines go into affect at the landfill). The law
also requires offices and office complexes of 20,000 square feet or
more and all restaurants to recycle by July 1993; residents of
multi-family dwellings will also need to recycle by July 1993
(fines will go into affect in October 1993).
Ordinance 2427 (Curbside Recycling Amendment to Laidlaw Refuse
Collection Agreement) states, "the City may not go to bid for
expansion of this recycling program...until after the City has met
and conferred with Grantee with regard to intent to do so." In
accordance with this ordinance, and after direction from the City
Manager and the City Attorney, staff held several meetings (general
discussion and review of proposal) with Laidlaw staff and received
proposals from them for yard waste, commercial and multi-family
recycling program services.
Additionally, staff has explored a number of recycling program
types from other cities, reviewed legal issues associated with
bidding recycling programs and conducted a survey of all cities in
the County to determine the range of costs for yard waste, multi-
family and commercial recycling collection. This survey is
contained in Attachment B.
With this background and taking into account Council's direction
that collection services for additional recycling programs be
awarded by contract on a competitive bid basis, staff has outlined
in this report a recommended plan for Chula Vista's yard waste,
commercial and multi-family recycling program development. Staff
feels that that this unique, multi-faceted program plan both
maximizes Council's concern for competitive rates while minimizing
the impact of recycling market characteristics and administrative
costs on recycling program development.
This report brings to Council a recommendation for contracting of
recycling services for the City.
Staff proposes that an annual, "permit processing and monitoring
fee," be charged to each hauler based upon the number and type of
accounts serviced by the hauler or gross receipts of the hauler.
Incentives, such as discounted fees, could be given ,to those'^•
collectors offering services for collection of "hard o
collect/market" commodities (e.g., restaurant glass) and~~or
offering services to smaller, lower volume generators.
Staff recommends that permits be granted for a period of two years,
with two, one-year extensions to be granted upon favorable
completion of the service during the initial two year period.
Each permitted hauler would be required to arrange for their own
respective billing service requirements, and to bill the
establishments receiving services, directly. Customer service
would also be handled by the permitted haulers. City staff would
play an integral role in providing recycling and waste reduction
information and promotional services to businesses.
Advantages of staff recommendation
This type of contractual arrangement would allow for open,
competition within the City for commercial recycling services.
Permit registration will allow City staff to track these services
and work with the haulers to provide services that best meet the
needs of the City's businesses, as well as generate revenue to
cover staff monitoring time and program development.
The variety of businesses in our City would most likely be best
served by a range of haulers offering different "specialties" of
services, while still allowing businesses to become a part of the
City's comprehensive Business Recycling Outreach Project.
Currently, there are several independent haulers servicing
businesses in the City that offer free or low cost collection
services, based upon the materials generated in each business.
For example, there are several individuals who haul cardboard from
small restaurants and retail outlets; a glass recycler that
collects glass from restaurants; and, a number of independent
haulers that collect white paper free of charge. While there are
always costs involved in collection, some small independent haulers
are able to collect a specific material at no (or low) charge to
the business.
Disadvantaoes of staff orooosal
The primary disadvantage of allowing multiple haulers in the City
is the increased vehicular traffic that most likely would occur.
Staff does not feel, however, that this would significantly affect
the City, as most of the establishments to be served are in
commercially zoned areas where it is expected that vehicular
traffic is high. Additionally, with a permit process, staff can
monitor the impact on the City through having a firm grasp on the
businesses served by each hauler. If it seems that the number of
permits is allowing too much truck traffic in certain areas, the
number of permits could be potentially be limited in heavily
impacted areas. Additionally, a condition of the permit process
could include proof of smog certificate and vehicular registration
and insurance.
Legal concerns
,.. '' C. M
Staff has concerns regarding the legality of Council's dir"eCtior~?' o
allow for open bidding of additional recycling collection servi s,
namely multi-family and commercial. Under the City's current
refuse collection franchise, it could be interpreted that Laidlaw
has sole rights to haul all recyclables. A recent landmark legal
decision was made which may back the City in its proposal to go to
bid for recycling services.
In the case of City of Rancho Mirage and Waste Management of the
Desert, Inc. v. Palm Springs Recycling a decision was rendered on
September 1, 1992 that upheld Palm Springs Recycling rights to
continue recycling in Rancho Mirage. The Fourth District Court of
Appeal stated: "we conclude that until ownership of the recyclable
material has been surrendered to the City or its authorized
recycling agent at a designated recycling collection location, the
owner of such material may retain it or dispose of it as he, she or
it chooses, e.g., by donating or selling it to whomever he, she or
it wishes, including a non-City-franchised private recycling
enterprise.°
However, the decision has been appealed to the State Supreme Court
on October 8, 1992 by the City of Rancho Mirage and Waste
Management Inc.. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal,
thus vacating the current Rancho Mirage case decision and not
making it permissible to be used as arguments in other cases. It
will take at least a year for the case to be heard.
Alternative options
1) Single-Collection Provider. The City could contract with one
hauler to offer collection services to all businesses. The
contract could be simply awarded to Laidlaw, or on a competitive
bid basis. This arrangement would limit multiple vehicular
traffic. Additionally, it would potentially allow for easier
franchise fee allocation and service monitoring, however, there
would be no competition between haulers, thus limiting the variety
of services, costs, and other choices for businesses.
This alternative may also be difficult to justify and implement
because it essentially eliminates opportunities for small
independent recyclers who currently operate in the City.
Additionally, staff has concerns regarding the ability of one
hauler to service the entire commercial and industrial community
according to the timeline established under the mandatory recycling
ordinance and AB 939.
Staff recommends that Laidlaw's proposal for commercial recycling
y
be rejected specifically for the above reasons. While Laidlaw
states in its proposal that it can offer services.`to the' entire
City, staff has deep reservations about Laidlaw's abslity-to.meet
these service goals, given the large number and wide diversity of '"
businesses in the City. Additionally, Laidlaw charges al
customers for their recycling collection services, regardless 6
the materials collected and the type of business.
Laidlaw says that this charge would vary depending on the materials
collected, however, to date staff's experience has shown that
Laidlaw does not vary its rate but simply charges a flat collection
fee. Having a permit system would allow Laidlaw to bid on a
permit, as well as other haulers who may be better able to meet the
needs of specific businesses at lower costs.
2) Permit (imitations: Permits could be limited by allowing only a
specific number of permits to be issued or through a geographic
service areas allocation. Under a geographic service area permit
processed haulers would compete for contracts to collect in
established service areas. While practical for multi-family
(proposal to follow), this may not be the best option for
commercial, given the variety of commercial establishments and
their dispersion throughout the City. Limiting the number of
permits would offer advantages for staff monitoring requirements.
However, as will be discussed below, the City Attorney has
expressed legal concerns about limiting the number of hauler
permits in the City because of anti-trust concerns.
2. Multi-Family Recycling
Under the City's mandatory recycling ordinance timeline, multi-
family recycling goes mandatory in July, 1993. Staff has reviewed
various options used in other cities for multi-family recycling, as
well as conducted a survey of apartment and condominium complexes
in Chula Vista to determine space constraints and other pertinent
information. A multi-family recycling roundtable was held on
December 8, 1992; this roundtable allowed staff to hear directly a
number of concerns and suggestions for implementing recycling in
multi-family dwellings in Chula Vista.
Program recommendation
Staff recommends that recycling collection services for multi-
family residences be developed through a "service area" recycling
contract arrangement. These "service areas" would be derived from
established geographical areas (e.g., North, South, East, West),
and clearly defined. Through an open request for proposal's (RFP)
process, staff would accept proposals from haulers to service all
multi-family dwellings within a service area. (Staff will estimate
the number of dwellings within each proposed service areas in order
to ensure that the areas are reasonably close in size and of a
scale to allow for hauler efficiencies.)
The "service area" concept would be described in the RFP, however,
5
all proposals would be required to be "generic" for all areas.
Staff would then "assign" a service area to each respective
contractor, based on assessed service area characteristics and
corresponding contractor abilities. Each awarded service area
contractor would pay a "contract fee" to cover staff .costs for
monitoring and program development (perhaps a percentage of gross
receipts, or a base amount plus a fee per account). `'
In order to establish a level of service uniformity throughout the s
City, a "baseline" of service requirements (e.g., specified
materials, weekly collection days, service hotline, etc.) and all
permit requirements will be fully outlined in the RFP. Each
awarded contractor would be required to provide educational
materials, containers, collection vehicles and other equipment, and
establish their own billing and customer services.
City staff would work closely with the haulers and monitor the
recycling services, billing fees, and public information materials,
once approved by Council. Each contractor would be required to
submit a quarterly report on tonnages, participation and revenue
received from the sale of collected materials. Contracts would be
for four (4) years, with two (2)-one (1) year extensions based upon
satisfactory service.
The RFP and related materials will be brought to Council at a later
date. Contracted service providers would be required to submit
plans for phased-in services to all multi-family dwellings within
the service area by the October, 1993 enforcement (fine
implementation) date under the County's Mandatory Recycling
Ordinance.
Advantages of staff recommendation
Through the service area concept, Council's direction for
competitive bid would be addressed. Allowing for haulers to bid
for a service area in the City should provide competitive cost and
service levels. Competition in service provision and rates between
areas would occur due to the City's flexibility in awarding
contracts for a relatively short duration of time. Multi-family
rate payers, while benefiting from the service and cost competition
between area service providers, would receive relatively uniform
services, rates and billing requirements within their respective
service area. Ongoing review of rate structures for each service
area would allow for rate control measures to be established, if
desired (e.g., a ceiling based on gross receipts).
The geographic service area concept would eliminate concern for
multiple vehicles servicing residential areas, as only one hauler
would service each geographic area. Having service areas will
allow for relatively easy monitoring and program overview to ensure
that all residents are provided a base level of services.
Additionally, in order to take advantage of economies of scale, the
service area concept is recommended to allow respective haulers
enough service units to make collection economically viable.
G
Additionally, "contract fees" could be relatively easily assessed.
Legal concerns
As with commercial recycling, staff has concerns with offering out
to bid the residential multi-family recycling collection.
Additionally, the City Attorney has expressed legal concerns with
limiting the number of permits for collection through the::;:'
geographic .service area concept. This is due to concerns with`
anti-trust issues. Staff has investigated this concern, with no
conclusive results.
The League of Cities would not issue an opinion until the Rancho
Mirage case is resolved. Staff knows of no other cities in
California that offer limited permits for collection of residential
recyclables. Seattle has divided their city in half and allows one
hauler (per geographic area) to collect both residential refuse and
recyclables in their respective geographic area. Most cities in
California have either an open market for collection, or have
awarded an exclusive franchise to service the city.
At this time, staff's professional opinion is that limiting the
number of permits for multi-family recycling would not be an issue
because relatively few haulers will want to service multi-family
dwellings for simply the recyclables (most would want to collect
both refuse and recyclables). Multi-family recycling is difficult
to implement and monitor, material contamination is high, while
participation is low, thus the costs to the program far outweigh
the revenue from materials sales.
Alternative options
1) Single-Collection Provider. The City could contract with one
hauler to offer collection services to all multi-family units.
A contract could simply be awarded to Laidlaw, or one contract
could be awarded through a competitive bid process. The primary
advantage of this system would be the limited amount of time
required by staff. Under the geographic permit system,
considerable staff time would be required for development of the
request for proposals and review of the proposals.
Additionally, staff feels that a single hauler could provide viable
and cost effective services. Because costs and types of collection
for multi-family recycling do not vary significantly, the
advantages to having multiple haulers are not as evident as with
commercial recycling.
Laidlaw submitted a proposal for servicing all multi-family
complexes in Chula Vista; the cost would run approximately $1.10 to
$1.50 per unit (e.g., household). This is a competitive cost
compared with other cities, and because of Laidlaw's experience at
collection from residential multi-family complexes in the City,
they may be able to offer the service more cost efficiently than
other haulers. Although, staff has concerns with their ability to
offer the service to the entire City, particularly in terms of
program promotion to residents and program service implementation.
2) Open Permit Process. As proposed for commercial recycling
services, haulers would compete for permits on an open; basis.
While potentially allowing for an increased level of competr.t;ion,
such an open permit process would be difficult to administer and>
monitor, given the high number of multi-family units in the City'
and the diversity of units to be serviced. Service levels and
program implementation could be affected because of staff's
inability to monitor the number of contracts.
Allowing multiple haulers throughout the City would greatly
increase residential vehicular traffic and noise within the City.
This would be particularly disruptive because respective multi-
family dwellings would inevitably have collection on different days
of the week, thus potentially bringing a daily flow of collection
vehicles into neighborhoods.
3. Yardwaete Recycling Program
Under the County's mandatory recycling ordinance, the City should
begin developing a yard waste ("greens") collection program for
single and multi-family residences shortly. The City would not
incur fines from the County until April 1993, so technically the
Citywide yard waste collection program can be implemented at that
time with no negative effects. Most cities in the North County
have implemented yard waste collection, with costs ranging from
$1.41 to $2.75 per household per month for weekly collection.
Program recommendation
Staff proposes that residents be given four options for the
diversion of yardwaste from the waste stream. Residents would have
the option of any or a combination of the following greens
recycling services: 1) Curbside Collection of Greens. Residents
would purchase stickers or in some other way sign up for weekly or
biweekly service for an established fee; 2) Backyard Composting.
Residents would purchase a compost bin (or designate a composting
area) and receive the City's composting instruction manual and/or
attend a training session; 3) Self-Haul. Residents take all green
materials to a composting site or to the landfill for mulching; or,
4) No Greens. Residents that do not have yard waste or who have it
hauled by a landscaper, neighbor or through any other legal means
have the material mulched or composted.
The mandatory enforcement of yard waste recycling would operate
similar to our curbside recycling program. If residents are found
to have yard waste in their refuse, their refuse container would be
tagged and they would receive follow-up letters and informational
materials from staff. With legal enforcement a possibility for
continued violations.
Based upon staffs initial review of Laidlaw's yard waste proposal,
`~>
acceptance of the proposal is recommended, as staff feels it is
viable (based upon the criteria outlined above) and represents a
fair rate of charge for the service. Laidlaw's preliminary cost
analysis ranges from $1.00 to $1.25 per sticker (i.e., pick-up).
This is a high cost estimation based upon only having a 50 percent
participation rate because of the options plan. At this rate,
residents participating each week could pay $4 to $6 .per month.
Through a pilot project, costs could be more accurately measured.
Staff would also work with Laidlaw to formulate an option of
providing a maximum monthly rate limiting the cost for higher
generators (i.e., users of the curbside collection option).
Because of the range of demographics in the City, staff feels that
although this proposed rate is high, residents would be given full
options to only utilize the program as needed. This would also
encourage source reduction efforts, such as composting and the use
of mulching mowers, to limit the amount of yard waste generated.
Staff assumes that many residents with large yards (and thus larger
volumes of yard waste) often have landscapers attend to their yard.
Landscapers often haul the materials away, thus many high volume
generators would not need to have curbside collection.
Advantages of staff recommendation
Because the market for greens does not provide revenues, staff
believes that the most prudent use of staff time and the best
option for residents is to accept Laidlaw's yard waste collection
proposal. Having only one hauler allows for economies of scale in
terms of collection and marketing of materials, uniformity of
services and rates, less vehicles in neighborhoods and easy
monitoring. Laidlaw, by virtue of being the refuse hauler in the
City, has the infrastructure and expertise to plan routes and
utilize existing trucks for the pilot phase of the program.
Alternative options
1) Single hauler. The City could initiate a limited or full Request
for Proposals process for yard waste collection to choose a single
collector of yard waste. This would meet Council's direction for
competitive bid, however the time required for this process would
be significant particularly since the results would probably not
present the City with any more viable proposals than Laidlaw's.
The specific services required for single-family curbside greens
collection are best met by a single contractual award to an
eligible hauler. This would allow for economies of scale in terms
of collection and marketing of materials, uniformity of services
and rates, less vehicles in neighborhoods and easy monitoring.
2) Multiple haulers. Allowing for multiple haulers for the
collection of yard waste would allow for a competitive bid process.
However, this would not allow for economies of scale for the most
efficient collection of yard waste and would bring an increased
number of vehicles into our residential neighborhoods.
9
Additionally, residents can already choose to use landscapers or
self-haul if desired.
3) Universal rate charge. Another alternative to consider,
regardless of the hauler, is to require all residents to pay for
yard waste collection. The benefit of this is that the costs of
collection per household would be lower, however, the disadvantage
is that not all residents would be participating in the program,
and thus resident dissatisfaction could be high. This alternative
is similar to our curbside recycling program, however at least with
curbside recycling virtually all residents generate some
recyclables. Whereas with yardwaste collection, many residents
generate little or no yard waste.
FISCAL IMPACT: At this time, there is no cost associated with this
report. Costs associated with the permitting and contracting for
the proposed commercial, multi-family and greens recycling programs
will be individually determined and brought to Council prior to
program implementation.
Iv
iTACHME~IT B: HHWE
INTRODUCTION
This Household Hazardous Waste Element (>•II~WE) has been prepared W comply with
California AB 939 requirements. IDiWFs of countywide integrated waste management
plans specify how each City or unincorporated area (County) will safdY collect, recycle,
treat and dispose of household hazardous waste (HI3W) generated by households in that
jurisdiction within short-term (1991-1995) and medium-term (1996-2000) planning
periods.
Chula Vista is offered participation in the San Diego Regional Household Hazardous
Materials Program (Program) by the County of San Diego Waste Management
Department at direct no cost to the City. The Program has existed since 1985 and is a
joint effort between the County of San Diego and the City of San Diego, administered
by the San Diego County Department of Health Services (DHS). The Program includes
HHW collection and education and public information.
The County of San Diego offers Chula Vista participation in this Program because the
City disposes of its solid waste at County landfills and indirectly pays for part of the
program through tipping fees, a portion of which pay for the County of San Diego's
HHVV program. Because the County receives money for the Program from Chula Vista
through the tipping fees, the County is responsible for describing how it will safely
collect, recycle, treat and dispose of household hazardous waste (HIiV~ generated by
households in Chula Vista. Therefore, the County's HHWE is attached as Appendrx A
to fulfill the specific requirements of the element for Chula Vista, and additional
information specific to the City's goals and objectives, existing cor-ditions, program
alternatives and selection, implementation schedule, monitoring and evaluation, and
funding are described below.
Based on data from a recent waste composition study (1990), a total of 1,590,053 tons
of residential waste is disposed each Year at landfills within the county. Of this waste,
uo¢u~vnnv~+vnnnve 1
95,849 tons are from Chula Vista's residential wastesVram. According to results of an
EPA study ooriductM in Matin County, California and New Orleans, Louisiana,
approximately 0.4 percent of household (residential) waste is hazardous. Applying this
percentage to the City's residential wastastrram, approximately 6,360 tons of HHW are
disposed each year in San Diego County, 383 tons (6 percent) of which are from Chula
Vista's residential wastestream.
GOALS AND OBJECITVFS
Consistent with the overall Program goal, Chula Vista's goal is to prevent illegal disposal
of HHW. To achieve this goal, the City has specified objectives for the respective
planning periods.
The short-term City-specific objectives include
• Utilize/advertise permanent facilities in San Diego County.
• Continue in-house and County-supplied exiucation and public information
programs.
MEDIUM-TERM O]3JECTIVF.S (1996-20001
The medium-term City-specific objectives include
• Continue in-house and
programs.
F%"!:3I7P;~:~ .iii. F<!i`~3
County-supplied education and public information
2
EXLSTIIdG CONDITIONS
Appropriate Technologies, a permanent collection center in Chula Vista, offers adrop-off
service Monday through Saturday for residents who first obtain e'oontrol number' (for
tracking) from the DHS hotline service. They offer apick-up service for handicapped
residents. The fitcility makes arrangements to pick up the HHW at the handicapped
individuals' homes once they have obtained t}reir'control number' from the DIiS Hotline
Service. Appropriate Technologies is permitted W operate ss a treattnerrt, storage, and
disposal ('TSD) facrlrty.
Chula Vista utilizes the education and public information services offered by the
program, as well as distributing informational flyers which have been developed in-house
(Sce Appendix B). In addition, residents are encouraged to participate in any of the
additional collection events offered countywide through the program. Table 1 shows a
schedule of the program's collection evenu for fiscal year 1991-92.
PROGRAM SELECTION
In addition to using the two existing permanent facilities, one of which is located in the
City of Chula Vista, the City plans to utilize most of the Program components offered
by the County. These include six future permanent factlrhes throughout the county and
education and public information services which are already pud for by the City through
tipping fees paid at the County landfills. The City will also continue to disseminate
information on proper disposal and use of non-toxic alternatives which is developed in-
house.
uo~-wrtniw~cxvnn+wE 3
PROGRAM Il14PLEMENTATION
Additional permanent collection facility implementation dates and locations will be
determined by the County (see Section 5.0, Appendrx A). Education and public
information will cattinue to be administerod by the County.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Monitoring and evaluation will be cm-ducted by the County as described in Appendrz A.
Chula Vista will be responsible for an annual City participation rate in the Program
according to its percent of IiIIW determined to be disposed of illegally in county
landfills. Table 2 shows an estimate of the tonnage of HHW disposed at landfills in the
county by jurisdiction and the percent of the total tonnage of HHW disposed by each
jurisdiction.
F[JNDING
The Program is paid for through tipping fees Chula Vista residents pay at solid waste
- landfills in the County of San Diego.
aor-nianrw~cxvan~we 4
~TACHMENT C: Amendments to
SRRE & HHWE
December 15, 1992
County of San Diego
Department of Public Works
Solid Waste Division
5555 Overland Avenue, M.S. 0383
San Diego, CA 92123-1295
RE: City of Chula Vista, SRRE and HHWE
This will transmit the Source Reduction and Recycling Element
(SRRE) and Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) adopted by the
City of Chula Vista in compliance with AB939. The draft SRRE and
HHWE, which were distributed to the County in December 1991 are
hereby amended with the enclosed attachment comprised of the
following material:
1) Letter from Camp Dresser & McBee Inc. re: State
Staff Comments of the Preliminary Draft SRRE
(June 23, 1992)
2) Letter from California Integrated Waste
Management Board re: Board Comments on the SRRE
and HHWE (June 2, 1992)
3) Potent al Development Dataa Novemberv30,o1992)
These documents, as amended, are being forwarded to the County at
this time for inclusion in the Countywide Integrated Waste
Management Plan subject to future legislative changes and updated
information.
The City of Chula Vista will continue to actively work with the
AB939 Technicurisdictions tomassure thatB theaf programs wand
surrounding j
facilities chosen for implementing the goals of AB939 meet the
needs of the residents of Chula Vista and allow for regional
cooperation.
Sincerely,
John D. Goss
City Manager
,.
City of Chula Vista
SOIIRCE REDIICTION ]AND RBCYCLING BI.E!lSNT
HOIISSHOLD HAZARDOIIS i~TA.STE HLffi~SENT
December 1992
Priat~d ra l~e~cl~d Paper
CDM
Nrrirenmenbl engineers. aLYenaSYS.
planners. d rronagement oorrsuttants
June 23, 1992
( 'P DRESSER & McKEE INC.
430 North Veieyartl. Suite 310
omario, GNlomia 97761
714 gg6~811
City Manager's Office
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attn: Stephanie Popek Snyder
principal Management Assistant
Subject. State's Staff Comments of the Preliminary Draft Source Reduction and
Recycling Element (SRRE)
Dear Ms. Snyder:
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) has been meeting regularly with the California
Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) staff and County of San Diego staff
regarding CIWMB comments on the preliminary draft SRRE and IiFi~4'E for the
jurisdictions within San Diego County.
CIWMB staff have no comments on the HI1WEs for cities within San Diego County and
this document may be adopted as written.
Regarding the SRRE documents, CIWMB staff concluded that the programs and schedules
within the preliminary draft documents adequately fulfill the requirements of the California
Integrated Waste Management Act (IWMA) and the CIWMB's regulations and guidelines
for preparing the S12REs.
The majority of CIWMB comments relate to the waste generation and composition portion
of each SRRE since historical waste generation data information was used in preparing the
preliminary draft SRREs. CIWMB staff recommended that the final SRRE documents be
provided with revised waste composition and waste quantities which comply with the
state's standards.
The CIWMB commented that this revised waste characterization study be performed prior
to adoption of the final document. T4-e County of San Diego is now in the process of
conducting a solid waste generation study for the cities within the county. This study is
estimated to be completed in raid-summer 1992, after which, all SRRE documents will be
MP DRESSER 8 McKEE INC.
Stephanie Popek Snyder
City of Chula Vista
Page 2
tentatively finalized for inclusion in the County Integrated Waste Management Plan
tC1WMP).
The rema;n;ng comments for each city's document were minor in nature and C1WMB staff
recommends that an addendum be written to address these comments. The addendum
includes city specific, CIWMB, and Task ForcxlCitizen comments, although, typographical
and grammatical errors are not included. Each city within the County of San Diego should
proceed forward with adoption of the document as a final draft, with the inclusion of the
addendum. If adoption has already occurred you may wish to submit this addendum as
an information item to your City Council. As mentioned previously, all comments in the
addendum will be included in the consolidation of the SRRE documents for inclusion in
the CIWMP. Your city will have an opportunity to adopt the final plan at that time.
If there are any questions or comments, please contact either your team leader, Lewis
Laine, or myself.
Very truly yours,
C~AMP~DR~~SSER & McICEE INC.
~.U..xIM-tT''
Robert A. Hawfield, r.
Project Manager
cc: Lewis Lame, CDM
Reed Bennett, County of San Diego, Solid Waste Division
John Nuffer, California Integrated Waste Management Board
Steve Sachs, San Diego Association of Governments
Attachments:
• Addendum
• Annual Waste Generation Estimates for 1990, 1995, and 2000 -Under current
conditions and after SRRE implementation
• Table 8-3 -Revised Waste Disposal Capacity
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT
ADDENDUM
NNE 23, 1992
This Addendum serves as a supplement, which will incorporate the changes and
corrections, to the preliminary draft Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) for
the City of Chula Vista, dated November, 1991, submitted by CDM. The program and
implementation schedules, as outlined in the preliminary draft SRRE, meet the state's
guidelines and requiremenu. The majority of the comments received from the State
addressed the need for more accurate waste composition data for each jurisdiction. The
County of San Diego is in the process of gathering this data, which will be incorporated
into the Final SRRE.
According to the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (IWMA), each city
is required to review and respond to comments made by the public regarding the proposed
Source Reduction and Recycling Element and the Household Hazardous Waste Element
This document incorporates the waste quantities and waste composition data which includes
the random survey data diversion quantities for commerciaUindustrial services for the base
year of 1990. An updated waste characterization study is being performed by the county
which addresses the wmments from the CIWMB. In addition, comments from the Local
Task Fora, Citizens Advisory Committee, and Technical Advisory Committee are
included.
1
CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
CONIlVIENTS
Initial Solid Waste Generation Studv
Waste quantities composition will be revised after the waste characterization study is
completed by the County of San Diego. These quantities will be incorporated into the
County Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP), which will be completed early
1993.
The County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Division has access
to extensive regions] data on waste composition in San Diego County. A customized
ScaleWare data system was installed and now operates at each landfill, except for the
Borrego Landfill. This system automatically generates reports on quantities disposed by
truck type. This data, in conjunction with hauler surveys, makes it possible for each city
in the county to estimate the specific characterisation of it's wastestream.
The County of San Diego will refine the ScaleWare data system to provide weight records
by jurisdiction and the projection of waste quantities and composition which will be based
on a city by city analysis of weight records and revised waste characterisation data.
Waste Diverted
Comment: Pages 2-13 (Diversion Pracdcrs): Please provide data from -the recently
completed diversion survey. Also, please report diverted material by
weight, waste category and waste type and by source of generation.
Response: The attached revised tables for 1990, 1995 and 2000 incorporate the
random survey results of existing diversion quantities for commercial and
industrial establishments. These tables do not reflect modified waste
2
quantity or waste composition data, which will be included in the final
SRRE document after completion of the waste characterisation study
conducted by the County of San Diego.
~gmments on Other Components of SBRI:~
Comment: Please include in this component a solid waste facilities nerd projection
estimate which estimates the additional disposal capacity, in cubic yards per
year, needed to accommodate anticipated solid waste generation within the
city fora 15-year period
Response: Table 8-3 attached, reflects disposal capacity needs for the city in cubic
yards per year, assuming successful implementation of SRRE goals.
Comment: At some point in the planning process, the city should set limits, levels or
thresholds for the criteria identified in the Recycling Component...
Response: This comment has bcen noted by the city and will be addressed in the final
SRRE for incorporation into the County Integrated Waste Management
Plan.
LOCAL TASK FORCE AND ADVISORY COIVIIVIITTEES CONIIVIENTS
This Addendum includes public comments received at two public hearings, one of which
was required by IWMA in order to adopt the waste management plan. A Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC)/Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting was held on
January 17, 1992 and a regional SANDAL hearing held on January 24, 1992. The Local
Task Force (SANDAL) hearing held on January 24, 1992 served as the first Public hearing
for all the San Diego Region's city plans. Comments received at the TAC/CAC meeting
3
and SANDAG hearing are addressed in this Addendum, and will be considered in the
preparation of the Final SRRE.
The following are the comments from the TAC/CAC and LTF, and responses to their
respective comments. These comments have covered all stctions of the SRRE document,
and the changes which are recommended will be incorporated in the final SRRE. These
are referenced and listed below.
Comment: There seems to be a large variation between jurisdictions of the percentages
of waste diverted from the landfills.
Response: The documented percentages of wazte diverted from the landfills and
quantities recycled by each jurisdiction is a result of the specific recycling
programs provided by each city and their respective differences. Frequency
of curbside collection may vary from wcekly to bi-weekly, and the types of
recyclables collected also varies from city to city. Some curbside collection
programs serve only residents (single and multi-family), and others may
also serve businesses. The level of participation practiced by the
participants is also a factor in diversion rates. Additionally, there exists a
different level of commercial or industrial development in each city, which
would influence the waste composition and diversion rates.
Comment: How is backyard composting going to be approached?
Response: The City of San Diego plans on implementing a pilot backyard composting
program in conjunction with their hauler and the County of San Diego.
Some cities within the county have similar programs and others will pursue
4
a strong public education campaign which presents the advantages of
backyard composting and recycling of yard and wood wasus.
Comment: Cities must work with local bttsinesscs to promou voluntary recycling in
order w eventually impose mandatory recycling. Also, requirements to be
in compliance with the recycling programs by businesses should not be a
condition of obtaining a business lixnse.
Response: Mandating compliance of recycling programs as a condition to obtain a
business license will be a solution considered by many of the jurisdictions.
However, businesses will initially be encouraged to develop their own
recycling and wasu diversion plans voluntarily, before further action will
be considered by the cities.
Comment: Should recyclables be collected by one truck and the material sorted by a
second truck, and should the method of recycling be decided upon
regionallh or locally, rather than mandated by the County?
Response: The maurials recycled should be kept consisunt regionally, but the decision
for the method of recycling should be made at the city level. Each city
currently has the authority to decide the method of collection, provided
designated recyclables are not taken to the landfill.
Comment: ~ (From the Environmental Health Coalition) Source reduction is mandated
by the State as the highest priority of diversion in AB 939, yet the actual
percentages documented do not account for a substantial percentage of
diversion for each city.
Response: There appears to be a need for better defined source reduction activities
identified by the Stau in order for more reliable quantification of source
5
reduction. Cities could take the initiative of implementing additional source
reduction activities, and then add these documented diversion quantities to
the SRRE. However, it is anticipated that source reduction will not result
in a significant percentage of waste reduction.
Comment: (From the Environmental Health Coalition) Source reduction quantified by
each city is not adequate and it is suggested that a Source Reduction Task
Forst be formed in order to implement source reduction programs.
Response: This may be taken into consideration by each city.
Comment: The Sierra Club made three points and are as follows:
a. The quantity of waste going into the landfills needs to decrease,
b. More defined categories of waste products, not identified in the
SRRE as rtcyclables, nerd to be diverted from the landfills and
recycled, and;
c. The responsibility of recycling should remain with the individual
Response: The City concurs with these comments
Comment: (From the Polystyrene Packaging Coalition) Polystyrene should replace
'styrofoam" and be added to the list of projected waste quantities to be
diverted and recycled.
Response: The City concurs with the comment, although quantifying the amount of
polystyrene diverted from the landfill may be difficult.
6
,.
Comment: The State should be encouraged to reduce the restrictive regulations which
have been mandated for composting facilities. This effort should be done
by the TAC and CAC.
Response: This action will be considered and decided by the CAC/TAC and the LTF.
Comment: Waste composition data for each jurisdiction is not adequau and the-data
needs to be further broken down, especially the miscellaneous category.
Response: The County will be conducting more detailed waste composition studies,
which is estimated to be completed mid-summer 1992. This study will be
incorporated into each city's SRRE and submitted for inclusion in the
CIWMP required to be adopted by 1994.
7
.y
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
1SY0 WASTE GENERATION COMPOSITION
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS UNDER CURRENT CONDIT10N5
DISPOSED DNERTED GENERATED DNERTED
WEIGHT
Ronsi % WEIGHT
ROdei % WEIGHT
Oa+sr % %
PAPER
CARDBOARD 12,017 62% 12719 6.6% 24.796 127% 6.8%
NEWSPAPER 8,198 42% 67 0.0% 6,205 12% 0.0%
MIXED PAPER 11,594 6.07E 907 0.2% 11,907 6.1% 02%
HG LEDGER 2.560 1.3% 0 0.0% 2.560 1.976 0.0%
COMPUTER 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0%
PLASnc
FILM PLASTIC 3,568 7.8% 7 0.0% 1,569 1.8% 0.0%
HARP PLASTIC 1,961 22% 22 0.0% 1,383 29% 0.0%
G1A55 1,753 21% 130 D.t% 4,883 25% 0.1%
METALS
TIN CANS 2,175 1.1% 0 0.0% 2,775 1.1% 0.0%
ALUMINUM CANS 402 02% 199 0.1% 541 0.3% 0.1%
MISC. METALS 0 0.0% 96 0.0% 96 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 31,286 16.1% 0 0.0% 91,298 16.1% 0.0%
WOOD WASTE 17,456 9.0% 0 0.0% 17,156 9.0% 0.0%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 1,192 0.6% 0 0.0% 7,192 0.8% 0.0%
ASPHALT 65 0.0% 0 O.D% 83 0.0% O.0%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 3,316 1.7% 0 0.0% 3.316 1.7% 0.0%
ROOFING 698 0.4% 0 0.0% 898 0.4% 0.0%
DRWJALL 461 02% 0 0.0% 487 0.2% 0.0%
MIXED 13,024 6.7% o o.o% 13,024 6.7% 0.0%
OTHER
DIAPERS 3,809 2.D% 0 0.0% 3,609 20% 0.0%
MISCELLANEOUS SB,773 30.3% 5 0.0% 58.778 90.3% 0.0%
SPECIAL WASTES 286 0.1% 615 D.9% 931 0.5% 0.3%
TOTALS 179,986 14,071 794,057 7.396
I~.il.-3..?.L•.~i
6OURCE REDUCTION 0 0.0%
RECYCLING 79,426 0.9%
COMPOSTING 0 0.0%
SPECIAL WASTE 645 0.9%
11,071 7A%
REMOVAL OF RECYCLABLE MATER64L FROM RECYCLABLE WASTE STREAM 18.396
REMOVAL OF WOOD AND YARD WASTE FROM WOOD AND YARD WASTE STREAM 0.0%
CHLVST2WO1
CfIY OF CHULA VISTA
1985 WASTE GENERATION COMPOSRION
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS WITH SRRE IMPLEdIENTED
pISPOSED DNERTID GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT
crows x wEK;iHr
~, x WEIGHT
[rows, x x
PAPER
7%
7
8
6%
CARDBOARD 13,015 62% ~ 13,981 8.7% 27.006 . .
NEWSPAPER 4,847 23% 1,0/0 1A% 6,867 4.5% 1A%
MIXED PAPER 7,134 3.4% 5,755 27% 12.,89D 6.4% 27%
HG LEDGER 1,514 0.7% 1281 0.8% 2.794 1.4% 0.8%
COMPUTER 0 0.0% 0 O.0% 0 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC
66
20%
896
0
FILM PLASTIC 2,091 1.0% 1,772 0.8% 3.9 .
HARD PLASTIC 2,583 12% 2,155 1.0% 4,748 24% 1.0%
GLASS 2,929 1A% 2,359 1.1% 5,299 26% 1.1%
METALS
TIN CANS
1,276
0.6%
1,060
0.5%
2.356
1296
0.5%
ALUMINUM CANS 213 0.1% 373 02% 566 02% 02%
MISC. METALS 99 0.0% 0 0.0% 99 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 23059 11.0% 10,639 52% 33.896 172% 52%
WOOD WASTE 12,861 6.1% 6,046 29% 18,906 9.8% 2A%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE
899
0.3%
582
0.3%
1,291
0.7%
OA%
ASPHALT 38 0.0% 92 0.0% 70 0.0% 0.0%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 1,D45 0.9% 1,646 0.8% 3,591 1.8% 0.8%
ROOFING 756 0.4% 0 0.0% 756 0.4% 0.0%
DRYWALL 521 02% 0 0.0% 521 0.3% 0.0%
MIXED 14,106 6.7% 0 0.0% 14,106 72% 0.0%
OTHER
DIAPERS
2,476
12%
1,650
0.8%
4,125
2.1%
0.8%
MISCELLANEOUS 56.935 27.1% 6.726 92% 63.661 32.3% 32%
SPECIAL WASTES 310 0.1% 699 0.3% 1,008 02% 0.3%
TOTALS 149,134 61,045 210,179 28.9%
SOURCE REDUCTION TONS
1,&50 C9VEASIDN
0.8%
RECYCLING 11 A11 1DA%
coMPOSnNG 16,s9s s.ox
SPECIAL WASTE 699 0.3%
61,o4s z9.ox
REMOVAL of RECYCLABLE MATERIAL FROM RECVC4ABle WASTE STREAM 524%
REMOVAL OF WOOD AND YARD WASTE FROM WOOD AND YARD WASTE STREAM 32.0%
..
CHLVST2.WO1
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
2000 WASTE GENERATION COMPOS(T10N
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS WITH SRRE IMPLEMENTED
DISPOSED DNERTED GENERATED DNERTED
WEIGHT
7~+n x wE7GHT
pow x wE7GHT
TIOHW % %
PAPER
CARDBOARD 19,550 82% 11,341 , 8.6% 27,607 7.7% 8.6%
NEWSPAPER 1,802 0.7% 7,576 9.5% 0,178 4.5% 3S%
MIXED PAPER 251D 72% 10,709 5.0% 19,312 6.t% b.0%
HG LEDGER 484 02% 2,402 1.1% 2,886 1.t% 1.1%
COMPUTER 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0%
P7ASnc
FILM PLASTIC 67o Oax 9,923 7.s% 3,002 20% 1.5%
HARD PLAmC e44 0.1% 4,ose 1.076 1,903 21% 1 A%
GLASS 1,036 0.5% 1,424 20% 5,462 2.8% 20%
METALS
nN CANS 406 02% 2005 O.ti% 2,439 12% OA%
ALUMINUM CANS 219 0.1% 986 0.2% 605 0.2% 02%
MISC. METALS 40 0.0% 0 0.0% 40 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 5,409 25% 28,509 13.8% 35,009 172% 19,8%
WOOD WASTE 3,067 1.4% 16,159 7.8% 1D,526 9.6% 7.6%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 223 0.1% 1,110 0.5% 1,993 0.7% 0.5%
ASPHALT 12 0.0% BO 0.0% 73 0.0% 0.0%
DIRTlROCKS/SAND 622 0.3% 3,087 1.4% 9,708 1.8% 1.4%
ROOFING 761 0.4% 0 0.0% 781 0.4% 0.0%
DRYWALL 538 02% 0 0.0% 698 0.3% 0.0%
MIXED 14,568 6.7% 0 0.0% 14,566 72% 0.0%
OTHER
DIAPERS 1,078 0.5% 9,162 1.576 4261 21% 1.876
MISCELLANEOUS 58,732 27.0% 7,015 32% 85,717 92.9% 92%
SPECIAL WASTES 991 0.2% 699 0.9% 1,080 02% 0.9%
TOTALS
106,837 110,449
217,286 50.8%
SOURCE REDUCTION TONS
9,182 DNERSION
1.5%
RECYCLING BO,BDt Z/A%
COMP06TING 16.988 272%
SPECAL WASTE 899 OA%
770,140 60.8%
REMOVAL OF RECYCLABLE IMTER6AL FROM RECYCLABLE WASTE STREAM 79.8%
REMOVAL OF WOOD AND YARD WASTE FROM WOOD AND YARD WASTE STREAM M.9%
~r
CHLV6T2W01
TABLE 8-3
CTTY OF CHULA VLSTA
DISPOSAL CAPACITY NEEDS ANALYSIS
CAPACITY
DLSPOSAL NEIDS
'
QUANTITY' CAPACITY IVE
C[TMULAT
y~g (TONS) NEEDS= (CY) (CIS
1990 179,986 359,972 359,972
1991 183,582 367,164 727,136
1992 174,595 349,190 1,076,326
1993 164,763 329,526 1,405,852
1994 157,185 314,370 1,720,222
1995 149,134 298,268 2,018,490
1996 138,226 276,452 2,294,942
1997 127,601 255,202 2,550,144
1998 117,842 235,684 2,785,828
1999 114,970 229,940 3,015,768
2000 106,837 213,674 3,229,442
2001 107,784 215,568 3,445,010
2002 108,731 217,462 3,662,472
2003 109,678 219,356 3,881,828
2004 110,636 221,272 4,103,100
2005 111,583 223,166 4,326,266
2006 112,531 225,062 4,551,328
'Incorporates projected reduction in the wastestream from rtcycling activities
rAssumes 1000 pounds per cubic yard in-place density
SfA7E OF GWFORNU Pete Wilson, Governor
CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
itaoo ~i curter oelK
$acrnmmro, Glifotnis 95826
June 2, 1992
Stephanie Snyder
Principal Management Assistant
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Board Comments on 8reliminary Draft Bourc• Reduction and
Recycling Element (BRAE) sad Household Hazardous waat• 8lemsnt
(HHWE)
Dear Ms. Snyder:
Please find below comments by staff of the California Integrated
Waste Management Board (the Board) on the Preliminary Draft Source
Reduction and Recycling Element (BARE) and Household Hazardous
Waste Element (HHWE) prepared for the City of Chula Vista. Staff
reviewed the Elements for compliance with Public Resources Code
(PRC) Section 40000 et seq. and Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations (CCR), Chapter 9, Planning Guidelines and Procedures
for Reviewing and Revising Countywide Integrated Waste Management
Plans (The Guidelines).
Those comments which reference the PRC or CCR pertain to mandatory
requirements and should be fully addressed in the final SRRE.
Comments which request clarification, additional information, or
definition of terms should also be addressed in the final Element.
Other comments or recommendations are provided for your
consideration.
Staff found the HHWE to be acceptable and have no comments on this
document. Comments on the SRRE are provided below. These comments
generally refer to issues which are common to most jurisdictions in
San Diego County. They focus on the initial Solid Waste Generation
Study (SWGS).
comments oa initial Solid waste oenaratioa Study
eummarp of Comments
Staff found the SWGS to be insufficient in terms of providing the
data and information required by CCR Section 18722 (Solid Waste
Generation Studies--General Requirements) and CCR Section 18724
(Additional Requirements and Guidelines for the Initial Solid Waste
Generation Study). Specifically, the SWGS requires more precise
information on the composition, quantities and diversion of waste
for the City. Also, it is unclear that the information presented
in the SWGS constitutes a representative determination of the solid
wastes generated, diverted and disposed within and by the City as
required by CCR Section 18722(h)(2)(A).
x
-Feinted an Reryeled hpu -
City of Chula Vista SRRE & HHWE Review
June 2, 1992
Page 2
Iethodology of ewa8
Pages 2-31 (Methods IIsed !or Solid waste Charaaterisatioa)s This
section describes the methodology which was used to determine the
quantity and composition of solid waste disposed by the City. The
methodology involved two separate activities. First, a hauler
survey was conducted to determine how much total waste, in tons,
was being disposed by the City at County landfills. The second
activity involved identifying and allocating waste disposed by
sector based upon truck type.
Please explain how this methodology and associated assumptions
provides a solid waste generation study which is representative of
all residential, commercial, industrial and other sources of
generation within the City, as required by CCR Section
18722 (h) (2) (A) .
Please describe the sampling methodology for the waste sorts which
were conducted at local landfills to characterize the City's waste
stream. The description should include the number of samples
collected, the approximate weight of the samples, and how the data
specific to the City was disaggregated from the regional data, as
required by CCR Sections 18722(f)(5), 18722(h) and 18724(b).
Please provide an outline of the system which the City will use to
gather data on the quantities and composition of solid waste
generated, diverted and disposed as required by CCR Section
18722(0).
waste (ieaerated
Please identify in the SWGS the solid waste generated, by waste
category and type, as required by CCR Section 18722(j).
Page 2-io (Public services and IItilities): Please note that
the base amount of solid waste from which diversion levels are
calculated should I1Q,~ include sludge, according to PRC Section
41781(b)(5). With the passage of AB 1520 (Sher, 1991), the Board
has until July 1, 1992 to determine if sludge will qualify for
diversion credit. Since sludge may count toward diversion in the
future, the City should identify sludge generation in its initial
solid waste generation study, as required by CCR Section 18724(d),
but not include it in the waste generation equation contained in
CCR Section 187229(g)(2).
Pages 2-28 i 2-29 (Per Capita Solid waste 6sneration Rates): The
estimated future solid waste disposal quantities for the City were
based on an estimated present disposal rate of 7.3 pounds per
person per day. Please explain the methodology and assumptions used
to produce this estimate so that it represents all residential,
City of Chula Vista SRRE & HHWE Review
June 2, 1992
Page 3
commercial, industrial and other sources of waste generation in the
City, as required by CCR Section 18722(h).
•ast• Disposed
The waste disposal information contained in Tables 2-8 and 2-9 does
not identify the waste categories and types that are required by
CCR Section 18722(j). Please disaggregate the "Glass", "Hard
Plastic", and "Mixed Construction" categories into the required
waste types.
It is noted on Table 2-9 that the "Other Misc." category represents
32.7 percent of the disposed waste and contains multiple waste
categories and types, such as "non-ferrous" metals, "inert
materials", and "natural" and "synthetic textiles." This approach
to waste characterization limits the City's ability to identify and
target waste types with diversion potential. For example, the City
cannot count for diversion those waste types contained in the
"other Misc." category because those waste types have not been
"identified" in the SWGS, as required by CCR Section 18724(d).
Specifically, the City cannot count materials such as tires, food
waste, or non-ferrous metals.
Waste Diverted
Pages 2-13 (Diversion Practices): Please provide data from the
recently completed diversion survey. Also, please report diverted
material by weight, by waste category and waste type, and by source
of generation within the City as required by CCR Section 18722(1).
Page 2-23: Table 2-4 lists 4.8 tons of "Organic (food wastes)" as
being commercially recycled. This category should also be listed
on other tables throughout the SRRE to claim it for diversion
credit.
Comments On Other Componsnts of the SRRE
Disposal Facility Capacity Component
Please include in this component a solid waste facilities need
projection which estimates the additional disposal capacity, in
cubic yards per year, needed to accommodate anticipated solid waste
generation within the City for a 15-year period commencing in 1991,
as required by CCR Section 18744(b). The "Disposal Capacity Needs
Analysis" included in the City's SRRE is for the County of San
Diego.
~.
City of Chula Vista SRRE & HHWE Review
June 2, 1992
Page 4
Iioaitoriaq and Svaluatioa of Programs
Before program monitoring begins, the City should set limits,
levels, or thresholds for the criteria identified in the Recycling
Component. Without such specific quantitative standards, progress
toward the component objectives and overall diversion goals may be
difficult to track.
If you have questions, please call ma at (91G) 255-2555, or John
Nuffer, at (916) 255-2310.
Sincerely,
Judith J. Friedman, Manager
Local Assistance Branch, South Section
Planning & Assistance Division
cc: Jack Doyle, Chairman, LTF
Robert A. Hawfield, Jr., Project Manager, CDM
Reed Bennett, San Diego County Public Works Department
November 30, 1992
TOs Lance Fry, Assistant Planner
FROM: Stephanie Snyder, Principal Management Assistant
SUBJECT: SRRE Review- Revisions to Potential Development Data
Thank you for your suggested changes to the data and format of
Table 2-3 (page 2-8) of the Draft SRRE you reviewed in November
1991. At that time, you provided corrected dwelling unit counts
and a revised, more detailed, format. Your comment was that n more
detailed inventory may better serve the program planning needs in
the long run. You also felt it was helpful to have information on
current commercial and industrial projects in Chula Vista and their
status relative to the development approval process.
As you know from our recent discussions, the legislation regarding
requirements for implementing AB939 have been changing in the past
year since your recommendations were made. In addition, the
deadline for the submittal of the Countywide plan (which will
incorporate Chula Vista's SRRE) has been extended beyond the
January 1994 date. Because of these changes, I am recommending to
the City Council that the SRRE be adopted with a few amendments,
subject to future legislation and updated information.
I am including this memo as part of the attachment which will go on
to the County. It will serve as a reminder to check the need to
update the potential development data at the time the Countywide
plan is recommended for adoption, if it is determined that data of
this nature (in the format you have suggested) is still important
to the SRRE for recycling program planning purposes.
.yam 1~1+.ac E`E`~•~"
,o
CODNCIL AGENDA
Item
![eating Date 12/15/92
TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of AB939 Source
Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and
Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE)
Resolution No. Approving the SRRE and HHWE
and Authorizing that Both Documents (As Amended) be
Forwarded to the County of San Diego for Inclusion
in the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan
SDBMITTED BY: Principal Management Assistant Snyder
Conservation Coordinator
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No % )
BACKGROUND:
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939)
required that all cities and counties prepare formal plans aimed at
wastestream diversion goals of 258 by 1995 and 508 by the year
2000. Specifically, cities are required to adopt two "elements,"
one addressing source reduction, recycling and composting programs
(SRRE), and the other addressing the elimination of illegal
disposal of household toxins (HHWE). Once adopted, the city
"elements" are to be forwarded to the County for inclusion in a
Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). Failure to
comply with the preparation of a plan and achievement of the
wastestream reduction goals may leave a jurisdiction subject to
State-imposed fines of up to $10,000 per day.
The law required that two public hearings be held prior to adoption
of both documents. The first public hearing requirement was met
when the preliminary documents were accepted at the City Council's
regular meetings of 11/19/91 (SRRE) and 12/17/91 (HHWE). At that
time, staff was directed to accept public comment during the
designated period, address CEQA requirements, and return to Council
for adoption of the final set of documents when appropriate. This
public hearing completes the second requirement and allows Council
to consider adoption of the plans to be forwarded to the County for
inclusion along with 18 other jurisdictions in the Countywide plan.
The original documents total more than 200 pages and, therefore,
are not being included in this report but are available in the City
Manager's office upon request. For Council's convenience,
Executive Summaries of the original documents are included in
Attachments A and B. Attachment C includes items received
subsequent to Council's 1991 action and constitutes recommended
amendments to the original documents now being considered for
adoption.
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 12/15/92
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution approving the SRRE and HHWE
(original and amendments), subject to changes required by
subsequent legislation and updated information, and authorizing
both documents be forwarded to the County of San Diego for
inclusion in the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Resource Conservation
Commission will review and discuss this report at its 12/14/92
meeting. A verbal report of the Commission'B comments and actions
will be presented at the public hearing. Minutes can be forwarded
to the Council when available if so requested.
As was the practice with the draft documents, copies of the report
have also been provided for information to the Growth Management
Oversight Committee and the Chula Vista 21 Subcommittee.
DISCIISSION:
As noted during the previous public hearings, the planning process
for meeting the goals set by AB939 is volatile and dynamic,
although the goals (and penalties) are fixed. Since the law was
passed in 1989, the SRRE and HHWE documents as originally
envisioned by AB939 have been continually affected by legislative
changes and interpretation, economic conditions, public input and
program needs. The remainder of this report will describe the
significant changes that have taken place since this issue was last
visited by the Council, as well as the documents being recommended
for adoption at this time.
Sicnificant Events Since December 1991
Staff has received public and agency input, conducted CEQA
evaluation of the documents, and moved forward on individual
program components in the past year. Additionally, there has been
legislative activity which has affected the AB939 planning process
as well as local mandates which have influenced the City's program
planning.
PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS
The general public was given opportunities at three public hearings
to provide comments on the City of Chula Vista's SRRE and HHWE.
Staff was also available to accept oral and written comments
through January 24, 1992 as authorized by Council. No substantive
comments were received from citizens of Chula Vista regarding these
specific documents. Comments received from the general public at
a regional (SANDAL) public hearing on 1/24/92 did not impact or
pertain to Chula Vista's plans.
7.0 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION
7.1 EXISTING CONDTITONS
The City of Chula Vista has amulti-faceted education and public information program
that includes flyers, brochures, a recycling hot line, media releases and interviews, and
public presentations. The city is beginning its business outreach and backyazd
composting programs with associated fliers and contacts through working with the local
chamber of commerce and local gazden clubs. The I Love a Clean San Diego
organization also has ongoing public education and information programs.
7.2 ELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The best overall strategy is a comprehensive mix of techniques that includes:
Public Education
• Direct mailing of brochures and newsletters to city residents and
businesses.
• Canvassing at stores and residences door-to-door.
• Targeted brochures to households whose first language is not English.
• Public service announcements on local television and radio stations.
• Community leader presentations at civic, neighborhood, church, social
service and business organisation meetings.
• Information booths at shopping malls and community events.
• Recycling classes and field trips as part of school curriculum for grades
one through 12.
• Speaker's bureau of experts, public officials, and other informed persons
that would be available to make presentations on recycling.
ztm.oss-rcrorrnvcxuuvsricxmwvsr.axi. ES-22
Page 3, item
![eating Date 12 1 92
The SRRE and HHWE were distributed to adjoining jurisdictions for
comments on how Chula Vista's plans were seen to impact other
cities, if at all. Comments received from the cities of San Diego,
National City and imperial Beach indicated 'no concern and
reiterated the need for cities to continue to approach the waste
reduction and household hazardous waste problems within a regional
context.
Finally, comments were received from the staff of the State agency,
the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) as
required by AB939. Those comments are included in jfttachment C
which amends the original documents. The comments are provided for
an individual jurisdiction to act upon in adoption of the
Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan which is not required
for San Diego County until 1994 (or later, depending on the
promulgation of State regulations.)
Briefly, the CIWMB staff had no comments on .the HHWE and
recommended adoption "as is." Regarding the SRRE, CIWMB staff
concluded that the programs and schedules within the draft
CIWMBestregulationsyandlguidelines for plreparing the document the
The majority of the comments related to the waste generation and
composition component of the SRRE which was prepared on a regional
basis by the County since the disposal system is maintained
choiceaofysampling methodology was of concern to the CIWMB staffs
It was recommended that the waste composition and quantity data be
revised in the Countywide plan to comply with State standards. The
County is presently conducting a solid waste generation study for
all cities within the County and it is planned that the results
will be able to address this concern. The remaining comments by
addendum to the draft SRRE also included in ~ttachmentsCd in the
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the
SRRE and HHWE are categorically exempt under class Guidelines since
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) g
the proposed project will not result in a serious or major
disturbance to an environmental resource. When the SRRE and HHWE
are adopted by Council, City staff ~eldl file the appropriate Notice
of Exemption as procedurally raga'
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 12/15/92
LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
During the past year there have been two significant Assembly bills
enacted which have affected the AB939 planning process as
originally established. AB2494 changes the formula of the
wastestream reduction from diversion-based to disposal-based. This
amendment was favorable to all cities in San Diego County where the
disposal system is operated countywide. Dltimately it lessens the
financial and administrative burden originally placed on cities to
document the amount of source reduction and diversion taking place
before the intended wastestream reaches the possible point of
disposal.
Instead, emphasis will be placed on measuring the amount of
material entering the landfill system, documenting jurisdiction of
origin, and monitoring expected reductions for goal attainment.
What this change means to the SRRE as a planning document is that
future guidelines and regulations will need to be promulgated in
order to implement this shift. Adoption of the SRRE at this time
needs to leave flexibility for such changes.
Another legislative change was the enactment of AB2292 which
recognized that the CIWMB'B implementing regulations for AB939 were
not finalized. This Assembly bill sets n county's submittal date
for the countywide plan at 18 months following acceptance of the
CIWMB regulations by the State's Office of Administrative Law. it
does not, however, change the goal deadlines of 258 diversion by
1995 and 508 by the year 2000. For San Diego County and the City
of Chula Vista, this change means that review and adoption of the
Countywide integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) will take place
after the originally required date of January 1,1994.
Finally, a critically important legislative mandate was imposed
during the past year by the County of San Diego. The Mandatory
Recycling Ordinance was adopted by the Board of Supervisors to ban
(on a graduated timetable) receipt of certain recyclable materials
at the County's landfills. Cities using the landfills (directly or
through designated haulers) are subject to load checks and fines if
illegal materials are found entering, unless cities adopt and
enforce local mandatory source separation ordinances. The County's
Mandatory Ordinance is noted in the SRRE, however the City's
adoption of a local ordinance took place in January 1992.
PROGRAM ACTIVITY
Council is aware that the City has continued to move forward on the
implementation of individual recycling programs which are important
and needed to meet the 258 and 508 diversion goals, as well as the
County and the City's mandatory source separation requirements. In
the past year the City has also received two awards for outstanding
ATTACHMENT A: SRRE
ERECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is a summary of the Source Reduction on Recycling Element (SRRE) prepared for
the City of Chula Vista by Camp Dresser & McKee, Ina (CDM) dated October 1991.
The report is divided into the following ten sections:
1.0 Statement of Goals and Objectives
2.0 Initial Solid Waste Generation Study
3.0 Source Reduction Component
4.0 Recycling Component
5.0 Composting Component
6.0 Special Waste Component
7.0 Education and Public Information Component
8.0 Facility Capacity Component
9.0 Funding Component
10.0 Integration Component
1.0 STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBIECTIVES
This section provides a brief overview of the regulatory background that relates to the
SRRE, as well as the goals and objectives of each component program that will help the
City of Chula Vista meet the mandated 25 and 50 percent diversion required by State
Assembly Bill 939 and comply with the county mandatory recycling ordinance. Refer
to Table ES-1 for a summary of component goals.
The short-term objectives of Chula Vista's source reduction program are to educate the
public about source reduction activities and to modify city procurement policies. The
medium-term objective is to encourage source reduction behavior through the use of
public information and business outreach programs, economic incentives and rate
structure modifications, point-of-purchase signage, as well as the promotion of source
reduction legislation.
~.osr-rc-corrnvcxuuvsrictnnwvsr.t~rn. ES-1
The city's short-term recycling objective is to divert 49 percent of the readily recyclable
material that is currently being disposed, primarily through the implementation of
mandatory recycling programs for each ]and use sector in compliance with the San Diego
County mandatory recycling ordinance. The city's medium-term recycling objective is
to capture 80 percent of the readily recyclable material that is currently being disposed.
The city has also laid out some objectives for developing markets for recyclable material,
including establishing a local waste exchange clearinghouse, attracting recycling firms
to the south bay and promoting the purchase of recycled materials by the public and
private sectors.
The city's short-term composting objective is to remove at least 30 percent of the
industrial, commercial and residential yard and wood waste stream. The medium-term
composting objective is to remove at least 79 percent of the industrial, commercial and
residential yard and wood waste stream. The city will also provide market development
assistance for compost and mulch and will use these products in city parks and open
space areas.
The objective of Chula Vista's special waste program are to comply with the county
mandatory recycling ordinance, ensure proper handling and disposal (including adequate
disposal capacity), and where feasible minimize, reuse and recycle all special wastes
generated within the jurisdiction. More specifically, the short-term objectives include
continuing the recycling of asphalt and composting of sewage sludge, continued
sponsoring of citywide garage sales and community cleanups, and encouraging the use
of retreaded tires.
r
2.0 INTTiAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION STUDY
The Solid Waste Generation Study is divided into three subsections and includes
descriptive information about the City of Chula Vista, current solid waste practices,
current and projected solid waste quantities, and disposal stream composition data.
zm9.oss-rc-corrnvcxuuvsncxmwvsr.rra. FS-3
Table ES-1
CITY OF C13ULA ~'LSTA
SUMMARY OF COMPONENT GOALS
COMPONENT PROGRAM WASTESTREAM REDUCTION
Short-Term
(1995) Medium-Term
(2000)
Source Reduction 1 2
Recycling
Residential
CommerciaUIndusirial
6
10
11
15
Composting 8 21
Special Waste 0 1
TOTAL 25 50
uo9.os~rc-corrnvcxtnwvsricttuuvsr.arn. FS-2
Table ES-2
CTTY OF CHULA VISTA
POPULATION AND SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PROJECTIONS
YEAR
POPULATION' WASTE QUANTTI'Y
('TONS/YEAR)
1990 135,163 180,071
1991 137,863 183,668
1992 140,563 187,265
1993 143,263 190,862
1994 145,963 194,459
1995 148,663 198,056
1996 150,691 200,758
1997 152,719 203,460
1998 154,747 206,162
1999 156,775 208,863
2000 158,803 211,565
2001 160,211 213,441
2002 161,619 215,317
2003 163,027 217,193
2004 164,435 219,069
2008 165,843 220,944
2006 167,253 222,822
The San Diego Association of Govemmenu Series 7 forecasu for 1990, 1995,
2000 and 2006 were revised specifically for preparation of the San Diego County
Source Reduction and Recycling Elements. This revision incorporates 1990
census figures, series 7 growth rates and current trends in housing completions.
nog.os~rc.corrrivcxuuvsrrcxutwvsr.Pxc, ES-5
The City of Chula Vista contracts with Laidlaw Waste Systems to provide solid waste
collection and disposal services for all residential, commercial, industrial and other waste
generators within the city limits. The waste material is hauled to the l~tay Landfill
located in southwestern San Diego County, east of Interstate 805 and north of Otay
Valley Road. The landfill is owned by San Diego County and operated by Herzog
Contracting Corporation.
Diversion practices in 1990 in the City of Chula Vista included all material that is picked
up by the residential curbside program, taken to drop-off and buy-back centers, donated
to nonprofit organizations for recycling or reuse, and salvaged by scrap dealers. The
estimated diversion through recycling activities is approximately 2442.6 tons per year for
a total recycling rate of 1.3 percent. In addition, Chula Vista's residential curbside
recycling program, which began in 1991, diverted an average of 274 tons of recyclables
per month between February and June, 1991.
Although there are no composting facilities within the jurisdiction, the city's sewage
sludge is being composted on Fiesta Island, diverting 11,315 tons of material away from
disposal. In 1990, source reduction, recycling, and composting activities provided the
City of Chula Vista with a diversion rate of approximately 7.2 percent.
The determination of a per capita solid waste generation rate provides a numerical value
which can be applied to population increases to project future solid waste quantities. The
City of Chula Vista has a base yeaz waste disposal of 7.3 pounds per capita per day.
Waste disposal projections (without increasing diversion rtes) for the short- and
medium-term planning periods are provided in Table FS-2.
Quantitative field analysis methodology was used to characterize the waste categories and
waste types generated by the City of Chula Vista. The results of the waste sampling aze
provided in Table FS-3.
aor.os~rc-corrnvcxcnwvsvcrnnwvsr.Nxr. ES-4
3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION COMPONENT
Source reduction programs typically focus on:
• reducing use of non-recyclable materials
• replacing disposable with reusable materials
• reducing packaging
• reducing amount of yard waste generated
• purchasing repairable products and recycled products
• increasing the efficiency of the use of materials
Source reduction program alternatives were evaluated according to the following criteria:
• .Effectiveness in reduction of waste
• Hazards created
• Ability to accommodate change
• Consequences on the waste (i.e. shifts)
• Whether can be implemented in short- and medium-term planning periods.
• Need for expanding building facilities
• Consistency with local conditions
• Institutional barriers to implementation
• Estimate of costs
• Availability of end uses of diverted materials
The program and implementation schedule in Table ES-4 is recommended for the City
of Chula Vista.
zzo9.oss-TC-corrnvcxtruvsricfnnwvsr.rt+i. ES-7
Y
Table ES-3
CTTY OF CHULA VISfA
SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION SUMMARY
Waste
Component
San Marcos
Synmore
Otay
Miramar
Total Pwrrxnt
(96)
Cardboard 0.0 0.0 12006.3 10.2 12016.5 6.7
Newspaper 0.0 0.0 8133.6 4.5 8138.1 4.5
Mixed Paper 0.0 0.0 11585.1 9.2 11594.3 6.4
HB Ledger 0.0 0.0 2578.6 1.4 2580.1 1.4
Glass 0.0 0.0 4748.2 4.3 4752.5 2.6
Film Plastic 0.0 0.0 3565.4 2.6 3568.0 2.0
Hard Plastic 0.0 0.0 4357.7 2.9 4360.6 2.4
Diapers 0.0 0.0 3809.4 0.0 3809.4 2.1
Other Misc.* 0.0 0.0 58744.2 29.0 58773.1 32.7
Tin Cans 0.0 0.0 2175.1 0.0 2175.1 1.2
Aluminum Cans 0.0 0.0 401.3 0.5 401.8 0.2
Yard Waste 0.9 117.7 31162.2 18.1 31298.1 17.4
Wood Waste 0.7 26.9 17418.2 11.3 17456.3 9.7
Concrete 0.6 25.0 1133.4 33.9 1192.4 0.7
Asphalt 0.1 2.9 59.6 2.1 64.8 0.0
Dirt/Rock/Sand 0.9 129.0 3113.4 73.4 3315.9 1.8
Roofing 0.1 44.8 652.5 0.6 697.9 0.4
Drywall 0.2 22.1 457.6 1.2 481.0 0.3
Mixed
Construction 2.4 454.9 12478.0 90.6 13023.5 7.2
Special Wastes 0.0 0.0 286.2 0.0 286.2 0.2
Total 6.0 623.4 178866.2 295.9 179991.4 100.0
'Other Misc.' category is equivalent W 'non-ferrous", 'natural' and 'synthetic textiles'
'organics", 'residuals", 'puttracibles', 'salvage/composite' and 'inert materials' categories.
nw.oss-rc-corrnvcxutwvsricttvtwvsr.er+t. ES-6
participating on a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of key county and city staffs
(from all over the county) and solid waste consultants. The TAC was formed to address
countywide solid waste issues and meets twice a month.
4.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternative recycling programs were evaluated according to the same criteria listed for
source reduction alternatives. The alternatives and issues evaluated included:
• Source separation
• Residential curbside collection
• Drop-off centers
• Buy-back centers
• Scheduled collection
• Central processing facilities
• Materials recovery facilities
- law technology
- medium technology
- high technology
• Marketing of recyclables
Another approach at addressing the requirements of AB 939 is through the development
of a regional MRF, that would be operated in conjunction with the Prison Industry
Authority (PIA). The PIA proposes a 1000 ton per day waste recycle energy plant that
would use inmate labor from the Donovan Correctional Facility. The goal of this
program is multifaceted. The inmates would separate recyclable materials from the
mixed municipal solid wastestream. The organic fraction of the wastestream, in turn,
would be used to produce electricity and steam using biogas produced through anaerobic
digestion. In segregating the recyclables from the remainder of the wastestream, the PIA
proposed using a series of mechanical and handsorting operations that would allow for
the separation of paper, glass, aluminum, plastic, ferrous metal, wood, and related
T109.053-TGCOrr/I11CNiJI.AVST/C}iIJ7AVSr.PN1. FS-9
4.0 RECYCLING COMPONENT
4.1 PRIORITY WASTE TYPES
The general waste categories that will be targeted as part of Chula Vista's recycling
program are paper, plastic, glass, metal, construction debris, and yard waste. The
targeted percentages for recovery for the short- and medium-term objectives are to
remove 49 percent of the materials identified for recycling by 1995 and 80 percent by
the year 2000.
4.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The City of Chula Vista has had a citywide residential curbside collection program since
February, 1991 (a pilot program started in 1989). Current participation rates are
approximately 82 percent of all the single family and multi-family households that receive
curbside solid waste collection. Material recovery has averaged 274 tons per month.
The city's internal office recycling program diverted over 17,000 pounds of recyclables
between July and September, 1991. The city has a number of ongoing recycling
programs for the various land use sectors in the city. Current city programs for the
residential sector include annual citywide garage saes, quarterly community clean-ups
in targeted neighborhoods, and an extensive public information campaign, a block captain
program, and curbside collection of recyclables.
Ongoing programs targeted for the commercial and industrial sector include the
deve]opment of a business recycling data base, targeting of businesses for the
development of office source reduction programs, (business recycling outreach program),
and the recycling of asphalt and composting of yard waste from city operations. The I
Love a Clean San Diego group has developed an disseminated a school curriculum which
addresses recycling, source reduction and composting. This group also offers a hot line
service which anyone in the county may call with recycling questions. The city has been
~.os~rarnrrnvcxUUVSncxinwvsr.rrn, ES-8
Tabk ES-4
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SOURCE REDUCTION COMPONENT
SHORT-TERM IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Completion Date
I. Information end Public Education
Continue civic center wur« roduction/recyclingprogrsm Ongoing
Consumer public education program Ongoing
Continue business recycling outneuh program Ongoing
Implement pointot-purchase aignage
2. Citv Leedershio
Lobby far state legislation Ongoing
Develop and implement city procurement ordinance June 1992
3. Rate Structure Modifications
Evaluate variable can rate program Decanber 1993
Sponsor community cleanups and citywide garage sale Quarterly/snnually
4. Technical Assistance
Apply for TAP Grant for waste exchange program and continuing
business recycling outreach snd civic center recycling programs October 1991
Develop and implement city waste exchange program or establish
cooperation with state program June 1992
Implement backyard composting program November 1991
6. Monitorine
Establish business Source Reduction/Recycling database October 1991
Medium-Term activities will be established based upon the result of the programs snd activities conducted
during the short-ICtm period.
uo9.os3-rccnrrnvcxvlwvsrrcxtnwvsr.rrrt, FS-11
s
materials. The organic, or non-recyclable portion of the solid waste stream, would be
anaerobically digested, in wnjunction with sewage generated by the prison. This process
would provide steam and electrical energy for the prison facilities, as well as the
availability of electricity for sale to local utility users.
This project is only in the formative stages and the impact that the PIA program will
have on the overall SRRE approach, in terms of scope and time of implementation, must
still be identified.
4.4 PROGRAM SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION
The backbone of Chula Vista's short-term recycling program is the planned
implementation of mandatory recycling for all land use sectors (single family residential,
multi-family residential, industrial and commercial/public uses) according to the schedule
established by the San Diego County mandatory recycling ordinance. The details for
each of these programs are still under evaluation by the city. Chula Vista will also
establish a business recycling outreach program, a waste exchange program, and a
backyard composting program. The city's in-house office recycling program will be
expanded. The city's recycling program also includes the encouragement of recycling
companies to locate their operations within the city and an extensive public information
nd education campaign. A comprehensive listing of the various aspects of Chula Vista's
recycling program and a schedule for implementation are provided in Tables ES-5 and
ES-6. In addition, the County of San Diego is planning an extensive public information
campaign in conjunction with implementation of the County Mandatory Recycling
Ordinance.
4.5 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
The programs and implementation listed in Tables ES-5 and ES-6 are recommended for
Chula Vista to achieve the mandated diversion goals.
zzov.oss-rccorrnvcxuuvsncxuuvsr.rr~n. ES-10
Tabk ESS (mn't)
CITY OF CHULA V/STA
RECYCLING COMPONENT
SHORT-TERM IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Activity Projected Date
3. CommercieUOffice Recvcline Proerams
Apply for county TAP gent to continue city oflicc recycling and October 1991
business outreach programs
Continue to expand city of5ce program and buaineas outreach Ongoing
progtm
Develop a recycling data base Ongoing
Determine approach to commercial recycling program January 1992
Cotrunercial recycling contract award (if appropriate) July 1992
Begin enforcement of mandatory commercial recycling ]uly 1993
Begin enforcement of mandatory industrial recycling October 1992
Establish waste ezchnnge program June 1992
4. Draft a recvcline dwien ordinance for space allocation January 1992
zzov.oss-rccorrnvcxutwvsucxutwvsr.t~n. FS-13
,.
Table ESS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
RECYCLING COMPONENT
SHORT-TERM IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
~~Y Projected Date
1. City Mandatory Rxveline Ordinance
Ordinance drafted November 1991
Ordituna ~+~ March 1, 1992
2. Residential Recvcline Proeams
Unplement baclryard composting pilot program November 1991
Continue block captain progam Ongoing
Continue to promote and expand single family curbside collection of Ongoing
recyclables
Decision on type of RFP for collection/composting of yard wastc November 1991
Issue RFP for residential yard waste collection March 1992
Residential yard wastc contact award July 1992
Enforcemcnt of yard waste collection progam fanusry 1993
Determine approach to muhi-family residential recycling program fanuary 1992
Multi-(amity recycling contact sward (if appropriate) July 1992
Implement multi-family recycling program (enforce mandatory
recycling) July 1, 1993
Continue to sponsor community cleanups Quanerly
Continue to sponsor citywide gauge tales ,~,,,,,,,vy
Begin enforcement of mandatory tingle family recycling March 1992
zzo9.oss-rc-corrnvcxuuvsrrcx[nwvsr.prn, FS-12 .
4.5 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
In order to assess the effectiveness of a residential recycling prograrn, it is essential to
gather and evaluate a variety of operational data. The key items to be monitored aze:
• Set-out rates
• Participation rates
• Recovery quantities
• Materials capture rates
• Compliance with processing specifications (e.g. level of contamination,
minimum quantities)
• Vehicle performance and collection
• Costs and revenues
In the short-term, the commercial and industrial recycling programs will be based on
voluntary participation with guidance and direction from city staff. When mandatory
recycling goes into effect, businesses may still be allowed to make their own recycling
arrangements with permitted haulers. Therefore, in order to assess the effectiveness of
a commercial/industrial recycling program, it is essential to work closely with the
business community in establishing and measuring program effectiveness. The items that
can be monitored include:
• Material capture rates (number of trailer pulls and tonnage records)
• Periodic commercial/industrial establishment surveys (e.g., in conjunction
with business license renewals, as the city recently began to require)
• Commercial waste stream audits
nog.os3-rccorrnvcxinwvsricxmwvsr.rrn. FS-15
Tabk ES-6
CITY OF CIIULA VISTA
RECYCLING COMPONENT
MEDIUM-TERM IMPLEMENTATION SCI~DULE
~~y Projected Date
1. CommeroieUORce and Industrial Recvcline Proerams
Evaluate existing program effectiveness June 1995
Pviluate posatble equipment/program changes July 1995
2. Residentisl Curbside Muhl-Material Recvcline Proerams
Eviltutt existing program effoctiveneas May 1995
Evaluate possible program changes May 1995
3. pilot Multi-Family Recvcline Program
Evaluate mu]ti-family recycling program effectiveness January 1996
Evaluate possible program changes January 1996
4. Materials Recovery Facility
Evaluate city's success in attracting MRFs to the arra and evilus[e May 1995
the need for additional facilities
5. Transfer Facility
Consider cooperation with county transfer facilities (cutxngy in the July 1995
planning process)
6. Education and Public Information
Assess effectiveness of information program January 1995
Modify infomtationil materials N combination with prognsmmatic Ongoing
changes
aw.oss-rc-corrnvcaul.~vsrrcxtll.~vsr.rrrL ES-14
• Composting technologies
- preprocessing
- aerated static pile
- in-vessel
- windrow/static pile
• Program scale
- local
- subregional
- regional
• Marketing and distribution
- local
- bulk sales to wholesalers
- turnkey contract
5.3 PROGRAM SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION
The selection of a composting program has been based upon the objectives previously
defined; consideration of existing conditions in Chula Vista; the requirements of the
county mandatory recycling ordinance; and the need to maintain program flexibility. The
composting programs and implementation schedules planned for the City of Chula Vista
aze presented in Tables ES-7 and ES-8.
5.4 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
The monitoring of the composting program will be closely linked with the recycling
program and parameters will be similaz.
nog.os~rc-corrnvcrnnwvsricxuuvsr.rxi, ES-17
,.
5.0 COMPOSTING COMPONENT
5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
According the 1990 waste characterization study, approximately 27 percent of Chula
Vista's disposal stream is composed of yazd and wood wastes. The city does not have
a comprehensive yard and wood waste composting program at the present time. The
Chula Vista Public Works Department is mulching yazd waste from city parks and public
green open spaces. Some mulching also occurs at the Otay Landfill where Chula Vista's
yard waste is disposed, but it is not known how much of Chula Vista's yard waste is
being mulched. In addition, sewage sludge from Chula Vista is being composted on
Fiesta Island (see Section 6.0 of this Executive Summary).
5.2 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Composting alternatives were evaluated according to the criteria listed for source
reduction alternatives. The alternatives evaluated included:
• Waste storage/collection
- source separation/collection
- commingled collection
- mechanical separation
- mixed solid waste composting
• Feedstocks
- high carbon/low moisture
- high nitrogen high moisture
zzo9.ass-rc.corrnvcxuiwvsricxinwvsr.s+rn. ES-16
,.
Table ES-7
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COMPOSTING COMPONENT
SHORT-TERM IlVIPLEIVIENTATION SCHEDULE
ACTIVTfY PROJECTID DATE
1. Continuous Composting of Sewage Sludge. Ongoing
2. Draft City Recycling/Composting Ordinance and November 1991
City Procurement Ordinance.
3. Backyazd Composting Program
a. Implement pilot program. November 1991
b. Expand program. 1992-1995
4. Residential Yard Waste Collection/Composting
Program
a. RFP decision. November 1991
b. Issue request for proposals. November 1991
c. Begin public education. December 1991
d. Begin greens collection. January 1992
e. Enforce mandatory yard waste separation. January 1993
5. Commercial/Industrial Composting
a. Continue business outreach program. Ongoing
b. Begin enforcement of mandatory industrial
recycling/composting. October 1992
c. Determine whether to issue an RFP for
commercial recycling/composting. November 1991
d. Issue RFP April 1992
e. Begin enforcement of mandatory
commercial recycling/composting. July 1993
6. Eastlake Composting Facility Pilot Program Ongoing
7. Compost Marketing
a. Continue to use compost on city-0wned
parks, golf course and landscaped areas. Ongoing
b. Assist composting contractors in
identifying end use mazkets in Chula Vista
and in pursing those markets. 1992-1994
nos.oss-rc-corrnvcxuuvsncxui.+vsr.rrn. ES-19
ti
6.0 SPECIAL WASTE COMPONENT
6.1 TARGETED MATERIAL-S AND ALTERNA EVALUATION
Special wastes are materials that require special handling or disposal because of physical,
chemical, or biological characteristics. Most of this material cannot be diverted and will
continue to be disposed in an environmentally sound manner (e.g. asbestos, street
sweepings, and infectious waste). Septic tank pumpings and incinerator ash are not
generated in Chula Vista. Auto bodies and grease trap pumpings are already being
diverted. Only those special waste types with feasible new diversion alternatives were
evaluated. These include sewage sludge (existing diversion), white goods bulky items,
construction/demolition debris, and used tires.
6.1.1 SEWAGE SLUDGE
The San Diego County Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Facility (Metro) is
responsible for treating and disposing of Chula Vista's sewage sludge. Digested sludge
from the Metro facility is air dried at Fiesta Island in Mission Bay. The dried sludge is
shipped to a private contractor, Corona Chino Farms. Chula Vista's sewage sludge
generation is estimated at 11,315 tons per year, for which Chula Vista has taken existing
diversion credit.
6.1.2 USED TIRFS
Used tires create a number of problems when buried in landfills. Alternatives available
for used fire diversion include incineration, retreading, and crumb rubber uses.
However, due to air quality problems, potential health harards and the lack of end uses,
none of these alternatives are currently considered viable for the diversion of significant
quantities of tires away from landfill disposal. The city will reevaluate these alternatives
at the medium-term planning stage.
zm9.osirc-corrnvcxvuvsvcituiwvsr.rxi. ES-18
.-
6.1.3 WHITE GOODS/BULKY TI'EMS
White goods include items such as refrigerators, air conditions, washers, dryers and other
bulky appliances. Under the County Mandatory Recycling Ordinance, these are tazgeted
materials for recycling in the residential and commercial sector. The City of Chula Vista
will continue to sponsor annual citywide garage sales and quarterly community cleanups.
The city will also include information about options for the sale or donation of used items
as part of its public education program.
6.1.4 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS
The major options for this special waste category include the reuse and recycling of
concrete, asphalt, dirt, rock, sand, land clearing brush, and scrap metal. These materials
aze targeted for industrial recycling under the county mandatory recycling ordinance.
The major methods of asphalt recycling are cold or hot recycling. Concrete, sand, rock,
dirt and metal recovered from construction and demolition activities can be reused as
subgrade material. Land clearing brush can be mulched or composted. There will be
more economic incentives to take clean construction land demolition material to private
recyclers as landfill tipping fees increase.
6.2 PROGRAM SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION
The selection of a special waste program has been based upon the objectives defined in
Section 3.0 of this Executive Summary. The special waste program and schedule
planned for Chula Vista are summarized in Table ES-9.
xro9.os~rccrorrnvcxuuvsricxuuvsr.axr. ES-21
Table ES-S
CHULA VLSTA
COMPOSTING COMPONENT
MEDIUM-TERM II-4PLIIKENTATION SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY PROJECTED DATE
1. Evaluate Effectiveness of Residential, Industrial January 1995
and Commercial Composting Programs
2. Modify Programs as Needed to Improve June 1995
Effectiveness„ Including Public Information
Materials/Methods
3. Expand Programs to Include Other Organic 1995-1999
Wastes (e.g., food waste) and Other End Uses
(e.g., farm uses)
4. Continue to Expand End Use Markets for the 1995-1999
Compost
5. Require Loge Scale Planned Developments in the 1995-1999
City to Provide Internal Yazd Waste
Collection/Composting and Use Own Compost
6. Consider Participation in Sub-Regional and Ongoing
Regional Composting Programs
7. Continue Composting of Sewage Sludge Ongoing
uo9.os~-n.corrnvicenruvsricxuiwvsr.rr+c, ES-20
promotions and Events
• Promote a recycling day or recycling week.
• Sponsor recycling contests among schools, youth groups, civic groups or
neighborhoods.
• Recycling awards to individuals, neighborhoods, businesses and
community organizations.
• Encourage Christmas tree recycling or use of live trees.
• Hold specific material recycling drives and citywide garage sales.
• Obtain celebrity spokespersons.
• Continue to offer a reduced recycling service fee to senior citizens and
low income households.
• Continue to run block captain program.
Pub]icity and Reminders
• Advertisements in newspapers, on billboards and buses, in grocery stores
and community centers.
• Canvassing at stores and residences door-to-door.
• Press releases and interviews for articles in local newspapers and
magazines and local news television broadcasts.
• Posters, bumper stickers.
• Caps, buttons, t-shins.
• Point-of-purchase signage.
• Messages on shopping bags.
• Notices on utility bills.
• Telephone surveys.
uos.oss-rc-con•nvcxuu~vsricxu~wvsr.rxi. ES-23
• Radio and television public service announcements shared among
neighboring cities.
• Participation in local TV and radio talk shows.
7.3 PROGRAM II~IPLEMENTATION
Implementation of the public education information program should begin within the first
month of each recycling program phase or approach. It is recommended that the city
initiate each program with an extensive four month education campaign in which
newsletters and brochures are sent to explain the programs. It is also recommended that
the city hold several public discussions in which residents come to voice their opinions
about the programs. Tables ES-10 and ES-11 outline the proposed tasks and schedules
for short- and medium-term implementation of Chula Vista's education and public
information programs.
7.4 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Monitoring and evaluation of the public information program will be closely linked with
monitoring of other program components and will particularly focus on:
• Public awareness
• Participation rates
• Material capture rates
• Buyback center receipu and expenditures
nog.os~rc-corrnvcxuuvsrictnn.~vsr.rm. FS-24
,.
TABLE ES-9
CTfY OF CHULA VISTA
Special Waste Component
Implementation $dtedule
Activity Projected Date
Short-Term Tuk
1. Enforce County Mandatory Recycling
Ordinance (includes some special
wastes)
a. Single family residwtial March 1992
Industria]
b October 1992
.
c. Multi-family July 1993
residwtial /commercial
2. Continue private sector reporting Ongoing
requirements for special wares
3, Continue to sponsor annual citywide Ongoing
garage sales and quarterly commtmity
clean-ups
4. Investigate second use markets for used April 1992
tires, demolition wute, tubber and
grease trap pumpings u part of the
city's business outreach and ware
exchange program.
Continue to recycle asphalt from city
5
.
street demolition/maintenance Ongoing
6. Encourage the siting of additional January 1994
construction demolition recyclers in the
city.
Medium-Term Tuk
1. Evaluate special ware diversion January 1995
progress
2. Evaluate private sector reporting )aa11aT}' 1995
methods
3. Consider a cocomposting program ]anttary 1995
(yard waste and sewage sludge)
4. Evaluate business trutreach and wale Janttary 1995
exchange programs
nog.oss-rc-comtvcxutwvs'rtcxutavsr.t~rtt. ES-25
Table ES-10
City of Chula Visfa
EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION
SHORT-TERM Dr1Pi.EMENTATION SCHEDULE
Activity Projected Date
1. Mandatory Recvclin¢ Procram-Stxcific Activities
Promote Backyard Composting November 1991
Follow-up Public htformation and Workshops December 1991
Promote Yard Waste Collection Program November 1992
Follow-up Public Information and Workshops February 1993
Promote Commercial Recycling Ongoing
Promote Multi-Family Recycling May 1993
Follow-up Public Information and Workshops (Commercial and August 1993
Multi-Family)
Promote Industrial Recycling Ongoing
Follow-up Public Information and Workshops November 1992
2. General Public Education
Newsletters end Direct Mailing Ongoing
Public Service Announcements Ongoing
Promote School Cumculum Changes Ongoing
Community Speaking Engagements Ongoing
Develop Non-English Materials and Announcements March 1992
2. Promotions and Events
Continue Special Rates for Seniors and Low Income Households Ongoing
Recycling Evwts Yearly
Citywide Garage Sale August
Christmas Tree Recycling Program ]anuary
Competitions and Awards Yearly
3. General Publicitv and Reminders
Develop and Conduct Community Survey 1992, 1994
News Releases Ongoin8
Radio, TV, Newspaper and Magaane Interview and Ads Ongoing
7209.053-TCLOR/11/CHU3J,VSTlCHLJLAVS?.FNL ~-Zt)
t.
Table ESli
City of Chula Vista
IDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION COMPONENT
MEDIUM-TERM IMPi,EMENTATION SCHEDULE-
Activity Projected Date
1
2.
3
Public Education
Evaluate and update material for public distribution ~B°t°g
Medium-term program kickoff and existing program
effectiveness update August, 1995
Promotions and Events
Evaluate and update yearly promotion events Yearly
'target-group programs Ongomg
Publicity and Reminders
Recirculate communiq' surveys 1996, 1998
Radio and television public service amouncements and features
Ongoing
Evaluate staffing requirements May, 1995
zzo9.oss-TC-corrnztcxtnwvsucxutevsr.t~rn. ES-27
8.0 FACII.TTY CAPACITY
The City of Chula Vista currently disposes of most of its municipal solid waste at the
Otay Landfill, which can be divided into the Otay landfill and the Otay Annex Landfill.
The county of San Diego expects to submit a closure plan for these landfills during the
latter part of 1991, although the actual closures of these landfills aze not expected to
occur during the SRRE planning period. The cities realize the importance of minimizing
the quantity of solid waste deposited in the county's landfills in order to extend the life
of the facilities. Towards addressing the potential future usefulness of the existing
landfills, the county is proposing to expand the San Marcos Landfill and the Ramona
Landfill.
9.0 FUNDING COMPONENT
This section covers typical component facility costs and program funding alternatives
available to the city. The capital and annual operating costs associated with the various
SRRE components are estimated in Table ES-12.
Funds for future SRRE programs will come from any or a combination of the following
sources:
• Recycling surcharge at disposal facilities in the form of tipping fee
increases
• Establish residential recycling surchazge fees for collection
• Commercial/industrial recycling service fees
• Variable rate structure
• Business license fees
• County and state grants
• Market development and materials revenue
zxos.os~TC-corrnvcxmwvsncxmwvsr.rM. ES-28
s
Ea" ~ o $ Tag
~O en
N
~
~
r,
~
.~~~ M
~_
4~ ~ ~p C
O O O
O
Q
~ ,,,
g
~ '~
pOp :d
W
a o
Ns ~° g O '^ S
M~ .
w ~ C~7
~~O z
d o 4 P5
~,
a
>~z
O F
v' ~
g E 8
o '^
~ °
.
az
~r rz<
OU
~v o
~
c~ .
~.
F ~ S N d c"1 ^"'
. ~ ~ i9 L E
A 69 'C fit 69
Up;~
V a
, ~ O
p '
C
~ H
~
. F Q ~
Q a
0
•
9
y
^ Y
y
iY_il o v ~ F
W
Z, ;g
~ ~
O
D ~
d
QQ. l•
U p
F
p" Q y iA h,
~ o h G, C
.~
~' :: 0; U U a`i
v
~
= 3 ~ ~~ o
y
~ C~OU
C
9
a ~
~. ~ a
V
~G
E
T ~
N y
pp
C
e
a
~
9
T ~
2
L: $
0
G
L
u O
~
u ~
e
u
c OD
r
u
~
c
a
S ~
-
u
E a
K
~
~
'e
V
~
e
u
i
3
u ;
~
°
~ E
o
~
.~
3
E
u g
•
m
'~ _
s
~
~ ~
t
9
c
~ ~
e
~
~~
o
•
e
Y
~
O C V t s
K
Y
T
o
~ V
u
~
a
•
u
C
.=
~
'~
~
4
T
~
4
' y
q
g
y
u
<
q
u
c
e
~ ~ 6
~
,
N
v. i
•
~
u
~ ~
t
~
~ y
~
`
~ ~
~
$
~
€
~
'u
~.
Y
$ ~
o.
~
C
c
e '.ra
o
lJ'
' ~ t
F ~ ~ ~ r
,.
N
The City of Chula Vista is presently supporting all of its current programs related to
recycling through franchise fees which are passed on as user fees, county grants and
redevelopment funds. Similar mechanisms which utilize existing rate structures to the
extent possible will be implemented by the city to support programs for the short-term
through 1995. The city does not intend to build and operate its own recycling equipment
and facilities but expects the private sector to provide equipment and facilities through
a competitive bid or free market process.
Several regional issues, such as the county's plans for building transfer stations in the
South County and providing central regionally-based facilities, preclude a complete
analysis of all the funding alternatives available to the City. The participation of several
cities within a subregional area and the unincorporated county under a joint powers
agreement (IPA) is one of these regional issues that could be considered. The feasibility
analysis for any capital facilities will require an economic evaluation and assessment of
the funding mechanisms dependent upon the structure of the JPA.
10.0 INTEGRATION COMPONENT
The development and selection of alternatives for a source reduction and recycling
program were based on an evaluation of existing practices and conditions, and the
projected growth and needs of the city. Chula Vista's goal is to have an integrated solid
waste management system capable of meeting both state-mandated reduction goals and
the needs of its citizens in the most environmentally sound, efficient, and cost effective
manner.
This section presents the results of the evaluations conducted for the SRRE, summarizes
the technologies and programs selected, and presents the schedule for program
implementation. Targeted programs are shown in Table FS-13.
zms.osa-rccorrnvcxmwvsricxmwvsr.rrn. ES-30
..
<~
w~
~ U
< C
H
U
Z N N
O !
G
F ~ F
3 ~ '.
~
~ ~ , ~~ ~ ~
~i~ $
~ '
g
~8
:
8
8 e e
~ ~~y~ ~i~~~~r
.^~
~ ~ ? ~
~
A
~
~~
y
iE7
.d~ .
y rd
g~7g~
y
lrk~~ PE~P:8EEv9.~
~g~:~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
`
n
~
=
i Q~
s ~ 9 .~ ~ .fi
~, ~ ~ ~ ~
< Y ~ Y
g~
~
~~
~
~ .g ~ i ~s. ~~ ~
gg Y • {
~ ~ ~g
~
4
~
~
~
~
G
p ~,~a
~
~
$
f
3
8 ~
~.i
n
~
@
~
aa~
`
~
`
`
L
Y
F
c s
€,
~ ~^ a ~ Yq. ~ ~q' ~ ~p 4 o <
e .
a
5 y ~i
~j
C 2 ~ ~ ~p6 4 F' ~ ~ • .5
~
m S q iii BE" ~ EEE ~
6 'b~
~
1~ 95 ~ ggg ~ ~ 886 8gg b ~ ~ Y ~6' S
0 '# S
~~~ ~
~
~
p
U~~LS
~
$76 ~ ~ia
~<u~~~
~~ ~
~ i
.......... . . . . ... .......... ...
r
~~~.g ~!y
q ~
~ ~ i€
~~y~
~~
.
~~a~~~3~~~ ~s~
~~3~~
......... ...............
g
O
u $ .~
~$ ~ ~
~ ^'
F
a
,:
Z
s~E N K
3 ~ ~ K
e
~ ~i ~ ~i ~
~ ~ ~ ~~+
~ E ~ C
~~
~ ~~
~ ~~ ~ ~ff~ ~
a B~ i ~ r~~ ~
i ~~i.~ €~ €
a
~ ~~
, a. ~ i
~'~~
a
.1~ €~
~ 9~ ~9 ~ ~x ~~
i'~' ~ ~, ~.~
~~ of
~ ~
m iZ~ii W
vU ~ 8U ~U m~53
o mmv i~+;i o
S V
Y
y
~
~ ~ ~ ~ g ~~
g
~ .i
5e g
~ y 9
~ a~b
., i
~ ~ ~
~
i £
~
``<~Z ~ :.
y r c.s~.~
5 ~~
'-
- g~~_ .
~~ a
V 6 gg
u~ g ~a[[6(.
Y~ ~ ~6~
~~`
O
e
~ ~~ s{ ]~ i ~.
i u i ~Y
-
~
C ,
~
.~
~
¢
u ~ ~Q ~~ G ~ i ~
;
~
i
~ ~`
e
~ g .~
§
fi
y ~ ~a ~,~~ ~~
9 ~ 6 9
¢
gje.g~.3i.~
ds 3~~
9
~ g
~~ $~~u~~i~~cr~~~C~~ ~.~~
¢
~€d~ ~. g~~.~• ~~~
$$ y{ F s g
~~l~~
~~~~
• • • • • • • • • • ,
U9
o
W ~ ~ q
~ 995yp{ Y^t
~
~ ~
~
„ 3 < _
C V
O
. . . .. • .
~ ~ 3
g
O
~
~
ri 4
Z
F ~
~
~
~
~ ~
Y '~
a 7
~
~~~ ~~~•
!
~
g
F
$ ~
~
_
~e~
~~
~
~
~
~, .~
s
g
~
wvI kw t-c~ ~ 3
it
°~
t .:
fi
r
rp
~ > ~ bRg y[
~ *5
~ S ~
~
<
Sk2
~2~
~- C C
u
L ` Y .fi
3
~ ~ fifi V
5 E fi P ~ .~' ~ .n
~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
e
g
~-
~~ ~
~~ ~
F, ~~~: p,
igi~
y{~yy
y
o r E T6i !' G f~ '~ ~~ L
99
Y
h a `~'5 a'~ 9 ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~$ ~>
I,J u f.
~~€a~~~~~~~~~~
. ...... ......
~ ~
u ~.Y
e ~d ..
9