HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 216-08TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Ci~T Manager’s Office
DATE:APRIL 28, 2008 CMR: 216:08
SUBJECT:UPDATE ON RECYCLING, URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN,
UTILITIES’ CONSERVATION-RELATED PROGRAMS, CLEAN
RENEWABLE ENERGY BONDS AND CLIMATE PROTECTION
PLAN
This is an informational report, and no Council action is required. As pat of the Ealth
Day presentation to Council, the fol!owing updates on City sustainability pro~ams are
included: Recycling, Urban Forest Master Plan, Utilities Conservation Progan~s, Clean
Renewable Energy Bonds, and Climate Protection. Due to time limitations, staff’s
presentation at the Council study session will focus on Green Building, Environmentally
Preferred Purchasing and the Communib Environmental Action Partnership (CEAP).
However, staff familiar with the issues in this report will also be available at the study
session to respond to Council questions.
DISCUSSION
RECYCLING
The Recycling Program has been working on a variety of projects and collaborative
efforts to implement the City’s Zero Waste Operational Plan. This report provides details
on the Green Business Pro~am; Palo Alto landfill restrictions; school ~een team
facilitation; Bay-Friendly Regional Coalition, product stewardship and extended producer
responsibility; and a summary of the third year results of the Construction and
Demolition Debris Diversion Program. A more detailed report of Recycling Program
activities can be found in the Recycling Program’s annual report.
Green Business Program
The CiD’ of Palo Alto is a partner of the Bay Area Green Business Prod’am which
rewards local businesses for taking actions to conserve resources, prevent pollution, and
minimize waste. The number of Palo Alto businesses certified by the Bay Area Green
Business Program has increased dramatically since 2007, from 12 last year to 32 this
year, with additional businesses enrolled in the Pro~am. Upon certification, a one-page
Green Business Profile is created for the business and posted to the City’s web site,
highlighting the business’s accomplistvnents. City staff actively promotes the pro~am
and was asked to deliver a waste reduction presentation to 200 attendees of the 2008
Santa Clara County Annual Green Business Conference. City staff also collaborates with
CMR 216:08 Page 1 of 9
the Palo Alto Chamber of Connnerce on its Palo Alto Business Goes Green initiative to
increase the number of businesses certified by the Green Business Program.
School Green Teams
The Recycling Program is working with the Palo Alto Unified School District and
interested Palo Alto schools to establish sustained, site-based, multi-stakeholder, action-
oriented Green Teams. Public and private elementary, middle and high schools are all
included. The City has hired a contractor to help facilitate the creation of the Green
Teams in concert with school administration, teachers, students, and parent volunteers.
The Green Teams will develop environmental programs/actions that are cost-efficient,
are adapted to site needs, incorporate action-oriented research methods, and include
social marketing techniques when applicable.
Twelve Green Teams wil! be developed in calendar year 2008. Schools have been
selected according to their interest level. In addition, the contractor will support the five
Green Teams already developed through efforts funded by the Palo Alto Unified School
District.
Bay-Friendly Regional Coalition
Public Works and Utilities are taking an active role in the formation of the Bay-Friendly
Regional Coalition, a membership organization comprised of individuals representing
public agencies, businesses and non-profit organizations from all of the nine Bay Area
counties, working together to promote Bay-Friendly landscaping and gardening.
Bay-Friendly landscaping and gardening is a whole systems approach to the design,
construction and maintenance of landscape that works in harmony with the natural
conditions of the San Francisco Bay watershed. It is based on seven principles for
sustainable landscaping: Landscape locally; landscape for less to the landfill; nurture the
soil; conse~we water; conse~we energy; protect air and water quality; and create wildlife
habitat. Bay-Friendly practices foster soil health and conserve water and other valuable
resources while reducing waste and preventing pollution.
The Bay-Friendly Regional Coalition builds on work done previously by StopWaste.Org.
The Bay-Friendly program provides resources such as trainings, workshops and
publications for the both public and private sector landscape professionals and the home
gardener. The Bay-Friendly educational materials were developed with guidance from
public and private landscape architects and designers, contractors, representatives from
Alameda County public agencies and staff of StopWaste.Org. The Coalition is now-
working to provide these resources regionally.
In January, the City of Palo Atto signed the Bay Friendly Coalition’s Declaration of
Support of the Seven Bay-Friendly Principles, becoming one of the charter signatories.
Product Stewardship and Extended Producer Responsibility
The Principles of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), also ~known as Product
Stewardship, are being applied by City of Palo Alto Public Works Refuse and
Environmental Compliance Divisions to reduce the mnount and toxicity" of waste
CMR 216:08 Page 2 of 9
generated. EPR is a policy approach, officially adopted by the State in 2007, holding
producers liable for the costs of responsibly managing products at the end of their useful
lives. Producer responsibility from %radle to cradle" is expected to drive green product
desi~on, reducing the burden on local governments which have neither the capacity" nor
funding to deal with toxic, disposable spent products. The goal of EPR is to shift
responsibility for the growing group of products bam~ed fi’om landfills, such as
fluorescent lamps, alkaline batteries, electronics and sharps (e.g., needles), local
governments to the producers of those products. EPR is an essential component of
achieving Palo Alto’s zero waste goal.
In 2006, to advance EPR, the City joined other local governments to form the California
Product Stewardship Council (CPSC). City staff was instrumental in the formation of this
organization, initially serving on its Steering Cormnittee, and serving on the Education
and Policy Advisory Convnittee since it became a 501(c)(3) organization in 2007.
Activities of the CPSC to date include:
Meetings with staff of Senator Joe Simitian and Assemblyman Ira Ruskin, key
political consultants to the State Senate, and members of the Natural Resources
Committee to provide education on EPR and an introduction to the CPSC
Delivery of presentations at conferences and working goups of local, regional
and State water quality and solid waste agencies, educating local businesses, and
discussing opportunities for advancing EPR and zero waste
Providing input at California Integrated Waste Management Board Policy
Committee Meetings to indicate the Cit3~ of Palo Alto’s support for EPR
Signing and submitting a Pledge of Support to the CPSC, indicating support of the
mission and function of the CPSC
Sending letters to the State legislature in favor of or opposition to bills, based on
inclusion in the bills of EPR language
Working interdepartmentally to include EPR in City purchasing policies and
practices
Landfill Restrictions
Landfill resn’ictions to help reduce waste disposed of in the Palo Alto landfill are
currently under development, with an anticipated effective date of July 1, 2008. Proposed
restrictions would target residents and businesses self-hauling waste to the landfill, and
tentatively include restricting disposal of:
¯Recyclables that are accepted at Palo Alto Recycling Center
¯Construction and demolition debris
¯Large "clean-out" type loads, instead referring them to the SMART Station for
sorting and recovery of recyclables
These restrictions are based on data from the 2006 Palo Alto Waste Composition Study
and recommendations of the Zero Waste Operational Plan, approved in 2007. Staff will
bring a report to Council in May 2008.
Third Year Results of the Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Pro_o-ram
CMR 216:08 Page 3 of 9
In May 2004, City Council adopted an ordinance, Requirement to Divert Construction
and Demolition Waste from Landfill, which added Chapter 5.24 to the Palo Alto
Municipal Code. In November 2004 the pro~am was fully implemented with the primary
goal of diverting construction and demolition debris from loca! landfills. November 1,
2007 marked the completion of the third year of the proN’am.
The program directly handles the debris generated from every demolition perrnit as well
as all building permits with a valuation ~’eater than $75,000. The third year of the
program included review and approval of 531 projects participating in the program--a 9%
increase from the previous year (483 projects). The total number of tons diverted from
the landfill increased from 21,710 tons in the previous year to nearly 63,000 tons in 2006-
07. The number of projects completing salvage increased from 11% to 16%. The
number of finished jobs that complied with the requirements of the program increased
from 33% to 44%. (See Attactm~ent A for complete details.)
The most common material diverted from the landfill was concrete, representing 46% of
all material diverted. Mixed C&D material (e.g., wood, metal, gypsum board, concrete)
was the second most common material diverted from the landfill, representing 15% of all
material diverted. Asphalt, ceramic tile and metal were the other materials most often
diverted from the landfill.
Additional program results include:
Commercial demolition projects generated 79% of all debris diverted from the
landfill
73% of all C&D related projects were residential:
o 75% were building permits
~25% were demolition permits
~62% of all C&D debris generated was concrete
~Steven’s Creek Quarry accepted the largest amount of C&D debris of any
approved recycling facility, accepting 16% of debris diverted from the landfill
41 projects received compliance letters for not complying with the program
requirements
Upon evaluation of the third year, the following adjustments to the program are planned
to enhance the overall results:
Placing more focus on salvage as a viable option for diversion. Options include:
Researching the possibility of developing a Resource Recovery Center for
building materials that still have reusable value.
Bringing in outside personnel to conduct site audits to help the applicant
identify what items are salvageable prior to the demolition phase of the
project. (This idea was discussed after the second year of the progran and
is still being explored as a possible option.)
¯Exploring incentives to help increase salvage efforts.
Developing a comprehensive web page as a resource for citizens to list materials
that are available for reuse, and to increase overall awareness of salvage
CMR 216:08 Page 4 of 9
URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN
The State (Cal-Fire) notified the City in early February that the City’s two grant
applications for urban forestry projects were successful. The total funding award is
$180,000. Of this, the City wi!! use $120,000 to update its tree inventory and enhance the
availability of this information in the GIS system. The other $60,000 will be used for a
consultant to assist in the development of the City’s Urban Forest Master Plan, a
comprehensive strategy and plmming document targeted at urban forestry issues in Palo
Alto. The two projects are complementary, with the inventory,- work gathering the data
necessary to formulate goals and strategies for continued management and expansion of
Palo Alto’s urban forest through the master plan.
The State required the completion of additional documentation prior to initiation of the
grant projects. Staff submitted this pape~-,~ork in mid-March. Once the Cib~ receives
final approval from the State, work will begin in earnest on the invento~. The current
timeline for completion of the inventory and integration into the GIS system is April/May
2009. A cross-departmental team, which also includes representatives from CANOPY,
has already begun work on the master plan development. However, the majorib~ of the
plan development work will occur after completion of the inventory, with anticipated
Council adoption of the plan in spring or summer of 2009. The ~ant requires that work
on the projects be completed by March 2010.
Staff plans to provide the Council with periodic status reports as the work progresses.
UTILITIES’ CONSERVATION-RELATED PROGRAMS
Over the last year (2006-07), the results of the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU)’s
efficiency and conser-,Tation programs have included:
The Electric Utility has implemented demand-side efficiency pro~ams and large
long-term supply-side efficiency improvements, and installed over 200 PV
systems. Plans for 2008-09 include third-party conservation programs and
required measurement and verification of the Utility’s efficiency program results.
Achievements of the demand side programs include a reduction in peak demand
by 1,100 kW; first year energy savings of 4,700 M~; and lifecycle energy
savings of 49,000 MWh, at a saved energy cost below the market cost of procured
energy. Major savings in demand-side pro~ams come from industrial cooling,
low-income efficiency replacements, CFL rebates, and the Right Lights small
business programs. Large long-term supply-side efficiency improvements come
from a Shasta turbine up~ade (3,000 MWb2yr) and distribution system
conversions (300 MWh/yr).
The Gas Utility implemented a Low Income Efficiency Program that replaced 12
furnaces and weather stripped/caulked leaks in 54 homes in 2007, saving a total of
9,600 therms. A Research and Development pro~am with ground source heat
pumps (GSHP) has been installed with ongoing comparisons made bem"een
CMR 216:08 Page 5 of 9
traditional air conditioning and GSHP in two locations. The Utilit), is also
developing a new solar water heating incentive pro~am.
The Water and Wastewater Utilities have partnered with SCVWD to reduce
residential and business water use; signed a new- 3-year contract with SCVWD to
continue cost sharing of efficiency mad water conservation pro~ams; and
implemented progams including Water Wise House Calls, High Efficiency
Toilet (HET) Rebate and Replacement, Washing Machine Rebates, and Outdoor
Irrigation Rebates. A total of 99 acre feet of water and 66,000 therms of gas were
saved in water/gas efficiency progranas in FY 06/07. Current year programs
emphasize outdoor water reduction pro~ams and the use of Bay-Friendly plants.
CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY BONDS
The Administrative Services Department worked with Utilities to issue $!.5 million in
Clean Renewable Energy Bonds to help finance solar panels on three City- properties:
Baytands Interpretive Center, Cubberley Community Center, and the Municipal Services
Center. The bonds were issued in November 2007.
Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) are interest-free financing instruments (in lieu
of receiving interest, lenders receive a tax credit against Federal income taxes) that can be
used for wind, c!osed and open-loop biomass, geothermal, solar energy, small irrigation
power, landfill gas, and other qualifying facilities. ConFess authorized up to $800
million of these bonds with the passage of the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2005. The
City applied for the CREBs in late April 2006, and received approval in November 2006
from the Internal Revenue Se~wice on its application for $1.5 million in CREBs.
These bonds were approved specifically for use on the Photovoltaic Solar Panel Project
(PE-05001) which placed solar panels at the three sites indicated above. The remaining
project expenses were funded by the Electric Utility’s public benefit funds. Palo Alto was
one of the first jurisdictions in the nation to issue these bonds.
CLIMATE PROTECTION PLAN
The Council approval of the CPP on December 3 2007 (CMR: 435:07) included
reconm~endations for the City- to reduce ~eenhouse gas emissions from municipal
operations by 5% (3,266 tons of CO~_) by 2009 and by 15% (10,000 tons) by 2015.
Additionally the Council directed the City Manager to produce an annual report that
details the actions leading to emissions reductions and the impacts of those actions.
Since that approval, staff has been wor-king to implement the recommendations of the
Council regarding the CPP. These efforts have focused on:
Obtaining feedback from the public on the CPP. Staff has worked with a variety
of public groups to solicit comments, suggestions and other feedback on the CPP.
Staff has made many of the changes suggested by this feedback, and a revised
version of the CPP is now on the City"s website.
CMR 216:08 Page 6 of 9
o Reducing City emissions in 2009. Staff has analyzed the emissions profiles of
each City department and developed emission reduction goals for each. These
departmental goals range from a low of 4 tons required reduction for the Ci~
Auditor, to a high of 1,381 tons reduction for Public Works. Staff has met with
department heads to present these reduction goals and initiate a dialog on how to
develop a strategy for each department to meet its goals. The proposed reductions
for each department are presented in Table 1.
o Developing long term strategies for reducing emissions by 15% by 2015. The
City has retained URS, a well respected Bay Area environmental consulting finn.
to work with City staff to enhance the cost benefit assessments of the 120
suggested actions contained in the CPP. Additionally, the City is working with a
group of Stanford undergraduates to analyze sustainability efforts related to
Environmental Purchasing. Finally, staff is working with the Rocky Mountain
Institute to develop an overarching methodology to ensure that all areas being
examined (transportation, waste, purchasing, energy, green building) follow a
uniform analytical approach. These three N’oups of outside experts are working
collectively with staff to develop a comprehensive and robust assessment of
options for the City to accelerate its carbon emission reduction plan, and to do so
in the most cost-effective manner possible.
Staff expects to issue a final report on the cost benefit analyses in June 2008.
CMR 216:08 Page 7 of 9
Department
Table 1. Estimated greenhouse gas emissions by Department and
5% reduction requirements
ReductionsEmissions As Reported in the Climate Protection Plan Required
Non Fuel
Emissions =
Electricity +Gas
+ Travel+Office
Products
Fuels =
Mobile
+Stationary
and Off Road
Other
"Responsible"
Emissions
(leakage and
biogenic)
reported in CPP
"Total
Departmental
Emissions" 2005
5% Reduction =
Tons of CO2e
ASD 2,099 19 2,118 106
Auditor 759 759 4
City Attorney 203 203 10
Ci~~ Clerk 127 127 6
City Manager 217 59 276 11
Community ~
Services 1,SM 245 2,0"79 104
Fire 2,396 281 2,67"7 134
Human 294 1 295 15Resources
LibraD,825 825 41
Planning 1,005 34 1 ..039 52
Police 3,0"75 52"7 3,602 180
PWD 3.."714 934 22..9"70 2"7,618 1 ..381
Utilities 4,414 6"7"7 19..358 24,449 1,222
Total 20,962 2,1’72 42,328 66,06’7 3,266
RESOURCE IMPACT
All of the programs discussed in this report, except for Recycling’s landfill restrictions,
are covered under existing pro~am budget and staffing. The landfill restrictions resource
impact and policy implications will be discussed in a future report to Council.
CMR 216:08 Page 8 of 9
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
All of the above programs are in line with the City’s Sustainability Policy,
adoption of the Climate Protection Plan, and other existing City policies.
Council’s
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The actions described in this report are exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14 § 15061 (b)(3),
because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in
question may have a significant effect on the enviromnent.
PREPARED BY:WENDY HEDIGER
JOYCE KIN~TEAR
KELLY MORARIU
NANCY NAGEL
JASON NORTZ
A~ETTE PUSKARICH
I<La~RL VAN ORSDOL
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENT
Attachment A: City of Palo Alto Construction and Demolition Diversion Program Year
Three Review
CMR 216:08 Page 9 of 9
CMR 216:08
Attachment A
City of Palo Alto
Construction and Demolition Diversion Program
Year Three Review
March 31, 2008
Prepared By:
Jason Nortz
Assoc. Planner/Sustainabili~ Coordinator
City of Palo Alto
(650) 329-2189
j ason.nortz,~cit~ofpaloaho.or~
Program Overview:
November 1, 2007 marked the third full year for the City. of Palo Alto’s Construction & Demolition
Debris Diversion Program (C&D). The main goa! of the C&D pro~’am is to help reduce the amount of
construction and demolition debris that is being disposed of in our landfills through reuse and recycling.
It is estimated that nearly 22% of all waste generated in Palo Alto is construction and demolition debris.
Yea three of the C&D program covered evel); demolition permit and all building permits with a value
of $75,000 and greater that were issued a permit from November 1, 2006 through November 1, 2007.
During that time there were 531 projects that were obligated to comply with the requirements of the
C&D Progam. These projects were estimated to generate 60,000 tons of debris. This marked an
increase of 66% from the previous year total of 40,000 tons. This number was established by adding up
the totals from the debris management plans that were completed by every applicant prior to the permit
being issued. The third year of the C&D Debris Diversion Progam saw si~aificant increases in the
overall participation as compared to the second year. The total number of tons diverted from the landfill
increased fi’om 21,710 to 62,638 tons ~. The number of projects completing salvage increased from 11%
to 16%. The number of finished jobs that complied with the requirements of the program increased
from 33% to 46%.
Program Results (November 1. 2006 - November 1.2007):
Total # of C&D Projects
The second year of the C&D program reviewed and approved 531 total projects for participation in the
pro~am. It was estimated that these projects would account for roughly 60,000 tons of construction and
demolition debris. The 531 projects that were approved for the C&D pro~am can be categorized into
seven different project ~,pes that totaled 62,638 tons of debris being diverted from the landfill. Listed
below are the 7 types of projects that are covered as part of the C&D progam.
~ It should be noted that the total tons included 31,694 tons from single demolition permit - 901 San Antonio
Road. The total C&D tons collected without the 901 San Antonio project is 30,944 tons (still an increase of
approximately 9,000 tons from the previous year).
Residential Demolitions
Commercial Demolitions
Residential New Structures
Commercial New Structures
Residential Addition/Remodel
Commercial Addition/Remodel
Commercial Remodel/Repair
Below is graph identi~’ing the total # of projects by project type.
Types of Projects
160
140
120
1
%. %
%%
As seen by the chart, 387 or 73% of all projects were residential. The remaining 144 or 27% of the
projects were commercial related projects. Of the 531 projects that qualified for the C&D progam 241
or 45% of the projects were tSnaled. Finaled projects are those projects that completed the job during
the third year of the pro~am and submitted all of the necessary documentation (recycling receipts,
weight tags, etc...) to confirm compliance with the C&D pro~am. The remaining 290 or 55%of C&D
projects were issued a permit but did not complete the project or failed to submit the necessary
documentation by the end of the third year (10/31/07). 4 ! of the 290 projects were sent compliance
notices and are currently being handled by Code Enforcement. The chart below illustrates the
breakdown of finaled projects:
"120
100
80
2O
0
Finaled Projects
Project Type
C&D Diversion by Project T3we
161 residential projects made up 67%of all finaled C&D projects. 80 commercial projects accounted
for the remaining 33% of all finaled C&D projects. However, commercial demolition projects were
responsible for generating the majorib; of material accounting for 79% of all C&D debris diverted from
the landfill. Residential projects, including demolitions and remodels/additions accounted for 18% of
all tons diverted and the remaining 4% of C&D debris came from new residential and commercial
structures as well as commercial remodels/improvements. The chart below illustrates the amount of
tons diverted by each type of project. Demolition projects were by far the largest generators of debris
combining for 94% of all debris (the exact same percentage from year two).
C&D Diverted by Project Type
Residential
Rem odel/Addition-
2%
Residential
Demo
15%
Other
4%
Commercial
Demo
79%
[] Commercial Demo
[] Residential Demo
[] Residential
Rem odel/Addition
[] Other
C&D Diversion by 3#aterial T3Te
The initial amount of debris to be diverted from the landfill during the third year of the program was
estimated at 60,000 tons. This number was calculated using the Debris Management Forms from each
of the 531 projects that qualified for the C&D pro~’am. As mentioned earlier, 241 projects completed
the job and submitted all of the necessary paperwork (weight tags, recycling receipts, etc...) to confirm
compliance with the progam. Based on the weight tags that were submitted by the 241 finaled projects,
62,638 tons of construction and demolition debris was diverted from the landfill-~. This number
increased from 21,710 tons after the second year of the C&D Pro~’am. The diverted c&d debris can be
categorized into 9 different material types. The chart on the next page illustrates this breakdown.
40000
35000
30000.
25000
tons 20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Diversion by Material Type
* 28,794 tons of concrete were reused on site by the project at 901 San Antonio
Concrete represented the largest ~’pe of c&d debris being diverted from the landfill, accounting for
38,674 tons or 62% of all materials diverted-~. Mixed c&d debris (druwall, wood, metal and small
amounts of inerts) which generated the largest amount of c&d debris during year one of the progam
generated nearly 9, 000 tons or !4% of all materials diverted.
Stevens Creek Quarry accepted the largest amount of c&d debris of any of the approved recycling
facilities, accepting 9, 723 tons or 16% of all the c&d materials diverted from the landfill. Listed below
is a breakdown of the c&d recycling facilities that received the largest amounts of c&d debris. The
most notable category is the amount of material that was reused on site. 46% of all debris can
completely be attributed to the 901 San Antonio demolition that reused nearly 30,000 tons of concrete
on site.
-~ It should be noted that the total tons included 31,694 tons from single demolition permit - 901 San Antonio
Road. For reporting purposes the total tons will continue to be shown as 62,638 tons
~ 28,794 tons of concrete were reused on site by the project at 901 San Antonio
Most Used C&D Diversion Locations
Raisch
3396.9
5%
Sims
1776.331
3%
SRDC
5613.19
9%
Other
-3816.93
6%
Reused on site
28794
46%
[] Reused on site
[] Stevens Creek Quan~,
Zanker IZI Zanker
9125.11 -[] SRDC15%
Stevens Creek [] Raisch
Quarry [] Sims
9723.7 [] Other
16%
Salvage
Salvage continues to play an important role in the overall development of the C&D program. One of
the requirements of the C&D pro~am is to require that demolition jobs make an attempt to salvage
valuable items for reuse. At the end of a building’s life, demolition generates large amounts of
materials that can be reused or recycled, principally wood, concrete and d~,~’all. Rather than demolish
a building the Cib,’s C&D pro~’am is trying to encourage "deconstructing" all or part of the structure.
Deconstruction is the orderly dismantling of building materials for reuse or recycling. In contrast to
demolition, where buildings are ~knocked down and materials are either landfilled or recycled,
deconstruction involves carefully taking apart portions of buildings or removing their contents with the
primary goal being reuse. It can be as simple as stripping out cabinetry, fixtures, and windows, or as
involved as manually taking apart the building frame. To date, the number of projects that salvage
items for reuse continues to increase but the overall participation rate is still below average. The good
news is the participation rate has nearly tripled from 5.5 % after the first year of the program to 16%
currently. The two most used facilities for reuse were Whole House Building Supply and the Reuse
People. The Reusable Lumber Company and personal reuse were other popular options used by
applicants. Common items that were salvaged for reuse included: lumber (Douglas fir and redwood
siding), bricks, cabinet~ and plumbing fixtures
The main concern wifl~ the salvage component of the C&D progam continues to be participation. The
main reasons that have been attributed to lack of participation include: time, cost effectiveness and lack
of outlets for the materials. As the Cit)~ continues to shift towards more sustainable policies including
green building ordinances the practice of deconstruction for salvage will undoubtedly increase in
popularity.
Compliance
The main goal for the compliance portion of the C&D progam after the second year of the progam was
to require that all C&D covered projects must be finaled by the Building Department prior to receiving
their final inspection. This goal was implemented in year three of the pro~am and has helped increase
compliance. At the end of the third year there were 41 projects that received notification of non-
compliance. Once a project receives a notification of non-compliance it gets sent to Code Enforcement
where it is placed into a citation log and managed by Code Enforcement.
Recommendations
As mentioned at the beginning of the report the third year of the C&D Debris Diversion Program saw
significant increases in the overall participation as compared to the first year. The total number of tons
diverted from the landfill increased from2/, 710 tons to 62,6.38totTs4 The number of projects completing
salvage increased from 11% to 16%. The number of finished jobs that complied with the requirements
of the program increased from 33% to 46%. The improvements in the prod’am can be attributed to few
main factors:
The applicants (contractors and home owners) are increasingly becoming familiar with
the pro~’am requirements.
Requiring that all C&D covered projects must be finaled prior to getting the final
inspection from the Building Department. In the second year of the pro~am only
demolition permits were required to comply with this requirement.
Providing outreach tools as part of the Green Building Kiosk that has helped increase
the awareness of salvage for reuse, recycling and other forms of diversion.
Working with various department committees (ie; Green Team, Environmental Steering
and Stewardship Committee) to help develop ideas for ways in which the C&D
pro~am can continue to grow as the City moves closer to integating geen building
policies into the Municipal Code.
All of these key improvements can be directly related to the increase in the programs success.
There is still plenty of room for improvement. Some of the areas that will be focused on for
5."ear four of the C&D program includes:
Increasing the overall participation in salvage as a viable option for diversion. Some of
the ideas for helping with this include:
a. Bringing in outside personnel to conduct site audits to help the applicant
identify what items are salvageable prior to the demolition phase of the project
(this idea was discussed after the second year of the program and is still being
explored as a possible option).
b. Look at ways in which incentives can be offered to help increase salvage
efforts.
Developing a web page devoted strictly to salvage and deconstruction efforts.
Currently the C&D pro~am does not provide enough information to assist the general
public with options for this type of diversion.
Explore of the possibility of implementing a "Resource Recovery Center" for residents
to take their used building materials to. Creating another outlet for salvaged building
materials will help increase the salvage component of the C&D progam.
Total tons included 31,694 tons from single demolition permit- 901 San Antonio Road