HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/16/1996, 4 - AWARD OF THE RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING SERVICES CONTRACT PURSUANT TO SPECIFICATIONS NO. 9666.METNG DATE:
IIIN1IIIII^�111111
c� o San Luis OBISPO Jan. MB :
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT �°" NUMBER:
FROM: John Moss, Utilities Director h
PREPARED BY: Ron Munds, Utilities Conservation Coordinator
SUBJECT: Award of the residential recycling services contract pursuant to Specifications No.
9666.
CAO RECONEM ENDATION
By motion,
1. Authorize staff to negotiate, and the CAO to execute, an agreement for residential curbside
recycling services with SLOCO Recycles, subject to the following terms:
a. Term not to exceed five years, with an option for two additional twelve month extensions
(total of seven years);
b. Total program cost not to exceed $46,695 for the first year and $51,022 for the second
year.
2. Authorize staff to negotiate, and the CAO to execute, an agreement for green waste collection
services with SLOCO Recycles, subject to the following terms:
a. Term not to exceed five years, with an option for two additional twelve month extensions
(total of seven years);
b. Total program cost not to exceed $217,608 for the first year and $219,412 for the second
year for residential green waste collection.
REPORT IN BRIEF
On July 25, 1995, Council directed staff to prepare a request for proposals and solicit competitive
proposals for residential recycling and greenwaste collection services. The RFP was released on October
5, 1995, and proposals were received on November 1, 1995. Proposals were received from SLOCO
Recycles, RALCCO Recycling and Waste Management of the Central Coast.
An independent proposal evaluation committee reviewed the proposals and is recommending SLOCO
Recycles as the City's residential recycling collection service. SLOCO Recycles is also being
recommended to provide residential greenwaste collection services for the City. These recommendations
are based on the proposals submitted, proposer interviews, and staff evaluation of the proposals for
consistency with the information requested in the Request for Proposals.
While all three proposals received were from reputable firms qualified to provide the requested services,
SLOCO Recycles proposal offered the broadest services at the lowest costs. Since the evaluation panel
found no compelling reason to change our recycling service provider, staff therefore recommends Council
approve negotiation and award of an agreement with SLOCO Recycles for provision of residential
recycling and greenwaste collection services consistent with the terms of the CAO Recommendation as
stated above.
y/
����►���i�illllllllll�NUi���IIU city of San IW S OBI Sp0
1.111 A COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Residential Recycling Services
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Background
Earlier this year, San Luis Garbage requested that the City renegotiate the long term solid waste hauling
franchise. Upon receiving the request, Council directed staff to analyze the advantages and disadvantages
of seeking competitive proposals for residential curbside recycling services currently part of the solid
waste hauling franchise. The Council also conveyed an interest in pursuing green waste collection to
meet the City's AB 939 mandates. Following a study session to consider the best strategy for procuring
these services, Council directed staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for these services. The
Council's expressed interests for issuing an RFP was to procure competitive pricing for both residential
recycling and green waste collection services; consider any innovative recycling services submitted; and
examine proposed future programs to assist the City in reaching its AB 939 Goals. Staff believes this
process has achieved all of theses objectives.
At their October 3, 1995 meeting, the Council approved the RFP for residential curbside recycling
services and/or green waste collection services, and authorized staff to solicit proposals. Staff issued the
RFP on October 5, 1995 with a submittal deadline of November 1, 1995. The City received proposals
from three companies:
■ Ralcco Recycling ( RALCCO)
■ San Luis Garbage/SLOCO Recycles ( SLOCO)
■ Waste Management of the Central Coast (WMCC)
Based on the evaluation and selection criteria, the evaluating committee recommends Council approve
contract negotiations with SLOCO for both the residential curbside recycling and green waste collection
services. In terms of cost for services, SLOCO was slightly less than Ralcco's for residential curbside
services, and in terms of innovation, SLOCO offered more programs and services within the same cost
structure. For green waste services, an exact pricing comparison between the two proposers was not
possible as RALCCO did not present the full financial information as requested. Waste Management's
(WMCC) proposal was more than three times higher in cost, and, therefore, not cost competitive with
the other two proposals.
Evaluation Process
An independent evaluation committee was formed to review, select and recommend for award the best
proposal for services. The committee consisted of Bill Statler, City Finance Director, Wendy George,
City Assistant to the City Administrative Officer, and Bill Worrell, Manager, San Luis Obispo County
Integrated Waste Management Authority. The committee met on three occasions to review and discuss
the proposals, prior to holding interviews.
Interviews were held on November 30, 1995 to allow the committee to ask questions to clarify
information presented in each proposal. Questions were provided to the proposers in advance of the
212
��► ►nni�►►�1111111�1i° �����1 city or san Dais osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Residential Recycling Services
Page 3
interview so the proposers could prepare and provide the requested information. Upon completion of the
interviews, the committee discussed the interviews and the content of each of the proposals. Following
this comprehensive review of the submitted documents and information provided at the interview, the
evaluation committee voted unanimously to recommend Council approve a contract with SLOCO for both
residential curbside recycling and green waste collection services. The basis of the recommendation is
detailed in the following sections of this report.
Selection Factors
All three proposers were reputable companies qualified to perform the services requested by the City.
The RFP requested information needed to evaluate and make a qualified selection for residential curbside
services such as cost for services, collection methodology, estimated collected tons, processing methods
and public education program. Additionally, it was Council's direction to request information that would
project future recycling program development and reflect innovation and/or cost savings to the City's
residential recycling customers. The following sections analyze the proposals based on the selection
criteria.
Cost
Though cost was only one of the selection factors, Council had previously stated that cost was a
significant reason for requesting competitive proposals. Therefore, although WMCC submitted a solid
technical proposal, the evaluation committee ranked WMCC's proposal third based on the significant cost
(approximately $6.00 per household, including green waste collection). The following table summarizes
the cost submittals provided by each proposal assuming a total of 15,550 residential units:
SERVICE TYPE
MONTHLY PER UNIT CHARGE (First Year)
SLOCO
RALCCO
WMCC
Residential Recycling
$0.251
$0.47 '
Cost not separated as
requested
($5.90 combined)
Green Waste Collection
$1.17'
Incomplete
Cost not separated as
(optional)
Proposal
requested
($24.55 per ton tipping
fee for disposal
submitted)
Note: ' Based on 15,550 residential units
SLOCO's and RALCCO's proposals contained different assumptions for curbside recycling services to
arrive at the per unit cost as requested in the RFP. To compare the two proposals, staff and the
evaluation committee used SLOCO's and RALCCO's recycling cost proposal worksheets. Utilities staff
Y3
�u��iy►��DIIIIIIII�P��ui�����U City Of San LW 3 OBI SPO
Nia; COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Residential Recycling Services
Page 4
and the evaluation committee then formulated the following analysis to ensure the proposals would be
compared on an "apples to apples" basis. In multi- family collection, the collection cost does not increase
based on the actual number of dwelling units at a location. The number of dwelling units does effect the
final per unit cost. Therefore, the table uses the same multi- family number assumption to arrive at a
comparative per unit cost. This is indicated in the adjusted column in the following table.
RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE RECYCLING COST COMPARISON
Description
SLOCO
RALCCO
SLOCO
RALCCO
ADJUSTED
ADJUSTED
Net Revenue
$392,028
$494,500
$392,028
$494,500
Requirements
Single Family Units
8,860
8,860
8,860
8,860
Multi - family Units
600
6,690
6,690
6,690
Total Residential
9,460
15,550
15,550
15,550
Units
Per Unit Charge
$3.45
$2.45
$2.10
$2.45
w/o Material Sales
Revenue
Per Unit Charge
$.41
$.47
$.25
$.47
with Material Sales
Revenue
Operating Ratio
92%
77%
92%
77%
Critical Cost Item 2
$337,028
$409,073
Per Unit Cost for
$1.81
$2.20
Critical Cost Item
Note: 2 The franchise fee, advertising and scholarships cost are deducted from the net revenue
requirement to determine critical costs. Critical costs are the operational expenditure requirements
to provide the recycling services.
RALCCO submitted one cost proposal using the methodology in the City's RFP and one alternative. The
alternative was based on an assumed avoided cost with a variable payment based on tons collected.
RALCCO's second proposal was innovative in concept but presented many difficulties when evaluating
the cost to the City's customers. When asked in the interview which cost proposal RALCCO wanted the
panel to evaluate as part of the process, RALCCO responded that they wanted only the avoided cost
proposal alternative to be considered.
7"7
o,�►��I�Illll��pa��l���ll city of San L"I s OBI Spo
Mi;% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Residential Recycling Services
Page 5
Because RALCCO.insisted on using the avoided cost proposal rather than the fixed per unit charge, the
evaluation committee had concerns on the proposal feasibility. The main concerns of the evaluation
committee regarding RALCCO's residential curbside recycling service cost proposal are as follows:
■ The proposal assumes revenue based on current and avoided costs without an accompanying
impact analysis to the garbage rates. The evaluation panel was concerned that the assumptions
made in the proposal were based on incomplete information, therefore invalid.
■ The proposed avoided cost system would require the City to collect the recycling fee (probably
in the form of an increased franchise fee, adjusted annually) from San Luis Garbage, then
distribute those funds to RALCCO; adding a layer of administration with no cost accounting
included in the total cost of the proposal. Additionally, the City would incur a cost having to
monitor and independently verify tons collected on an ongoing basis to determine the payment to
Ralcco.
■ The evaluation panel expressed concern regarding recycling and solid waste rate stability when
the cost of recycling was directly tied to tonnage collected. The more successful City sponsored
programs become, the more profit generated for RALCCO with no shared benefit to the City's
customers. The better our customers become at recycling, the more expensive it becomes for
them to recycle under RALCCO's proposal.
Other Proposed Progns Fe■trires
The following tables describe the similarities and differences in the two proposals in regards to service
levels and other proposed components. In addition to cost, Council directed staff to request information
in the RFP regarding future program development and any .innovation or cost savings measures which
would benefit the City's customers.
ITEM
SLOCO
RALCCO
Curbside Items Collected
All materials currently collected
All materials currently collected
(glass, aluminum, plastic, junk
(glass, aluminum, plastics, junk
mail, etc.)
mail, etc.)
Additional Curbside Items
Appliances & Tires
Motor Oil & Filters, Textiles
Collected
Green Waste Containers
Provided in Bid
Residents Provide
Collection Vehicles
Garbage Truck Frontloaders for
3/4 Ton Pickup with 5 Ton
recyclables; semi - automatic
Capacity Trailer
rearloaders for Green Waste
Collection Method
Semi- automated
Manual
S
111111111II 1011111 city of San tu, 6 OBI Spo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
*(
►��► I�IIIII�� �i� ►�►►�1�1U1`� City Of SAn Lai S OBI SPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Residential Recycling Services
Page 7
Green Waste Collection
The RFP requested separate program and cost information for residential curbside recycling services and
green waste collection. The reason for requesting seperate financial information was to be able to
identify actual program cost. It was not mandatory for a proposer to submit a proposal for the green
waste collection services to be considered for the recycling services. However, Section E of the RFP
instructions stated that all detailed worksheets must be completed to be considered for any service. The
following information summarizes the green waste proposals submitted by SLOCO and RALCCO.
SLOCO
Of the three proposals submitted, SLOCO presented the only complete proposal for green waste collection
services. SLOCO's proposal included the 90 gallon minimum standard required per the RFP and
furnished all the collection cost information required to be considered for the service. As noted
previously in the report, green waste collection provided by SLOCO will cost $1.17 per unit based on
15,550 units. The evaluation committee noted that the $15.00 per ton tipping fee to be charged at the
composting facility represents significant short term benefit to the City. SLOCO is proposing to use the
City as a pilot program before initiating a larger countywide green waste program.
SLOCO's proposal included 90 gallon containers for all customers. Alternate sizes would be available
upon customer request. Collection would be provided by semi - automated rear loading garbage trucks.
All materials would be accepted including scrap wood and would be transported to the compost facility
at the landfill. Initially, the compost would be used as a final cover material for closing a portion of the
landfill. This could result in some savings to the customers as no additional costs would need to be
incurred to import materials for this purpose.
RALCCO
RALCCO's green waste collection proposal reflects the projected $24.55 tipping fee to be charged at the
landfill's pending composting facility without separating out the cost for collection. When asked in the
interview what these cost would be, RALCCO indicated that curbside recycling would have to subsidize
green waste collection and was included in the cost proposal for recycling services. By including green
waste collection cost with recycling, it was impossible for the committee to determine the actual cost of
green waste collection and processing by RALCCO, and the potential for future rate impacts.
Additionally, RALCCO failed to submit the detailed cost worksheets for the green waste proposal, as
required in Section E. The committee was concerned that RALCCO's green waste collection cost did
not reflect the volume of projected material which would be collected annually, and it understates the
required staffing and equipment to provide the service. Additionally, the RFP requested that the proposal
include a cost for contractor- supplied 90 gallon waste wheeler. RALCCO did not include a cost for this.
Instead their proposal was for a customer provided green waste container.
*17
11111111IIIII11a��u ►����� city of san hies ompo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Residential Recycling Services
Page 8
After reviewing all of the information, the committee believed that RALCCO's green waste collection
cost is under- estimated and was not convinced that the proposal represented a viable long term program
at the proposed price.
Proposal Summary
As previously stated, the City received proposals from three reputable firms for providing residential
curbside recycling services.. The evaluation procedures established by the City were developed to ensure
objectivity in the selection process. The data provided in this report was generated by an independent
evaluation committee. Based on the committee's analysis of all the information provided by the
proposers, it was determined that SLOCO furnished the most complete proposal and would continue to
render the most efficient and cost effective recycling services for the City now and into the future.
Furthermore, the committee felt that there was no significant advantage (lower cost or innovative and
additional services) identified in the other proposals to warrant a change in recycling services provider.
The committee members felt that SLOCO proposal offered the future services needed to reach the City's
AB 939 goals in the most cost effective manner.
The information presented in RALCCO's proposal indicated that increases in recycling tonnages would
be accompanied by increases in RALCCO's material charges and revenues, based on the per ton cost
charge in their proposal. Though RALCCO's proposal offers to return $10 a ton to a job development
fund for high school students, there is no shared material sales revenue benefit to the City's customers.
This approach provides incentive for the curbside collection service to collect as much as possible as
RALCCO's revenue increases proportionately. This approach does not necessarily offer the incentive
to the customer to place materials on the curb for collection as RALCCO claims. The cost to recycle
increases as the program becomes more successful which would actually act as a disincentive to the
customer and the City.
In SLOCO's proposal, 6% of the gross revenue from material sales is set aside to fund a Utilities
Department newsletter and support a high school student internship program. The remaining revenue is
returned to the recycling rate base lowering the overall cost to the customer as the customers recycle
more. When the markets for the materials are strong, the City's customers benefit directly from those
markets, not the recycler. The argument could be made that there is no incentive for SLOCO to
aggressively collect and market more tons of recyclables. However, the. methodology proposed by
SLOCO does provide the incentive to the customer (the actual recyclers) and the City as revenues from
increased material sales directly offset costs. Additionally, the current Council adopted rate setting
process does provide incentive and rate comparisons to ensure competitive pricing. The methodology
provided in the rate setting manual monitors closely the performance and revenue projections in the rate
model which can significantly affect the return to the contractor.
Therefore, based on the information provided in the proposals regarding costs, programs, services and
innovations, the evaluation committee recommends, and staff concurs, that Council authorize staff to
negotiate contracts with SLOCO Recycles for residential recycling and green waste collection services.
M
����n►► ►����Illlip�p �l���l MY Of San L"I S OBI spO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Residential Recycling Services
Page 9
FISCAL HAPACT
If Council approves the selection of SLOCO for residential curbside and green waste collection services,
staff will work with the contractor to separate all recycling costs from the current integrated rate. It is
recommended that costs be segregated by program, each having its own revenue and expense worksheets.
As proposed, there would be four programs and related financial worksheets: solid waste collection,
residential recycling, commercial recycling and green waste collection. A 1996 rate combining all
programs will be presented to Council as soon as possible. (The 1996 rate setting process was suspended
pending the outcome of this process.)
Based upon our preliminary analysis, the cost information presented in SLOCO's proposal will not result
in any rate changes for current solid waste services. However, green waste collection, if desired, is not
currently a service paid for through city rates, and including it as a required service would increase costs
and therefore rates.
The cost of residential recycling services presented in the SLOCO proposal does not appear to be
different than what is currently charged for this service. This has been verified in conversations with
SLOCO. Our current rate model shows a net cost of about $200,000 for recycling when total revenues
are subtracted from total costs. This figure includes both residential and commercial recycling for City
and non -City customers. Non -city customers represent about 17% of the customer rate base and costs,
according to SLOCO. After accounting for non -city customers ($34,000 of the $200,000), the proposal
of $46,695 for the first year and $51,022 for the second year, residential recycling net costs represent
about 30% of the city recycling program costs. The ratio of 30% (residential recycling) to 70%
(commercial recycling) is consistent with the available survey information, though most communities use
an integrated rate that does not easily distinguish between residential and commercial recycling costs.
As stated previously, green waste collection will be a new service which would result in an increased
cost. Also, as green waste collection services are implemented, some solid waste customers may migrate
to lower volume service (i.e., 90 gallon waste wheeler to orange bag) thus lowering their overall cost.
Migration of customers from one service type to another affects revenue projections, so this factor will
be reviewed as part of the rate setting and recommendation process. .
ATTACEMENTS:
The City's Request for Residential Recycling and Green Waste Collection Services Proposal and the three
proposals received in response are available for Council and public review through the City Clerk's
office.
X1--9
SAN • LUIS • GARBAGE • CO.
DA
P.
EIVED
City of San Luis Obispo W� , 'yyb
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 1 -15 -96 Cm COUNCIL
Dear Bill,
$AN % OB1SPO, CA
Due to time constraints, I will be unable to meet with you regarding
the Residential Recycling program due in front of council on 1- 16 -96.
I ranted to discuss three things.
I have included a copy of the Compost Facility permit application
to the County of SLO. It makes for pretty boring reading. You don't
need to review it unless you're a glutton for punishment. I just wanted
to let you know that its not just "a pie in the sky idea ", it will be
operational soon.
I have reviewed the City's general plan and put together some of
the highlights that are supportive of staff's recommendation. Obviously
I believe that selecting San Luis Garbage Co., Inc. is the correct
decision. Its the correct decision because the SLG plan echoes stated
Council policy on trip reduction, jobs - housing balance, and local
business retention. San Luis Garbage is also the only plan that
guarantees that all surpluses go directly to the benefit of rate payers,
a policy we have followed for 40 years.
Lastly, I have included some numbers regarding the recycling
subsidy in the existing rates. All of the cities in our area
subsidize recycling because not all items recycled are profitable.
I believe that those opposed to San Luis Garbage will try to turn
the meeting into a referendum on the subsidy instead of residential
curbside recycling proposals. The subsidy is a non issue with SLG.
Several years ago city council asked us to expand commercial
recycling efforts with the understanding that it would need to be
subsidized. If you wish to reverse that policy, lets lower the rates
on Jan 16, 1996, but it really has nothing to do with the proposals
on residential curbside recycling.
Don't hesitate to call if you have any questions. I will be in
my office all Tues. afternoon and after 5 until the council
meeting begins. (543 -2910)
Sincerely,
Tom Martin, Controller
San Luis Garbage
W FOUNCIL
❑ CDD DIR
CAO
❑ FIN DIR
PL CAO
❑ FIRE CHIEF
TTORNEY
O PW DIR
❑ CLERKIORIG
❑ POLICE CHI
❑ MGMTTEAM
R C DIR
O C R QFILE
-❑
W,L DIR
❑ PERS DIR
970 Monterey Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Telephone: 805-543-0875
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTED POLICIES TO SUPPORT
THE RECYCLING PROPOSAL BY SAN LUIS GARBAGE
Policy adoption prior to program implemention has been the foundation for decision
making by the City of San Luis Obispo for many years. Recycling is an excellent example where
policies have already been established to support the recycling proposal by San Luis Garbage.
The following is a list of currently adopted policy documents.
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE ELEMENT - Adopted in August 1994
Page 7 (9) Provide employment opportunities for area residents' desires and skills;
(11) Retain existing businesses and agencies, and accommodate expansion of existing
businesses, consistent with other goals.
Page 14 (1.7.3 Commercial Uses) Commercial development shall not occur, unless it is clearly_
incidental to and supportive of agriculture or other open -space uses.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT - Adopted November 29, 1994
Page 8 (19) Support the use of alternative pavement materials for public streets, roads and other
transportation corridors.
Page 1'l (1.1) The City should support county -wide and community programs in order to
substantially reduce the number of vehicle trips and parking demand.
HOUSING ELEMENT Adopted September 1994
Page 24 (1.30. 1) The City will discourage activities which aggravate the imbalance between
residential and employment opportunities among the communities in the housing market area.
SOURCE REDUCTION ANTS RECYCLING ELEMENT
Reference document. Meets all Major Goals.
1995 -1997 FINANCIAL PLAN
MAJOR CITY GOALS
Page 13 -20 Solid Waste Reduction
Page B -31 Implement existing Economic Development Program
Page B -33 Expanded Economic Development Program
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Page D- 47&.48 Solid waste and recycling program development, implementation and monitoring
Page D-58 Secure local, long term biosolids agricultural reuse site and necessary permits.
A VISION FOR ECONOMIC STABILITY -October 1, 1993
Page 16 Develop and implement an ongoing businesses retention program to support existing
local businesses;
SAN • LUIS • GARBAGE • CO.
SUBSIDY
$46t695
$519022
SLG BID 9971717
NOR -CITY 28.15%
CITY COMMERCIAL SUBSIDY
TOTAL SLG REVENUE
$196p490
(848,859)
($55p 312 )
*92v319
94, 808, 624
COMMERCIAL SUBSIDY RATES RECYCLER
------------------------------- ----- - - - - -- -----
CITY OF SLO SUBSIDY 1.92X SLOW
ARROYO GRANDE SUBSIDY 4.60% RALCCO
MORRO BAY SUBSIDY 15.00% RALCCO
LOS OSOS SUBSIDY 10.00% SLOCO
GROVER BEACH SUBSIDY 8.60% SLOCO
970 Monterey Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Telephone: 805-543-0875
PROPOSED GREEN MATERIAL
COMPOST FACILITY
Prepared as an attachment to the
SLO County Planning & Building Department
Development Plan Application
by,
OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC.
Regulatory Liaison For
COLD CANYON LAND FELL, INC.
December 6, 1995
H
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE
A. PROJECT BACKGROUND ...... ............................... 1
B. PURPOSE, NEED AND OBJECTIVE ................. ..............................3
I. Compost Program Goals ............................. ..............................3
2. Compost Program Objectives ....................... ..............................4
C. PROJECT LOCATION ................................... ..............................4
D. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......... ............................... . ...................6
1- Compost Process ...................................... ..............................7
2. Grading and Drainage ................................. ..............................7
3. Control of Incoming Waste ........................... ..............................9
4. Facility Capacity ...........................----..... ............................... 10
5. Facility Equipment and Personnel ............... ............................... 10
6. Monitoring ............................. .............................:. ........13
7. Markets and Local End Use ...................... ............................... 14
E. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS REQUIRED ......... .............................15
1. California Integrated Waste Management Board .............................. 15
2. State Water Resources/Regional Water Quality Control Board .............. 16
II. ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ..................... ............................... 17
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...................... ............................... 17
I. Visual Analysis ....................................... .............................18
2. Grading and Drainage ............................. ............................... 20
3. Archaeological ................ ............................... .....23
4. Noise ................................................ ............................... 23
5. Traffic ................................................. ............................. .27
I OASIS ASSOCIATES. INC. 87195-0110/compost
Cold Canyon Land Fill. Inc.
0
December 1995
Green Wrs-.e Compose Facility
H
FIGURES
Figure
1
Color Aerial Photograph ................... ............ ..................2
Figure2
Vicinity Map .................................. ..............................5
Figure
3
Grading and Drainage Plan ................. ..............................8
Figure
4
Source Recycling and Reduction Element ...........................
Composted Organic Matter Projections
11
Figure
5
Site Plan/Windrow Layout ................. .............................12
Figure
6
Pre - Application Checkl ist ................................................
19
Figure
7
Exisiting Topography .................... ...............................
21
Figure
8
Visual Analysis ............................... ............................22
Figure
9
Noise Monitoring Stations .............. ............................
25
Figure 10
Summary of Noise Measurements ...... ................. :.............
26
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Archaeological Report .................... ............................... 30
I OASES ASSCCttATCS. 4 \C. 87/95- 0110 /compost
Cold Canyon Land Fill, Inc.
ii
Dcccmber 1995
Green Waste Compost Facility
!,
ATTACHMENT
to the
DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION
for a
GREEN WASTE COMPOST FACILITY
COLD CANYON LAND FILL, INC.
APPLICANT
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. PROJECT BACKGROUND
OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC.
APPLICANTS AGENT
The proposed project consists of initiating a green material (as defined in 14 CCR
Division 7, Chapter 3.1 Section 17853 *) compost operation on a portion of
property directly adjacent to the Cold Canyon Landfill located in southwestern San
Luis Obispo County. (See Figure 1) The subject parcel was recently acquired to
provide for the potential to expand Cold Canyon Landfill and to provide an
appropriate location for stockpiling feedstock and conducting a green material
compost operation. The subject property was formerly known as the Weir Ranch.
* "Green Material' means any plant material that is either separated at the point of
generation, or separated at a centralized facility that employs methods to minimize
contamination. Green material includes, but is not limited to, yard trimmings, plant
wastes from the food processing industry, manure, untreated wood wastes, paper
products, and natural fiber products. Green material does not include treated wood
waste, mixed demolition or mixed construction debris.
"Green Material Composting Operation" or "Facility" is an operation or facility that
processes only green material and additives and amendments into compost.
Since December 1989, Cold Canyon Landfill has operated a wastewood/biomass
processing facility onsite. The process includes separating, stockpiling, and
arranging for periodic chipping of wastewood and biomass, which includes, but is
not limited to, wood and bark from trees and woodwastes from residential,
business, and industrial facilities. The processed material was hauled to the
Soledad Biomass Facility until September 1994, when the Soledad facility ceased
operation.
OASIS ASSOCIATES. INC. 87/95- 0110 /compost
Cold Canyon Land Fill. Inc.
1
December 1995
Green Waste Compost Facility
s
(r i r �� •. � �I -
r
�f �. � i r � J�I�� I � lI IIII� { �yl1 Y ` •i
i I 1 t j`T_•
F
d � � _fit `.�l,Jl� .r
it A V,
V
I I
l
f /!
Cold Canyon Land Fill, Inc. proposes to continue the processing of
Iwastewood/biomass, while adding a green material component to the current
operation. The proposed green material composting facility would be operated for
the purpose of producing compost from the green fraction of the waste stream.
' B. PURPOSE, NEED AND OBJECTIVE
The proposed project would help meet the source reduction and recycling goals and
' objectives that have been established by the County of San Luis Obispo and its
seven cities. The California Integrated Waste Management Act, Assembly Bill
(AB) 939 and subsequent legislation fundamentally restructured the state's
approach to solid waste management. AB 939 established an integrated waste
management hierarchy in the following order of importance:
• Source reduction
' • Recycling and composting
• Environmentally safe transformation and land disposal of solid wastes
' This hierarchy establishes integrated waste management priorities that are intended
to ultimately lead to smaller quantities of solid waste disposed in landfills. This
hierarchy guided the preparation of Source Reduction and Recycling Elements
(SRREs) by the county's unincorporated areas and the seven cities including
' Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo
Beach, and San Luis Obispo.
AB 939 requires that each county and city prepare an SRRE which demonstrates
how they will meet solid waste diversion goals of 25 percent by the year 1995 and
50 percent by the year 2000. One of the eight components identified to meet the
diversion goals and objectives is composting.
1. Compost Program Goals
IIn the short -term, the unincorporated areas' and cities waste stream was to be
Ireduced through the composting of 23,696 tons per year of organic material. This
' OASB ASSCCILATES. INC. 87/95- 0110 /compost December 1995
Cold Canyon Land Fill. Inc. Green Waste Compost Facility
3
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
figure represents only the areas within the Cold Canyon Landfill wasteshed. In the
long -term, the unincorporated areas' and cities waste stream (again, only within the
Cold Canyon Landfill wasteshed) is projected to be reduced through the
composting of 61,502 tons per year of organic material.
2. Compost Program Objectives
The compost program objectives, to be accomplished by each jurisdiction, include
the following:
• conduct a yard debris collection and composting system cost
comparison study by June 1995.
• participate in the design, siting, permitting and implementation of a pilot
program by September 1995.
• determine the site location and design criteria for the proposed facility by
January 1996.
• begin operation of a permanent facility by 1996.
Based upon these considerations, the proposed green material composting facility is
a key step toward compliance with AB 939 and the source reduction and recycling
goals of the community.
C. PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed green material composting facility will be located on a 5 -acre portion
of an 88- acre parcel adjacent to the existing Cold Canyon Landfill. Cold Canyon
Landfill is a Class III sanitary landfill located along the eastern side of State Route
227, approximately 8 miles southeast of downtown San Luis Obispo and 6 miles
north - northeast of Arroyo Grande. (See Figure 2) The 88 -acre parcel, located along
the southeast property line of the landfill site, is contained within Section 33 of
Township 31 South (TS31S), Range 13 East (R13E) of the Mount Diablo base and
meridian. The 88 -acre site is listed as Assessors Parcel Number (APN) 044 -261-
018 in Assessor's Book 44, page 26 and is also described as Lot "A" of the
Patchett Tract Partition surveyed by A.F. Parsons, February, 1905 and filed
CASES ASSCCRATES. INC- 87/95- 0110 /compost
Cold Canyon Land Fill. Inc.
4
December 1995
Green Waste Compost Facility
Monterey County Kings County
A, I
Paso Robles
Kern County
Atascadero STATE ROUTE 227
Morro Bay::
Alie San Luis Obispo
Pismo
PROJECr LOCATION
Santa Maria
Sierra
Madre
01
Mountains
S a n t a B a r b a r a
LoMDOC Suelltop. County
Point scivang 154
ArLyuello
101 SANTA BARBARA
Point Conception r
IT,
Santa Barbara Channel
A
%OASIS IS4
SOCIATES BIC, VICINITY MAP
ludec••
COMPOSTING FACILITY 2
Ij
COLD CANYON LANDFILL
February 24, 1905 in Licensed Survey Book 1 at page 84, County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California.
Access to the proposed green material composting facility is obtained via State
Route 227 either through the newly improved landfill entrance or approximately
1,500 feet from the southerly landfill property line along an existing dirt road.
Existing land uses in the immediate area include adjacent agricultural and rural
residential development. Industrial land uses are located approximately 2 miles
southwest of the subject parcel at the oil and gas operation at the CalResources
Arroyo Grande Field in Price Canyon. A winery is located to the north east.
D. PROTECT DESCRIPTION
A 5 -acre portion of the 88 -acre former Weir Ranch property is proposed for the
green material compost facility. Green waste and wood waste would be delivered to
the site via the Cold Canyon Landfill entry. Incoming material will be weighed and
characterized as to the type of material and then directed to the designated areas for
inspection and unloading. Incoming wood and yard waste will initially be stored
and then sized in a portable tub grinder, currently operated at the landfill. Further
processing will include screening of the material generated by the tub grinder. The
finer material sorted by the screening operation shall be used as a bulking agent and
feedstock for the composting operation.
Materials will be blended, moisture conditioned and placed in elongated piles or
windrows. The windrows will be aerated and /or mechanically turned on a periodic
basis. This active compost will be in a rapid state of decomposition and will be
generating temperature in excess of 130° Farenheit during decomposition.
OASIS ASSCCIATfS, INC. 87/95- 0110 /compost
Cold Canyon Land FII, Inc.
6
December 1995
Green Waste Compost Facility
1. Compost Process
The thermophilic (heat - loving bacteria), aerated windrow method of composting
will be used based upon the following:
• it is a low - technology method that is efficient and yields a high quality
product;
• the high temperatures that are achieved using this method insures
pathogen destruction and seed kill;
• the high temperatures and aeration insures both odor and vector control;
• the thermophilic environment, once established, is easily maintained by
monitoring the temperature, moisture content and oxygen percentage in
the windrows.
Processing time in a given windrow will vary from 14 days to twelve weeks. The
decomposition process depends on the composition of the windrow, type of
bulking agent, moisture content and macro /micro - climatic conditions.
2. Grading and Drainage
Figure 3 depicts the existing topography and the proposed grading and construction
details for the proposed green waste compost facility operations area. The
operations staging area includes the following areas within the boundary of the
composting operation or facility:
• equipment cleaning, maintenance, and storage areas;
• feedstock, active, and stabilizing compost processing or stockpiling
areas; and
• process water and stormwater drainage control systems.
The existing slope (6 01o±) would be graded to a 4% gradient with a maximum 2%
cross slope. The proposed grading would allow for access to the site, the placement
of windrows to accommodate equipment movement(s) and provide for positive
drainage of the overall site and the individual windrows. Brow ditches, rock and
OASIS ASSOCIATCS. INC- 87/95- 0110 /campus[ December 1995
Cold Canyon land Fill, Inc. Green Waste Compost Facility
7
-it
1� rA
1 r 1
i
i
i
�J
rrr�ira w ./
rao aav/asr J
ns
1 '
7 : 1
1 r
i
i
i 1
� av
� a errrr.�rrrr wrrrri rrwr
s iryr.rrrrr.rrrrrrr.✓.rrrrr rrrrr
a�.�rr��.r rr.rr / rY ar. ry �r.r r.r. r r r r r rry •
1 b_rrr�r•eMry 4.rrr rtyr..rrra
I � t rrrr.rrrr tar
r—rara rey/y.rr ra...
rrr rrr rarrrrrr�r.• rr.ra ti•.�.rair+.�r.r
1 e~ rri air�•rr ~4.•ra�..1r/r�rrrrs_r. r.r
1 a rrrrra ryrr tort er��iisr.a.r.rrrrrr
�irr rr.rrrr rr..rrr_rrrr..r•
1 a rrr.r r.�rrerrr rrr....�r.rrrrerrrra
a rrrirrrr .rr.a..�r�rr riylilr4rr
/. rerr. rrr rr.rr.r.rr�rr..r_�rrw
1 rr rw��awrrror�rrrr.wrrar✓
a arrr �r+.r rwr. rrtr ^rr�rl.,�aw.ur
•� . �'Crrrf�� rrrr r � a.r r r 1rr• r
a rwr�r rrr r.rr rr rte. rr�r�ir'. r.
a ra..rr..rrr rr�a..�irrrr+a r. aar_wa_r.
�a �. �� .r.•r craw +_. rr.r. _rr.
.4 a• r• .•rr ar
% arrrrrrr rr.rr/rray.rr rrrrrr._
rrrr
urr�I�+a�.�rr °:ate �Ia rQry Or_rr
/ uaaryrrrtrrr.r.rr rrr�•tir ry ri•
rrrrr r....rrr..a.r�r_rr r.
r err rra r a rrr rr rrrr r r.� r� r..rr'r ana
Iw ram
n.i�rrrrrr. rr rr rr rrr rrrrr.ra
� rrrrrra _.. rr +•rr r�r rr
� rey.rrs•r._rr �rrr•re. rri.re.rrrr rr
�% �.�i iia rrrrrri.rr rr.a..r.rrrr
rYrrr r.��_re..�ar�rr++•ar.
� Garr rr rr.rrr�. ar.r rry.rr ar_rrry .rr
rrr+rwrr.rr
aar rr rrarnrrr rrarr r•rrrrr�rrrrrr
� wrr� rr. �a.rr iaarrrr+
�� n..ry.rr.�rrr rrr_rr �. rr tar
/�! �rer�rrr�r i�rrrr^..��•I. tart A.ara it
�% s ar�•wrlrr/r.Nw � .r���I�r1�� �
� ?raar rrrr rr rrrrZr. •a
aerrr
. n.rrr ra_sr root sarr.✓i_.r.rrr
� re ��`r a�ra.rr�:a awr.•r�r .r�.r .r
I�
�I
LwfAPLPEQ r
waaarA a7
M N N
GNMA O RYI /OR
COW QJWMN LAN
AI aI � I OONt08T FACIU
FIGS
ateaw
MEra?
�
Araf a
®
AW
r
I�
�I
LwfAPLPEQ r
waaarA a7
M N N
GNMA O RYI /OR
COW QJWMN LAN
AI aI � I OONt08T FACIU
FIGS
cz I
.2z
Qc
It
I
grass -lined drainage channels would carry surface runoff from the site to the
Iexisting pond/sediment basin located approximately 100 feet to the east.
' The proposed grading would result in a relatively level all- weather staging area that
would accommodate storage of feedstock and wood waste, intermittent chipping
' operations and the active composting windrows. Excavated soil would be
stockpiled and used for intermediate and final cover needs on the adjacent landfill
site. Cut and fill slopes created by the excavation for the green material compost
tfacility would be treated to prevent erosion.
3. Control of Incoming Wastes
The policies and practices currently in place for the existing landfill would also
apply to the proposed green material composting operation. The landfill site is open
to both public and private disposal from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., seven days per
week, 360 days per year. All vehicles to the site would be weighed, with any
vehicle suspected of carrying material not permitted for disposal at the site
prevented from entering. Vehicles would then be routed to the appropriate disposal
area, active landfill area or in this case, to the proposed composting area. All loads
would be inspected during unloading. The objective of the load checking would be
to actively detect and discourage attempts to dispose of prohibited wastes and
wastes not acceptable for the compost operation. Unacceptable wastes include
minor contaminants such as metal, rocks, plastic or miscellaneous trash. Non -
compostable materials would be separated, loaded into a roll -off container and
properly disposed of at the landfill's active area.
Acceptable waste material would include, but not necessarily be limited to tree
trimmings, wood residues, construction wood waste, grass, leaves, shrub
clippings and agricultural wastes (i.e., orchard and vineyard prunings and manure).
These materials, when processed and screened, whether singly or in combination,
will serve as compost feedstock or bulking materials. Biosolids (wastewater
treatment facility sludge) would not be accepted.
I OASIS ASSCC4ITES, a.%C. 87/95- 0110 /compost
Cold Canyon Land Fill. Inc.
t
December 1995
Grecn Waste Compost Facility
4. Facility Capacity
The maximum volume of feedstock and /or compost material allowed on site at any
one time, under the California Integrated Waste Management Board's regulatory tier
requirements for a Registration Permit (14 CCR Section 17857), is 10,000 cubic
yards or approximately 4,000 tons (based upon compost weight @ 800 # /cu.yd.).
The proposed green material facility would be designed to accommodate expansion
to approximately 20,000 ± cubic yards based upon approval from the California
Integrated Waste Management Board through the Lead Enforcement Agency, in this
case, the SLO County Environmental Health Department.
The Source Reduction and Recycling Element's projections for composted organic
matter for the cities and unincorporated areas within the Cold Canyon Landfill
wasteshed is depicted on Figure 4. These figures represent selected programs that
include residential and commercial curbside pick -up of yard debris. As of this
writing, these programs have not been fully implemented.
The available area at the proposed green waste compost facility would accommodate
the projected 1995 tonnage goals for composted organic matter as detailed in the
SRREs. Although, average daily throughput cannot be accurately determined until
the aforementioned programs are fully implemented. It is anticipated that the volume
of raw product will increase steadily over the next few years.
The available area, when fully utilized, would accommodate approximately 16
windrows, 12 to 14 feet wide, 6 feet high and vary in length to a maximum of 480
feet. (See Figure 5) Based upon these dimensions, the available area would
contain approximately 20,000± cu. yds. of material at full production.
5. Facility Equipment and Personnel
Based upon the nature of the compost operation and the allowable volume of
feedstock and/or compost on -site at any one time, all equipment to be operated at
I CASTS ASSCCUMS. IBC. 87/95- 0110 1compost
Cold Canyon Land Fill, Inc.
10
December 1995
Green Waste Compost Facility
COMPOSTED ORGANIC MATTER
(SOURCE REDUCTION/RECYLING ELEMENT GOALS)
... .. .....
CITY
%WASTE
%!WASTE ��i:��;
. ...... .. . ...
. .
.1w . . :
.0
REDUCTION:
............
'' .. .,REDUCTION...'�.
:X1 .....
..................... ..... . .....
N AG&:
. a
*manure
• miscellaneous organics
SLO
7
7,357
20.9
25,533
ARROYO GRANDE
7.6
1,922
20
5,514
GROVER BEACH
7.5
1,463
20.5
4,304
PISMO BEACH
8.5
1,692
20.3
4,601
MORRO BAY
6.5
1,419
16.4
3,611
UNINCORP.
13.6
9,843
23
.17,939
TOTALS
F
23,696
61,502
** includes source - separated organics.
Source-separated organics includes:
• yard debris
• wood debris
• food debris
• mixed paper
• contaminated paper
• manure
• miscellaneous organics
• other organics
COMPOSTED ORGANIC MATTER
COMPOSTING FACILITY
COLD CANYON LANDFILL
FIGURE
4
includes yard debris only.
Yard debris includes:
• yard debris
• wood debris
*manure
• miscellaneous organics
• other organics
OASIS ASSOCIATES. INC.
landeceps architecture
end plansung
** includes source - separated organics.
Source-separated organics includes:
• yard debris
• wood debris
• food debris
• mixed paper
• contaminated paper
• manure
• miscellaneous organics
• other organics
COMPOSTED ORGANIC MATTER
COMPOSTING FACILITY
COLD CANYON LANDFILL
FIGURE
4
the facility is portable. The following is a list of the typical equipment requirements
for the facility.
• Tub Grinder
• Compost Turner
• Trommel Screen
• Loader
• Dump Truck
• Water Truck
• Long Stem Thermometers
The green material compost facility, at full operation, would be staffed by a
working foreman, a spotter, an equipment operator(s), in addition to the existing
landfill personnel (site manager, scale house staff, etc.). The spotter would be
responsible for checking loads for contamination and directing traffic to the
appropriate area to unload. The spotter would also be responsible for windrow
monitoring. The equipment operator would operate the processing equipment,
while the working foremen would direct the overall site operations and site
personnel. The site foreman would also be responsible for the operation of auxiliary
equipment (i.e., compost turners, loaders and screening equipment) as needed.
6. Monitoring
A temperature and moisture monitoring program would be implemented and play a
key role in odor and vector control. Monitoring the temperature and moisture
determines when the individual windrows require turning or irrigating. Creating
and maintaining an aerobic thermophilic environment is essential where microbial
respiration creates high temperatures (110 -150° F) in the presence of oxygen.
Conditions are maintained so that micro-organisms that thrive at those temperatures
are specifically selected.
Internal temperatures would be monitored by taking readings at various depths
along the formed windrows with a long stem thermometer. The readings would
begin three days after the formation of a new windrow. Initially, readings would
CASE ASSCCLITES. INC. 87/95- 0110 /compost December 1995
Cold Canyon Land Fill. Inc. Great Waste Compost Facility
13
i
be made daily and taken at several points along the windrow at various depths.
Once the average temperature reaches 131 • Farenheit, the windrows maintain those
temperatures throughout the composting period. From that point, weekly
Itemperature readings would be taken. Records would be maintained that would
document time /temperature readings.
Physical inspection of the windrows would be made simultaneously with
temperature monitoring to determine moisture content and locate the point source of
Iany internal odors. Irrigation of the windrows would be initiated to maintain a 50 -
60% moisture content. This process requires approximately 2 gallons of water per
' cubic yard of finished material. Water, available from three onsite wells and storage
pond, would be delivered to the compost piles by use of a water truck and high
Ipressure injection nozzles. The use of high pressure nozzles minimize runoff. The
windrows would be turned and aerated at a frequency dictated by temperature and
vector generation time.
Prior to shipment off -site, the compost would be stockpiled for curing and
. finishing. At this stage, the compost is stable and little further decomposition
occurs. Curing and finishing is predominately a drying step, but may require
additional screening to generate a uniform product.
1 7. Markets and Local End Use
' The useability and /or marketability of green material compost is an integral part of
the proposed green material compost facility program. The possible end uses are
numerous and varied:
• agricultural soil amendment for tree crops, row crops and vineyards;
• ornamental landscaping soil amendment for the enhancement of
Isubstandard topsoil, backfill for trees and shrubs;
• greenhouse potting medium;
• land reclamation amendment.
I OASIS ASSOCIATES. INC. 87/95-0110 /compost December 1995
Cold Canyon Land Fill, Inc. Green Waste Compost Facility
14
I
Consideration of the buyer's specifications, product availability, product
consistency, buyer education, availability and cost of substitute products and
institutional and /or regulatory directives specifying the use of compost, will
influence the marketability of the compost product.
A major goal of the proposed green material compost program is the market
development of the following local end users:
• farms (tree, row crops, vineyards)
• landscape industry
• greenhouse growers
• homeowners
• golf course and cemetery
• sod fames
• municipal users to include parks and recreation departments,
transportation departments
• soil and amendment manufacturers
Once a reliable local market is established, the potential for regional markets would
be explored. These long -term, stable contracts may be possible with groups such
as CalTrans, Department of Forestry, SLO County Parks and Recreation
Department, agricultural cooperatives or organizations, fertilizer companies or
brokers who market statewide.
E. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS REQUIRED
1. California Integrated Waste Management Board
The California Integrated Waste Management Board has adopted regulations
pursuant to and for the purpose of implementing the California Integrated Solid
Waste Management Act of 1989 (Act). California Code of Regulations Title 14
Chapter 3.1 Composting Facilities Permitting Procedures and Enforcement § 17851
- 17853 implements the provisions of the Act relating to the recycling and
' OASIS ASSOCIATES. INC. 87/95- 0110 /compost
Cold Canyon Land Fill, Inc.
15
December 1995
Green Waste Compost Facility
composting of solid waste generated in the state, and sets forth minimum standards
Ifor composting operations.
' 14 CCR §18100 sets forth the method of application for a tiered solid waste
facilities permit, procedures for review and action on an application package, and
other requirements associated with regulatory tiers. There are five regulatory tiers
based upon quantities of feedstock and active compost: 1) Exempt, 2) Notification
(up to 1,000 cubic yards) 3) Registration (1,000 to 10,000 cubic yards), 4)
Standardized Permit (10,000 +), and 5) Full Solid Waste Facilities Permit (mixed
feedstock).
14 CCR §18104 - 18104.9 sets forth the specific provisions and establishes the
requirements relating to the Registration Permit. These include filing requirements,
enforcement agency processing requirements, record keeping requirements,
completeness appeal, change in operation, change in owner, permit review and
reissuance, suspend /revoke, and voiding of a Registration Permit. The Registration
Permit Application will be submitted to the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA, SLO
` County Department of Environmental Health). The LEA has review and permit
issuance authority.
2. State Water Resources Control Board/Regional Water Quality Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)has issued a proposal to waive
I Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) for compost operations posing minimal
threat to water quality. California's nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards
may regulate discharges of waste to land at composting operations by issuing
WDRs pursuant to Title 23 California Code of Regulations Sections 2510 - 2601
( "Chapter 15 "). If managed properly, discharges of green waste, food processing
Iwaste, agricultural waste, or paper waste do not pose a significant threat to water
quality. To simplify and streamline the regulatory process, and to provide a
Iconsistent framework, the SWRCB Chapter 15 Program staff coordinated with
RWQCB staff to develop a Tentative Order to waive WDRs conditionally for these
types of wastes. A negative declaration was prepared for the Tentative Order.
OASIS ASSOCIATES. I%C. 87/95 -0110 /compost December 1995
Cold Canyon Land Fill, Inc. Green Waste Compost Facility
16
The Tentative Order imposes performance -based conditions for protection of
surface and ground water, allowing maximum flexibility to discharges. The
Tentative Order also incorporates, by reference, the provisions necessary to regulate
storm water discharges from composting operations under the federal National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Stormwater Program. Cold
Canyon Land Fill, Inc. will submit a Report of Waste Discharge to the RWQCB
and either a Notice of Intent to discharge stormwater in compliance with the terms
and conditions of the general NPDES permit for stormwater discharges from
industrial facilities (SWRCB Water Quality Order No. 91- 13 -DWQ) or
documentation establishing exemption from the requirement for coverage under the
stormwater permit, together with all applicable filing fees. Once submitted, the
RWQCB staff will administer issuance of the conditional waiver.
The County of San Luis Obispo will require that a Development Plan Permit and a
Grading/Drainage Permit be obtained. No other discretionary permits are required.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Final Environmental Impact Report, Cold Canyon Landfill Expansion (ERCE,
Volumes 1 - 3, October 1991) included a thorough analysis of site specific and
regional environmental aspects. These included discussions regarding
geology /soils, water resources, air quality, traffic and circulation, biology, litter and
disease vectors, visual resources, low level nuclear waste, land use and policy
!- consistency, hazardousfinfectious materials, cancer risk, noise.
A multi- agency pre- application meeting, which included staff from SLO County
Planning & Building Department, Environmental Division, Environmental Health
Department, Air Pollution Control District, Regional Water Quality Control Board,
was conducted on October 13, 1995. Subsequent to that meeting, a Pre-
OASIS .ASSOCIATES. INC. 87/95- 0110 /compost December 1995
Cold Canyon Land Fill, Inc. Green Waste Compost Facility
17
Application Checklist (see Figure 6), was prepared and defined the following
' specific requirements:
•
Application Form
•
Environmental Description Form
•
Landscape Plan (only if mandated by visual analysis)
•
300' Property Owners List
•
Locate Trees
•
Visual Analysis
' •
Grading/Drainage Plan
•
Adjacent Land Uses
•
Application Fee
•
Archeological Report
•
Noise Analysis
•
Traffic Component
•
Cost Accounting Agreement and
•
Consent of Landowner
1 Based upon the direction at the aforementioned meeting, the focus of the
environmental analysis will include a discussion of the visual aspects,
grading/drainage, archaeology, noise, and traffic.
1 1. Visual Analysis
The Weir Ranch is located approximately 7.5 miles south of the City of San Luis
Obispo in southwestern San Luis Obispo County. The site lies north of and
adjacent to State Route 227. Adjacent land uses include public facilities (Cold
Canyon Landfill), while the remaining are predominantly agricultural (rangeland for
livestock grazing) and rural residential in character.
The proposed 5 -acre green waste compost facility would be located along the
western property boundary of the 88 -acre parcel, adjacent to Cold Canyon Landfill.
The proposed facility is in a low lying area surrounded by relatively gentle to
moderately sloped hills. This portion of the property has been farmed over the
OASIS ASSCM7 ES. 1%;C. 87195 -0110 1compost December 1995
Cold Canyon Land Fill, Inc. Green Waste Compost Facility
18
' Pre- Apphcat a Checklist (REVIMON DATE:. _e•9S)
COuuty Government Center ■ San Luis Obispo, California 93408 ■ Telephone (805) 781-5600
APPLICANT: Cb1 \ C E}\A ` REPRESENTATIVE: /o coil c
DATE: !d . 1-3 . 'J PRE -APP PLANNER: 3_S ( G
REQUEST: Co mews Ir ENV. SPECIALIST: J /J
(.64M OF PROCFS.swrG jr YNowm OTHE
tIN- HOUSEX'ON -SITE ❑
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
' lv
RECEIPT NO.:
DATE PAID:
-i?IC..
REQUIRED SUBMITTED
REOUIRED
SUBMITTEI
. `
' APPL.
, FORM
TITLE REPORT
ENV FORM
SITE PLLAN AN
_ _
_/ ADJACENT LAND USES _
_
APPLICATION FEE
FLOOR PLANS _
_�
_
ARCH REPORT
ELEVATIONS _
_
_
BOTANICAL REPORT
LANDSCAPE PLAN _
_
_
WELL PUMP TEST (4 -72 HRS.)
_ ENV. HEALTH LTR XMrNCE OF MTER)
_
ROAD PLAN/PROFME
_ WATER WILL -SERVE LETTER
_
_
STREETSCAPE
_ SEWER WILL -SERVE LETTER
_
_
CULVERT PLAN/PROFII,E
_ TENTATIVE MAP
_
_
FIRE RESPONSE VERIFICATION
% 300' PROP. OWNERS LIST _
_
Z_/
_
NOISE ANALYSIS
_ 100' RES. LIST
8.5" X 11" REDUCTIONS
_
_
GEOLOGIC STUDY
TRAFFICYGon.poTR-h _
/ LOCATE TREES (SAVE/REMOVE) —
AERIAL PHOTO
VISUAL ANALYSIS
_
_ SITE CROSS SECTIONS
_ PERCOLATION TESTS _
PRELIM GRADING/DRAINAGE
/
COST ACCOUNTING AGREEMENT _ _
_
_ CO. ENGINEERING ROAD REQS.
/
CONSENT OF LANDOWNER _
_
_
DEEDS
OTHER AGENCY CONTACTS:
Awa
co _en
AfCD
Lam, -11�
Ca.l`ly -a nS
DESIGN NOTES:
C,-pp
V \`J�%3%A an- .tail') C 5G,�, .r ftj .�a`
OTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED:
FIG.B
aAplo-apphm
years, but is currently vegetated with non - native grass and herbaceous species. On-
site elevations range from a high of approximately 303.3 feet above mean sea level
(MSL) to a low of approximately 190.5 feet above MSL. The proposed site is
located below a grassy knoll (303.3 ' elev.) and adjacent to the abandoned air strip.
Figure 7 depicts the existing topography of the site. Figure 8 depicts the
relationship of views while traveling along State Highway 227 and views from on-
site structures and adjacent properties. The proposed grading of the 5 -acre site
would further reduce visibility onto the site as the creation of a relatively level pad
would lower the existing elevation by approximately 2% (from an existing 6%
gradient to 4 %). No trees would be removed during the proposed grading
operation.
' No permanent structures would be constructed. The most prominent feature of the
proposed green waste compost facility would be the piles of feedstock and
windrows of compost. Equipment use would be limited to either portable pieces
(tub grinder, screen, compost turner) utilized on an as- needed basis, and
inbound /outbound vehicles. Vehicle traffic would enter the site through the
scalehouse at the Cold Canyon Landfill entry, deposit their green waste load and
exit through the Cold Canyon Landfill entry onto State Highway 227.
The overall sensitivity of the project site views are considered low. The
surrounding area is sparsely populated, while views of the proposed site are
obstructed by the intervening topography and /or vegetation. To minimize any
visual impact, all cut and fill slopes would be revegetated to prevent erosion and
minimize the contrast of the bare, lightly colored soil. Good housekeeping
principles would be applied to the layout and maintenance of the stockpiles and
compost windrows to avoid any adverse visual impacts.
2. Grading and Drainage
Grading of the proposed green material compost facility would be limited to
providing a relatively level staging area for feedstock and compost operations.
Grading and drainage would be consistent with approved San Luis Obispo County
OASIS ASSOCIATES. INC. 87/95- 0110 /compost December 1995
Cold Canyon Land Fill. Inc. Green Waste Compost Facility
20
OCT. 1995
SCALE: 1" = 400'
I .... \��; '!rte / ' /e -. 'i '' 21 r
Jr
J",
SIT E
L4
COLD CYAN_: WEIR
LANDFILL RAINCH
17�
zV,
&PROPOSED GREEN WASTE COMPOST FACILITY
WEIR RANCH
(88 ACRES)
H
W
w
U
W
a
cr
W
d
1
l�
a
U
Q
D
W
0
m
Q
W W
F- a
0
J
U'co
_z
1--O
C/3
w
a. 0
�m
OY.
UU
Q
am
WZ
am0
a
ti
?s .
IIu FY /.CI
C11
N
,r
2
F-
cc
0
Z
BASIS ASSOCIATES, INC.
I"decepe "daectwo
aed pleeemp
,cw.:w rn rrfarr,
r
J
w
a
2
U
Z
Q
W
w
Q
W
J
_J
LL
Q
J
N
w
J
W
W
H
zc
0
ce)
II; id I
> It
W
W !
J
LL
O Ili
�I
lj rl
r,:1u •,
VISUAL ANALYSIS OF SITE
COMPOSTING FACILITY
COLD CANYON LANDFILL
Q
r
t
co
N
W
J
w
N
N
}
2
O
N
W
J
W
d
m
m
W
Z
0
W
co
grading plans, policies and ordinances. All up- gradient runoff would be channeled
around the 5 -acre site to prevent run -on and possible leachate generation. The
surface of the staging area would be constructed with an all weather surface to
minimize erosion and the potential for dust. All sediment laden runoff would be
captured and directed into the existing sedimentation basin. Revegetation of the
proposed cut and fill slopes would occur immediately upon completion of final
grading of the area.
3. Archaeological
On November 14, 1995, a Phase One Archaeological Surface Survey was
conducted on the proposed 5 -acre green material compost facility. This surface
survey was conducted by Robert O. Gibson, Archaeologist. The results of this
survey are included in the attached "Results of Phase One Archaeological Surface
Survey for the Cold Canyon Landfill Weir Ranch Compost Project, San Luis
Obispo County, CA." (R.O. Gibson, November 20, 1995).
In summary "Based on a phase one archaeological surface survey conducted on a
five acre area of the Weir Ranch adjacent to Cold Canyon Landfill, no
archaeological /cultural materials were noted. Therefore, the proposed compost
project on the five acre area will not have an adverse impact on any known cultural
resources. No archaeological monitoring is required during construction activity."
4. Noise
The San Luis Obispo County's Noise Element of the General Plan establishes
acceptable noise levels for various land uses. The maximum acceptable noise level
for an agricultural land use is 75 dB Ldn (Day -Night Sound Level). Ldn is the
average equivalent sound level during a 24 -hour day and is calculated by adding a
10 decibel penalty to noise at night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The penalty is added
to account for the increased sensitivity of people during the sleeping hours.
CASKS ASSCCUTES. INC. 87/95- 0110 /compost
Cold Canyon Land Fill. Inc.
23
December 1995
Green waste Compost Facility
The County of San Luis Obispo also regulates noise at property line boundaries
through its noise ordinance. However, all land uses located outside of an urban
reserve or village reserve line are exempt from the standards except where they
produce in excess of 65 dBA at the reserve line.
The FEIR for the Cold Canyon Landfill Expansion (ERCE, October 1991)
described the ambient noise levels and the primary noise sources contributing to
these noise levels. These sources included the trucks and heavy equipment
operating at the landfill and included use of the portable tub grinder and equipment
associated with the wood chipping operation.
Sound level measurements were taken at various locations on the landfill site.
Attached are figures excerpted from the FEIR's noise analysis depicting the noise
monitoring stations and a summary table of the noise measurements taken at the
site. (See Figure 9 and Figure 10) The land surrounding the proposed green
material compost site is agricultural, expect for the public facilities zoned landfill.
Ten residences are currently located near the proposed green waste compost facility
site. Three of these residences are located on the Weir Ranch property along the
southerly property line.
The noise generated at the landfill site was not audible at the residences because of
the distance and /or the intervening topography. Noise from the existing landfill
operations (including the tub grinder and associated equipment) was barely audible
above the ambient sound level at the Weir property (at the time, under different
ownership).
The FEIR also considered the noise generation attributed to the expansion of the
landfill. The expansion includes a vertical expansion (disposal of solid waste on
top of existing solid waste) and a lateral expansion (disposal of solid waste on
currently undeveloped land). The lateral expansion of the landfill operations would
move within 1,400 feet of the Weir residence. The noise levels attributed to this
lateral expansion, along the property boundary between the landfill and Weir
OASIS ASSOCIATES. INC. 87/95- 0110 /compost
Cold Canyon Land Fill, Inc.
24
December 1995
Green Waste Compost Facility
I III►
X461
NN �m
2. a S.
a
! e
a{
!3
'E
I r r rr r
g
v
a
Z
0
sn
C
fD
��
.11
jAl
C
R
�� rl
•
i�
�0
��
0
c
o
m
� � •i�rer
I I/y
r:�
t I�
y
I
.
g
v
a
Z
0
sn
C
fD
��
.11
jAl
C
. rr
,rlr U
"Llw 99n "L, MI'LoR MLI
�
n
0
c
o
m
. rr
,rlr U
"Llw 99n "L, MI'LoR MLI
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
t
1
1
1
F
�l
1..1
J
L,
..7
Z
V
Z
J
cn
J
n..
r
-■ F
j Z
u Y
G C"
F (/j
z
G
N
.7
<
c:1
G:V
..
z
L-
_y
O
U
E
O
c
' o
U
>
,O
z o
.7
C
O
.=
a
O O of
to O v�
�n O �n
I� cn N
N
m3
-off
te1
V
yyi
ro
n
r
IC
E
�3
�3
=yam
E
z°=
C C
C_ G
i y
CD
d e4 d
kn
cn
cn
cc
Cc La
n
c
ucs
sa.°
u Q
Eo=
n.
8
0 a
°a�iN0
6.
E d
C.
E o
'-u FM
E
i.0�.. u O
u O
a
a� �
y (� =
`" %-
.a
yea
°-cc
s.c
�oY
O u U U CZ
O CL
0 J
C)
O
O
a
06
n
O O of
to O v�
�n O �n
I� cn N
N
en
N
te1
O
C +
n
r
IC
E
E
n
a
CD
kn
cn
cn
cn
�
cn
N cn
S.L -6
Cl In
Sri c
m h
O v)
to C
06 cl;
NT No
� v
v. �o
c. pa
h S
<V 'cf
O 8
N
FIG.10
Ranch, and toward State Highway 227, was considered to be adverse but not
significant.
Based upon these earlier findings, the proposed location of the green material
compost facility would move the operation within 1,000 feet of the Weir Residence.
It is noteworthy that sound level measurements taken 100 feet from the active
landfill and the tub grinder operation indicated an hourly sound level of 69.2 and
75.7 dBA Leq, respectively. Although the noise level would increase slightly at the
location of the Weir residence, it is expected to be significantly below the 75 dBA
Ldn standard for agricultural land uses.
5. Traffic
In 1991, the FEIR for the Cold Canyon Landfill Expansion (ERCE, October 199 1)
stated that the existing landfill operation generated a total of 526 average daily trips
(ADT), with this trip total representing all traffic entering and leaving the facility.
To estimate the future traffic volumes associated with the expanded landfill facility,
historic growth factors (1982 - 1988) were calculated for each traffic source to the
landfill. Sources included South County Sanitation, San Luis Garbage, Mission
Country Disposal, Morro Bay, drop boxes, commercial and the general public.
Based upon these growth factors, an overall average annual increase in monthly
traffic was determined to be 6.9 percent per year. On a daily basis, the annual
increase in traffic was calculated to be 30 trips per day.
It is noteworthy that although there would be an increase in service area population,
waste generation projections for the same period (1990 - 2003) would eventually
decrease based upon the AB 939 waste diversion mandates. This waste diversion
mandate factor was not considered in the FEIR traffic projections. Therefore, the
annual increase of 30 trips per day is a very conservative figure that would include
any additional traffic generated by the proposed green material compost facility.
Traffic attributed to the marketing aspect of the green material composting program
would be similar to patterns that existed from December 1989 until September
OASIS ASSCCUT[S. INC. 87/95 -0110 /compost
Cold Canyon Land Fill, Inc.
27
December 1995
Grccn Waste Compost Facility
.1
1994. In December of 1989, Cold Canyon Land Fill, Inc. initiated a contract
' wastewood/biomass processing facility at the site. Materials are now, and would
continue to be, stockpiled in an area separate from the active disposal site until
' approximately 1200 tons are accumulated for processing. The contract vendor
currently comes to the site approximately 4 to 5 times per year, spending an average
of 5 days per trip. Once processed, the material was hauled to the Soledad Waste -
to-Energy Facility. This facility ceased operation in December 1994. During its
operation, Cold Canyon Landfill would ship approximately 800+ tons every 4
' months. On an annual basis, 75 truck trips were made to the Soledad Facility. The
wastewood/biomass program was analyzed as part of the project description in the
FEIR (ERCE, October 1991). The only difference in operation would be the
utilization of the chipped material as feedstock for the green waste compost
operation.
Once specific markets for the sale of compost are developed, vehicle traffic may be
impacted. Traffic patterns would not be expected to cause any significant impacts to
the operation of the overall street system. Should changes occur in the operation or
if the Lead Enforcement Agency determines that a change in facility operations has
occurred, a new permit application must be submitted.
CASTS 4SSCCIATES. INC. 87/95- 0110 1compost
Cold Canyon Land Fill, Inc.
28
December 1995
Green Waste Compost Facility
RESULTS OF
PHASE ONE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURFACE SURVEY
FOR THE COLD CANYON LANDFILL
WEIR RANCH COMPOST PROJECT,
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CA
Prepared for
OASIS ASSOCIATES
San Luis Obispo, CA
November 20, 1995
GIBSON'S ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Robert O. Gibson
Archaeologist
P.O. Box 102 Paso Robles, CA 93447 -0102 805/238 -5411
1
1.00 SUMMARY
Based on a phase one archaeological surface survey conducted on a
five acre area of the Weir Ranch adjacent to Cold Canyon Landfill, no
archaeological/ cultural materials were noted. Therefore, the proposed
compost project on the five acre area will not have an adverse impact on
any known cultural resources. No archaeological monitoring is required
during construction activity.
2.00 INTRODUCTION
On November 14, 1995, at the request of Ms. C. M. Florence, Principal, OASIS
ASSOCIATES, 3427 Miguelito Ct., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, a Phase One
Archaeological Surface Survey was conducted on a five acre area of the Weir Ranch,
located on the south side of Cold Canyon Landfill, just east of Highway 227, south of the
city of San Luis Obispo, CA (see maps 1 and 2).
The purpose of the archaeological surface survey was to determine whether any
archaeological/cultural resources were present on the five acre area, and if so, to map their
extent based on surface examination and also, on a preliminary level, to determine the
nature and significance of any resources discovered. Also, if necessary, recommendations
will be made regarding the treatment of the cultural resources in the context of the proposed
project which will consist of using the five acre area for a compost facility. This will
require some grading of the surface of the area.
This archaeological study is being requested by the San Luis Obispo County
Planning Department, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970
which declares that the policy of the State of California is to: "... take all steps necessary
to provide the people of this state with ... enjoyment of... histori c environmental
qualities...." The CEQA definition of "environmental qualities" includes objects of
historic, archaeological and aesthetic significance (Public Resources Code Section
21001)(Gammage, Jones and Jones 1975). The county requires projects that are in areas
considered to be archaeologically sensitive to have a surface survey to identify any cultural
materials that may be affected by a proposed project. The Edna area is known to contain
several Chumash and historic archaeological sites.
This project is within the territory historically occupied by the Obispeiio Chumash,
the northernmost of the Chumashian speaking peoples of California (Kroeber 1953;
Greenwood 1978, Gibson 1991). Archaeological evidence has revealed that the ancestors
of the Obispeiio settled in northern Santa Barbara County and San Luis Obispo County
more than 9,000 years ago (Greenwood 1972; Gibson 1979). The Sunset Palisades area
has a large site that was occupied for over 8,000 years. It was also the location of mission
period village as late at A.D. 1804. Following an annual cycle of hunting, fishing, fowling
and harvesting, the Chumash peoples adapted to changing environmental and social
conditions and grew into a large complex society which persists today. Aboriginal society
underwent major changes soon after Spanish contact in A.D. 1769, primarily due to the
introduction of epidemic European diseases and the consequent high mortality rate. Most
of the Chutnash from rancherias in the general area were baptized at San Luis Obispo
Mission between A.D. 1772 and 1805 (see figure 1).
Archaeological studies continue to contribute to our knowledge of past cultural
patterns and add considerably to our store of information on ancient environments and
climatic conditions. Data generated by the systematic surface and subsurface testing of
2
archaeological deposits contributes a significant element to the scientific history of
California and to the history of San Luis Obispo County.
Archaeological sites are also an integral part of the modem day Native American
community. Their history is contained in the sites and most believe it is best left in its
natural state. When unavoidable adverse impacts are proposed, most strongly support the
best sensitive scientific study that will benefit their culture and the general community.
3.00 RESULTS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURFACE SURVEY
The rectangular shaped five acre area consists of a gentle south facing hillside
which is bounded by a recently cut dirt road along the east side. The area, part of Weir
Ranch is also bounded on the northwest by the Cold Canyon Landfill. Most of the area is
covered with an abandoned vineyard. The soil varies from a gray to tan sandy soil with
small to medium rounded to subrounded pebbles of volcanic rock, Franciscan chert, and
shale. Several erosion gullies have cut down one to three feet in an southerly direction for
the entire length of the area surveyed. In addition, several larger gullies are located along
the southern edge of the survey area. These are up to five feet deep.
The archaeological surface survey consisted of one archaeologist zig- zagging back
and forth examining the surface, rodent burrows, erosion gullies and other cleared areas
for any signs of prehistoric cultural materials (including seashell fragments, stone tools and
fragments, stone flakes, bone, burnt rock, etc.) or significant historic cultural materials
(including square nails, purple glass, or historic shells, etc.). Only modem materials
including plastic, wooden stakes, and string were noted on the surface or in the gullies.
No darker soil or concentrations of rocks were observed in any of the gullies up to five feet
deep.
No prehistoric or historic cultural materials were noted an here on the areas
surveyed. No rock outcrops, concentrations of cobbles, or springs were noted on or
adjacent to the five acres surveyed.
4.00 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on a phase one archaeological surface survey conducted on a five acre area of
the Weir Ranch adjacent to the Cold Canyon Landfill, no intact or displaced
archaeological/cultural materials were noted. Therefore, the development of a compost
facility on the five areas will not have an adverse impact on any known archaeological or
cultural resources. No archaeological monitoring is necessary during construction
excavation.
In the rare event, if during construction excavation, any intact cultural materials are
unearthed, work in that area should halt until they can be examined by a qualified
archaeologist and appropriate recommendations made as outlined in California
Environmental Equality Act of 1970. In such an event, contact the San Luis Obispo
County Planning Department or R. O. Gibson (805) 238 -5411.
5.00 REFERENCES
' Angel, Myron
1883 History of San Luis Obispo County. Reprinted by Valley Publishers,
Fresno, CA 1979.
Gammage, Grady, Phlip N. Jones and Stephen Jones
1975 Historic Preservation in California: A Legal Handbook. Stanford
Environmental Law Society: Stanford, CA.
Gibson, Robert O.
' 1979 Preliminary Inventory and Assessment of Indian Cultural Resources at
Lodge Hill, Cambria, CA. Manuscript on file with SLO County
Engineering
' 1983 Ethnogeography of the Salinan People: A Systems Approach. Masters
Thesis on file with California State University at Hayward, CA.
1991 The Chumash. Indians of North America. Chelsea House Publishers,
New York and Philadelphia
Greenwood, Roberta S.
1972 9,000 Years of Prehistory at Diablo Canyon, San Luis Obispo County, CA.
San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society Occasional Paper No. 7.
' 1978 Obispeno and Purisimeno Chumash, in Handbook of North American
Indians, Volume 8, California Smithsonian Institution: Washington, D. C.
Heizer, Robert F. (volume editor)
1978 Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8 - California. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington
Hoover, Robert F.
' 1970 The Vascular Plants of San Luis Obispo County, California. Berkeley,
California: University of California Press.
Kroeber, A. L.
1953 Handbook of the Indians of California. California Book Co., Ltd.,
' Berkeley.
Munz, Philip A.
1965 A California Flora. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
4
Map 1. Location of Cold Canyon landfill Compost Facility Project, SLO County, CA
' ARROYO GRANDE NE, CALIF.
N3507.5— WI2030/7.5
346
.,
PHOTOREVIS EVISED 1978
AMS 1854 Q NE— SERIES V895
i
.. ® �a0 \.
L WDRANGLE LOCATim+
.. - • �` tl/O t � �,,% � to
y- o 60' �r Xv ,f '
J�
I •
\\ ro
Well JOO
1 Aso- -;
well:
_ `I `• /� qd .. .. 90.
C-1
n �
n �
q i
n
� .gyp. .
m1
APPA n
w xISO w
em,oli I
a 00
1�� / ' LhrCnti x R. • .. .
SCALE 1:24000
1 � o
Verde
QQ
(2'27,
,
\
c'
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER
MILE
Map 2. Survey Area of Cold Canyon Landfill Compost Facility Project, SLO County, CA
a
14
Figure 1. Chumash Villages at A.D. 1772, San Luis Obispo County, CA
SUGGESTED CHUMASH- SALINAN BOR9E
STS MAL
TSETA t . ` PACHAC ' "•:•'' ,.
MI
Z.4Y ■ CAZZ SAN MIGk;;; TI�cJA CHOLAAM
■ TISSI MASSU LAS GALLINAS'`
%,' TISAGUES
STAJAHUAYO f '"''•
LHUE(GUE
wTIPU ■ SOSOSQUIQUTA
■ SETJALA
■ CHMONIMO•
■
Approidmate Location CHETPU �01 CHOTNEGLE CHMIMU
of Cold Canyon
Compost Project •
CHOTCAGUA ■ TEZ
SAN LUIS ODISPO�
MISSION
CHAN O
Names of Chumash TSQUIEU ;EP:TO ■ CHMO• CHOJUALE
Villages Based on PISMU
Spanish Mission Books ■ CH I LIQU I N I
AD. 1772 -1800 ■ GUASNA
(From Gibson 1983)
STEM ECfA -nM I
■ _ 300 Baptisms
■ _ 100 Baptisms
E _ 50 Baptisms
■ - 10 Baptisms
0 5 10 Miles
1- . , r
(M 1r3rofljA fc)L0a3tAL
' --- SERVING THE TRI- COUNTY AREA SINCE 1973 - --
1 ROBERT O. GIBSON
P.O. Box 102
Paso Robles, CA 93447 -0102
Telephone : (805) 238 -5411
' FAX : (805) 238 -7029
I EDUCATION:
MA - California State University at Hayward in Anthropology - June of 1983
IBA University of California at Los Angeles in Anthropology - June of 1972
AA Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo County in Social Science - June of 1968
ICommunity College Full Time Teaching Credential - June of 1984
Certificate Hazardous Materials First Responder "Operational" - March of 1995
IEXPERIENCE:
Most of the archaeological fieldwork has been done in Santa Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles and Monterey Counties. Some fieldwork has also been
done on the Channel Islands, Mojave Desert, High Sierras and in Trinity and Santa
Clara Counties. Since June of 1973, Mr. Gibson has been employed by Federal, State,
' County and City Agencies and private firms and developers and has completed hundreds
of environmental impact studies, including both surface and subsurface investigations
and many archaeological mitigation projects. He has been employed as a Principal
I Investigator by the United States Air Force, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Forest Service,
CALTRANS, Department of Parks and Recreation and other governmental agencies.
Since 1974 he has worked at Vandenberg Air Force Base as a principal
investigator and field director. He assisted in development of budgets, hiring of
personnel, and attended planning and public meetings. On larger projects he was usually
the principal field director and corroborated with other principal investigators in
developing research designs, sampling strategies, and monitoring techniques tailored to
I the cultural resources and terrain on south Vandenberg Air Force Base.
Mr. Gibson has been employed as a research consultant by other archaeologists
relating to research on dating and interpretation of beads and ornaments and analysis
' of ethnohistoric data. An expert in both pre - industrial technology and primitive
economics, he has published specialized articles on prehistoric and historic beads and
ornaments, stone tools and written numerous archaeological technical reports. He has
taught at several Community Colleges and lectured on anthropology and archaeology at
I 100's of schools and civic organizations throughout the Tri- Counties area.
He is regarded as an expert in Chumash archaeology and has worked on Chumash
sites from all time periods, Early, Middle, Late and Historic or Mission periods and has
' published a number of articles and a book on the archaeology and culture of the
Chumash. He has also worked with many Chumash organizations throughout the Tri-
County area for almost 20 years and is in good standing with these groups.
I
• Nl .,. 6 ADDRESS: P.O. DRAWER 1170
NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA 93444
• PLANTS: HIGHWAY 1 & 801 RALCOA WAY
NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA 93444
1291 MESA VIEW DRIVE
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420
■ PNONE: (805) 343 -2289
RETURNING TO A RESOURCEFUL AMERICA IN FAX: (805) 343 -5515
Mayor Allen Settle jAN " January 12, 1995
San Luis Obispo City Council C0014CILl
990 Palm Street SAN uic o8lspo• CA
San Luis Obispo CA 93410 D MEETING AGENDA
DATE � �b - 96 ITEM #
Dear Mayor Settle,
My staff and I have put together our all time best recycling proposal for the City of San Luis
Obispo. We are a for -profit company and our proposal is very competitive in terms of costs and
program quality.
After analyzing the current costs to the people of San Luis Obispo we have found an
opportunity to save your rate payers $100 from current rates for every ton we collect in
recycling and green waste programs. Our rates per ton are far below San Luis Garbage's
current rates. And their proposal includes yet another monthly increase of $1.92 per household.
Our cost plan will result in no increase in rates and provide additional savings to the City. Plus,
benefits from profits that RALCCO will return to San Luis Obispo are substantial and creative.
I encourage you to look through our proposal package. It contains samples of our promotional
materials, newspaper articles about RALCCO, photos of our facilities and equipment, and
a written proposal we are very proud of.
I know that you are busy so I have prepared the enclosed packet for your review. It covers the
cost proposal and program highlights. I have also enclosed a copy of your last rate adjustment
application so you can verify our numbers
Our analysis explains how RALCCO will save over $3,600,000 for San Luis Obisao
during the 5 year contract..
I look forward to talking with you soon.
�fc/W"NCIL 1:1 CDDDIR
Sincerely, q/ CAO ❑ FIN DIR
IlB�A 13 FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
VICLERIOURIG ❑ POLICE CHF
Steve Aslanidis ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
C RrAD FILE R(UTIL DIR
❑ PERS DIR
96Z`9Z9`£$ = 0331VU JNisn As a3AVS lNnowv
SOL`Mt = S30HVH3 ad3A 9 IVIOI St0031VU
0O0`Otiz'v$ = S35MVH3 ad3A S 14101 SMOIS
OOO`ovz'ty$ sasaey:) aeaA S lejol
000`060`1$ saBaeyo MGN
000`051 `8$ saBjeyo }uaiano jo saeaA 5
000`060`1$ = sae;9A 9 X OOO`81Z$
aeaA aad 000'81 Z$
leuoilippe ue = sa2aeuo Bu110439a pue alsem u99JB M;9N
OOO`O51`E $ = s,ieaA 5 X 00010£9$ = suol 000`5 X uol aad 9Z1$
le saeaA 5 aol aeaA aad suol 00O`9 loalloo of 92ae4o s,0001S
SOL`£I9$ = s.inA 5 X 05L'331$ = suol 0O0`5 X 55,-v3$
le saeaA 9 aoj aeaA aad suol 000`5 4391100 of 98aeW s60331da
96Z`9Z9`£$
3AVS IIIM OdSl90 SIn1 NVS
Sad3A 9 803 ad3A H3d SNOT 00069 31OA0311
Ol 0301S 30 GV31SNI 0301da ONISn A8
u
COMPARISON OF CHARGES
IMPACT 0 N RATES
SERVICE
LEVEL
CURRiM
RALCCp
RALCCp
%CHANGE
S,ppp
SLOW
%CHANGE
ORANGE
$783,473
RALCCO's charge per ton for recycling & green waste
$24.55
RALCCO's 1st year total charges for projected tons
$137,123
BAGS
(vwmo
$6.60
$6.60
o
$8.52
2919/0
90 GAL.
$14.55
$14.55
w
$16.47
3.32%
PREMIUM
$19.85
$19.85
wo
$21.77
9.7%
HOW CAN RALCCO PROVIDE RECYCLING AND GREEN WASTE SERVICES WITH NO
INCREASE IN RATES?
1995 total SLG Co.charges for all services (waste & recycling) $5,139,134
Total overall tons landfilled & recycled
40,807 Tons
SLG Co. charges per ton
$125.94
1995 recyclables collected
6,221 Tons
SLOCO's total 1995 charges for recycling (tons x cost /ton)
$783,473
RALCCO's charge per ton for recycling & green waste
$24.55
RALCCO's 1st year total charges for projected tons
$137,123
After analyzing the costs to the people of San Luis Obispo we found an
opportunity to provide our services within the current rate structure.
The people are currently charges $783,473 for recycling programs.
RALCCO's charges are a fraction of what SLOCO is charging today.
Paying for RALCCO's recycling programs is a simple matter of transferring funds.
There is no need to increase rates.
-solve
jua uno of luaa j ppu jou jjinn jusodo id s,ODDqV-d
•aajaXaai .Iagjo Xue Imgj ssaj sa&ega 0oDqv-d
I-egj .reala X11a3jmd 11 sxjeui 1! aaijs noX BEM XuV
0 = aseaaaul 'IV LO.L
sa;EJ ui paianoo
4uo* 9Z'0$ = alsEM uaaj .
saJEJ ui paianoo
ApEa* 9V'0$ = BuijoAoag .
O33'IvI
WI$ = as8aJ3ui gVLO.L
sa;ci su4sga o;
PaPPE Z6'1$ = OISRIA UOOJD .
saJEJ ut paianoo
xploojw 0£'0$ = fugoxomd .
OJO'Is
saBaeyo jo uosiaedwoo p1048sno4 aad d
:salddd of solddd
Guaranteed pro i S.
Private sector profit motive?
Profit motive saves money and maximizes
tons collected
• SLG Co.'s profits are
guaranteed based on a
percent of operating costs.
• The higher their operating
costs, the more profit they
make.
• The built in incentive is to
increase operating costs and
overlook operating
efficiencies and aggressive
marketing.
• In 1995 SLO paid over
$789,000 in office salaries
for SLOCO and SLG Co.
• RALCCO profits come
from material sales..
• Recycler takes the risk.
• The built in incentive is to
maximize operating
efficiencies and
aggressive marketing.
• For long term success,
recycling must be a
private sector enterprise.
Charging by the ton is performance based.
Charging by the ton is a strong incentive to maximize
recycled tons for:
✓Maximum diversion potential
✓ Meet AB 939 50% diversion
✓ Extend landfill life
✓ Maximum materials kept in the industrial loop
✓ Protection for natural resources
;uauudolanaQ qof luouiaseueW samosa -a gpnoA ioi puns a olut pa;ISodop
aq Uim sit-palum pajadaaj ;o uo; / 01$ `un:lsold ,sgof ao3 suos,,, aqj ul
•(igaA gala
lujol 000`01$) •18aA qma sluapnis IoogoS q9T odsigp smZ UPS o; paplsm8
aq Mm juauiaft =W oamosag ut saipms asajjoa 10j sdigsasjogas 00011$ uas,
•semi
goua ivapnls iad gseg lseai aq1 fiuMla snnomp lvp joogas aql o; 0006£$ piunnu ipm
gaigm urasoid ,qsu is ojaZ„ a dojan ap o; sjoogas q }inn xiom 1p
-sasualno aa.mosal amynj
.io3 ajdoad sunoA andaid of smisoid sapnjou► apuu.uj odo uV o; jesodold s,pDD-fV-d
-juawassueui aamosai jo pjag aqp ui uoil8onpa pue amauadxa
3pom amilsod giyA ajdoad sunk apinoid of paau jlntn B si 2101; JVq; anaijaq aM
suol palaafoid uo pasvq
j3l3j4UO3 JgOi� s aqj IOAO O'IS 01 POUH401 000` £t7Z$
SWVH902Id dIHSHV IOHJS 30371103
GNV «S$Of HOA SNIOI19 6 66HSVHI 0HaZg9 560331VU
-Sups; guissaaad;soo gSnl s 10; Smaasug aggnd
apuold o; odstgp smZ usS ao; paau ay3 sapunua lalua0 main esayq aq,L .
Tsayu apusuD o,(ouV otp uo mua3 SuRok g
main ssay j aql dmbo pue ppnq of uoUm IS xaeo palsanm ssq 00DWU .
aoIsia+.p %os of odsigo qn'I m +S a3rm Mm mmm pax!m Sugios
j fjmga3 sapp
jwp mo io; alsem pasnu leplammoa •lo sp¢ol pa;aSlsl Suglos u 2aq Um aM
•ods►go sp l usS io3 spaau
guissmud palmbal 6£6 g' He loam of poddmbo pus 1pnq si main ssoyq
•aaeds
smssoomd ioopui 3o laa; amnbs 000`6b ssq ialu2Z) SugaSaag main ssayq aqy
S(133N OAIISSajOHd
S.OdSIgO smrl AIVS 30 riri lN3lv3rlclwl
OZ aII'I No Aurnav3 alll SVH 00D'IVU
A1TACHKENT C
City of Son Luis Obispo
Base Year Rate Adjustment Application
Summary
1. Rate Increase Requested
Requested Increase:
Rate SchedWe
8.6%
Current Increased Adjustment New
Rate Schedule Rate Rate (a) Rate
Single Family Residential
2. Economy Service (collection)
Economy Service (orange bags)
3. Standard Service
4. Premium Service
$2.00
$2.171.
$0.03
1 $2.20
$1.00
$1.09
$0.011
$1.10
$13.40
$1455
$0.001
$1455
$18.25
$19.82
$0.031
$19.85
(a) Calculated rates are rounded up to the nearest $0.05.
5. Multiunit Residential and Non — residential Rate increases of 11 8.6%
will be applied to all rates in each structure
with each rate rounded up to the nearest SI.OQ
Certilicattoa _"
To the best of my knowledge, the data and information in this application is complete, accurate, and consistent with the instructions
provided by the City of San Luis Obispo.
Name: 7_01n A%I,7 IZT7/' Title: �/!
Signature: Date:
Fiscal Year: 1 -1 -95 to 12 -31 -95 ' Pg. 1 of 6
,1q of &W LAs OUTo
Base Year Rate Adjustment Application
Financial Information
6. Direct Labor
7. Corporate Overhead
8. Office Salaries
9. Other General and Admin Costs
10 Total Allowable Costs
11. Operating Ratio
12. Allowable Operating Profit
13. Tipping Fees
14. Franchise Fees
15. 1993 and 1994
16. Lease Pmts to Affiliated Comoanies
17. Total Pass Through Costs
Historical Current
Proiected
$1,209,705
$1,240,058
$1,289,660
Base Year
$120,000
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
(from Pg. 4)
Section [—Allowable Costs.
$1,131,373
$1,162,712
$1,209,705
$1,240,058
$1,289,660
$120,000
$120,000
$120,000
$123,660
$128,606
$754,694
$788,443
$838,625
$866,706
$901,375
$1,344,181
$1,349,637
$1,362,734
$1,368,799
$1,423,551
$3,350,248
$3,420,792
$3 531 064
$3 599 223
$3,743,192
Section 11— Allowable Operating Profit.
11 4 %11 94 %11 94 %11 92 %11 92. %11
Section 111 -Pass Through Costs
$773,913
$789,0991
$849,0871
$927,314
$1,091,188
$166,721
$]71,992
$202,0141
$202,014
5226,621
$97,607
$97,607
$940,6341
$961,091
$1,051,101 7 $1,226 935
$1 41.5416
Section W— Revenue Requirement -
18. Revenue Requirement $4,504,728 $4,600,231 $4,807,552 $.5-,139,134 1 $5.484 103
19. Total Revenue Offsets $4,339,82Z $4,410 525 $4 704 436 $4 808 624 $S 1 ;S 326
(from Page 3)
Section V =Net Shortfall (Surplus).::
20. Net Shortfall (Surplus) $330 510
21. Total Residential and Non — residential Revenue without increase
in Base Year (pg.3, lines 32 +40) $4,078,643
22. Percent Change in Residential and Non — residential Revenue Requirement 8.1%
23. Franchise Fee Adjustment Factor (1 — 6.0 percent) 94%
24. Percent Change in Existing Rates 11 8.6%
Fiscal Year. 1 -1 -95 to 12 -31 -95 Pg. 2 of 6
ary of Sn Los Oblge
i
Base Year irate Adjustment A
Revenue Offset Summary
Section VII — Revenue Offsets
ligation
Historical-71
Curre nt
Pro'ected
E;�:1E;;;1F1994
92
9,3641 $608,106
Base Year
1995
1996
Residential Revenue (witbout increase is Base Yr.)
Current Projected Price per No. of
Account Type Rate/M Mo.'s Accounts Package Pack a Total
25. Economy Svc $2.00 12 2,765 $]0.00 ! ]3 504 $191,400
26. Standard Svc $13.40 121 5,436 1
27. Premium Svc 5]825 12 524 8725 $Il4 756
Adj unincorp /supplemental secs $l96 673
28. Single Family Residential 131,201,8851S1,180,837 IS1,337,1311 $1 376 938 5
Multiunit Residential Dumpster
29. Number of Accounts
30. Revenues
31. Less Allowance for Uncollectible Resid Accounts
32. Total Residential Revenue
$0 SO $0 SO $0
$] 792134 $1 770,201 S1 945 437 1 S1.985.044 155758
Non — residential Revcnue (witbout increase in Base Yr.)
Account Type
Non — residential Can
33. Number of Accounts 1 1 160 160 1 16011 160
34. Revenues 582034 $819]1 $84,5]6 584,516 591784
Non — residential Wastewbeeler
35. Number of Accounts
36. Revenues
Non — residential Dumpster
37. Number of Accounts
38. Revenues
39. Less•. Allowance for Uncollectible
Non— residential Accounts
40. Total Non — residential Revenue
Processing FacXly Revenues
41. Scrap Pmts for all Materials Sold
42. CA Redemption Value (CRV)/Procsg Fee
43. Fees from Other Cities
44. Revenues from Processing Facility
45. Interest on Investments
46. Other Income
46. Total Revenue Offsets
2541 25411 254 ?54
$]09 779 $109 614 5]13 ]00 $113 ]00 51'_'_.827
1 035 1,110 1
3901 39017----
90
390
390
92
9,3641 $608,106
$608 l06
5660 403
$0 SO $0 SO $0
$] 792134 $1 770,201 S1 945 437 1 S1.985.044 155758
Non — residential Revcnue (witbout increase in Base Yr.)
Account Type
Non — residential Can
33. Number of Accounts 1 1 160 160 1 16011 160
34. Revenues 582034 $819]1 $84,5]6 584,516 591784
Non — residential Wastewbeeler
35. Number of Accounts
36. Revenues
Non — residential Dumpster
37. Number of Accounts
38. Revenues
39. Less•. Allowance for Uncollectible
Non— residential Accounts
40. Total Non — residential Revenue
Processing FacXly Revenues
41. Scrap Pmts for all Materials Sold
42. CA Redemption Value (CRV)/Procsg Fee
43. Fees from Other Cities
44. Revenues from Processing Facility
45. Interest on Investments
46. Other Income
46. Total Revenue Offsets
2541 25411 254 ?54
$]09 779 $109 614 5]13 ]00 $113 ]00 51'_'_.827
1 035 1,110 1
1,110 1 1]0
8,328
1,895,983
$1,89.5,9&1 '32.059038
$0 $0 $0 SO $0
$310217 $40] 982 $412 257
$450,257 $43.1,982
$45 254 $58,659 $58,659
$58659 %659
$40 550 $55 190 $57 612
$59,612 1 SS9 612
$396 041
$515 531 L$528 528 1
$568
,528.A W2 2 3
$16,610 $8 833 $5,878 1 $8 878 =S11,091
$171.475 $13.5 807 $127,994 S152,5751 SIS2 5
$4,339,524 $4,410 521 $4 704,436 $4 808,624 �S 14 S 126
Fiscal Year. 1 -1 -95 to 12 -31 -95 g. 3 of 6
Base Year P to Adjustment Ap fication _
Cost Summary for Base Year For Information Purposes Only
Section V111 -Base Year Cost Allocation
Description of Cost CSU Adjacent Processing
Total Cit Unineoro. Faeiliry
48.
49. Total Corporate Overhead
Office Salary
Pavroll Taxes
50. Total Office Salaries
Computer Servicess
Depreciation on Bldg and Equip
Depreciation on Trucks /Containers
Dues and Subscriptions
Equipment Rental
Ernst & Young
Gas and oil
Interest Expense
Laundry
Legal and Accounting
Miscsellaneous and Other
Office Expense
Operating Supplies
Otber Insurance
Other Taxes
Outside Services
Public Relations and Promotion
Rent
Telephone
Travel
Truck Insurance
Truck License
Truck Repairs
Utilities
51. Total Other Gen /Admin Costs
52. Total Tipping Fees
53. Total Franchise Fee
54. ,Total AB 939/Regulatory Fees
55. Total Lease Pmt to Affil Co.'s
56. Total Cost
$12.4,6601 S93,2891 E]0,820 E19 551 1-
$7
703
3,910
$802
1.712
S77
24
$22,84711
$20,622
$281
$1,944
S73,243.11
510,325
$141
5973
$61,804
$197,2571
$178,044-1
$2,426
$16,787
$13,456
$12,145
$166
51,145
SO
$17,000
$17,000
$141,506,
$96,354
$7,806
$24,088
S13,258
$32,711
$24,366
$3321
$2,291
$5,716
$14,133•
$8,882
$121
$837
$4,293
$16,245
$34,66.11
S2001
$1,382
$1,993
$1,798
$25
$170
$63,459
$55,549
$7571
S5,2371
$1,916
S146i775,1
$96,259
S1,3121
$9,0761
$40,128
$26,166
$14,956
$1,999
$3,611
$5,600
$35,529
$26,686
53,095
$5,593
5155
S12-1,2321
$31,459
$429
$2,966
$88,378
$49.,808
$44,956
$613
54,239
$14,138
$8.492
$856
$1,780
$3.010
S40,057i
$33,073
$451
$3,118
$3,415
$5,281
$4,322
$59
$407
$493
$54,683
$36,102
$4,187
$7,566
56.828
334;913
25791
3055
5520
547
5218,525
$146,778
$17,024
$30,760
523,963
$2.5842
513121
$179
$1237
$11 5
$1,368,799
$921 743
$45,514
$130 733
1270 309
$927 314 $779 686 $57,215 S86611 $3.302
$202014 $2020]4
54 728,551 $3,344 414 $167 290 $451 829 $765 018
Fiscal Year. 1 -1 -95 to 12 -31 -95 Pg. 4 of 6
6ty of Sao L 6 OWpo
1 .Base Year Aate Adjustment A
lication
3ase Year Revenue Offset Summary For Information Purposes Only
Section VII— Revenue Offsets
Description of Revenue
Residential Revenue
(without increase in Base Year)
57. Single Family Residential
Multiunit Residential Dumpster
58. Number of Accounts
59. Revenues
60. Less Allowance for Uncollectable
61. Total Residential Revenue
CSU I Adjacent I Processing
SI 70,938 11 S1,180,265
0 $196 673 0
390 1 390390.1 I I �I
$1 985 044 $1 788 371 $0 $196 673 $0
Non — residential Revenue (without increase in Base Year)
Account Type
Non — residential Can
62. Number of Accounts
63. Revenues
Non — residential Wastewheeler
64. Number of Accounts
65. Revenues
Non — residential Dumpster
66. Number of Accounts
67. Revenues
160 160 _
$64,516 $84,516
254. 254
$1131001 $113100
75.�F 1271 2281
$] 895 983 E$1.323,380 IL $223,2401 $349,3631
68. Less: Allowance for Uncollectible
Non — residential Accounts $0 $0 1 $0 $0
69. Total Non — residential Revenue S2 093 599 $1,520 996 $223 240 $349 363 SO
Processing Facility Revenues
70. Scrap Pmts for all Materials Sold
71. CA Redmpt Value (CRV4/Proc Fee
72. Fees from Other Cities
73. Revenues from Proc Facility
$432,25.7.: S432,257
$58;659 558,659
$77,612
$77,612
$ 568 528" 0
$5681.528
74. Interest on Investments
$8 878' $8 013 1
$991
$766
75. Other Income
$152,57511 $137,71417---s—i—,694T
$13,167
76. Total Revenue Offsets
$4'808 624. $3,455,094 1 $225,0331
$559-9691
5568 528
Fiscal Year: 1 -1 -95 to 12 -31 -95 Pg. 5 of 6
Base Year Rine Ad i ustment A
Operating Information
Residential
77. Accounts
78. Routes
79. Tons Collected
80. Direct Labor Hours
Non - residential
81. Accounts
82. Routes
83. Tons Collected
84. Direct Labor Hours
Recyclable Mater
85. Tons -sort material
86. Tons- n/sort materi
Recyclable.
87. Tons -sort m
88. Tons- n/sort
..cation
Historical Current
Pro'ected
Percent
-0.8%
Percent Percent
Base Year Percent
1992 Chance 1993 oance Lim Qtanee
]995 Chanee 1996
Section IX- Operating Data
9,616
2.8%
9,888
-0.8%
1 9,804
-0.8%
1 9,7261
0.0%
1 9,726
6
8.3%
7
0.0%1
7
0.0%
7
-7.7%
1 6
14,057
-8.1%1
12,924
0.2%1
12,944
-9.2%
11,759
.0.0170
11,759
20,800
5.0%
.0%1
21,840
0.0%
')1-8401
0.0%
1 21 840
1 1,621
-2.2%-1 1,586
-3.9%n
1 1,524
-3.9%
1 1.4651
0.0% 1,465
i 91
0.0%1 9
-11-.I%l
81
0.0%1
81
0.()%l 8
23,9851
8.0%1 2.5,911
-1.51%
1 25,530
- 10.6%
1 22,827
0.0%1 21827
27,78.31
0.0% 1 27,7831
-7.5%
1 2.5,7031
0.0%1
25,7031
0.0%1 25.703
658 1 157.0 %n 1` 1,6911 15.3% 1 1,9491- 12.8% 1 1,6991 -21.5% 1
1 299
1 874 1 338.3% 1 3.831 1 -35_R% 1 7.4F1 I 1 or,i I -1 S 2R, T 1 Fc�
Fiscal Year 1 -1 -95 to 12 -31 -95 P076 of 6