Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 300-07Manager’s Rep r TO: ATTN: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL POLICY AND SERVICES COM3~ITTEE CITY MANAGER JULY 17, 2007 REVIEW AgND RECOMMENDATION THAT THE APPROVE THE ZERO WASTE OPERATIONAL PL~t DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS CMR:300:07 CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recorrmaends that the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee: 1)Receive and accept the responses to the questions raised at the Policy and Services Committee meeting on March 13, 2007 (Attachment A); and 2)Recommend to the City Council a tiered approach for the continuing review, approval, and implementation of the Zero Waste Operational Plan (Attachment B), consisting of the following elements: Programs - Direct staff to immediately begin implementing any- recommended programs that will have minor budgetary impact. As for the other programs, direct staff to begin identifying costs and funding mechanisms, including inclusion of specified programs in the Request for Proposals for new collection services to be bid in Spring 2008. Implementation of such programs will be reviewed and evaluated based upon their cost and diversion effectiveness. Policies - Approve plan and continue the discussion of new policies and regulatory requirements such as mandatory recycling and product bans to give staff direction on whether to pursue such actions in conjunction with the start of the new collection contract in 2009. Facilities - Approve the regional facilities approach in the Request for Proposals for new- collection services and continue the discussion of local facilities in a separate process. Said activities are to be included in the proposals as alternatives, to be reviewed and evaluated at that time based upon their cost effectives. BACKGROUND On March 13, 2007, staff presented the Zero Waste Operational Plan (ZWOP) to the Policy and Services Committee for conceptual review. At that meeting, the Committee was asked to: CMR:300:07 Page 1 of 6 1) review and discuss the ZWOP; and 2) direct staff as to any desired modifications or additions to the Plan (CMR:123:07, Attacbmaent C). A variety of questions and comments related to how current programs worked. The Committee also reviewed recormmendations, suggested possible alternatives to the recommendations, discussed the time necessary to implernent programs, identified ways to minimize costs, discussed how staff worked with other agencies and discussed other miscellaneous items. Committee members wanted to ensure that the ZWOP was efficient, effective, in compliance, implemented quickly, and was cost effective. DISCUSSION Staff has prepared a written response, to each of the questions and comments made at the March 13, 2007 Policy mad Services meeting relating to the ZWOP. The questions have been divided up into eight categories: 1) Upstream Strategies; 2) Household Hazardous Waste Program, 3) Recycling Center; 4) Landfil!; 5) Collection Agreement; 6)Organics Program; 7) Plan Structure; and 8) General Comments. Staff distributed the recently revised plan to the Zero Waste Task Force members for their review and comments as requested by the P&S committee. Comments received are in Attachment D. - The following changes have been made to the ZWOP since the March 13, 2007 P&S meeting: 1)Under introduction, the following overview language was added: "Any qualifying projects resulting from the implementation of these policies and programs would be subject to environmental review pursuant to "the California Environmental Quality Act." 2)Section 4.3 was changed from "Local Sites for City Developed Facilities" to "Consideration for Local Replacement of Facilities." The lan~o-uage identifying We potential available sites, Figures 4-3 through 4-7 and the specifics, were removed. 3)Section 4.3.1 language was changed to state the following: "Identifying Local Sites for City Developed Facilities - In assessing potential !ocal sites, the ability to accommodate the discussed facilities, including the Recycling Drop-Off Center with HHW, Organics/Yard Trimmings composting, and C&D Debris Processing facilities will be examined. Of these facilities, a Recycling Drop-Off Center with HHW is the highest priority to be able to accommodate locally per the City’s Municipal Code. Some of the characteristics that will determine site feasibility would be property size, ownership, zoning designations, and access to the property. Should this option be chosen, a detailed site selection study subject to environmental assessment will be conducted." 4)Under Section 7.0, the recommendation section of the plan, the language was strengthened to be more aggressive, removing such words as "encourage, enhance or seek" where appropriate. 5)Under Section 7.1, "Policies," additional specific language was added for the recommended waste prevention programs. CMR:300:07 Page 2 of 6 6) 7) Under section 7.1, "Facilities," the following language was added: "Not on City parklands unless consistent with the Park Dedication Ordinance and the Baylands Master Plan." This is per the Zero Waste Strategic Plan language recormnendation approved by Council on October 17, 2005 (CMR:382:05). "The recommended policies, programs and facilities are intended to serve as an initia! menu of options for implementation. These recommendations are not intended to be exhaustive as it is expected that new opportunities for achieving the City’s desired diversion goals will deve!op over time. Likewise, while this report has provided range of magnitude costs for many of these policies, programs and facilities, it is expected these costs may change over time and that other programs or services may be able to achieve more cost effective diversion. In addition, while this report generally addresses the key environmental factors of the Chapter 7 action plan, it is expected that some of the recommendations will require further environmental assessment before full implementation. Thus, the action plan in Chapter 7 is intended to be a living document that will be reviewed and revised over time." New Collection and Processing Procurement Process The current collection and processing contract with the Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO)/ Waste Management is set to expire June 30, 2009. On March 12, 2007, Council awarded a contract to HF&H Consultants, LLC, to assist the City in the solicitation process for a new solid waste and recyclable material collection and processing agreement (CMR:154:07). The development of the request for proposals and agreement for these services is currently under way and the process is estimated to be completed in May 2008. The new contract would be awarded by July 2008. There will be a study session with the full Council to discuss the process, timeline, and contract issues, to be scheduled in late September or early October 2007. In this RFP process, staff plans to obtain a base price for the services provided to the commur~ity. Staff will then solicit additional prices for each of the following services: 1)Roll out recycling services to at1 commercial customers. 2)Add food scraps, compostable paper, untreated wood and other compostables. 3)Implement commercial and multi family organics collection. 4)Expand types of materials currently collected curbside that might include textiles, milk & juice cartons, plastic bags, expanded polystyrene packaging and containers. 5) Implement a bulky item reuse and recycling program. In June 2008, when staff returns to Council to recommend award of a contract, Council would see the base price (price for current services) plus a price for each of the five optional programs that the ZWOP is recommending. The Council then will have a clear understanding and ability to decide if the prices of the programs are justified in obtaining the potential additional diversion credits. Facilities The ZWOP recommends utilizing existing regional facilities, located outside of the City limits, for mixed recyclables (curbside and materials recovery facility), organics and construction & demolition debris processing. CMR:300:07 Page 3 of 6 The ZWOP also recommends that a local recycling drop-off center with a permanent household hazardous waste facility be developed with further study being required to determine the specific site location. The local recycling drop-off center wi!l continue to provide a convenient opportunity for residents and business to divert more materials to reuse and recycling and will reduce the toxicity of the disposed waste stream. ALTEPaNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION At the March 13, 2007 meeting, the Policy and Services Committee was presented three alternatives in CMR:123:07 (Attacbxaent C). A fourth alternative has been added per the request of Council Member Cordel!. The four*& alternative would only implement the policies and programs in the ZWOP and require no new- City-developed facilities. New - Alternative 4: Implementation of Policies and Programs Only From the ZWOP - No New Ci _W-Developed Facilities This alternative would only implement the policies and programs in the ZWOP and not any new City-developed facilities. When the City landfill closes in 2011, the existing facilities would be closed as well. The City would opt not to replace the Recycling Drop-Off Center including handling of certain HHW materials. Public Works Operations would continue its current HHW collection events at the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant. In addition, all se!f- haul materials would be diverted to the Su.nnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer (SMART) Station or other regional facilities. Under this scenario, the City Municipal Code would require modification. Esthnated Costs and Dh, ersion Rate Overview ApproacI~d~ear Regional Facility Approach (ZWOP recommendation) Alternative 1: City Developed Facility - LATP Site ~3ternative 2: City Developed Facility - PARWQCP Site Estimated Net Annual Cost* $3,991,000 $5,857,000 $5,957,000 Projected one standard can rate ($24.16) increase $4.67 $6.86 $6.97 2004 Diversion 61.90% 61.90% 61.90% 2011 Estimated Diversion 76.60% 77.30% 77.30% 2021 Estimated Diversion 77.60% 78.30% 78.30% CMR:300:07 Page 4 of 6 Alternative 3: No New City Developed Polices, Pro~arns, or Facilities Alternative 4: Implementation of Policies and Programs O~y - No New City- Developed Facilities $0 $2,351,000 $0 $2.75 61.90% 61.90%60.90% 66.30% 60.90% *Cost includes amortized capital cost, annual operating cost, estimated material sales, net material sales and existing processing cost. RESOURCE IMPACT Additional Refuse Fund expenses and revenues v~dil be required to support the ZWOP recommendations. At the March 13, 2007 meeting, the Policy and Services Committee was presented the resource impact in CMR:123:07. Since that time, Refuse rates have increased (CIV~:281:07) which has changed the overall rate impacts of the ZWOP. The foilowing charts (above and below) have been updated to reflect this increase. Zero Waste Operational Plan Overview Year/Term 2004 2008 2011 2021 Base Short Term Mid Term Long Term Diversion Rate 62%68%77%78 to 90% Estimated additional cost Total NA Not available Approximate rate impact Projected one standard can rate (FY 2007-08 one standard can rate is $24.16) increase. Cost per additional ton diverted. $3,376,000 (on- going cost) $15!),000 (one- time cost) 17%NA 3%Not available 0 $0.72 $3.95 Not available 0 $54.80 Not available$203.58 POLICY IMPLICATIONS At the March 13, 2007 meeting, the Policy and Services Committee was presemed the policy implications in CMR:123:07 (Attachment C). CMR:300:07 Page 5 of 6 ENVIRONMENTAL R~VIEW This project is a feasibility study and exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Staff’s answers to questions raised at the March 13, 2007 Policy and Services Committee Conceptual Review- of the Proposed Zero Waste Operational Plan Attachment B:Zero Waste Operational Plan - June 2007 Attachment C:CIvlR:123:07 (without attachments) Attachment D:Comments received from the Zero Waste Task Force review of the June 2007 revised version Copies of the attachments to this CMR:300:07 may be viewed at the City Clerk’s Office located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor, ?alo Alto or by contacting Russ Reiserer at 650-496-695 !. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: RUSSELL REISERER Solid Waste Marmger GLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works CiTY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMIJSY HARRISON Assistant City Manager CMR:300:07 Page 6 of 6 ATTACHI~ENT A Answers to Questions Raised at the ]~v~arch 13th Policy and Services Committee Conceptual Review of the Proposed Zero Waste Operational Plan 1. Upstream Strategies a. gZants more specifics on upstream strategies in the plan. Waste prevention and source reduction are at the top of the integrated waste management hierarchy and a high priority for the City- in its Zero Waste Operational Plan. In identi~ing policies and programs to be developed ha the City, staff must consider the relative diversion potential for each option. Thus, the Operational Plan focuses on the very largest components of the City disposed waste stream, construction and demolition debris and organics. Understanding the importance of reducing waste created by products and packaging (a relatively small component of the City disposed waste stream), the Operational Plan reco~ends that the City continue to actively collaborate with the Zero Waste Communities and other organizations on regional, state and federal strategies to reduce generation of materials that need to be recycled or disposed. Measures such as requiring retailers to participate in take-back programs or manufacturers to accept responsibility for the management of the end of life of their products are best implemerfted at the regional or state level. Specific local strategies and ordinances should be undertaken in concert with other program changes. For example, both San Francisco and Oakland have implemented ordinances that require take-out packaging to be either recyclable or compostable. Pa!o Alto could consider implementing such an ordinance once it has expanded its yard ~a-immings collection program to include food scraps, food contaminated paper, and compostable plastics (currently being considered as part of the City’s procurement process for new collection services). b. How do we place more responsibility on manufacturers? o The following items were discussed in the Zero Waste Operational Plan (Section 5.2 Extended Producer Responsibility, Section 5.3 Zero Waste Advocacy, & 5.6 Environmenta!ly Preferable Purchasing Policy) on how the City could encourage manufacturers to be more responsible for the waste they generate. o Require all se!lers of products currently banned by the State to provide convenient take-back within Palo Alto city limits, at no cost to consumers at the time of take- back and vchich is not city-funded. Through the retailers, t_his would send a message to manufacturers and create the opportunity for retailers to work with their distributors and manufacturers to set up a system to address the end-of-life of products. Legislatively - examples include: AB 1125: Rechargeable Battery Recycling Act. Effective July !, 2006, retailers must have in place, and promote, a system for accepting and collecting used rechargeable batteries for reuse, recycling, or proper disposal. At no cost to the consumer, retailers must: -Take back from the consumer a used re-chargeable battery of a type or brand that the retailer sells or has previously sold. -Provide a notice with information that directs how the consumer can return used recharge- able battery recycling opportunities that the retailer provides. This may include, for example, signage, brochures, or advertising materia! given to the consumer, or direct communications with the consumer at the time of purchase. Working with businesses through the California Product Stewardship Comacil, as described in the Operational Plan. Encouraging and supporting polices and legislation related to the fol!owing: Deposit programs, take back programs, advanced recycling fees, packaging levies, minimum recycled content standards, environmental preferable purchasing, green building guidelines, encourage other communities in the region to adopt zero waste goals and create implementation plans, involve commur~ty in advocacy campaigns, and including writing to producers arid retailers. Have City lead by example through the Recycled Content Purchasing Policy or continue to create an Environmental Procurement Policy (which is in process today). if companies wanted to secure contracts with the City of Palo Alto: Require that all vendors reduce product packaging to eliminate waste as much as possible, use returnable, reusable packaging and shipping methods. The remaining packaging that was not able to be reduced or reused must be able to be recycled locally in curbside programs or convenient loca! methods established and maintained by the manufacturer. ~ Require that all vendors reduce product packaging to eliminate waste as much as possible, use returnable, reusable packaging and shipping methods. The remaining packaging that was not able to be reduced or reused must be able to be recycled locally in curbside programs or convenient local methods established and maintained by the manufacturer. c. Should we expand to include completely biodegradable, organic waste? o Not necessarily. !f the desire is to actually reduce waste and not just manage it, Palo alto should not trade recycling for composting or request that a single-use product that is compostable be substituted for a single-use product that is cun’ently being landfilled (e.g., plastic bags vs. compostable plastic bags). Both are downstream solutions for upstream problems. Switching from plastic bags to compostable bags is not "better". It is just reading one resource intensive and wasteful practice for another. IfPalo Alto wants to elirninate the disposable bag (paper, plastic, or bio-plastic) and focus on reusable cloth, then we could take those steps directly. Bio-based plastics (e.g., bags, food service ware) are not necessarily petroleum- free. Bio-based plastics are resource intensive. Corn or potatoes are grown to derive the starch to make the products (e.g., bags, utensils, food service ware) that are used for the few minutes they are actually used. Bio-based bags, if certified "compostable", are certified compostable in commercial compost operations only (not in home compost piles). ~ If litter in the marine environment is a concern, it should be understood that not all bio-based bags do not compost in the marine environment. o Programs that the city implements must be compatible with the infrastructure in place. For example, not all compost facilities accept biodegradable/compostable 2 food service ware in their compost operations. The compost facility dictates what is accepted, which means the city may or may not be able to use the closest compost facility. We need to closely evaluate anything we add to a collection program beyond food scraps and landscape debris. In general there is a shortage of compost facilities in the region which means the City has few- choices that are within a reasonable distance. This results in greater transportation costs and GHG emissions which conflicts with the City’s Climate protection goals. [] It is difficult for the average person to distinguish the difference between petroleum-derived plastic bags from a biodegradable plastic bag. As a result, plastic bags end up in the compost which is undesirable for the marketing of the compost and biodegradable bags end up in the film plastic recycling. This creates problems for the recycling of the plastic bags into products such as plastic lumber. []A recent California Integrated Waste Management Board and Chico State University- study indicated that the bio-based plastic bags degraded at a rate of 60% in commercial compost. _That indicates that 40% of the bag is residue and landfilled. d. Can we look into improving!utilizing technology for upst-ream reductions? The utilization of"technology" is a growing area where upstream reduction can be improved. At the same time it is hard to quantify" results and predict projections for waste prevention because it can not be mandated. e. Wanted to see more waste reduction ac~ities (!lying more simply activities, tool library, requiring green construction when over a specific size, deconstruction, closing the loop activities, buy in bulk and banning potystyrene.). We plan to do more if additional resources are added per the Zero Waste Operational Plan recommendation. These measures would not change our calculations regarding diversion tonnages since we have already assumed a percentage of diversion based on upstream programs. f. Should there be a ban on plastic bags or further discourage the use of plastic bags? According to the 2005 Palo Alto Waste Composition Study, approximately .44% (345 tons), less than 1 percent, of the overall waste stream is plastic bags. The city currently accepts plastic bags for recycling at the City’s Recycfing Drop- off Center. Plastic bags could be one of the next new- items we ,a41t add to the curbside single stream. The Waste Management processing center located in San Leandro is working on improvements to their processing equipment that would allow plastic bags to go through their processing line without getting stuck on the equipment or damaging it. Staff ~t continue to monitor the possibifity of adding plastic bags to the curbside collection. The Recycling Program has for many- years been discouraging the use of plastic bags by promoting reusable cloth bags through giveaways at special events and through continuous educational outreach to the community. This outreach is 3 ongoing since it requires people and the business community to modify a behavior that is a habit and therefore difficult to change. The City of Palo Alto created a Municipal Code in 1989 that discourages using plastic bags at our retail stores. Chapter 5.35 requires retailers to offer paper bags only, or choice of paper or plastic bags. In addition to offering paper bags at the check stand, cash register or other point of departure, grocery stores, supermarkets, produce or meat markets and other similar retail establishments shal! also offer consumers paper bags only or a choice between paper bags and plastic bags fin produce, bulk foods or meat departments which may be present on site. Plastic bags continue to ser~,e some useful purposes for reuse. Some examples include using these bags to handle pet waste or lining garbage containers. g. Can we get more aggressive policies and programs by reviewing what other cities are doing? ~ Staff is currently working with other cities reviewing more aggressive policies and programs through: ~ Bay" Area Zero Waste communities group in which the City is one of the founding members. ~ Solid Waste Association of North America > California Resource Recovery Association ~ Santa Clara County Technical Advisory committee ~ Build it Green ~ Environmental Stewardship Steering Committee ~ Caiifomia Product Stewardship Council If additional resources are added per the Zero Waste Operational Plan recommendation, additional efforts will be added to become even more aggressive related to the existing policies and programs we have currently. 2o HH~¢ Program a. Have we looked at curbside collection of HHW? ~ Palo Alto’s HHW program already includes curbside collection of motor oil, oil filters and household batteries for single family residents. It also includes, at no additional cost "door-to-door" residential collection service for qualifying residents with physical limitations. On the day of the monthly event, the City’s HHW contractor schedules a~a appointment with the qualifying resident (whose physical limitation has been confirmed by a doctor) and drives to their residence, packages their ~ and transports *_he wastes to the event location (WQCP) in order to consolidate the ~ into the main waste stream. Currently, the HHW contractor charges the City $82 per residence to cover the additional cost for this serv-ice. ~Palo Alto could expand this program and provide this residential collection service to any resident that wanted the convenience of a door-to-door collection service for a s~ar price ($82 per household) without impact to the City’s budget. 4 b. What are the benefits of a permanent HHW facility? The main benefit of Palo Alto developing a permanent HHW facility is that it would provide more frequent and convenient service to residents, thereby collecting more HA-tW with less illegal disposal. Less illegal disposal of HHW would result in less toxic wastes in the environment, less operating problems for the WQCP, tess potential for fines for WQCP effluent levels, and less potential for health and safety problems for SMART Station landfill, sewer, and WQCP workers. ~ A robust and effective HHW program is also an important part of the City’s sustainability and zero waste policies. Local collection of HH\V, as opposed to usage of a re~onal HHW facility, reduces the distances the distance residents and small businesses have to travel, thereby reducing the amounts of energy and greenhouse gas vehicle emissions into the atmosphere. Loca! collection also demonstrates Palo Alto’s commitment to take responsibility for the HHW that is generated. Other benefits of a permanent HltW Facility include: > Make use of ful! containers before shipment resulting in transportation savings. > Eliminates some pre-coltection setup tasks, thereby saving mobilization costs. > Grant money from the State may be available to offset some capital costs. > Can promote reuse of reusable products. > A permanent facility can process participants more efficiently reducing wait times. c. Could the existing HHW program be built on to meet the needs of the future, thus avoiding a permanent facility recommendation? ~ The current collection program has service and storage constraints and is limited to one collection event per month. Palo Alto residents currently bring their household hazardous wastes to the collection events at the WQCP parking lot on the first Saturday of the month. This location is permitted by the state as a "Temporary Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility". By regulation, these temporary collection facilities may not operate more than once in any one month and at the end of the event, all equipmeng materials, and waste must be removed from the site within 144 hours (six days). I-kHW Program Staff, in cooperation with WQCP Staff have been exploring the utilization of upgraded WQCP facilities and permit revisions to facilitate more frequent HHW collection for some residents and longer storage of waste at the site. The upgraded facilities could allow more frequent collection for an estimated 10 to 15% of residents that normally use the events during the month. However, in order to expand the City’s HHW service level to include more frequent collection for more residents in a cost effective manner and promote reuse of unopened ~ products, a permanent facility is necessary. The permanent facility would need to include enough storage capacity to manage the current amount of residents and small businesses that normally use the pro~am in order to service a larger percentage of residents. 5 3. Recycle Center a. Could collection pods be used in place of the recommended permanent local recycle center and HHW operation? Pods can’t do the multi-materials that the drop-off center does. They do not replace the need for a drop-off center, but actually duplicate the curbside and commercial recycling programs. b. Do we need a permanent Recycle Center with the recent success of the curbside single stream program ? ~ The Palo Alto Strategic Plan approved by Council on October 2005 identified objectives and strategies to provide a framework to guide City officials and the community in the planning and decision process towards achieving Zero Waste. Objective 3, Strategy 1, #2: Maintain one or more recycling drop-off centers within the City limits once the City landfill closes in 2011, not on City parklands unless consistent with the Park Dedication Ordinance and the Baylands Master Plan. The drop-off center accepts many more materials that are not accepted through the curbside collection including plastic bags, polystyrene foam, milk and juice cartons, motor oil containers, blueprints, boolcs, tapes, CDs, mattresses, and other household hazardous waste. The drop-off center also has a goodwill trailer that accepts reusable materials. c. What O’Pe of people use the Recycle Center? The last study conducted was in 1992, so the results are outdated. Some of the highlights of that study were: ~ 72% of the customers were Palo Alto residents. ~ Recyclers from the survey came as far as North San Francisco and as far South as San Jose. 71% recycle 0 to 1 times a month. ~ 28% visit twice a month ~ 5% ,Asit the center three times a month. ~ 8% visit the recycling center 4 or more times a month. ~ 79% said that they brought the materials from their home. ~ 8% said that they brought the materials from their work. 48% of the materials brought in was cardboard, 39% was newspaper d. Concerned that attention was being focused on facilities that dealt with a relatively small part of the waste stream. Self-haul is a significant fraction of the city’s disposed waste stream. According to the 2005 Palo Alto Waste Composition Study-, approximately 45% (4,900 tons) of self-haul waste is recyclable. To reach zero waste, we will need to pay more attention (not less) to self haul. Without a local City drop-off center, self haulers would have to go to Stam~’ord drop-off center, SMART Station, or San Carlos Transfer Station to recycle. None of which collect al! the materials accepted at 6 the current Recycling Center drop-off or the mnticipated collection of additional materials at the new proposed drop-off center. 4. Landfill a. Should we consider creating a landfill ban on recyctables? ~A landfill ban can be implemented for materials wbSch should be recycled. o The Palo Alto Strategic Plan approved by Comacil on October 2005 identified objectives and strategies to provide a framework to guide City officials and the community in the planning and decision process towards achieving Zero Waste. Objective 6, Strategy 2, #16, Establish criteria for implementing bans and mandates where voluntary efforts have not been effective in meeting Zero Waste. b. Are people who show up at the landfill being told that they are not welcomed? The tollbooth attendants have been instructed to educate all customers (verbally and through educational handouts) about the economic advantages of recycling when appropriate. c. Should we start charging ~.he Palo Alto Unified School district at the City landfill? Palo Alto Municipal Code, 5.20.240, c, Vehicles owned by the Palo Alto Unified School district may be allowed toll-exempt use of the landfill. ~ The Palo Alto Unified School district in calendar year 2006 brought in 93 tons of waste and 110 tons of compost to the City landfill in which they were allowed toll-exempt use of the landfill. Historically we have not charged the Palo Alto Unified School district to use the City operated landfill, recycle center or compost operation. The City can start charging the Palo Alto Unified Schools district to use the City operations if that is the direction staff is given. 5. Collection Agreement a. Why did mixed C&D material have to be hauled away solely by PASCO? ~ Construction sites can produce waste quicMy. Constraction sites produce waste materials which can not be recycled. It is sometimes hard to tell the difference between waste and C&D materials. Staff can better control the residue rate and diversion levels with it currently being handled by PASCO. The revenue that comes from C&D debris boxes services also help pay for other solid waste services. This loss of revenue would have to be passed onto other customer rates. b. Should we consider taking way the provision of having to use PASCO? ~ This is currently part of the scope of work for HF&H consultants to analyze in the ~oreement for the development of the new RFP for the new hauling agreement. []There is currently a provision in place today where the customer can use other drop box service providers. The only Municipal Code requirement is that the customer/collector must source-separate their material for the purpose of recycling. It would create a loss of revenues to the City that would cause an increase to customer monthly refuse rates because 67% of the current debris box revenues pay for other programs such as the City Landfill, composting operation, long term disposal agreement (Kirby Canyon), SMART Station, educational program, household hazardous waste program, and street sweeping operations. You could loose oversight to ensure that the materials actually get recycled. Some of these companies have been found to just dispose of the materials. The City could loose control of the quality of service being supplied in the community. Customers have a high level of expectation that PASCO is able to meet including same day service. Complaints or unsatisfied service would be more difficult to resolve when there are multiple service providers. There is also an additional environmental impact on a~ pollution when having multiple service providers as wel! as an added impact on the roads. Franchising with qualified haulers could be implemented if the city municipal code was changed to try to maintain the quality of service and diversion requirements; however, this does require additional expenses for administering contracts and oversight of their performance. Pa!o Alto Municipal Code 5.20.040, a. The city shall authorize, permit, regulate and control the collection, removal and disposal of all solid waste and recyclable materials generated at all places or premises. For this purpose, a collection agreement with one or more solid waste enterprises may be entered into by the city with or without advertising for bids. The collection agreement shall not be a franchise nor be deemed or construed as such. c. What can be done to reducing the health hazard in terms of attracting rats to the collection cans? Garbage is required by the Municipal code to be picked up at a minimum of once a week. Customers should ensure that containers should have a tight fitting lid and emptied a minimum of once per week. Maintaining the area around the container clean and free of liter wi~ also minimize rodent’s problems. 6. Organics Program a. Why have we not included food waste in our existing yard trimmings program? The regulatory agencies (Bay Area Air Quality Management District and Regional Water Quality Control Board) would not allow us to process food waste in with our yard trimmings unless we changed how we process our organics. It is unlikely that the City would be allowed to process food waste without investing in an enclosed system to control odors and vectors during the process period. ~ The California Integrated Waste Management Board requires that an operating permit would have to be changed to allow this to happen. It is likely that a new" CEQA review would be required which would take a minimum of a year and a half. Since the landfill wil! be closing by 2011, the investment in a new facility at that site would be cost-prohibitive. According to research conducted for the Operational Plan, there is capacity for the City’s organics at regional facilities. ~ Getting a new- air board permit has been very difficult to obtain if impossible. b. Have we looked at keeping a local organic prog~’am? This alternative was evaluated during the development of the Zero Waste Operational Plan. ~ The challenge continues to be finding available land locally which is suitable for the operational needs. ~ !t will continue to be reviewed as an option. c. Should we do a pilot program for organics? This would be difficult and costly to do in the winding down phase of the existir, g collection agreement. The City can inaplement a full-scale program at the time of t~he new collection agreement. o We are currently discussing a pilot program with one hauler/processor that is looking at the possibly of developing a regional program, but it is at the initial planning stages. The city has had a food waste composting pilot program that began back in October, 2001. PASCO routed one mack to collect waste only from businesses with high food/compostable waste in their garbage (e.g., restaurants and grocery stores). One mack load was collected at one point of time five days a week. The material was delivered to the Green Waste Recovery, Inc. Transfer Station located in Charles Street in San Jose. The material was then transferred to the Z-Best processing facility in Gilroy where it was composted using the Ag-Bag method. Efforts to secure a contract for the delivery and processing of high organic waste to Green Waste Recovery stalled in contract negotafions and the composfing of commercially-generated high organic waste ended with the pi!ot. 7. Plan Struc~re a. Can we use stronger language in the recommendations besides "encourage ", "enhance "’ or "seek" in the recommendation? ~ We have strengthened that language to be more aggressive where appropriate. b. Can we put in a definitive statement that there will be no development on dedicated parklands? Under recommendations 7.1, "facilities" Modified statement "Keep a local drop off recycling operation which includes an HHW facility; the minimttm acreage requirement is approximately 2.2 acres to add: The facility wi!l not be developed on City parklands unless consistent with the Park Dedication Ordinance and the Baylands Master Plan. This is per the Zero Waste Strategic Plan language recommendation approved by Council on March 13, 2007 (CMR 123:07) c. Can a fourth alternative be created which has no new local facilities? This option is discussed in section 4.3.2 of the plan. The Operationa! Plan recommends only the development of a local Drop-Off Center and permanent HHW facility. The City’s existing facility is a true community- asset which provides residents and businesses within the City the opportunity to recycle materials that cannot be collected through traditional curbside or commercial collection programs (e.g. fluorescent tubes, Styrofoam blocks, reusable items). 9 Approximately 1,200 tons of materials are recycled annually at the Drop-Off Center, representing 1 percent of the City’s diversion rate. Elimination of this facility could create a hardship for customers of the facility who generate more recyclables than can be collected through the curbside program (from moving or clean-ups) or for commercial customer that do not space for recycling containers. Eliminating the Drop-Off center and permanent HHW facility which would reduce annual costs by $1,640,000 ($810,000 Amortized (6% over a 20 year term) Capital + $830,000 Operations Cost) and reduce the City’s anticipated diversion rate by 1 percent. General Comments a. Can we do things quicker? -Changes can be made quicker it just becomes more time consuming for staff and more costly to the City. The new hauling agreement is planned to be in place in July 1, 2008-approximately one year from now. Staff is working on creating long term plans that will have integrated waste prevention programs mini~zing expenses to the City in the furore. Staff time is best utilized focusing on the new collection agreement at t~s point in time. -The timeline is a-working living document in which it does allow staffto do these projects quicker when and if the opporPanities arise. b. Wants to identify the problems before creating solutions. -Section 1.4 of the Zero Waste operational Plan discusses the challenges in Achieving Zero Waste. -V~rhy customers are not utilizing the existing programs could be looked into in the future. c. Wants us to be leaders on how we handle eleco’onic waste. -We believe we are doing a good job in handling electronic waste today. The Ciff tandlN1/recycle center currently collects Cathode Ray Tubes and devices with screens, computer monitors, television picture tubes, LCD monitors, Plasma TVs, LCD TVs, & Laptops for no charge. -Currently private local businesses are actively collecting and recycling these items per State standards to recover the revenues offered by the state. Local businesses such as Green Citizen, Palo Alto Microcomputer, Plugged In,, Resource Area for Teachers, Computer Recycling Center & ECS refining, Inc are collecting a wide variety of electronic devices that include VCRs, radios, CPUs, printers, cell phones, telephones and Microwaves. -Responsibility of these materials should be on the manufacturers that create them and do not plan for it. This should be an upstream issue. Electronic waste should be handled by local nonprofits and businesses. d. Ask that we get additional Task force feedback -Changes were reviewed and commented by the Zero Waste Task Force before returning to Policy and Services. 10 -Review and comments from the Zero Waste Task Force was also taken during the development of the Zero Waste Operational Plan at the 90% draft stage of the plan. e. ~That strategies are used for disaster planning? -The Zero Waste Operational Plan does not address disaster planning. -The Public Works Operations has developed an "Emergency Debris Management Resources" plan. R was first developed in December 2001. in this plan they discuss potential staging areas where debris will be stockpiled and separated at +dae City landfill to reduce the waste generated from disaster incidents. -The County is currently developing a county wide debris management plan that should be complete within the upcoming year. The City of Palo Alto has committed funding for the development of this plan. 11 ATTACHMENT C TO: City of Palo Alto C ty anager’s Repert CITY COUNCIL ATTN: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER 5~RCH 13, 2007 POLICY AND SERVICES COS~ITTEE DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS CMR:123:07 CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF A ZERO WASTE OPERATION~ PL.4aN RECOMN[ENDATION Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee recommend to City Council approval of the short term, mid term and !ong term goals outlined in the Zero Waste Operational Plan (Attachment A). The Zero Waste Operational Plan recommends a regional facility approach to achieve 73 percent waste diversion by 2011 and close to zero waste by 2021. Reliance on regional facilities for composting and construction (C&D) debris processing provides the ~eatest diversion at the lowest price. The ZWOP also recommends a Recycling Drop-Off Center with a permanent Household Hazardous Waste facility to be developed locally with further study being required at a later date to determine the specific site location. The local Recycling Drop-Off Center w-ill provide a convenient opporttmity for residents and business to divert more materials to reuse and recycling and will reduce the toxicity of the disposed waste streal’n. BACKGROUND On November 15, 2004, during the discussion of the then-proposed Environmental Services Center project, Council directed staff to develop a zero waste policy and implementation plan. In January 2005, a Zero Waste Task Force composed of residents and businesses was formed to assist in the creation of a zero waste policy and the development of a Zero Waste Strategic Plan (ZWSP) for Palo Alto. The ZWSP was created to act as a framework to guide City officials in the planning a~d decision making process towards achieving zero waste goals. In October 2005, Council approved (C_MR:382:05, Attachment B) the Zero Waste Task Force ZWSP, which identified the key objectives and strategies needed to reach zero waste goals. The ZWSP established a goal of 73 percent diversion by 2011 and to strive for zero yvaste by eliminating materials sent to landfills by 2021. The ZWSP recommended that the City, conduct a waste composition study and develop a Zero Waste Operational Plan (ZWOP) to identify the policies, programs and facilities needed to achieve these goals. DISCUSSION The primary purpose of the ZWOP is to si~maificantly reduce the amount of waste produced by residents, businesses, and institutions within the City, to reduce the toxicity of the disposed waste stream and to maximize diversion of recyclable and compostable materials generated within the City. CMR:123:07 Page 1 of 7 Project Description The ZWOP includes: A detailed waste composition study to identify the cornponents of the City’s disposed waste stream; Identification of the policies, programs and facilities needed to reach 73 percent diversion by 2011 and to strive for zero waste by 2021; Identification of potential candidate sites for processing facilities options both locally and regionally; ~Estimated costs for implementing the Plan; ~Estimation of diversion potential for the components of the Plan; ~Identification of the staffing needs to implement the policies and programs identified in the plan; and Creation of action plan that identifies the tasks necessary to undertake the Plan, including an implementation schedule. Palo Alto Waste Composition Study To achieve zero waste, it is ftrst necessary to understand existing waste streams to identif?~ key opportunities for diversion, recovery, or reuse of specific tTpes of waste categories. The followdng are the ZWOP’s key findings regarding disposal trends and recovery potential for the city overall: Approximately 72% of the city’s waste is reusable, recyclable or compostable. About 3% of the city’s waste stream is considered potentially recyclable, meaning markets could be developed regionally to process and market these materials. Approximately 25% of the city waste sampled consists of problem materials (Waste is considered problem materials if there are no existing processing options). The ZWOP’s waste composition study identified the following key oppommities: Focus on residential and commercial paper. Recyclable paper from residential and commercial waste streams totaled approximately 15% (10,300 tons). Collection, processing, and end markets for recycled paper are well established and could be tapped to increase diversion. Expand organics diversion. Food waste and compostable paper from single family, multi-family, and commercial sources totaled more than 26% (18,000 tons). Examine opportunities of increased construction and demolition (C&D) debris reduction/recycling. Recyclabte materials in the industrial and self-haul waste sectors account for more than 22 % (15,200 tons) per year. ZWOP Recommended Policies, Programs and Facilities Given the key findings of the waste composition study, the ZWOP contains the following major recommendations (section 7.0 of the ZWOP): CMR: 123:07 Page 2 of 7 Policies Continue to expand efforts in waste prevention through legislation, policies, ordinances, outreach, and technical assistance. Seek to reduce the amount and toxicity of consumer product waste through measures that place the appropriate level of responsibility on manufacturers for the end-of-life of their products. ®Encourage innovative services to be added by the private sector and nonprofit gro-aps so the City does not have to invest in those activities. , Work with residents, businesses, community organizations, Bay A.rea Product Stewardship Council, Bay .area Zero Waste Comm_unities group to further the City’s zero waste efforts. , Establish, support and inco~orate environmentally preferable purchasing standards. Prog-rarns Divert all PASCO debris boxes rich in C&D debris to local C&D debris processors. Create a grant or loan program for attracting and retaining reuse and recycling businesses within the commu_nity. Track and reduc_e greenhouse gases from the actions in reducing waste within the community. Enhance recycling in public areas (grocery stores, conveNence stores, hospitals and schools) Enhance business and school technical assistance programs to maximize, pm’ticipation. Phase iv_ a mandatory- participation ordinance to coincide with the inaplementation of a new collection services agreement. Create new- rate incentives that further rewards customers for reducing or elin-~inating waste. Consider encouraging adaptive reuse design and expanding the C&D ordinance to include all projects. Have City lead by example by expanding recycling services, increasing education and requiring accountability. Implement in the upcoming procurement process for the hauling and processing agreement the following services: expansion of the current curbside yard trimming collection program to include food scraps, compostab!e paper, untreated wood and other compostables that would include multi-family and the commercial sector; expansion of the types of recycling materials being excepted at the curbside; improvement in the bulk5, item clean-up program to further reuse and recycle the materials being collected; and implementation of a universal roll-out of recycling services to all customers. Facilities Use the regional facilities approach when processing waste for recyclables at the Materials Recovery Facility, Recyclabtes, Organics/Yard Trimmings and C&D Debris. The regional facilities approach involves sharing existing processing facilities located within 85 miles of the City with the City contracting for these services as part of its agreement with a new contract hauler. Keep a Recycling Drop-Off Center w-ith a permanent Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) facility locally with further analysis needed for a permanent site location. CMR:123:07 Page 3 of 7 Overview The fol!owing table provides an overview of the ZWOP for the short, mid and long term. Zero Waste Operational i~an Overview YearfFerm 20@4 2tltt rvfia Term Diversion Rate 62%77% NA -Major additional programs and facilities Estimated additional costs (Break do~ of cost are itemized in the Resource Impact Section) Approximate rate impact Projected one standard can rate ($19.80) increase. NA Short Term 68% -Additional C&D debris diversion -Additional staff resources $615,000 (on- going cost) Ne’w collection contract Universal roll-out -Regional organics processing -Regional C&D debris processing $3,378,500 (on-going cost) $150,000 (one time cost) 202t Long Term 78 to 90% -Use of emerging technology or other innovative approaches to materials management not available NA 3%17%not available 0 $. 59 $ 3.37 not available ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECONfMEN])ATION The ZWOP recommends a regional facility approach for composting and C&D processing along with a local Recycling Drop-Off Center and HHW facility. Two alternatives were looked at that included City-developed facilities, such as the former Los Altos Treatment Plant (LATP) site and the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP) site. These alternatives would provide local composting and C&D processing along with a Recycling Drop-Off Center with HHW. Comparisons for these alternatives can be found in section 6.4 and in Exhibit B in the Zero Waste Operational Plan. If the Council were to direct staff to further explore City developed facilities, additional environmental review would be required. Following is a general summary of the two alternatives along with a third alternative that would require no new City- developed facilities, programs or policies. CMR:123:07 Page 4 of 7 Alternative 1: Ci~-Developed Facility - LATP Site This alternative assumes development of the vcestern-most portions, approxh-nately 7.1 acres of the former LATP. This site could accommodate the Recycling Drop-Off Center with HHW, Organics/Yard Trimmings Composting, and C&D Debris Processing facilities. This site is also the subject of the City’s initiative to retain auto dealerships in Palo Alto (Amderson Honda). Alternative 2: Citw-Devetoped Facility - PARWOCP Site This alternative assumes development of approximately 7.5 acres of the southwestern portion of the PARWQCP site. The City would need to tmke possession, purchase and then demolish three buildings on the northeast side of Embarcadero Way and four buildings on the southwest side of Embarcadero Way, both most directly north of the PARWQCP entrance. This site could accommodate the Recycling Drop-Off Center with HHW, Organics/Yard Trimmings Composting, and C&D Debris Processing faciiities. Alternative 3" No New CkW-Deve!oped Policies. Pro~ams or Facilities This alternative assumes that after the City landfill closes in 2011, the existing City facilities would be closed as we!!. The City would opt not to replace the Recycling Drop-Off Center including handling of certain H_HW m_aterials. Public Works Operations would continue its current HHW collection events at the PARWQCP. in addition, al! self-haul materials would be diverted to the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer (SMART) Station or other regional facilities. Under this scenario, the City Municipal Code would require modification. Approach/Year Regional Facility Approach (ZWOP recommendation) Alternate 1: City Developed Facility-LATP Site Alternate 2: City Developed Facility-PARWQCP Site Alternate 3: No New City Developed Policies, Programs, or Facilities Estimated Costs and Diversion Rate Comparisons Estimated Net Cast * $3,993,500 $5,242,000 $~,~4_.000 $0 * Cost includes amortized capital cost, annual and existing processing cost. Projected one standard can rate ($19.80) increase. $3.96 $5.03 $5.12 $0 2004 Estimated Diversion 61.9% 61.9% 61.9% 61.9% 2011 Estimated Diversion 76.6% 77.3% 65.3% 65.3% 2~)21 Estimated Diversion 77.6% 78.3% 66.3% 66.3% )erating cost, estimated material sales, net material sales RESO~_~CE IlVIPACT Additional Refuse Fund expenses and recommendations. For the short term expenses would be needed to fund: revenues will be required to support the ZWOP (fiscal year 2007-08) period $615,000 for on going CMR: 123:07 Page 5 of 7 $450,000 for additional staff or contract resources (3 FTE), $100,000 for expanding the outreach campaign, $15,000 for diverting the remaining PASCO debris boxes rich in C&D to a local C&D processor, and $50,000 for grants or loan program for attracting and retaining reuse and recycling businesses. For the mid term (after fiscal year 2008 but on or before fiscal year 2011) period, $3,378,500 of on-going expenses and $150,000 of one time-time expense would need to fund: $15,000 for organic containers; $2,500 for technical assistance to multi-family units; $3,361,000 for implementing new programs in the upcoming procurement process for collection and processing services (assumes a regional facility approach for composting and C&D Debris processing with a local Recycling Drop-Off Center with HHW facility- - see E "xlaibit B in the ZWOP for additional details.); and $150,000 of one-time expenses would need to be funded for the purchase of organic containers. For fiscal year 2007-08, staff is proposing a I3 percent rate increase for the Refuse Fusn_d to maintain the Counci!-adopted minimum Rate Stabilization Reserve. It is projected that if the ZWOP.is fully implemented as recommended, that a 20 percent rate increase for the Refuse fund -would be required starting in fiscal year 2007-08 (a 3% rate increase, and after fiscal year 2008 but on or before fiscal year 2011, a 17% rate increase). POLICY IMPLICATIONS On November 15, 2004, during the discussion of the then-proposed Environmental Se~Tices Center project (CMR: 470:04), Council directed staff to return to Council with a proposed policy for zero waste, including an implementation plan. The Zero Waste Operational plan is consistent with this Council direction. The City’s Sustainability Policy and Comprehensive Plan contains many programs and policy statements that are consistent with the long-term solid waste planning goals and objectives of the ZWOP. The city’s Comprehensive Plan contains the following policies: Comprehensive Plan Policies Natural Environment-Solid and Hazardous Waste N-34: Reduce the amount of solid waste disposed in the city’s landfill by reducing the amount of waste generated and promoting the cost-effective reuse of materials that would otherwise be placed in a landfill. N-35:Reduce solid waste generation through salvage and reuse of building materials, including architecturally and significant materials. N-36:Encourage the use of reusable, returnable, recyclabte, and repairable goods through incentives, educational displays and activities, and city purchasing policies and practices. N-37: Ensure the environmentally sound disposal of solid waste. N-38: Support state and federal legislation encouraging the use ofrecyclable goods. CMR:123:07 Page 6 of 7 N-52: N-54: Lmprove city composting praeNces ~d con "-Vmue promoting ~he household composing program. Contfinue to develop iong-ierm solid waste management programs that include safe and environmental!y sound disposal methods such as the SMART Station. The following local, state, and federal mandates are consistent wi~ the Zero Waste OperaN_onal Plan recommendations: Palo A!to Municipal Code (5.20.270) The city wi!l maintain, within the cit3r’s tenq_,tof~N iimits, a recyc~’ing center that accepts ~om residents and non-residents the delive_.q¢ of recyciable materiais. ENVIRONgqENTAL RE%rlEW This project is a feasibility study and exempt under 14 Calk~onaia Code of Regulations i 5262. ATTACI~rv~NTS Attachment A: Zero Waste Operational Plan-December 2006 Aruaebment B: CMR: 382:05 Adoption of Zero Wa~c~e Resolution, Apwova! of the Zero Waste StrateNe Plan and Dkeefion to prepare a Zero Waste Operational P!an Copies of the attaeimaents to +&is CMR:123:07 may be viewed at the Public Works Department counter located at 250 HawNto_n Avenue, 6~ -Floor, Palo Alto or by contacting Russ Reiserer at 650-496,6951. - / PREPARED BY: DEPARTMenT RUSSELL REiSERER Solid’: Waste M~er GLENN S. ROBERTS Dkector of Pubiic Works CITY M~d, IAGER APPROVAL: Assistant City Manager CMIh123:07 Page 7 of 7 CMR:123:07 (without attachments) ATTACH~-~ENT D Public Works Depa~ent Operations Division Date: From: Subject: July 12, 2007 Russel! Reiserer, Solid Waste Manager Comments from the Zero Waste Task Force regarding the Zero Waste Operational Plan No comments were received from the Zero Waste Task Force at the time the staff report (CMR:300:07) was prepared for the Policy & Services Committee meeting on July 17, 2007.