HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 1295City of Palo Alto (ID # 1295)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study SessionMeeting Date: 3/21/2011
March 21, 2011 Page 1 of 7
(ID # 1295)
Summary Title: Analysis of Energy/Compost Facility at Landfill
Title: Update on Preliminary Analysis of a Potential Energy/Compost Facility at
Palo Alto Landfill/Byxbee Park and the Alternatives
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Executive Summary
The City hired Alternative Resources, Inc. (ARI) to conduct a Feasibility Study for
locating an Anaerobic Digestion facility on a 9-acre portion of the Palo Alto Landfill
(Byxbee Park) and to study prescribed alternatives. Given the complexity of this
analysis and the strong interest by multiple stakeholders, Council also requested staff to
present its Preliminary Analysis to the Council before completing the final Feasibility
Study. Staff has conducted several community meetings on the preliminary analysis
and received substantial Public comments. Both proponents and opponents of a Palo
Alto facility are requesting changes and/or further work on the Preliminary Analysis.
ARI plans to address public comments received to date as well as any Council
comments received at this Study Session in the Feasibility Study. It is expected the final
Feasibility Study will be presented in early fall.
This staff report discusses the feasibility study process and summarizes the alternatives
studied, the key findings in the Preliminary Analysis and the public comments received
to date. The staff report also contains information on other alternatives and
technologies as directed by Council.
Background
Palo Alto’s Process to Date:
Palo Alto’s Blue Ribbon Compost Task Force recommended to Council that an Anaerobic
Digestion Facility be pursued in the vicinity of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality
Control Plant (Plant) to manage the City’s yard trimmings, food scraps and wastewater
solids (“biosolids”). The exact location of such a facility has been problematic because
of Palo Alto’s urbanized nature, the fact that no land has been specified for such a
facility, and the fact that the Landfill has been dedicated as Parkland (Byxbee Park).
Following receipt of the Compost Task Force Report, on April 5, 2010 (CMR:165:10,
Attachment A), Council directed staff to:
March 21, 2011 Page 2 of 7
(ID # 1295)
1.Hire a consultant to evaluate Dry Anaerobic Digestion
2.Prepare an applicable level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) focused on 8-9
acres of Byxbee Park;
3.Study energy conversion-technologies including Anaerobic Diegestion at Palo
Alto’s Wastewater Treatment Plant as part of its Facility Planning process; and
4.Pursue partnering opportunities for organics processing within 20 miles of Palo
Alto.
Palo Alto hired ARI to conduct the Anaerobic Digestion Study, and staff has been
pursuing Nos. 3 and 4 above. An appopriately scoped EIR (No. 2 above) will be
produced at the appropriate time should Palo Alto continue to pursue a Palo Alto
Facility. ARI is conducting an Initial Study (CEQA “Checklist”) which is the first step in
an EIR. Council members requested that a Preliminary Analysis be completed ahead of
the full Feasibility Study. The Preliminary Analysis was done by ARI and placed on the
Palo Alto Website on January 26, 2011. Public meetings were held on February 23 and
March 9 and public comments have been received in writing and at the meetings.
Terminology and Technology: Garbage, or Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), is now being
separated at the source by most communities, including Palo Alto, to facilitate recycling
and reuse. Recyclables (principally paper products, metal, glass and plastics) were the
first to be separated. Recently, organic material (principally yard trimmings and food
scraps, which are made up mostly of carbon containing molecules) have been the
target of separation efforts (Source Separated Organics, or SSO). Paper products have
traditionally been handled as recyclables, but can also be managed as SSO because
they are principally made of organic molecules and are amenable to most of the
management methods available for yard trimmings and food scraps. Currently, Palo
Alto has a program for source separation of commercial (principally food service
facilities) food scraps, but not yet residential food scraps.
Landfilling MSW or any of its components is undersirable because it takes up space,
causes envrionmental damage and wastes valuable resources. The search for a good
alternative for Palo Alto’s SSO led to the Energy/Compost Feasibility Study. Aerobic
(traditional) composting allows bacteria to use oxygen, begin the decomposition
process, and produce compost. Palo Alto has used this process for its yard trimmings
(not food scraps) for many years, but its compost facility will close in late 2011 or early
2012. Additionally, aerobic composting does not take advantage of the energy content
of SSO.
Therefore, many communities are considering a broad range of technologies called
Conversion Technologies (CT), ones that convert the energy locked into the organic
molecules into energy. Traditional incineration is generally not considered a Conversion
Technology because its principal goal is to reduce the volume of MSW and not recover
energy. Traditional incineration uses large volumes of air and fully oxidizes the organic
molecules, producing principally CO2, but other air contaminants as well.
March 21, 2011 Page 3 of 7
(ID # 1295)
Anaerobic Digestion is a Conversion Technology because anaerobic bacteria produce
methane as they break the organics down, and that methane is an energy source.
Anaerobic Digestion can either be “wet” (in liquids in tanks) or “dry” (piles in vaults)
depending on the nature of the material. Another class of Conversion Technologies are
higher temperature processes that depend on tempertuare and pressure, not bacteria,
to break down the MSW or SSO. Gassification and Pyrolysis are the two terms used
most for the high temperature Conversion Technologies. The principal difference from
incineration is that they allow little (gassification) or no (pyrolyssi) air into the system.
Therefore, traditional combustion of organics does not occur, but rather conversion of
those organics to fuels. Many proprietary gassificaion processes are now marketed, but
most processes being called gassification are producing sysnthesis gas (“syn gas”)
which is a combination of Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Hydrogen (H2) which can be used
as a fuel and combusted in a subsequent step. Depending on the temperature and
pressure, other fuels can be produced. Gassification generally also produces a residual
slag, and pyrolysis can produce a residual substance with carbon in it. If the high
temperature for the process is achieved with an electric arc, it is generally called
“plasma” or “plasma-arc” technology.
Further information on technologies is contained in Attachment C.
Discussion
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Preliminary Analysis
The City’s consultant (ARI) has prepared a Preliminary Analysis of Dry Anaerobic
Digestion (Alternative 1) and compared the cost and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions
to two alternatives: Dry Anaerobic Digestion on Zanker Road in North San Jose
(Alternative 2), and conventional Aerobic Composting near Gilroy (Alternative 3). Dry
Anaerobic digestion (DAD) in Pal Alto had four sub-alternatives:
1(a):DAD of all 3 residuals (yard, food and biosolids) at the 9-acre
Landfill/Byxbee Park site.
1(b):DAD for yard and food on the 9-acre site and Wet Anaerobic
Digestion (WAD) at 9-acre site.
1(c):DAD for yard and food on the 9-acre site and WAD at the Regional
Water Quality Control Plant (Plant)
1(d):DAD for yard and food on the 9-acre site and continued
incineration of biosolids at the Plant.
The Alternatives and sub-alternatives are shown in Attachment B.
Economic Analysis Comparison
March 21, 2011 Page 4 of 7
(ID # 1295)
The Preliminary Economic Analysis (Attachment D) shows the lowest cost to be
Alternative 3, Aerobic Composting near Gilroy. Dry Anaerobic Digestion in North San
Jose (Alternative 2) is shown to be slightly more costly, and Anaerobic Digestion in Palo
Alto (Alternative 1) is shown to be the most expensive. Alternative 1 has a “High” and
“Low” estimate because there was a wide range of responses from vendors concerning
their costs. Alternatives 2 and 3 do not contain a range because the estimates came
from a singe vendor. The difference between the High and Low estimates appears to
be due to the level of complexity inherent in the designs of the vendor’s proposed
systems. The Sensitivity Analysis (Attachment E) done to date shows that if very
substantial grants were obtained for DAD, the “Low” estimate costs to Palo Alto could
be comparable to the costs of Alternatives 2 and 3.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis Comparison
The life-cycle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions have been estimated for each
alternative. The units are Metric Tonnes of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents per Year (MT
CO2-e/Year). Greenhouse gasses are made up of different gasses; the principal ones for
this analysis being carbon dioxide and methane. Methane is a much more potent
Greenhouse Gas than Carbon Dioxide. Therefore, when GHGs are added together, they
must be converted to “Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Equivalents” and then added together.
Attachment F is a summary of the GHG Preliminary Analysis.
The Preliminary Analysis shows that all of the Alternative 1 sub options produce
substantially less GHGs than the “export” options; Alternatives 2 and 3. It also shows
that the (current) incineration of biosolids is a major contributor of GHGs making
Alternative 1 (d) the highest emitting GHG alternative of the four No. 1 sub-alternatives.
Public Comments
Public Comments received to date on the Preliminary Analysis fall into four categories:
1.Suggested changes to the economic and greenhouse gas models (the
methodology for deriving the estimates);
2.Suggested new runs of the model with different inputs (expanding the sensitivity
analysis);
3.Suggested new alternatives beyond the 6 studied to date, and;
4.General comments.
An example in the first category is a suggestion to include the cost of rebuilding the
RWQCP incinerator in options involving continued use of the incinerator. Staff agrees
that this cost needs to be included to follow standard economic engineering
methodologies; and to insure that alternatives being compared have similar design
lives.
An example in the second category is the suggestion to run the model with a higher
land rent value. The model was run with a land rent value comparable to “Parkland” as
March 21, 2011 Page 5 of 7
(ID # 1295)
the “highest and best use”. The suggestion is to prepare a model run using land rent
comparable to “Industrial/Commercial” as the “highest and best use”. Staff will do so.
Ultimately, the land rent value would be established by Council, should a project move
forward.
An example in the third category is a new suggested alternative where biosolids and
food scraps are mixed together in an anaerobic digester and yard trimmings are
composted separately. Use of RWQCP land would be maximized, with use of the 9-acre
site as needed. Staff has done some work in this direction and will formulate one or
more related alternatives immediately following Council feedback on March 21, 2011.
A full list of the public comments received is contained in Attachment G.
Regional (“Partnering”) Solutions
Staff continues to explore the possibility of Palo Alto partnering with other agencies
within a 20-mile radius, as directed by Council. Alternative 2 is the one (and only) near
term option that has been identified. Palo Alto’s hauler (GreenWaste of Palo Alto) is
associated with another corporation (ZWED) which is planning to construct a Dry
Anaerobic Digestion Facility for at least food scraps on Zanker Road in North San Jose –
within 20 miles. Therefore, staff is in frequent communications with Greenwaste, has
obtained cost estimates for food scraps and included them in the economic analysis.
Staff believes that Palo Alto’s current contract with Greenwaste could be modified such
that its food scraps could go to the Zanker Road facility. While it is not clear when this
facility would be available, it appears quite likely it could occur before the planning date
for this study: 2015.
Discussions with Palo Alto’s SMaRT Station partners have not resulted in any
alternatives within the 20-mile radius (or anything closer than Gilroy ZBest facility).
Sunnyvale has not identified any land for an Energy/Compost Facility near or at the
current SMaRT Station. Neither Mountain View nor Sunnyvale staff has received
direction from their Council to pursue development of such a facility within their
jurisdiction.
Pursuing Conversion Technologies
While Council directed staff to specifically study Dry Anaerobic Digestion on the 9-acre
site, it also gave staff broader direction to look at other Conversion Technologies in
connection with the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) Long Range
Facilities Planning Process. Staff is doing so.
One recent development is that the City of San Jose has received a grant to assist in
conducting a Gasification Feasibility Study at the San Jose Water Quality Control Plant.
Such a facility would produce energy from biosolids and wood waste, and possibly other
organics. Staff is in communication with San Jose, and will be involved in the Feasibility
Study. San Jose is also considering refurbishing four aging wet anaerobic digesters at
March 21, 2011 Page 6 of 7
(ID # 1295)
the San Jose Plant, and discussions are underway with San Jose about the potential for
Palo Alto bringing biosolids there. The San Jose Plant is within 20 miles.
Options for biosolids, restaurant grease, and some food scraps on the RWQCP site are
being studied through the RWQCP Long Range Facilities Planning Process. Three
conversion technologies: wet anaerobic digestion, gasification and pyrolysis are being
reviewed at the screening level. Wet anaerobic digestion is an established process and
used frequently at sewage treatment plants. Gasification pilot projects are emerging
with increasing frequency. Pyrolysis has still not been used on biosolids, as far as staff
is aware. As stated above, staff has received a number of public comments urging that
one or more new alternatives for the Energy/Compost Feasibility Study be identified
involving shared use of the RWQCP site and the 9-acre site. Staff will be addressing
these comments following feedback from Council on March 21, 2011.
State Lands Commission Involvement
Historically, the State Lands Commission has exercised sovereign control over much of
the public land in the Baylands. The City has disputed the State’s claim, but as a
workaround has obtained permits to use the land. These permits have taken the form
of lease agreements with both sides reserving their right to assert ownership. Recently,
several Palo Alto residents have filed a complaint with the State Lands Commission
which raises two issues:
1.Palo Alto’s alleged tardiness in opening closed portions of the Palo Alto Landfill to
the public as parkland (Byxbee Park).
2.Whether the State Lands Commission would “permit” (or enter into a lease) the
use of “sovereign” lands for an Energy/Compost Facility on the 9-acre site.
Palo Alto is discussing both these issues with State Lands Commission representatives.
With respect to the first issue, Council has directed staff to complete the work as rapidly
as possible to underground utilities, level the surface, seed the closed portions of the
Landfill, and remove existing fences. This work is expected to be completed by July 1,
2011. Given the necessity to run plans through CalRecycle and the City’s own
competitive bidding process, Staff does not believe this work can be completed much
sooner than projected With respect to the portion of the Landfill still open, staff
expects to cease acceptance of waste mid-to-late 2011, with the area being open to the
public by the end of 2012. Again; staff believes this is a realistic estimate.
With respect to the Energy/Compost facility study, staff has renewed discussions with
the State Lands Commission. Early indications were that such a facility was
permittable, in the same way that the current landfill and RWQCP have been permitted.
Staff will report back to Council further as discussions continue.
Utilities Advisory Commission Discussion on March 2, 2011
March 21, 2011 Page 7 of 7
(ID # 1295)
The Utilities Department would be the buyer for any energy (gas or electricity)
generated by the project and so on March 2, 2011 the Utilities Advisory Commission
reviewed the price Utilities would pay for the energy.Although no vote was taken, the
sense of the UAC was that a price based on avoided cost, including the value of
renewable energy, was appropriate.The price recommended by Utilities Department
staff for use in the study matches that methodology.The draft minutes from the UAC
meeting are included as Attachment I.
Attachments:
·Attachment A CMR165-10 (PDF)
·Attachment B Alternatives and Sub-Alternatives (PDF)
·Attachment C Information on Technologies (PDF)
·Attachment D Preliminary Economic Analysis (PDF)
·Attachment E Economic Sensitivity Analysis (PDF)
·Attachment F Greenhouse Gas Analysis (PDF)
·Attachment G Public Comments (DOC)
·Attachment H March 21, 2011 Study Session Presentation (PPT)
·Attachment I Excerpted Minutes from 3-2-11 Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting (DOC)
·Attachment J Public Written Comments (PDF)
·Attachment K Additional Public Written Comments (PDF)
Prepared By:Philip L. Bobel, Manager, Environmental Compliance
Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
•
..-: .. ,.:;
City of Palo Alto 11
City Manager's Report
TO: ' HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: APRIL 5,2010 CMR:165:10
REPORT TYPE: ACTION ITEM
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Direct Staff: 1) To Defer Further Action on an
Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Facility or Aerated Static Pile (ASP)
Composting Facility Within Palo Alto, Until and Unless a Usable Site
is Identified; 2) To Examine the Feasibility of Energy Conversion
Technologies (Including AD Technologies) During the Upcoming
Regional Water Quality Control Plant Master Planning Process;
3) To Pursue Local Partuering Opportunities with SMaRT® Station
Partners and/or Local Organic Waste Processing Companies that are
Developing Private or Energy Conversion Facilities Within a 20-Mile
Radius of Palo Alto; and 4) To Resume Acceptance of Commercial
Garbage at the Landfill
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council direct staff to:
1. . Defer further action on an anaerobic digestion (AD) facility or aerated static pile (ASP)
composting facility within Palo Alto, until and unless a usable site is identified;
2. Examine the feasibility of energy conversion technologies (including AD technologies)
during the upcoming Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) Master PI arming
Process;
3. Jnvestigate and pursue local pannering opportunities with SMaRT® partners andlor local
organic waste processing companies who are developing private AD or energy
eonversion facilities within a 20-mile radius of Palo Alto; and
4. Resume acceptance of commercial garbage at the landfill.
BACKGROUND
Thc City currently maintains a 7.5 acre conventional windrow composting facility for yard
trimmings on an active section of the Palo Alto Landfill (located within Byxbee Park) which is
expected to close within 12 months after the landfill reaches the permitted grading levels. The
landfiIl is expected t(j reach permitted capacity near the end of 20 II. The
green material managed at the facility includes source ,separated yard trimmings such as lawn
clippings, lcaves, tree and shrub clippings, brush, and other vegetative materials generated
through landscape maintenance activities. Additionally, leaves accumulated through the City's
street sweeping operations "selected screened loads" and clean tree trunk/limb wood grindings
(I to 2-inch chips) are also managed at the facility.
CMR:165:10 Page 1 of6
On August 6, 2007, Council directed staff to develop a work plan to explore options to keep
compo sting in Palo Alto. A work plan for a composting feasibility study was presented and
approved by Council on January 22, 2008 (CMR: 116:08). Staff prepared the feasibility study
and presented the results of the study on April 28, 2008 (CMR:219:08). At that point Council
directed staff to table the issue until the Baylands Master Plan update was approved and to get
the input of the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and the Planning and Transportation
Commission (PTC). On December IS, 2008 (CMR:470:08) and January 12, 2009
(CMR: 116:09), Council further discussed the composting issue and made a decision to convene a
citizen-based Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to further examine the composting question. At
that time, Council specifically directed the BRTF to avoid parkland location options.
On October 19, 2009, the BRTF presented its results and recommendations to Council
(CMR:402:09). The lead site recommended by the BRTF would have had resulted in potential
impacts on the Palo Alto Airport operations, as expressed to Council. Therefore, Council
directed staff to further examine the other alternatives and return to Council. The motion from
October 19, 2009 consisted ofthe following directives:
1) Accept the September 9, 2009 Palo Alto Compost Task Force Final Report (Report)
submitted by the Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF);
2) Direct Staff to implement the short term recommendations for CUl'l'ent compost
operations contained in the BRTF Report as modified by the Staff response;
3) Request Staff to retum with analysis and recommendation of whether to incorporate
an interim solution of aerobic static pile composting or consider off site composting
on an interim basis;
4) Staff to evaluate the two options (Embarcadero Road/Airport site and 5-6 acres in the
northwest corner of the current landfill site) on the locations;
5) Staff to consider an option of partnering with another city or cities;
6) Staff to consider whether there are other locations on Embarcadero Way that could
work, this would take no more than 90 days;
7) Location of any facility would not have any negative impact on the Palo Alto Airport,
its operations, finances, and relationship with the FAA or Santa Clara County;
8) Staff to work closely with the airport community in the development of any
proposals, and
9) Staff to take into consideration the Airport Business Plan being developed.
In a separate action, Council adopted a statement of intent to proceed toward an anaerobic
compo sting system, at an unspecified location.
Since the last Council action on composting, staff held a public meeting with airport stakeholders
at West Valley Flying Club Meeting Room on November 4,2009. Minutes from that meeting
are included as Attachment A and further documented the negative impacts of a site on Airport
property. Staff also held a public meeting to discuss the expected recommendations of this staff
report at Cubberley Community Center, Room A-6 on December 9, 2009. Notes from that
public meeting are included as Attachment B. In addition, staff presented information (and
answered questions) to the Council in a study session on March 8,2010.
CMR:165:10 Page 2 of6
DISCUSSION
Short-term Recommendations
Staff has implemented all of the short-tenn recommendations for current compost operations
contained in the BRTF Report as modified by the staff response (Directive No.2, above). The
analysis of aerated static pile (ASP) composting within Palo Alto or off site composting as
interim solutions (Directive No.3, above) is contained in Attachment D. Staff concludes that an
ASP facility is too expensive and that there is no site that could be ready in time to serve as an
interim facility. Therefore the current interim plan of taking yard trimmings to the Z-Best Gilroy
facility should continue to be the shortcterm approach, JlPon closure of the Palo Alto Compost
Facility.
Loeal Siting Options
Evaluation of three pennanent siting options (the Embarcadero Road/Airport site, the northwest
comer of the eurrent landfill Byxbee Park site, and private properties along Embarcadero Way),
is also summarized in Attachment C, consistent with Directives No. 4 and 6, above. After
furthereonsultation with the Airport community, staff concludes that the Embareadero
Roadl Airport site would negatively impact that community and proposes no further work on that
site in confonnance with Directive No.7, ahove. With respect to the possible sites along
Embarcadero Way referenced in Directive No.6, staff concludes that procurement of sufficient
property would be too expensive and potentially disruptive for the existing land .owners and
tenants .. The site closest to the RWQCP entrance is a self-storage facility with numerous
individual tenants. In addition there would be neighborhood compatibility hurdles with utilizing
the properties on the west side of Embarcadero Way.
With respect to the construction of an Anaerobic Digestion facility in the northwest comer of the
current landftlllByxbee Park site, staff concludes that a detailed Feasibility Study would have to
be conducted by an engineering consultant to detennine costs and fully evaluate impacts.
Projected cost data obtained by Staff from venders has not been verified and is not sufficient for
final decision making. An Anaerobic Digestion facility is consistent with the October 19, 2009
Council direction and with the recommendations of the Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force.
However, given the key constraint (site is on dedicated parkland) of the landfilllByxbee Park
site, staff does not recommend moving forward with the Feasibility Study until and unless the
constraintis removed (Recommendation No.1, above). A Feasibility Study of this magnitude is
best completed in conjunction with an Enviromnental Impact Report so that appropriate
mitigations are identified and incorporated into the project design. The total estimated cost of
this detailed analysis would exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars. This is a staff estimate
based on experience with the formerly proposed Enviromnental Services Center (ESC) at nearly
the same location on Byxbee Park.
Regional O)2portunities
Additionally, staff is actively exploring conversion technology options with the otherSMaRT®
Station partner cities, as well as opportunities to send organic materials to potential new privately
developed anaerobic digestion facilities.
Regiollal opportunities for anaerobic or other advanced processing are preliminary, but emerging
quickly. Several jurisdictions in the area are begiuning to express interest and explore their
CMR16S:10 Page 3 of6
abilities to build and operate regional facilities to provide organics processing in the future.
Currently no firm commitments exist, but opportunities for collaboration eould be pursued by the
City as they are identified. For example, the City's SMaRT® Station partners, Mountain View
and Sunnyvale, both have adopted zero waste goals. In addition, the City has an established
relationship with them in owning and operating a transfer and processing facility through 2021.
Both of these cities have an immediate interest in developing or using conversion technology to
meet their waste reduction goals and would likely be potential partners to build and operate an
anaerobic digestion or other conversion facility.
The primary private sector processing OPP011unity available in the near term is a facility being
developed by GreenWaste Recovery, Inc (Green Waste). GreenWaste, along with their business
partner from Germany, KOMPOFERM, have formed a subsidiary company called Zero Waste
Energy Development Company, Inc. (Zero Waste Energy). They are in the fmal planning stages
of designing a IS0,000-ton per year anaerobic digester in San Jose located approximately 12
miles from Palo Alto.
In September 2009, the City of San Jose and Zero Waste Energy executed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) regarding their intent to develop lease terms for use of approximately 40
acres of a closed landfill site loeated beside the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control
Plant· for a biogas facility. The first phase of the processing site, 50,000 tons per year, is
anticipated to be ready for operation as soon as late 2011. Initially, the processing plant
anticipates taking a blend of food scraps and yard trimmings from jurisdictions to produce
biofuel and compost.
GreenWaste is the collection and processing provider for the City of Palo Alto's solid waste,
recyclables, yard trimmings, and food scraps. Staff has had preliminary discussions with
GreertWaste about utilizing this facility for the City'S food scrap tonnage, and some or all of our
yard trimmings. Finally, staffhas also met with another company, Harvest Power, that is also
pursuing development of a regional AD facility for the south bay area. Harvest Power has not
identified any specific faeility location yet.
Regional Water Quality Control Plant Master Plan
Under the existing adopted Capital Improvement Project (CIP) WQ-IOOOl, staffwill soon be
procuring consultant services to prepare a Master Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control
Plant. The draft scope of work requests an analysis of energy conversion technologies (including
anaerobic digestion) that might be suitable replacements for biosolids incineration in the future.
The Master Plan Work is scheduled to begin later this year.
Feedstocks and End Products
Regardless of whether the City pursues partnership with a private firm or a regional conversion
technology facility, it is important to nnderstand our various feedstocks and what end products
are to be produced and marketed. A feedstock is the raw waste material that would be proeessed
and includes food waste, sewage biosolids, yard trimmings, and soiled paper. A single
technology may not be best for the various organic material feedstocks that exist in Palo Alto.
For example, certain feedstocks require greater vector and odor control than others. Certain
feedstocks may also affect the marketability of any end product compost material due to
concentrations of metals, fecal coliform bacteria, and other contaminants. These issues will
CMR165:10 Page 4 of6
continue to guide the City into a solution that will best serve Palo Alto's needs for the long term.
Because of the upcoming Master Plan and the various prospects for new regional facilities, it is
not yet clear whether a joint venture with other communities, a processing contract with a private
facility, an anaerobic digestion facility at the RWQCP, or some combination of the
aforementioned are in the City's best interests. Therefore, staff is recommending continuing to
explore advanced tecImoiogies at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant and at Regional
locations in the South Bay area, as expressed in Recommendations 2 and 3 above.
Commercial Garbage Disposal Moratorimn
On January 12, 2009 Couucil passed a motion containing the following provision:
"The City shall suspend accepting commercial garbage at the Palo Alto dump while awaiting
City Council action on the recommendations ofthe BRTF."
Staff interprets this provision to mean that it is to recommence acceptance of commercial
garbage upon further action by Council on the compo sting issue. Staff is seeking Council
confirmation of this interpretation through Recommendation No.4, above.
Follow-up to Study Session on March 8, 20 I 0
Attachment D contains further staff responses to questions and comments raised at the Study
Session on March 8,2010, including the potential early conversion oflandfill Phases IIA and lIB
to park use.
As a follow-up to the community· response at the Council Study Session on March 8, 2010,
Council may wish to provide specific direction to staff about conducting a scientific random
voter survey regarding the Byxbee Park site option. This survey would gage resident sentiment
about the possible undedication of a portion of Byxbee Park for an organic material processing
and energy generation facility. Similar voter surveys have been performed about other issues for
less than $25,000. Staff could therefore procure these polling services using unspent Refuse
Fund operating budget for program and project consultants. Survey questions and language
could be referred to the Policy and Services Committee if the Council moves to proceed with this
type of community outreach.
Attachment E is an aerial map from the Study Session presentation that shows two City-owned
areas of the Baylands that are not currently dedicated as parkland. These areas could potentially
be swapped for land within the current Byxbee Park. A potential survey could also gage voter
sentiment towards such a land swap idea.
RESOURCE IMPACT
There. is no additional resource impacts associated with the recommendations in this report
beyond what has already been anticipated in the Council adopted Zero Waste Operations Plan
(CMR:123:07).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The staff recommendations in this report do not constitute a "project" as defined by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
CMR165:1O PageS of6
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommendation does not represent changes to existing City policies. The recommendation
is consistent with the Council adopted Zero Waste Plan and Council priorities to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Notes from Public Meeting on November 4, 2009
Attachment B: Notes from Public Meeting on December 9, 2009
Attachment C: Staff Memo on Further Compost Facility Evaluation
Attachment D: Staff Memo Addressing Council Questions from Study Session on March 8, 20 10
Attachment E: Map of Potentially Offsetting Areas from Study Session Presentation
PREPARED BY: ~<t·a~~
APPROVED BY: 1l:1~----'
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: . J
/ City Manager
Page 6 Qf6
A) Plllllose:
Meeting Summary
1114/09 CompostlAirport Public Meeting
(4:00-5:30 pm -Palo Alto Airport)
ATTACHMENT A
To explore potential sites for organics material management which would have "no
imp!j.ct" on the Palo Alto Airport (per I 0/19109 direction from the Palo Alto Council.)
B) Attendees:
Airport
Community Members
Chuck Byer
Harry Hirschman
Ralph Britton
Pat Roy
Larry Shapiro
Michael Baum
C) Summary:
Former Compost
Task Force Members
Bob Wenzlau
Emily Renzel
Palo Alto City Staff
Cara Silver
Steve Emslie
Phil Bobel
The group brainstormed and identified impacts to the Palo Alto Airport associated
with seven (7) different location configurations of Organics Material Management
(OMM) facilities. (See D. below for details). There appear to be three configurations
which are likely to have no impact on the Airport (with several qualifiers noted in
Part D).
1. Locating. the OMM on Embarcadero Way (currently privately owned
buildings) ..
2. Locating the OMM on the Los Altos Treatment Plant (LA TP) site and
locating the municipal operations planned for the LATP site on Embarcadero
Way (currently privately owned buildings).
D) Identification ofImpacts on the Airport:
1. Locating OMM on the current Landfill site. and swawing aWfoximately 10
acres of the North Runway site (22 acres total) as dedicated parkland. Thus, a
I b acre strip of the North Runway site, the eastern half, would become
parkland. The group assumed that the dedication itself would involve no
physical changes; that any physical changes would be a separate action
involving separate analysis.
IMPACTS:
No impacts tq the Airport were identified as long as the following points were
reCognized and addressed:
Page I
u; lPWDIADMINIKAREN\CMRI040510i 165-10 C ompC31lng Resp.nselAlltlChmenC A.doc
ATTACHMENT A'
a. The FAA must be consulted for any rules they may have. Their approval
may be needed,
b. Sufficient "buffer" must be allowed adjacent to the runway for aircraft
wingspan.
c, The new Parkland (North Runway site) would have to have restricted
access to prevent people and animals from entering.
d. The existing levee must be maintained. In fact, it may need to be
augmented in light of sea level rise.
e, There may be a habitat mitigation area at the north end of the North
Runway site which must be maintained.
2. Locating OMM on Embarcadero Road/Airport site and relocating Ailll0rt
facilities per the 9/09/09 memo from Barney, et all to PA Council. This
option would move the Heliport and Terminal to avoid impacts from the
OMM in the southeastern corner of the Airport.
IMPACTS:
The following impacts on the Airport were identified:
a. The changes to the layout of Airport operations are major and funding
would be needed. Both the amount and source of funds would be issues.
b. Cost of moving Embarcadero Road and resurfacing (at a minimum) of the
Airport access road would be impacts.
c. New location of the Heliport is not safe due to incoming fixed wing traffic
and proximity to fuel storage.
d, Negative visual impacts to the Airport would occur.
e .. ' All of the negative impacts identified in the Task Force Report associated
with the Embarcadero Road/Airport site would apply.
3. Locating OMM at the LATP site and move the activities plarmed for the
LATP site to the Embarcadero Road/Airport site and relocate Airport facilities
per the 9/09/09 memo from Barney, et all to the P A Council.
IMPACTS:
The negative impacts listed as 2.a -2.d above would also apply to this
concept.
4. Locating OMM on land riow occupied by privately owned buildings on one or
both sides of Embarcadero Way.
IMPACTS:
The following issues would have to be addressed and mayor may not turn out
to be actual impacts on the Airport:
a. The potential for a bird attraction hazard would have to be investigated.
Page 2
U:IPWDIADMfNlKAREMCMRI0405fOIf65·fO Com posting ResponselAltachmenCA.doc
ATTACHMENT A
b. A· 1,200 foot distance would have to be achieved with respect to yard
waste.
c. A 1 mile distance would have to be achieved for food waste.
5. Locating the OMM at the LATP site and locate the activities planned for the
LATP site where the privately owned buildings on one or both sides of
Embarcadero Way are now.
IMPACTS:
No impacts on the Airport were identified, assuming that there were no bird
attraction issues from the operations that would be located on Embarcadero
Way.
6. Locating the OMM at the LA TP site and locate the activities planned for the
LATP site on the North Runway site.
IMPACTS:
The following impacts on the Airport were identified:
a. FAA approval would be needed
b. Access would have to be provided which does not exist, creating safety
Issues.
c. Oversight of contractors and City staff would have to be addressed.
d. Bird attraction would have to be addressed.
7. Separate the OMM activities, locating only the curing piles (possible aerated
static piles) on the North Runway site.
IMPACTS:
The following impacts on the Airport were identified:
a. Access which does not now exi1;t would have to be provided, creating
safety issues.
b. The bird attraction issue would have to be addressed.
c. FAA approval would be needed.
8. Locating the OMM on the Landfill site and creating offsetting parkland
(approximately 10 acres) at the North Runway site.
IMPACTS:
There is no guarantee that the FAA will accept dedicating 20 acres as
"Parkland" and thereby reducing the available Palo Alto airpark land by 20%.
Until further clarification is gained on this item, it should not be included in
the "no airport impact" category.
Page 3
U:\PWD\ADMINlKAREMCMR\0405JO\J65~1O Compos{ing RespanseiAUachmen(A doc
ATTACHMENTB
On 12/9/09 City Staff presented its preliminary thinking in response to Council's
10/19/09 directives. The responses will undergo more work, and likely be
presented to Council on 2/1/10. Staff sought, and received, feedback on the
following concepts:
1. Interim Aerated Static Piles:
Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to cost, length of time to bring on
line, and lack of an authorized site. (The interim (post 2012) "fallback" is
the Z-Best (Gilroy) compost facility).
2. Long Term Sites in Palo Alto:
a. Airport Site
Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to impacts on the Airport
and the Council directive to have "no Impact" on the Airport.
b. Embarcadero Way Site
Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to high cost of purchasing
landlbuildings.
c. Landfill CByxbee) Site
. Sfaff is unlikely to recommend conducting a
feasibility/environmental study at this time due to uncertain
availability of the site and the high cost of a
. feasibility/environmental study.
3. Areas to Pursue:
a. Nearby Sites » Staff will pursue taking organics to a new anaerobic
digestion facility likely to open as soon as 2010 in San Jose
(Greenwaste, Zanker Road). approx. 12.5 miles from the
Embarcadero/101 interchange ( Note: Much closer than Z-
Best which is 53 miles ). » Staff will purs.ue the possibility of an energy recovery facility
at the SMaRT Station in Sunnyvale, although it is just an
idea at this point.
b. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) Master
Planning » Staff will consider anaerobic digestion and other energy
recovery possibilities at the RWQCP as the Master Planning
gets underway in 2010. (Not able to handle yard trimmings,
or all food waste within the RWQCP, however.)
The following feedback was received at the meeting;
Comments from Public
On Palo Alto Staff Presentation
at 12/09/09 Public Meeting
ATTACHMENTB'
Individual members of the public suggested that the following thoughts (or ansVjers to
questions) be included in the report back to City Council on (or about) 211/10:
I. Indicate that there is citizen support (as well as citizen opposition) to an organics
management. facility on the landfill (Byxbee) site.
2. The City's Solid Waste Management Plan filed with the County would have to be
revised if a new Palo Alto Compost Facility were to be developed.
3. The regional situation with respect to organics management should be discussed.
4. For Aerated Static Piles (ASP) and Anaerobic Digestion (AD), the extent to which
operating facilities exist should be discussed.
S. The emerging responses to the Santa Barbara RFP should be summarized to show
what technologies are actually being proposed by bidders there.
6. The quality of the food scraps processed at Z-Best (Gilroy) should be mentioned as it
is apparently contaminated with plastics and other non-food material.
7. The quality of biosolids should be discussed with the "hazardous waste" issue and the
"long term build-up" issues described.
8. The schedule for developing Greenwaste's Zanker Road facility should be explored
to determine why it is happening so much faster than Staffs estimation of a Palo Alto
facility schedule. . .
9. A resident "Initiative" would shorten the schedule by eliminating one of the two ErRs
shown on the Palo Alto Staff schedule.
10. The Waste Management Board management staff were much more optimistic about a
.Palo Alto schedule and should be consulted.
11. Wh~n will Greenwaste's .Zanker Road facility be able to take yard trimmings and
biosolids?
12. What has the experience to date been of taking commercial food waste in Palo Alto in
Palo Alto?
13. The process outputs (e.g., energy, compost) of an organics processing facility should
be fully considered as a decision is made on the type of process.
14. The sensitivity of the facility location to noise, light,. traffic, dust and pollutants
should be described.
15. Drawings showing what the various site locations would look like should be
presented.
16. Make it clear that the "Landfill site" is on "Byxbee Park".
3/111 0 ATTACHMENTC
Staff Evaluation
Follow-up to Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) Recommendations
For Developing an Organics Processing Facility Within The
City of Palo Alto
n Staff analysis and recommendation for developing an interim Aerated Static Pile (ASP)
composting operation within Palo Alto versus adopting the Zero Waste Operations Plan of
sending yard trimmings to SMaRT/ZBest. .
The advantages of the City developing an ASP composting facility in Palo Alto after the existing
composting facility closes are mainly: reduced greenhouse gas vehicle emissions through a
closer destination facility; and that the City could control the facility and add other organic
wastes to the process (biosolids, food scraps, etc). Control of the facility and organic wastes that
could be processed could allow the City to implement residential curbside collection of food
scraps in their green waste carts.
Disadvantages of the City developing its own facility in the interim are the high cost of
developing an ASP operation ($3 million initial capital investment); and the fact that there is no
land readily available for the placement of an ASP facility in the intermediate term.
Staff does not believe that the $3 million investment for an ASP Facility developed on any
existing City-oWned property is warranted because of the interim nature of the ASP (Council has
prioritized Anaerobic Digestion) and because there is no readily available site for the facility.
2) Evaluation of Three Potential Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Facility Sites.
Site #1 Other Unspecified Locations Along Embarcadero Road
Staff focused primarily on the existing commercial properties along Embarcadero Way for this
portion ofthe evaluation. Five properties ranging in size from I to almost 4 acres were evaluated
by the Real Estate Division of the Administrative Services Department. Table 1 below
summarizes the potential acquisition costs for these properties. The properties' layout in relation
to the Airport and the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) is shown in Figure 1.
If only the three properties along the east side of Embarcadero Way are considered, acquisition
costs could range between $8.2 to $13.7 million for these 3.15 acres ofland. It is very unlikely
that even just these three properties would be easy to acquire. Eminent Domain would likely be
necessary. One of these three properties houses California Self Storage and another is currently
leased by Victor Aviation Services. Only the property at the comer of Embarcadero Road
appears to be vacant at the time of this report. It contains a two-story structure for research and
development and offices. Staff does not recommend pursuing the acquisition of these properties
for an organics processing facility.
Page I of 8
3/1/1 0 AITACHMENTC
Table 1: ROUGH ACOUISITION ESTIMATES FOR EMBARCADERO WAY PROPERTIES
High Mid Low
Street Number APN Acres $100/sf $80/sf $60/sf Facts
Sold 7/06 lor approx.
WEST 1880 008-03-027 1.19 $5,183,640 $4,146,912 $3,110,184 $4,250,000 recently
refurbIshed ~ avail
SIDE for lease
2440 008-03-072 3.95 $17,206,200 $13,764,960 $10,323,720 Newer R&D Sites -
several vacancies
! 1900 008-03-071 1.14 $4,965,840 $3,972,672 $2,979,504 Olo.r building -
available for lease EAST Older building -• SIDE 2415 008-03-030 1 $4,356,000 $3,484,800 $2,613,600 currently leased
i 2425 008-03-068 1,01 $4,399,560 $3,519,648 $2,639,736 Self storage facmty
Totals 5,14 $22,389,840 $17,911,872 $13,433,904
COMPARABLE DATA:
2525 E, Bayshore Road -1,44 acres, same age bldg -Comp Value per Real Quest $6,250,000 -Sold 4/2006
$4,200,000
1010 Corporation Way -Currently for sale -21 ,500 sl, Bldg, Office/R&D, Vacant, 1,10 ac lot size -for sale price
$5,300,000'" $246,51/51
CONDEMNATION COSTS CONSIDERATIONS (assume +30% to above mid range flgure):
Courts must find that: 1) public Interest and necessity require the project; 2) the project is compatible with the
greatest public good and least private Injury; and 3) the property is necessary for the project
Costs to consider: Fair market value, plus attorney fee$, appraisal fees, relocation expenses, payment for
business fixtures, equipment and good will, and if leased possibly relocation andlor tenants leasehold interest to
be compensated, .
NOTES and ABBREVIATIONS:
East Side parcels represent the lots next to RWQCP
APN: Assessor's Parcel Number
sf: Square Feet
Page 2 of8
3/1/10 AITACHMENTC
Figure 1: EMBARCADERO WAY PROPERTY LOCATIONS
Airport
I
\
Baylands
. \
" \
Site #2 Embarcadero Road/Airport Site
Based on meetings held with Airport stakeholders, there are no options within the airport
property that have no negative impacts on its operations, finances, or relationships with the FAA
or Santa Clara County,
Page 3 of8
3/1!1 0 ATTACHMENTC
Site #3 Northwest Corner of Current Landfill Site (Byxbee Park)
Staff has conceptually developed a 4.7 acre grading plan (Figure 2) at the Northwest comer of
the landfill adjacent to the PAR WQCP that might be large enough for a large AD facility that
could accommodate the City's entire organic waste throughput. The grading plan incorporates
dedicated park acreage from the area adjacent to the PARWQCP fenceline (facing the landfill)
and overlying approximately 2 acres of the existing landfill.
Implementing this conceptual grading plan would mean raising the grades of the existing land
adjacent to the landfill approximately 5 feet to approximately 15 feet above mean sea level
(MSL). This conceptual site would partially overlie the landfill final contours approved by the
landfill architect (Hargreaves Associates, April 2008). If an AD building were developed on this
site then the top of a building could be as high as 40 feet above MSL -lower than the highest
elevations ofthe landfill that are 60 feet above MSL.
Permits and Approvals
Permitting an AD facility at the Northwest corner of the landfill would involve CEQA, State
permits and local approvals and voter approval to undedicate a portion of Byxbee Park. This
entire development process would be expected to take 7 or 8 years to complete (See timeline
Figure 3). Because this site overlies the landfill and because this site would probably require two
EIRs and a vote to undedicated parkland, the schedule for development of a large AD facility
would be expected to take three to four years longer than a site that did not have these land use
issues.
• An Environmental Impact Report (ElR) would be required. It is likely that two EIRs may
be required - a programmatic EIR to support the vote to undedicate the parkland and
later, a design level EIR that would support the permits and approvals;
• A new or revised solid waste facility permit would be necessary;
• A new Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Facility Pennit would
likely be required. A new high technology organics facility with emissions control would
meet the BACT standards (Best Achievable Control Technology).
• New or revised Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) will probably be required from
the Regional Water Quality Control Board since the proposed operation would be sited
partiallyi'on the landfill. Flatter grades overlying the landfill can be permitted as long as
an 'effective system for diverting surface drainage and preventing ponding is designed in
accordanee'with California Code of Regulations Title 27 Section 21090 (b)(1 )(B).
• Local permits and approvals would inelude revising the Baylands Master Plan,
Planning/Site & Design Review approvals, voter approval to undedicate parkland etc.
Page 40f8
31111 0 ATTACHMENTC
• The City would need to modifY the landfill's post-closure plan to reflect this continued
operation on the closed landfill. Also, a facility operations layer and drainage features
would need to be designed and constructed to protect the landfill's cap.
• An amendment to the landfill lease with the State Lands Commission would be necessary
for the improvements.
Other Impacts
Sino;:e the proposed facility can be incorporated into the PARWQCP, the existing landscape
screen trees would need to be removed and new landscaping improvements would need to be
installed at the perimeter of the new facility.
Access to Byxbee park could still be available via the existing parking lot. Some trails planned
at the north end of the landfill would need to be rerouted to avoid the new facility. Maintenance
of the park/landfill could still be undertaken.
Development Costs
Hilary Gans from the Blue Ribbon Task Force completed and presented to Council a preliminary
cost estimate of $ 13.75 million for an Anaerobic Digestion (AD) w/ Energy Recovery system
that is large enough to handle the City's yard trimmings and some food waste. This capital cost
estimate includes the cost of a specialized building, gas collection system and electricity
genenitjng equipment but did not include the cost of an asphalt operating surface or materials
handling equipment cost since the City (\lready owns all the necessary heavy equipment required
to run a c~mposting system.
The cost' per ton calculation to process the City'S organics would depend on what type of facility
is developed, what type of organic wastes would be managed at the facility and what throughput
of tonnage would be possible. A consultant feasibility study would need to be performed before
these costs could be accurately developed.
3) Evaluation of Other Options
Figure 4 presents timelines for two recommended courses of action: 1) study the feasibility of
developing energy recovery facilities for biosolids and limited foodwaste during the upcoming
RWQCI' Master Planning project, and 2) pursue partnering opportunities with SMaRT and/or
private ventures building nearby anaerobic digestion facilities.
Page 5 of 8
Figure 2" C " onceptual Grad" Facility on B b mg Plan for AD yx ee Park
ATIACHMENT"C
2010
IMMEDIATE
"J!
'" ..
" a
'"
BY COUNCIL
Projected Schedule
RFP • Request for Proposal
AD • Anaerobic Digestion
EIR • Environmental Impact Report
Figure 3: ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE
CITY OF PALO ALTO
2011 • 2012
Council Decision
2010)
(Apr 2010)
Landfill
TIMELINE IN YEARS
2013 2014
Compost Facility Closes
(Dec 2011)
2012)
" (Nov 2012)
2015 2016
Selection of
Design-Build
AD Vendor
(JuI2012)
Begin Design,
Focused EIR,
.......... Permits and
Approvals
(JuI2012)
MATERIAL TO SmaRT
2017 2018 2019
Complete and Certify EIR,
rReceive All Pennits and Approvals.
(JuI2016)
. ,
I I , I
I I
Construction
and Startup
(Dec 2017)
P E KIVIAI'II t:: I'll
FACILITY
D . I I AD eSlgn, I Constr I I J • 1 Feasibility I Lag I Vendor CEQA, ! & Startup---1
• • Study/EIR • !TimeL RFP Permit (17 Mos)
(24 Mos) (8 MOS)(9 Mos) (48 Mos)
o
l '" co
!2. co
NO IMMEDIATE
COUNCIL ACTION
REQUIRED
Staff Driven
(Limited AD at WQCP)
Staff Driven
(Track Partnering Opportunities)
AD • Anaerobic Digestion
Figure 4: ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT TIME LINES
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Begin Feasibility
rMaster Plan
TIMELINE IN YEARS
(June 2010) Landfill Closes
Compost Facility Closes
2011)
Landfill Closes
Complete Feasibility
,..........Master Plan
(May 2012)
Compost Facility Closes
(Dec 2011)
TRACKIN<iPA~ERING OPPORTUNITIES WITH NEW REGIONAL AD FACILITIES
g
I
~ -i
()
3/30/10 ATIACHMENTD
Staff Memo
Follow-up to Council Questions from Study Session on March 8, 2010
Council Email Ouestion: The Composting [Blue Ribbon Task Force] Report was originally
paired with a Colleagues memo on Early Opening of Portions of Byxbee Park. This
complementary item was amended and passed on Nov 2, 2009. It was stated at that meeting that
this item on the Early Opening would return 'quickly'. Will it be on the Agenda on AprilS along
with the Composting Report?
The COUNCIL MOTION from November 2,2009 stated:
1) Direct Staff to work with the Parks and Recreation Cormnission and Hargreaves and
Associates to develop fmal park design goals for Phase II of Byxbee Park including
provision to access and views and return j.o Council with a proposed impl()lUentation
budget, and 2) Direct Staff to take the necessary steps to open the completed and
approved landfill area (Phase II AlB in the Baylands Master Plan) to the public as
interim open space by the end of 2011 or sooner; 3) Amended to direct Staff to
report back to Council with an estimated budget for the work in both parts of
the Motion in a timely manner.
Staff Response: The attached Table 1 outlines the steps necessary to prepare closed Landfill
Phase IIA and Phase lIB for early public access. Staff will begin adding clean soil to low areas
in the previously closed sections within the next few months (weather permitting) in order to
fulfill the post-closure responsibility of addressing settlement. Most ofthe top-deck areas have
settled one to two feet. (or more) within the last several years. The current goal is to accept and
spread enough clean soil to bring the closed sections up to the original designed grades of these
already capped landfill areas.
The proposed FY 2011 budget for the Landfill Closure (CIP RF-llOO 1) has been adjusted to
provide $600,000 for the work required to prepare Phase IIA and Phase IIB for public access.
This will include: changes to the environmental control systems (leachate and landfill gas
collection piping) to place piping and well heads underground, minor grading and improvements
to site access roads, and removal of perimeter fencing. The Refuse Fund budget does not include
money to prepare final park design goals in conjunction with Hargreaves and the Parks &
Recreation Commission, final park design (which should include Phase lIC), nor final park
construction.
Staff believes it would be more efficient and cost effective to bury the piping system
underground when the Phase lIC closure is completed because there will be the efficiency of
earth moving equipment and a single contractor to mobilize rather than administering two
discrete projects successively. If Council decides to initiate the early opening of Phase IlA and
Phase lIB and to bear the extra expense, it would prohably only speed up the potential to open
these areas by about one year earlier than if the work was combined with the closure construction
on Phase lIC. It is also not clear yet how the park-related improvements will be funded.
Page 1 of5
TABLE 1
BYXBEE PARK -PHASE IIA & PHASE liB CLOSED LANDFILL PREPARATION WORK
I
ESTIMATED
TAS.q DESCRIPTION STATUS COST SOURCE OF FUNDS TIME LINE
1 IAdjust the setUed surface with new topsoil to raise the IN $50,000 PWD -Refuse: Landfill Complete by October 201 0 finished grade back to the permitted elevations PROGRESS Operations
IRevegetate surface following settlement remediation IN PWD -Refuse: Landfill 2 IPROGRESS $25,000 Operations Complete by December 2010
I Seek Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) approval for I PLANNED I PWD -Refuse: staff-level Complete by December 2010
3 (assuming no permitting "early" public access to Phase IIA & Phase liB task hurdles)
4 I Design, plan and permit changes to environmental control PLANNED $50,000 PWD -RefuSe: Closure Pending FY 2011 Budget systems (leachate and landfiU gas collection piping) reserve (CIP RF-11 001)
5 I Modify environmental control systems to place piping and PLANNED $500,000 PWD -Refuse: Closure I Pending FY 2011 Budget well heads underground reserve (CIP RF-11001)
6 IMinor greding and improvementof site access roads I PLANNED $25,000 IPWD -Refuse: Closure
reserve (CIP RF-11001) IPending FY 2011 Budget
7 I Remove perimeter' fencing IPLANNED $25,000 PWD -Refuse: Closure
I reserve (CIP RF-11001) Pending FY 2011 Budget
I Prepare Final Park Design Goals in conjunction with I PLANNED ICSD: ???
»-
8 $25,{)00 Pending Council action ~ Hargreaves and the Parks & Recreation Commission
('J ::c
9 I Final Park Design (including Phase IIC) IPLANNED $470,000 ICSD: ??1 IPending Council action a;::
~
10 I Final Park Construction (including Phase IIC) IPLANNED I $4,700,000 leSD: 1?? IPending Council action
..,
"
3/30/10 ATTACHMENTD
Study Session Question: Refuse fund has right to parkland until June 30, 2011 future use
would require $3.7 million annual payment? Is that built into the numbers?
Staff Response: CMR 104:07 established the following rent schedule for both the active and
closed portions of the landfill:
City of Palo Alto I
Landfill Rent
Schedule
Rent
Payment
(Smoothing
Rent Charged Schedule)
2004-05 7420925 4,288,747
2005-06 7420925 4288747
2006-07 7420,925 4,288,747
.2007-08 7420,925 4,288,747
2008-09 7,420,925 4,288,747
2009-10 7420925 4,288,747
2010-11 7420,925 4,288747
2011-12 0 4,288,747
2012-13 0 2,094,332
. 2013-14 0 2,094,331
2014-15 0 2,094331
2015-16 0 2,094,331
2016-17 0 2,094,331
2017-18 0 2,094,331
2018-19 0 2,094331
2019-20 0 2,094,331
2020-21 0 881,851
This rent schedule encompasses the entire landfill area (approximately 100 acres of both active
and closed). The amount of rent attributable to the piece of land being considered for
composting would be proportionally less. The current annual rent payment for the entire landfill
is approximately $4.3 Million. If the Refuse Fund occupies any portion of Byxbee Park for a
longer period than contemplated in the rent schedule, the schedul~ would have to be re-adjusted.
The schedule was based on the information available at the time that assumed a projected landfill
closure on June 30, 2011. The schedule adopted by the Council in 2007 contained a number of
Council-directed policies, including: (1) the Refuse Fund should be paying the General Fund for
use of the inactive portion until it is formally converted to park use; (2) the rent attributable to
Page 3 of5
3/30/10 ATTACHMENT D
the inactive portion should be less than fair market rent since the Refuse Fund is not actively
using the property and (3) the rent payments should be amortized over time so that Refuse rates
are not substantially impacted. The current economy which has led to less commercial dumping
at the landfill together with the temporary City Council imposed commercial dumping
moratorium may result in a slightly later landfill closure date. The City is in the process of
determining whether there is a need for further refining this rental schedule al).d whether there is
a need for an updated appraisal.
Study Session Question: If there is a de-aunexation of the parkland, the parkland will take on the
value of commercial properties around it. Refuse Fund would have a liability for approximately
that amount?
Staff Response: If the parkland is de-alUlexed and the Refuse Fund continues to utilize the
property for Refuse purposes (including composting), the Refuse Fund would be responsible for
the payment of rent. The rent would be based on the highest and best use which is most likely
research and development/industrial use.
Study Session Question: Concerned about buffer betWeen industrial activities and parkland -
will there be an EIR to estimate the impact on Parkland?
Staff Response: Yes, an ErR for a compost project would address land use compatibility and
related aesthetic issues. The zoning ordinance governing the new use could also prescribe
appropriate setbacksl buffer zones.
Study Session Question: 90% solution email by Bryan Long -can his solution be part of the
April 5 discussion?
For reference, the recommendations in Bryan Long's 90% solution email are:
I. Improve collection rates of our new commerciaVmultifamily food waste collection
program, and implement a residential food scrap collection program. Utilize Z-Best
or other regional facility to compost or digest these food wastes for the time being.
2. After landfill closure, divert yard trimmings to Z-Best or other regional composting
facility, and
3.. Direct RWQCP staff to incorporate alternatives for anaerobic digestion ofbiosolids
and Palo Alto's food scrap collections into their comprehensive [Master 1 plan.
Direct staff to consider yard trimmings as well, but as a secondary priority and only
if it does not significantly increase the cost or lengthen the timeframe required.
Page 4 of5
3i30/10 ATTACHMENTD
Staff Response: Staffs recommendation is largely in line with what is referred to as the 90%
solution. The upcoming RWQCP Master Plan will include an analysis of options for managing
the biosolids that are currently incinerated. The analysis ofbiosolids options won't constitute a
full "Feasibility Study". However it will include site specific cost and revenue estimates, general
environment impact analysis and life cycle estimates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Taking some food waste ",ill be analyzed, but it is very unlikely that anything close to all the P A
food waste could be handled within the RWQCP footprint.
It is important to note that the RWQCP is funded 35% by Palo Alto and 65% by its other
Partners. Therefore, expenditures (including planning) for waste streams generated by only Palo
Alto would have to be funded by 100% Palo Alto funds .. Major Capital Improvement Projects at
the RWQCP also require approval by the Partner City Councils in addition to the Palo Alto City
Council.
Study Session Concerns: Numerous questions posed by Council at the study session related to
the size, cost, operations, buffer zones, and environmental impacts of an anaerobic digestion
facility.
Staff Response: These types of questions are best answered through a detailed feasibility study
combined with a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) so that all mitigation measures can be
identified and properly estimated for cost. The cost of such a detailed study would exceed
$250,000. Previously a similar effort for the project known as the Environmental Services
Center (ESC) would have cost over $400,000 (CMR 125:05). The largest portion of the
proposed ESC was the composting area. Because no readily available site has been identified,
staff does not recommend moving forward with a full scale feasibility study for anaerobic
digestion at this time.
Page 5 of5
I I >. 0 C)
c: CO c: en --0 --I , CO I , I ,
--c: Cl) Cl) I ,
CO Cl) ~ s.... « u I ,
0 0 0 c... .....I
April 5, 2010 CMR 165:10
Study Alternatives
•Alternative 1: In‐City Options at
Landfill Site
Food Yard Biosolids
Case 1a Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD
(Separate Cell)
Case 1b Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD at
Landfill
Case 1c Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD at
RWQCP
Case 1d Dry AD Dry AD Continue
Incineration at
RWQCP
Case 1d
No Biosolids
Dry AD Dry AD
4
Study Alternatives
(continued)
•Alternative 2: Export
•Alternative 3: Export
Food Yard Biosolids
With Biosolids San Jose AD
(Zanker)
Gilroy
Compost
(ZBEST)
Continue
Incineration
at RWQCP
No Biosolids San Jose AD
(Zanker)
Gilroy
Compost
(ZBEST)
Food Yard Biosolids
With Biosolids Gilroy
Compost
(ZBEST)
Gilroy
Compost
(ZBEST)
Continue
Incineration
at RWQCP
No Biosolids Gilroy
Compost
(ZBEST)
Gilroy
Compost
(ZBEST)
5
Technologies for Green Waste Management
Prepared for City of Palo Alto ‐ Revised draft, 3/3/09
Technology Category Variations Process Summary Products Other Inputs Identified Vendors CIWMB Diversion?
Composting Open, Covered,
In‐Vessel
Decomposition of organic
materials in the in the
presence of oxygen
Solids that may be usable
as a soil amendment
Biosolids,
Food waste
Many common systems, >5
vendors for covered, >10 for
in‐vessel systems
Yes
Open Biosolids,
Food waste
Common system, not
associated with a specific
vendor
Covered Biosolids,
Food waste
Engineered Compost
Systems, Ag‐Bag, CV‐
Compost, GORE, Managed
Organic Recycling, Inc.
In‐Vessel Most are small systems
normally used only for
food waste at food waste
generator sites.
Food Waste Advanced Biotechnology,
Augspurger Engineering,
Biosystem Solutions, BW
Organics, CIWA ECorrect,
Engineered Compost
Systems, EPM Inc.,
Environmental Products &
Technologies Corporation,
Green Mountain
Technologies; Hot Rot
Composting Systems;
Nature's Soil; NaturTech, Tri
Form Poly, Inc., Vermigold
EcoTech Pvt. Ltd., Vermitech
Systems, Ltd., Willcam, Inc.,
Wright Environmental
Management, Wright Tech
Systems, Inc., X‐Act Systems
Page 1 of 4
Technologies for Green Waste Management
Prepared for City of Palo Alto ‐ Revised draft, 3/3/09
Technology Category Variations Process Summary Products Other Inputs Identified Vendors CIWMB Diversion?
Anaerobic Digestion Wet, Dry, Two‐
Stage, Batch
Bacterial breakdown of
organic materials in the
absence of oxygen
Gas suitable for use as
fuel, solids that may be
usable as soil amendment
Biosolids,
Food waste
>10 Yes for green waste
Wet Waasa, BIMA
Dry EcoCorp, Organic Waste
Systems (Dranco Process),
Waste Recovery System
Inc./Urbaser (Steinmuller
Valorga process), Kompogas
AG
Two‐Stage CCI US Corporation (US
Vendor for Canada
Composting/Biotechniche
Abfallverwertung GmbH &
Co. KG [BTA]), California
Renewable Technologies (US
Vendor for Arrow
Ecology/Arrow Bio), Linde‐
KCA‐Dresden GmbH, Super
Blue Box Recycling
(SUBBOR), WEHRLE Umwelt
GmbH (Biopercolat)
Batch Bekon, Biocel, Bokashicycle,
Sequential Batch Anaerobic
Composting, Onsite Power
Systems (Anaerobic Phased
Solids [APS] Digester),
BioConverter
Vendors without sufficient
information to categorize:
Environmental Developers
VRAD, Orgaworld
Page 2 of 4
Technologies for Green Waste Management
Prepared for City of Palo Alto ‐ Revised draft, 3/3/09
Technology Category Variations Process Summary Products Other Inputs Identified Vendors CIWMB Diversion?
Thermochemical
Technologies
Gasification,
Pyrolysis, Plasma
Arc
Processes that uses heat,
pressure, and steam
under low or no‐oxygen
conditions to decompose
materials
Gas (can be a fuel or
chemical feedstock),
hydrocarbon liquids, tars,
solids (these can be called
ash or char; may have
reuse potential)
Many >10 Not for municipal
green waste.
Gasification‐‐but not
others‐‐may be able
to receive credit for
municipal waste
residuals.
Gasification Gasification is a process
that uses air or oxygen
and high heat—typically
above 1300°F—to convert
feedstock into a synthetic
gas or fuel gas.
Gasification uses less air
or oxygen than
incineration processes. By
definition, gasification is a
partial combustion
process.
? AdaptiveNRG, Chiptec,
Changing World
Technologies (?),
Community Power
Corporation, Ebara,
Envirepel, EPI, Genahol,
Improved Converters, Inc.,
GEM America (Waste‐to‐
Energy, Inc.), Interstate
Waste Technologies
(Thermoselect), Ntech
Environmental, Precision
Energy Services, PRM Energy
Systems, Inc., Primenergy,
Tajiguas Partners,
Thermogenics, Inc., World
Waste Technologies
Pyrolysis Pyrolysis is a process that
can be defined as the
thermal decomposition of
feedstock at high
temperatures (greater
than 400°F) in the
absence of air.
GEM Operations Ltd.,
Venearth, International
Environmental Solutions
(IES)
Plasma Arc Heating method for
pyrolysis or gasification
Rigel Resource Recovery,
Plasco Energy Group
Page 3 of 4
Technologies for Green Waste Management
Prepared for City of Palo Alto ‐ Revised draft, 3/3/09
Technology Category Variations Process Summary Products Other Inputs Identified Vendors CIWMB Diversion?
Refuse‐Derived Fuel Waste
pelletization
Waste is dried, shredded,
and pelletized
Solids for combustion fuel Many <5 No
Waste Recovery
Technologies, Herhof
California
Other Technologies (Probably Not Suitable for Green Waste)
Prepared for City of Palo Alto ‐ Revised draft, 3/3/09
Technology Category Variations Process Summary Products Other Inputs Identified Vendors CIWMB Diversion?
Biofuel Production Ethanol
production
Acid and/or enzymatic
hydrolysis followed by
fermentation
Ethanol, solids Sugar and
starch‐based
feedstocks
like corn and
sugar cane
are proven.
Cellulostic
ethanol
production
(the kind that
could use
yard
trimmings) is
still in the
research
stage. Pilot
cellulostic
plants are
starting to be
constructed.
Celunol, BC International (?),
Arkenol, Masada OxyNol,
Biometics (Biofine)
?
Biodiesel
production
Fermentation (anaerobic
digestion) after hydrolysis
Biodiesel, (solids?) Brown grease
only
BioFuelBox, Black Gold
Biofuels, Ecoplus, North
American Biofuels
?
Page 4 of 4
Simplified Summary Economic Analysis
11
Base Case (Electricity)
1st Year (2015) Tip Fee ($/Ton)
Alternative 1 (In‐City) Low $High $
1a (All Dry AD –Food, Yard,
Biosolids)112* 353
1b (Dry AD – Food & Yard; Wet
AD Biosolids at Landfill)201 304
1c (Dry AD – Food & Yard; Wet
AD Biosolids at RWQCP)199 302
1d (Dry AD – Food & Yard;
Continue Incinerate Biosolids)119 234
1d (Dry AD – Food & Yard, No
Biosolids)141 346
Alternative 2Low $High $
Export Food to San Jose, Yard to
Gilroy; Continue Incinerate
Biosolids
72 72
Same as above, but no Biosolids 58 58
Alternative 3Low $High $
Export Food & Yard to Gilroy;
Continue Incinerate Biosolids 68 68
Same as above, but no Biosolids 52 52
* Cost uncertainty with dry AD biosolids
Simplified Economic Summary
Sensitivity Cases (Electricity)
1st Year Tip Fee (2015, $/Ton)
(Low $ Range)
Landfill
Gas
Grants (%)Public
Own,
Finance50 40 30
Alternative 1 (In‐City)
1a (All Dry AD –Food, Yard,
Biosolids)110* 48* 55* 62* 81*
1b (Dry AD –Food & Yard; Wet
AD Biosolids at landfill)199 93 105 117 150
1c (Dry AD –Food & Yard; Wet
AD Biosolids at RWQCP)196 92 104 115 148
1d (Dry AD –Food & Yard;
Continue Incinerate
Biosolids)
115 76 80 85 98
Alternative 2 (Export Food to
San Jose, Yard to Gilroy;
Continue Incinerate Biosolids)
72 72 72 72 72
Alternative 3 (Export Food &
Yard to Gilroy; Continue
Incinerate Biosolids)
68 68 68 68 68
12* Cost uncertainty with Dry AD Biosolids
GHG Model Results
(MT CO2‐e/Year)
10
Alternative 1: In‐City Options at Landfill Site
Electricity Pipeline Gas
Case 1a (All Dry AD ‐Food, Yard,
Biosolids)11,533 11,280
Case 1b (Dry AD Food, Yard; Wet AD
Biosolids‐at Landfill)14,227 19,188
Case 1c (Dry AD Food, Yard; West AD
Biosolids at RWQCP)14,200 19,161
Case 1d (Dry AD, Food, Yard; Continue
Incinerate Biosolids)21,106 23,929
Case 1d No Biosolids 5,855 6,072
Alternative 2: Export Electricity Pipeline Gas
Export Food to San Jose, Yard to Gilroy;
Continue Incinerate Biosolids 23,329 26,194
Food, Yard, same as above; No Biosolids 8,078 8,165
Alternative 3: Export Electricity Pipeline Gas
Export Food and Yard to Gilroy; Continue
Incinerate Biosolids 22,716 22,716
Food, Yard, same as above; No Biosolids 7,465 7,465
Public Comments Summary
February 23 & March 9,2011 Public Meetings
Energy/Compost Preliminary Analysis
A. Suggested Changes to the Financial Model
1.Conduct model runs using contingencies of 15 % and 30% for Alternatives 2 and 3.
2.For any incinerator option, assume that a state of the art incinerator must be built at the end of the
design life of the current incinerator (for both Cost & GHG analysis).
3.For Alternative 1A, only apply the contingency to biosolids.
B. New Suggested “runs” of the Financial Model (New Inputs)
1.Include a CO2 adder at $20 per ton and also conduct model runs using $30 and $60 per ton.
2.The rent value used ($103,000/yr)is incorrect –conduct runs at zero,$784,000/yr and
$908,000/yr, (to mach the current rent).
C. New Suggested Sub-Alternatives
1.For Alternatives No. 2 and 3, consider Wet (or Dry)Anaerobic Digestion (WAD) at RWQCP,
instead of incineration
2.Digest biosolids and food waste together (either using Wet or Dry Anaerobic Digestion).Then
aerobically compost the digestate with yard trimmings.
3.Use a combination of the 9-acre site and the RWQCP.
D. Renewable Energy/Greenhouse Gasses
1.Differentiate between the price of carbon and renewable credit energy.
2.Determine whether there should be two components to the CO2 credit.
3.Show how the facility contributes to meeting the City’s Climate Action Goals.
4.Include both a CO2 cost adder and include the carbon credit revenue.
E. Source Control for Organic Materials
1.A Zero Waste approach should be used. That is, the energy/compost facility effort should be
combined with an effort to reduce the organics generated at the source.
2.Reduce yard trimmings by decreasing the amount of plant growth through plant and tree selection.
3.Food waste should be composted rather than dumped down garbage disposals.
4.Don’t assume reduction in H20 use for irrigation; this is not a realistic way to reduce the amount of
yard trimmings.
F. Miscellaneous
1.Determine what San Mateo County is doing with its source separated organic wastes.
2.Integrate the 2 studies: the sewage long range plan and the energy compost study.
3.Don’t charge all costs to the Refuse Fund (charge some to the Regional Water Quality Control
Plant).
4.Need a 1,000 foot buffer zone between the energy compost facility and other uses.
5.State the justification for the choice of the selected grant percentages and put this in the March
Report to Council.
6.The City does not own the land for the 9 acre site, the State does.
7.What is cost of redesigning Byxbee Park to accommodate the energy/compost facility? Is it
included in the cost analysis?
8.Don’t spend money to use landfill gas because it will decrease over time.
9.The 9-acre study site and the 10-acre site in the circulated petition are different, resulted in a
disconnect.
10.Is there an assumption of public borrowing in the financial analysis?
11.What is the cost of excavation of the landfill material now on the 9-acre site? Is it included in the
Financial Analysis?
12.Show the results differently. Examples: 1) Don’t highlight “Grants” without stating likelihood of
obtaining them, 2) Show the aggregate cost over 20 years, not the “year 1” costs, as the key
measure of cost
13.Estimate and include the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from the exploration, extraction,
processing and transportation of all fossil fuels used during construction and operation of each
alternative.
G. Additional comments on COSTS at 3/9/2011 Mtg:
1.Present Public and private financing side by side.
2.Use total cost over life of project instead of one year, to compare alternatives
3.Determine whether a contingency exists in the San Jose ( Alt 2) numbers
4.Determine cost of Green Roof.
5.Use current rent value on landfill
6.Don’t show grant values unless there is a basis for it.
7.Translate costs to rate increases.
8.Determine rent associated with “highest & best use”.
9.Include Palo Alto facilities in the land appraisal.
10.Buffer should be consistent with RWQCP buffer zone.
11.Sensitivity analysis on gas
12.Analyze CNG as the product, as opposed to regular natural gas
13.See 4/10 CMR for buffer zone recommendations
H. 3/9/2011 Comments on GREENHOUSE GAS emissions:
1.Determine the amount of Carbon Black Particulate emissions in each alternative.
2.Adjust CO2 amortization for WET anaerobic digestion for more than 20 years.
3.Assume carbon from new incinerator construction.
4.Capture full life cycle of natural gas including development and transportation.
5.Were greenhouse gases from San Jose anaerobic digestion construction included in Alternative 2?
6.Don’t do too much analysis -don’t do any more –enough has been done.
7.Eliminate “electricity” and “pipeline” headings gas in Alternative 3 summaries.
8.What methane production was assumed in food only at San Jose?
9.Translate “MT CO2” to a more understandable reference.
10.Look at full life cycle of natural gas estimating CO2 emissions.
11.Include natural gas pipeline loss.
12.Meet carbon goals in Climate Protection Plan. Rank per $ per ton.
13.Use gallons of gasoline as CO2 translator.
14.Create a more useful product from compost.
15.Ask Lyngso type companies what is an acceptable compost-type product.
1
COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Energy/Compost Facility
Preliminary Analysis
March 21, 2011
2
COUNCIL DIRECTION
•Hire Consultant/Evaluate Dry
Anaerobic Digestion
•Prepare applicable level EIR
focused on 8-9 acres of Byxbee
Park
•Study energy-conversion
technologies at Palo Alto
Wastewater Plant as part of
Facilities Planning
•Pursue partnering opportunities
for organics within 20 miles of
Palo Alto
3
CURRENT ORGANICS
MANAGEMENT AND PLANS
•Food Scraps
–Commercial: Aerobic Composting near
Gilroy (Greenwaste Facility)
–Residential: Not yet Source Separated
•Yard Trimmings
–Current: Palo Alto Aerobic Composting
Facility
–In 2012: Aerobic Composting near Gilroy
(Greenwaste Facility)
•Wastewater Solids (“Biosolids”)
–Incinerated at Palo Alto Wastewater Plant
–Alternatives being studied via Long Range
Facilities Planning Process and
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
4
5
Palo Alto Facility
6
7
8
9
10
MANAGING PALO ALTO’S
SOURCE SEPARATED ORGANICS
(FOOD, YARD AND WASTEWATER SOLIDS)
11
ENERGY CONVERSION
TECHNOLOGIES
•Anaerobic Digestion
•Gassification
•Pyrolysis
Incineration (Fluidized Bed
replacing Multiple Hearth)
12
REGIONAL PARTNERING
(within 20 miles)
•Greenwaste (ZWED)
–Dry Anaerobic Digestion/North San
Jose Food Scraps
•City of San Jose/Harvest Power
–Gassification/North San Jose
–Wastewater Solids/Wood
•Sunnyvale-Palo Alto-MV/SMaRT
Station
[No Plans for Conversion
Technologies at this time.]
13
RESULTS OF DRY ANAEROBIC
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
1.Cost & Greenhouse Gas Models Developed
2.Dry Anaerobic In Palo Alto Compared To
Export Out Of Palo Alto
3.Analysis Placed On Website, Showing
Certain Sub-alternatives And Sensitivity
Analysis
4.Staff Doesn’t Recommend Drawing
Conclusions Based On Preliminary Analysis
5.Many Good Comments Received
6.More Good Comments Likely To Be
Received On 3/21/11
7.Staff Plans On Addressing Comments
And Finalizing Study In Early Fall
14
KEY EXAMPLES OF PUBLIC
COMMENTS
1/26/11 –3/21/11
NEW MODEL RUNS:
1.Higher and Lower Land Rent Values
2.Use $20, $30, and $60 per ton CO2 “adders”
CHANGES TO MODEL:
3.Include Incineration Replacement Cost
4.Include Contingency on Regional Alternatives (2 and 3)
5.Include Greenhouse Gas Emissions from generation of fossil fuel
NEW SUB-ALTERNATIVES:
6.Combine Food and Biosolids in Anaerobic Digesters, finish aerobically with yard and use both sites
7.Replace Incineration with Digestion as part of Regional Alternatives (2 and 3)
DIFFERENT PRESENTATION:
8.Present likelihood of obtaining Grants
9.Present 20-year aggregate costs (rather than single-year)
15
NEXT STEPS
1.Analyze all comments and;
a.Modify model
b.Create new model runs
c.Consider one or several new sub-
alternatives
2.Complete CEQA initial checklist
3.Prepare final Report in early fall,
per existing schedule.
16
Presentation
of
DRAFT
Economic and GHG Analyses
for Energy Compost
Feasibility Study
City Council
Palo Alto, CA
March 21, 2011
1784
17
Project Team
•Alternative Resources, Inc.
•Ascent Environmental
•Douglas Environmental
•Facility Builders & Erectors
17
18
Projections Waste
Quantities
(Tons/Year)
Food Yard Biosolids Total
First Year: 2015 14,000 21,000 27,000 62,000
Last Year: 2034 19,000 21,000 34,000 74,000
18
19
Study Alternatives
•Alternative 1: In-City Options at
Landfill Site
Food Yard Biosolids
Case 1a Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD
(Separate Cell)
Case 1b Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD at
Landfill
Case 1c Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD at
RWQCP
Case 1d Dry AD Dry AD Continue
Incineration at
RWQCP
Case 1d
No Biosolids
Dry AD Dry AD
19
20
Study Alternatives
(continued)
•Alternative 2: Export
•Alternative 3: Export
Food Yard Biosolids
With Biosolids San Jose AD
(Zanker)
Gilroy
Compost
(ZBEST)
Continue
Incineration
at RWQCP
No Biosolids San Jose AD
(Zanker)
Gilroy
Compost
(ZBEST)
Food Yard Biosolids
With Biosolids Gilroy
Compost
(ZBEST)
Gilroy
Compost
(ZBEST)
Continue
Incineration
at RWQCP
No Biosolids Gilroy
Compost
(ZBEST)
Gilroy
Compost
(ZBEST)
20
21
AD Energy Options
•Electricity
•Pipeline Gas
21
22
Models
•GHG
–Compares CO2-e Emissions on
Metric Tons/Year Basis
•Economic
–Compares costs on $/ton basis and
NPV basis
–Includes Sensitivity Analyses
•Landfill gas for electricity production
•Grants
•Public financing
22
23
RFI Approach
•Market-based approach for input
information
–Provided representative cost and
GHG information
–Provided comments regarding
technical approach
•Supplemented as necessary
23
24
RFI Respondents
Technology Respondent
Axpo-Kompogas ST Engineering Group
BEKON Energy
Technologies
Mustang Renewable
Power Ventures
Bioferm Energy Systems McGill Compost
DRANCO Organic Waste Systems
GICON Bioenergie GmbH Harvest Power
Strabag-Linde KCA Ecocorp
Valorga Urbaser
24
25
GHG Model Results
(MT CO2-e/Year)
25
Alternative 1: In-City Options at Landfill Site
Electricity Pipeline Gas
Case 1a (All Dry AD -Food, Yard,
Biosolids)11,533 11,280
Case 1b (Dry AD Food, Yard; Wet AD
Biosolids-at Landfill)14,227 19,188
Case 1c (Dry AD Food, Yard; West AD
Biosolids at RWQCP)14,200 19,161
Case 1d (Dry AD, Food, Yard; Continue
Incinerate Biosolids)21,106 23,929
Case 1d No Biosolids 5,855 6,072
Alternative 2: Export Electricity Pipeline Gas
Export Food to San Jose, Yard to Gilroy;
Continue Incinerate Biosolids 23,329 26,194
Food, Yard, same as above; No Biosolids 8,078 8,165
Alternative 3: Export Electricity Pipeline Gas
Export Food and Yard to Gilroy; Continue
Incinerate Biosolids 22,716 22,716
Food, Yard, same as above; No Biosolids 7,465 7,465
26
Simplified Summary Economic Analysis
26
Base Case (Electricity)
1st Year (2015) Tip Fee ($/Ton)
Alternative 1 (In-City)Low $High $
1a (All Dry AD –Food, Yard,
Biosolids)112*353
1b (Dry AD –Food & Yard; Wet
AD Biosolids at Landfill)201 304
1c (Dry AD –Food & Yard; Wet
AD Biosolids at RWQCP)199 302
1d (Dry AD –Food & Yard;
Continue Incinerate Biosolids)119 234
1d (Dry AD –Food & Yard, No
Biosolids)141 346
Alternative 2 Low $High $
Export Food to San Jose, Yard to
Gilroy; Continue Incinerate
Biosolids
72 72
Same as above, but no Biosolids 58 58
Alternative 3 Low $High $
Export Food & Yard to Gilroy;
Continue Incinerate Biosolids 68 68
Same as above, but no Biosolids 52 52
* Cost uncertainty with dry AD biosolids
27
Simplified Economic Summary
Sensitivity Cases (Electricity)
1st Year Tip Fee (2015, $/Ton)
(Low $ Range)*
Landfill
Gas
Grants (%)Public
Own,
Finance504030
Alternative 1 (In-City)
1a (All Dry AD –Food, Yard,
Biosolids)110**48**55**62**81**
1b (Dry AD –Food & Yard; Wet
AD Biosolids at landfill)199 93 105 117 150
1c (Dry AD –Food & Yard; Wet
AD Biosolids at RWQCP)196 92 104 115 148
1d (Dry AD –Food & Yard;
Continue Incinerate Biosolids)115 76 80 85 98
Alternative 2 (Export Food to San
Jose, Yard to Gilroy; Continue
Incinerate Biosolids)
72 72 72 72 72
Alternative 3 (Export Food &
Yard to Gilroy; Continue
Incinerate Biosolids)
68 68 68 68 68
27* Also Important to examine life-cycle net present value
** Cost uncertainty with Dry AD Biosolids
28
Example AD
Reference Facilities
28
29
Axpo-Kompogas Plant,
Zwolle (NL)
45,000 Tons/Year Biowaste; Natural Gas Use; 2010
29
30
Axpo-Kompogas Plant
30
(Size, waste type, location?)
31
BEKON Plant
Hille, Switzerland
44,000 TPY Biowaste; 1,000 kW Electricity;
December 2009
31
32
BIOFermTM
Moosdorf, Germany
32
13,000 TPY; Municipal Organic Waste;
Electricity
January 2008
33
DRANCO Plant
Terrassa, Spain
25,000 TPY Biowaste; Electricity
December 2006
33
34
DRANCO Facility
Vitoria, Spain
34
330 TPD
Mixed MSW
2006
35
DRANCO Plant
Brecht, Belgium
20,000 TPY Biowaste (Brecht I);
50,000 TPY Biowaste (Brecht II);
Electricity
July 1992 –Brecht I
January 2000 –Brecht II
35
36
Harvest Power
Valorsul Facility, Lisbon
60,000 MT/Yr
Source Separated Organic Waste; Electricity
2004
36
37
Harvest Power
Palo Alto Facility Concept
37
1.Organic Waste Receiving Hall
2.Hydrolysis Percolator
Loading Hall
3.Hydrolysis Percolators
4.Hydrolysate Buffer Tank
5.Methane Digesters
6.Digester Effluent Buffer Tank
7.HSAD Mechanical Room
8.Combined Heat and
Power Units
9.uCASP Feedstock Mixing
10.Covered Aerated Static
Pile (uCASP)
11.Ventilation System
12.HSAD and uCASP
Biofilter
13.Screening, Curing,
Finished Product
38
Strabag-Linde
Lemgo, Germany
50,000 TPY Screened Organics from MSW,
Yard Waste and Biosolids
2000
38
39
Strabag-Linde
Valladolid, Spain
39
600-TPD
Mixed MSW
2002
40
Urbaser –Valorga
Palo Alto Concept
40
41
Urbaser –Valorga
Ecoparc II
Barcelona, Spain
244,000 Mt/Yr MSW
Electricity
2004
41
42
WTE and Gasification
Facilities
42
43
Copenhagen, Denmark
43
Artist Rendering of proposed WTE power
plant planned for Copenhagen in 2016.
44
Sanford, Florida
80-DTPD Sewage Sludge Gasifier
(Operational September 2009)
44
45
WWTP
Sanford, Florida
46
Dry Sludge Feed to Gasifier
Sanford, Florida
47
Gasifier
Sanford, Florida
48
Slag Discharge from Gasifier
Sanford, Florida
49
Thermal Oxidizer, Oil Heater
Sanford, Florida
50
50
IWT –Chiba, Japan
330 TPD
Operating since 1999
51
51
Waste in Pit
JFE/Thermoselect Plant
Kurashiki, Japan
610 TPD
Operating since 2005
52
52
Cut Away Model -Ebara Plant
Kawaguchi, Japan
380 TPD
Operating Since 2002
53
53
Control Room –Ebara Plant
Kawaguchi, Japan
54
Westinghouse Plasma Gasification System
Utashinai, Japan
165 TPD for Auto Shredder Residue (ASR)
or 300 TPD for MSW
Date of Commercial Operation: 2003
54
5555
IES –Romoland, CA
50 TPD
Operating since March 2005
5656
Gasifier and Thermal Oxidizer
Entech Facility, Bydgoszcz, Poland
25 TPD –Hospital Waste
Operating since February 2003
57
Plasco Energy Demonstration Facility
Ottawa, Canada
100 TPD (Permitted for 85 TPD,
Generates 4 MW electricity)
Date of Initial Waste Processing: 2007
57
58
Plasco Energy Group –Plasma Gasification Facility
Artist Rendering for Facility Proposed for
City of Los Angeles
200 TPD
58
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION -MEETING
EXCERPTED DRAFT MINUTES OF MARCH 2, 2011
ITEM 3: DISCUSSION: Preliminary Results of the Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Resource Planner Jon Abendschein gave a presentation on the preliminary results of the Energy/Compost
Feasibility Study. He described the history of the project, which was one of two studies being done on
handling green waste in Palo Alto. He gave an overview of three primary alternatives being considered and
four sub-alternatives. The project could generate 1.5-2.5 MW of biogas, which could be used to generate
power or cleaned up and injected into the gas distribution system. He showed the electric utility’s progress
toward the Renewable Portfolio Standard if power from this project was included. He showed the value of
renewable power and gas used in the study and described some of the preliminary results of the study.
The objective of the meeting was to answer Commissioner’s questions and take feedback on how this
resource would fit into the renewable portfolio and the prices used in the study.
Chair Waldfogel asked for Public Comment:
1.John Kelley commented on the costs of the various alternatives, the opportunity to obtain renewable
gas, the incineration of sewage sludge, and the value of avoided carbon emissions.
2.David Coale commented on the time period used in the study and the value of avoided carbon
emissions
3.Peter Drekmeier commented on the costs of the various alternatives, the value of avoided carbon
emissions, the costs associated with incineration of sewage sludge, and the cost effectiveness of wet
anaerobic digestion, and listed other specific concerns with the study alternatives.
4.Emily Renzel commented on the use of parkland, the marketability of sewage sludge compost, and
commented on some of the assumptions in the study.
Commissioner Eglash asked about project implementation, project ownership, and what was expected of
the Commission.Abendschein responded that staff was looking for comments on the assumptions used in
the energy portion of the study before the initial results of the study went to the City Council. Many of the
outstanding questions would be resolved by the Public Works department. In the scenario analyzed in the
study the project would be privately owned and operated.
Commissioner Melton said he was glad to hear that the City was not proposing to build and operate a
generator. He asked whether the project had been analyzed in enough depth to determine whether it was
economic or not. Abendschein responded that he was unsure whether the project was economic from a
waste management point of view. He said the energy component of the project was relatively small. The
question was whether this was an appropriate resource for the utility if it was economic from a waste
management point of view. Commissioner Melton asked whether the costs shown in the presentation
represented the price at which the utility was indifferent between buying from the project and buying outside
renewables. Abendschein said they were. Commissioner Melton said there was some additional value
associated with having a generator in the city under the City’s control.
Vice Chair Foster said the energy generation component of the project was valuable to the utility because it
was local, renewable, and baseload. He thought the City should look at wet anaerobic digestion of yard
and food waste. He said the City should move in a direction resulting in closure of the incinerator at the
Water Quality Control Plant. He said a carbon adder should be included in the study, and that the full
project lifetime should be considered.
Commissioner Keller agreed with most of what had been said. She asked about the reliability of digesters
as a fuel source. Abendschein said he was unsure about reliability.She asked about whether an
alternative would be considered involving digestion of food and yard waste. Abendschein responded that
he was unsure whether the Public Works department would proceed with an evaluation of that alternative.
She commented on the rent and asked whether there were air emissions that should be included. Utility
Director Valerie Fong replied that staff was focused primarily on its role as an energy purchaser rather than
as a generator owner who would be focused on emissions. Commissioner Keller supported the idea of
local generation.
Chair Waldfogel asked whether a carbon adder was included in the renewable power price. Abendschein
responded that it was. Chair Waldfogel asked whether an item related to local generation had been
included in the Long-Term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP). Assistant Director for Resource Management
Jane Ratchye replied that the LEAP Implementation Plan contained a work task related to local generation.
Commissioner Waldfogel asked whether it was possible to incorporate this project into a larger local
generation project, creating a multi-fuel plant. Abendschein responded that the project could supply a
portion of the fuel for the plant. Director Fong said the value of that option could be captured by providing a
value for renewable gas from the digester project.
Commissioner Eglash recommended providing more focused, specific, and actionable information in the
presentation to the City Council. He opposed paying higher than avoided cost for the energy from the
project.
Vice Chair Foster asked whether there were two studies in progress on anaerobic digestion. Abendschein
said there were. Vice Chair Foster recommended combining the studies.
Commissioner Melton said that the City’s utilities should not subsidize the project and should only pay
avoided cost for the energy from the project.
Commissioner Eglash said there was not enough information in the staff report to make a proactive
proposal if that was what the Commission was being requested to do. Chair Waldfogel said the question
being asked of the Commission was narrow: whether the Commission supported roughly 2 MW of local
baseload generation, and he said the answer was yes. In addition, on the question of how much CPAU
should pay for the renewable energy, staff is proposing to base these payments on the value of the
generation, including renewable attributes such as the value of carbon emissions. Commissioner Eglash
responded that the commission supports this approach, which is similar to what’s been done on other
similar staff analyses.
Director Fong stated that staff should have done a better job framing this issue and on what staff wished to
receive the UAC’s feedback. She clarified that the report and presentation were meant to provide the UAC
an update on the project and to inform the UAC of CPAU’s role. In this case, CPAU’s role is as buyer of
energy (renewable gas or electricity) and the key point for UAC discussion should have been narrowed to
whether it agreed with staff’s use of a value-based model for determining how much to pay for the
renewable energy from the project.
The sense of the commission was that it did agree with staff’s use of a value-based approach, including the
value of renewable supplies with a carbon adder.
Vice Chair Foster said he wanted the minutes to show his strong support for the following items: a) ending
incineration of our biosolids; b) producing locally-generated baseload green energy; c) including a carbon
adder in any analysis; d) considering the wet anaerobic digestion option, including both food waste and
biosolids; and e) examining lifetime value when preparing financial analysis.
From: Bigbillcutler@aol.com [mailto:Bigbillcutler@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 12:23 PM
To: Bobel, Phil
Subject: Re: February 9th Public Meeting Follow-up/Wastewater Planning
Phil,
I object extremely strongly to the process of allowing the public to express opinions on the
biosolids options they prefer. This is entirely a technical choice based on analysis of the
properties of the various options, for which the public are completely unqualified.
The proper process would be to allow the public to prioritize various outcomes they feel are
important, such as reducing greenhouse gas emission, producing fuel and energy from waste,
controlling toxics, the appearance noise and odors from the facility, financial return from
operations, etc. Then make a technical selection on the basis of which option best realizes the
prioritized goals.
Allowing the public to vote in this manner creates expectations that will most likely not be fulfilled,
resulting in public resentment (as with putting the choice on the fountain for California Ave. before
the public, only to be overruled by the Arts Commission).
You did it right with the goals study for the waste treatment plant several years ago. Follow your
own example.
Bill Cutler
In a message dated 2/16/2011 12:47:43 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
Phil.Bobel@CityofPaloAlto.org writes:
Wastewater Planning Interested Parties:
Thank you to those who attended the Feb. 9th public meeting on Biosolids Options for
the Palo Alto Wastewater Facilities Plan.
The information we presented during the meeting was a preview of some of the options
we will be evaluating before we come
back to you at a future meeting to explain our biosolids evaluations. Your comments and
your options preferences are
additional information we can use during evaluation of options and development of the
presentation for the future meeting.
The comments received and the PowerPoint presentation on Biosolids Options that was
given by the City and Carollo Engineers
are now on the project website. We’ve also placed the results of the “dots” exercise on
the website; attendees at the end of the
meeting placed “dots” next to their first and second choice of biosolids process and end
use options shown on display boards.
The third public meeting will be on May 4, 2011 at 3:00 pm, at the Cubberley
Community Center, Room H-1.
Details for that meeting will be sent out next month.
Visit the Long Range Facilities Planning web page to view all documents.
Thank you!
Water Quality Control Plant Staff
Long Range Facilities Planning Project
City of Palo Alto
(650) 329-2598
From: Bigbillcutler@aol.com [mailto:Bigbillcutler@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 6:32 PM
To: Bobel, Phil
Subject: Re: Energy/Compost Preliminary Analysis (1/24/11)
I'll take a look at what Council has directed and perhaps offer some suggestions. Why should I
trust City Council to set up an effective selection process? What are their qualifications?
As to not knowing how the decision will be made, there is ALWAYS a process in place for making
the decision, whether that process is explicitly described or not. "We'll know it when we see it" is
just one example, and a very poor one. Not declaring in advance what the process is, if only at a
very simple top level, is a recipe for disaster. It builds mistrust and sets up the situation for
rancorous argument when the decision is actually made. There are plenty of examples of good
decision processes to follow and there's no excuse for not choosing one in advance. I know this
is not your fault, so don't take my rant as having anything to do with you.
Here's a brief cut at a framework that I'd recommend.
1. List all the Qualites of Outcome, both benefits and drawbacks, that might occur as a result of
implementing a waste processing system. There's already been enough discussion to know what
these are. Examples would be:
- Reduces greenhouse gas emissions (a benefit)
- Interferes with people who want to enjoy the proposed site as parkland (a drawback)
2. Establish a minimum level of performance for each quality based on community input plus
expert analysis. Any proposed alternative must meet all the minimum performance requirements
or it will be dropped. Continuing the examples:
- Must reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least as well as the best non-waste-processing
alternative
- No more than X people per year are disappointed because they are denied the pleasure of
accessing the parkland taken by the facility.
3. Establish bonus point to be awarded for exceeding minimum requirements. Again, the relative
weighting of each Quality of Outcome, and the scale by which points are awarded for each
Quality, are determined by a combination of community input and expert analysis.
- An alternative that barely meets the minimum requirement on greenhouse gas emission gets
zero bonus points while an alternative that reduces greenhouse gas emission to zero gets
maximum bonus points for that Quality.
- Bonus points are awarded in proportion to how many of the X people (above) don't notice or
don't mind that the parkland has been taken.
4. Evaluate each alternative and award the bonus points. Provisionally, the alternative with
highest score wins. If this result doesn't feel right, go back and check how the bonus points are
determined ad adjust the process.
All of this is done in an open and transparent manner.
Bill Cutler
In a message dated 2/18/2011 7:33:44 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
Phil.Bobel@CityofPaloAlto.org writes:
I’m afraid I can’t actually say exactly how the decision will be made here ( your 7th
paragraph ). So it would be disingenuous of me to set up a process other than the one
directed Council. The schedule & steps are on the website.
From: Cedric "Compost" de La Beaujardiere [mailto:cedric.compost@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 5:24 PM
To: Bobel, Phil; Peter Drekmeier; Hays, Walter; Bob Wenzlau
Subject: AD Financial feasibility feedback
Phil informed us that sewage treatment plants have discovered that adding food waste to
their biosolids digesters produces more energy than digesting each of these inputs
separately and summing the energy produced. On the down side, the compost made from
the mixed inputs is less marketable than compost from food alone. I presume that the
financial comparisons look like the following (where "+" means "mixed with", and
knowing that all digestates would be composted with yard):
lesser financial value <
greater financial value
value of compost:
biosolids < food+biosolids < food
value of energy: food & biosolids
separated < food+biosolids
capital/ops savings: food & biosolids
separated < food+biosolids
GHG savings/offsets: food & biosolids
separated < food+biosolids
The first line begs the question whether the sum of selling two compost products,
the lower-value-biosolids and the higher-value-food, is worth more or less than
selling mid-value-food+biosolids.
I think this should be one for the sensitivity analysis, to consider the financial and
GHG implications of mixing biosolids with the food for digestion, versus keeping
them separated.
All in all, from a pure financial perspective, I suspect that mixing the streams together
will be the most economical, in terms of capital & operational costs and increased energy
sales, and that this would likely more than offset the decrease in the compost value. The
current draft study gives the following information
COMPOST
Input price amount value
$/ton tons $
food+yard $30 10,493 $314,790
biosolids $ 0 8,910 $0
All three TBD 19,403 ?
Compared to Electricity generation of $10-12M/year.
NOTES FOR PHIL & ARI:
Looking deeper at the study's spreadsheet for Low Range Electricity, Inputs tab, I
note a few things:
1) Rows 174 & 175 has a levelized price for electricity of $0.1205/kWh, but I don't see
the calculations to estimate price fluctuations over time and annualize it. Is this accurate
or something that still needs work?
2) Row 173 has the Annual Gross Power Output (kWh/year) listed as:
~10 GigaWh for Dry AD for all inputs, and
~12 GigaWh for Dry AD for yard+food and Wet AD for biosolids.
Why is the Dry AD estimated to produce ~2 GWh less electricity from biosolids as
Wet AD?
3) Rows 98 & 120 Energy purchased to operate Wet AD = $29,594 vs Dry AD =
$243,642
This matches my expectations, given that Wet AD has the energy loss of pumping all
that heavy water around, where as the Dry AD had the benefit of only having to move
around lighter dewatered materials.
However, I should expect the Dry AD energy purchase cost to decrease from option 1a
to the other options 1b, 1c, & 1d, given that the DAD would not be handling biosolids.
4) Rows 143-151: why does it cost 5 times more to deliver dewatered sludge cake than
liquid sludge from RWQCP to PALF? Presumably the liquid would be piped, so that is
cheap. What is the envisioned conveyance for the sludge cake? Trucks & bulldozers
would be expensive; conveyer belt would be cheaper. If this price differential is accurate,
it may be cheapest to pipe wet sludge to the landfill, dewater it there, and pump the water
back to RWQCP.
5) Rows 124-136: Operations and Maintenance Costs for AD Facilities. How does the
Dry AD facility get to be $2,000K/year versus Wet AD's $400K/year? Dry AD has hight
costs not listed for Wet AD:
$346K Maintenance & Repair
$296K Capital Repair & Replacement
$773K Other (Equip. Leasing, Compost Treatment, Mgt. Fee, Admin., Ins.)
15% Contingency for biosolids treated by Dry AD vs 10% for biosolids treated by
Wet AD.
Are these higher costs of $1.4M real, or do they reflect uncertainty which is already
captured by contingency, or are these costs missing from the Wet AD estimates?
Thank you,
Cedric
--
Cedric Pitot de La Beaujardiere
Former Co-Chair, Palo Alto Compost Task Force
Questions Re: AD spreadsheets from Enid Pearson 2/23/11
1. Low-Cost Range Options (electricity) Page 2 of 7
Lines 46, 47 and 48 all across; Site Preparation, excavation, pilings and Additional
up-front landfill closure:
It would be helpful to know what amounts of garbage are being moved around, or
excavated and what/how many pilings and to what depth they are being contemplated.
Whose plan is being used - the 9+ acres of the City or the AD advocates? And should
these two sites not be compared?
2. There does not seem to be any charge for hauling away excavated garbage from
these sites. Shouldn’t we be given a choice of whether we want the excavated garbage
spread around on the park or transported elsewhere? Would the current open Byxbee
Park be used as a site for spreading this excavated garbage?
3. Comparable numbers showing these costs would be helpful in making choices
4. There are no numbers detailing the number of trucks that might be involved in
the AD project and the anticipated times of hauling – day and night. A comparison of
the number of trucks servicing the AD vs the number of trucks going to regional facilities
is necessary to be able to judge the vehicle impact.
5. What is the impact on the current part of Byxbee Park that is open to the public
of the possibility of spreading excavated garbage on either the open park or nearby sites?
6. It appears that the AD project is expected to take only two years to construct. Can
we have a time line that also includes the permitting processes? For instance, who are
the agencies that need to pass on this project? Please give us a list of these
organizations.
7. The land appraisal that shows not one site in Palo Alto raises a lot of questions.
a) What happened to the recent appraisal of the land adjacent to the RWQCP on
Embarcadero Way?
b) Why would not the park land (Byxbee), if undedicated, immediately become
commercial/industrial land?
c) Consider the appraisals for wetlands such as the Don Edwards Conservation Lands? .
d) Palo Alto houses on 6,000 sq.ft lots are being bought for over one million dollars and
torn down. This makes an acre of land in Palo Alto worth $7,000,000.
e) Is there a CMR relating to the rent now charged for parkland adjacent to the landfill?
Page 2
8. Noise and Odor: I don’t see any dollars attached to reduce the impact of noise and
odor.. What would be the costs of ensuring that anything constructed would be
soundproofed for the benefit of the public still trying to use the remaining park?
What is the cost of odor control? What research has been done in this direction? The
AD project will be extremely noisy and create odors and together with the RWQCP will
generate extremely repellent odors.
(Should odor control also be a component of the future RWQCP?)
February 23, 2011
Jim Binder
Alternative Resources, Inc.
732 Main St # 101
Concord, MA 01742-2861
Dear Mr. Binder:
Thank you for the effort you have put into the feasibility study for processing
organic waste in Palo Alto.
Following are some of our concerns about, and recommendations for, the study as
it proceeds.
1) We are concerned that the study does not compare apples to apples. For
example:
• The study does an in-depth analysis of the costs of building an anaerobic
digester in Palo Alto, but relies on a tipping fee estimate from a San Jose
vendor for use of that facility (this same vendor also owns the Z-Best
facility in Gilroy, so it would have a monopoly on organic waste processing
and could charge whatever the market will bear). More importantly, the
study applies a 30% contingency cost to the Palo Alto options, but not to the
San Jose project.
• Alternatives 2 and 3 assume the City would continue to incinerate
biosolids. However, the Long-Range Plan for the RWQCP is considering
wet anaerobic digestion. Variations of Alternatives 2 and 3 should be
created to reflect the possibility of wet anaerobic digestion of biosolids in
Palo Alto.
• The figures in the study for operating the incinerator do not include capital
costs/retrofits, which will be needed by 2020. They also do not include the
costs of bringing the facility into compliance with new air quality
regulations aimed at addressing mercury emissions. This makes the cost of
continuing to incinerate biosolids artificially low.
2) The feasibility study does not include one of the most promising options – a wet
anaerobic digester that could handle both biosolids and food waste. By including
food waste, we would likely increase the scale of such a digester and bring down
the cost per ton. By using the 10 acres provided by the Palo Alto Green Energy
and Compost Initiative, we could accept food waste from the City’s wastewater
treatment plant partners, and mix yard waste with the digestate in an aerobic
process to turn all three waste streams into compost.
3) The feasibility study should address the possibility of a CO2 “adder.” The
following information is from a City of Palo Alto staff report titled CMR: 308:08 –
"Review of Results of Cost-Benefit Analysis of Climate Protection Plan and
Direction to Staff on Recommended Follow-Up Actions" (July 21, 2008):
"As part of the 2008-09 EPP [Environmentally-Preferred Purchasing Policy] work
plan, staff is developing a purchase evaluation methodology incorporating
environmental costs and benefits into the financial formulas. For example, a GHG
"adder" [see cliff note below] of $20 per metric ton is being proposed, and costs
and benefits for other environmental impacts, such as pollution and hazardous
waste disposal, are also being considered. In addition, life cycle analysis, already
a policy of the City, has yet to be fully integrated into City purchasing practices.
Training workshops are being scheduled for this fiscal year to educate staff
responsible for CIP projects in how to use life cycle analysis to identify the best
economic and environmental values for the City as they make purchases for their
projects."
Cliff note on adders: "Climate Change: Action by States to Address Greenhouse
Gas Emissions," CRS Report to Congress, January 18, 2007, page CRS-17:
Greenhouse Gas "Adders": ...In general, adders require utilities to weigh the future
costs of greenhouse gas emissions when considering different energy investment
options (e.g. fossil fuels, renewable energy supplies). For example, California's
Public Utilities Commission requires investor-owned-utilities to include an
[adder] on carbon dioxide emissions when conducting long-term planning or
procurement activities...[to] "serve to internalize the significant and under-
recognized cost of [greenhouse gas] emissions, [and] help protect customers from
the financial risk of future climate regulation..."
4) The feasibility study includes low and high estimates for the cost of a DAD
facility in Palo Alto. As explained to us on February 4, 2011, you received five low
estimates and two high estimates, based on the level of technology used. Staff
believes the more simple technologies (the low bids) would be suitable for Palo
Alto. Therefore, the higher estimates are unnecessary.
5) Assuming the figures from Zanker (San Jose) and Z-Best (Gilroy) are accurate
(which we question), the feasibility study projects that an on-site anaerobic
digestion facility would be more expensive than the alternatives in year one, but
cheaper in year 20 (the span of the study). Given that we expect to be processing
organic waste well beyond 2035, the City should look at a 30-year time horizon or
longer.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
Peter Drekmeier
Steering Committee Member
(650) 248-8025
From: Brian <bjdpc@yahoo.com>
Date: February 24, 2011 4:12:43 PM PST
To: Phil.Bobel@CityofPaloAlto.org, jbinder@alt-res.com
Subject: Why should the proposed AD facility be assumed to last 20
years?
February 24, 2011
Dear Mr. Bobel and Mr. Binder,
I am the person at the meeting last night who asked how many years the "fixed costs" for
the proposed AD facility were being "spread over". Mr. Binder replied that they were
being spread over 20 years, since that's the typical term for the loan that would need to be
obtained for the project.
When I got home last night I realized that that answer doesn't really make sense to me.
My parents bought their Palo Alto home in 1958, paid off the loan around 1988, and the
home is still in fine shape in 2011, around 23 years after the loan on it was paid off.
Analogously, I don't see any reason to assume that the proposed AD facility would last
just as long as the loan on it lasts. As I recall, Mr. Binder even acknowledged that the
cement used in the facility would probably last longer than 20 years.
To rectify this potentially significant problem with the number of years the proposed AD
facility's fixed costs are currently being spread over (and thus with the associated
estimated costs per ton), I would strongly recommend asking the seven companies who
submitted facility estimates how long each of them expect their facility would last. It
would be especially interesting to hear such estimates from companies who built such
facilities in the mid-90s, or from other companies currently operating such "old" facilities
(since they should know how well such a facility is still performing after about 15 years
of use). If such facilities are still performing well with no significant signs of
degradation, then a lifetime estimate of much more than 20 years would probably be
much more accurate than just using the figure of 20 years (based on the expected length
of a loan). Any such estimates that you obtained could be partially "discounted" to
account for the possibility that the company might state an excessively large value (e.g.,
you could assume 80% or 90% of their estimate). In addition, actual statistics for other
types of processing plants could be considered (for example, how long has the current
water treatment plant been in operation?).
Please let me know if you will be able to make some estimate of the expected lifetime of
the proposed AD facility other than just the expected length of the loan that would be
taken out for it. At a minimum, I think that it would be good to present a "sensitivity
analysis" with respect to this variable (e.g., what if the plant lasts 15 years, 25 years, 30
years, 40 years, 50 years, etc.).
Thank-you for your consideration of my ideas.
Sincerely,
Brian Davis
443 Tennessee Lane
Palo Alto, CA 94306
-----Original Message-----
From: Walt & Kay Hays [mailto:wkhays@igc.org]
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 5:22 PM
To: Peter Drekmeier; Bobel, Phil
Subject: Re: Fluidized bed incineration
- as well as its fuel consumption and GHG emissions.
At 12:05 PM -0800 2/25/11, Peter Drekmeier wrote:
>Hi Phil,
>
>On Wednesday you mentioned that if PA stuck with incineration, we
>would probably go with a fluidized bed incinerator. Are there any
>estimates as to how much such a facility would cost?
>
>Thanks.
>
>-Peter
>
>-----------------------------------
>Peter Drekmeier
>pdrekmeier@earthlink.net
>(650) 223-3333
--
Walt Hays
Mediator
650-424-9633
Adkins, Margaret
From: Bobel, Phil
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 6:38 PM
To: Silver, Cara; Miller, Martha; Thomas Jordan
Cc: Hartman, Donna; Adkins, Margaret
Subject: Response/ Appraisal of the nine acres at the location of the proposed AD Plant in the Baylands
Page 1 of 2
3/11/2011
Tom - I'm happy to meet with you on the questions you've raised, although I won't
be able to answer some (and Martha can't either). I'm also including them with the
"Comments" we are receiving on the ARI Preliminary Analysis.
When we ask for an appraisal we don't dictate the methodology/properties to be
used. It's a theoretical exercise and the appraiser uses their best professional
judgment. We will, in all likelihood, use the higher rent value from the Hurlberg
memo as another data point ( we're calling this the "sensitivity analysis" )
following 3/21 when we will get Council feedback on any modifications they'd like
to see. As you know, the rent value is a policy decision Council would ultimately
make. We will give them model runs for values they request. We already have several
public comments suggesting that the higher number be used and, unless Council tells
us not to ( which I doubt), we'll prepare a model run with the higher number.
If you'd like to meet, give me a couple early morning or late afternoon times that
would work next week. Thanks !
MA - “Comment”
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Jordan [mailto:tsj474@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 2:24 PM
To: Miller, Martha
Subject: Re: Appraisal of the nine acres at the location of the proposed AD Plant
in the Baylands
Thank you for the prompt response. My questions are:
1) Why was Hulberg told to appraise "Undeveloped Parkland" when the purpose of the
appraisal was to establish the proper rent for the proposed AD Plant to pay to the
City and the Plant could be built only if the nine acres is removed by public vote
from Park status?
2) The ARI Cost Study for the proposed AD Plant uses $102,900 annual rent, which is
the amount the Hulberg Appraisal puts on "Undeveloped Parkland, as if
environmentally clean", but the proposed AD Plant cannot be built on "Parkland", so
the Hulberg applicable annual rent should be $784,000, the amount set for
"R&D/Industrial Use". How did this mistake occur in the ARI Cost Study? Did you
give ARI the incorrect amount? Did you look at ARI's work to be certain that they
used the correct annual rent? If the answer to the two prior questions is No, do
you now agree that the higher annual rent should have been used?
3) It is my understanding that for that exact same nine acres that you engaged
Hulberg to appraise the City is currently receiving over $1,000,000 a year in
annual rent from the Refuse Fund. If I am wrong, please advise me of the exact
amount that the City is collecting on those nine acres and direct me to the source
where you get your figures. Did you tell Hulberg that the City is currently
collecting this amount in rent, even with the nine acres being a dedicated Park?
Did you give Hulberg the latest appraisal in the City files supporting the receipt
of this much larger amount in current rent being received from the same nine acres?
4) Does the Hulberg Appraisal supersede the latest appraisal that the City has on
the Landfill, thus drastically decreasing, from and after the 10/20/10 date of the
Appraisal, the annual rent that the City can charge the Refuse Fund for dumping
there? If so, the drastically lower rent would seem to apply to all of the
Landfill acres on which the City is receiving annual rent, which I compute to be
95+ acres and would decrease the rent to less than 1/10th the current amount.
5) Current City Policy for charging rent to the Refuse Fund for use of City owned
land is stated in CMR 441:05 (and I am certain in other places as well). Is that a
correct statement of the City policy as of today? If not, please direct me to the
proper statement of the City Policy.
6) Did you advise Hurlberg of this policy and particularly of the City's current
annual rate of return, which I understand to be 10%, on the fair market value of
the property concerned? Hurlberg used 7% for Parkland and 8% for R&D/ Industrial.
Does the City's rate now have to be reduced to what Hurlberg used, thus further
decreasing the annual rent paid to the City by the Refuse Fund?
7) In CMR 165:10, Attachment C five properties along Embarcadero Way within a
stone's throw of the nine acres you had Hurlberg appraise were reported to the
Council as having a total value of from $22,389,840 to $13,433,904 for only 5.14
acres. These parcels all had structures on them, but there are accepted
conventional methods for adjusting the values of improved parcels to their
unimproved value. Did you give Hurlbert this information? If not, may I inquire why
not?
I am available to come to your office for your response if that is more convenient.
DPW and ARI have scheduled another public meeting on the proposed AD Study for
March 9 at 7pm. It is important that I understand these matters at least two days
prior to that meeting so that I may prepare my presentation. I appreciate your help
with this. Tom Jordan
On Feb 28, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Miller, Martha wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I am not available much this week, and since we are down to 2 people
> from 5 in our department I don't have much time in general. I have not
> looked at that appraisal in a long time so if you would like to send me
> your questions via email I can take some time to review them and get
> back to you. I have meetings this afternoon from 2pm on and then
> tomorrow off and on starting at 9am, but more importantly I am working
> on 3 big projects with short deadlines that I cannot take time away from
> just now.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Jordan [mailto:tsj474@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 11:42 AM
> To: Miller, Martha
> Subject: Appraisal of the nine acres at the location of the proposed AD
> Plant in the Baylands
>
> I would like very much to come talk to you with several questions that I
> have about the Hulberg & Associates appraisal dated 10/20/10 and the use
> by ARI of a annual rental to the City of $102,000 on the nine acres. I
> have both the full appraisal and the cost figures from the ARI study.
> This is something that I could put in a formal letter to you with copies
> to many many people, but it strikes me that a half hour of questions and
> answers in a personal conference may be a more efficient way to get
> started. I am free this afternoon and all day tomorrow. Please let me
> know if I can come talk to you. Tom Jordan
Page 2 of 2
3/11/2011
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Jordan [mailto:tsj474@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 4:00 PM
To: Bobel, Phil
Cc: Pearson, Enid; Renzel, Emily
Subject: Jordan's 3/4/11 Comments
My attempt at determining what rent the City is currently collecting on
Parcels IIA (22.5 acres), IIB (23.2 acres) and IIC (51.2 acres), with all
acreage taken from the map on page 83 of the Baylands Master Plan, is that
the City is charging approximately $59,523 an acre a year on Parcels IIA and
IIB, and that the rent the City charges on Parcel IIC is approximately
$91,812 a year per acre. Note that "collections" are less than the rent
"charged" because of the "smoothing" policy adopted by the CouncilI defers
collection of some of the charges until the 2011 to 2021 period to avoid a
sharp increase on the customers. I arrive at this by looking at the Landfill
Rent Schedule (See Exhibit D, page 5 of our Complaint to SLC), noting that
the rent charged on 51.2 acres of Parcel IIC was $4,700,821 and the rent
that was in the "proposed" column for Parcels IIA and IIB was $2,720,104
greater. This was a City generated table before the Council at the January
2007 meeting where the Council imposed the additional charge on the two
closed parcels. See all papers under Exhibit D to our Complaint to the SLC.
Surely someone at the City has the exact amounts for this, but I am giving
you what we poor citizens can compute. It does mean that the Hurlberg
appraisal of $784,000 for the annual rent on the nine acres is closer than I
thought to the $826,317 rent the City is actually getting. Still the $52,317
difference is worth putting before the Council clearly, simply because there
is no reason in the world that the Council should not have before it the
current rent on the same nine acres. The difference may well be that
Hurlberg is charging 8% annual rent on appraised value and I understand that
the City has been charging 10%. If that is the case the Hurlberg appraisal
of the FMV of the nine acres is more than the City's appraisal, but the 8%
rent applied makes the annual rent less.
In summary, the best and clearest statement of the situation is to (a) get
rid of the $102,99 annual rent as erroneous, (b) show a line at Zero annual
rent, recognizing that the City Council has the power to waive all rent, (c)
show the current rent received on the nine acres as $826,317 a year then (d)
show the Hurlbert appraisal at $784,000 a year rent, with a footnote on both
(c) and (d) that the difference is in the annual rent rate, with 10% being
the current rate and 8% being the Hurlbert rate.
One very important additional point that I neglected to mention in our
meeting is that the rent charged should carry an annual cost of living
increase as all commercial leases do, with ARI or Hurlbert telling the City
what amount to factor in over 20 years to cover this. The AD Plant group is
calling for you to put cost of living increases in many other places
advantageous to them, so you must be consistent and put them everywhere they
would occur in a commercial setting. Of course, if the Council in a noticed
public meeting chooses to waive the rent, the COL will be moot. Thank you
for your time today. If this is not clear, please let me know. Tom
Jordan
From: Cedric "Compost" de La Beaujardiere [mailto:cedric.compost@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 11:18 PM
To: Walt & Kay Hays
Cc: Bobel, Phil
Subject: Hays/Cedric 3/9 Comment
Well, it could be that all the yard waste would be used to aerobically compost the
digestate. I would think that it would be all used for that, given that the annual mass of
organics is almost evenly split 3-ways between yard, food and biosolids. so that at least
all the yard could be used to compost the digestate from the other 2/3's. If anything, it
begs the question of how much yard would be needed to compost the digestate, and
would we possibly need more yard wastes, whether we were AD'ing our biosolids and
just our food, or other communities food as well.
Thanks, Phil, to you and your team for all the work and effort you've put into this project,
and your diplomatic yet effective balancing of conflicting input and pressures you're
getting from all sides. One could be buried under it all, or get agravated, but you show
neither and keep moving the process along.
Cedric
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Walt & Kay Hays <wkhays@igc.org> wrote:
Hi,
Having expressed impatience with rehashing comments on cost, I'm embarrassed to
admit that I should have made one that I thought of on the way home; namely:
On C-2, what I ( and I think we) want is consideration of wet AD of biosolids and food in
one facility. That leaves yard waste. My understanding is that some of it can be utilized
as a bulking agent in aerating the digestate. However, the remainder would have to be
hauled to Gilroy.
My point is that all that should be considered under C-2.
Thanks.
Walt
--
Walt Hays
Mediator
650-424-9633
--
Cedric Pitot de La Beaujardiere
Former Co-Chair, Palo Alto Compost Task Force
-----Original Message-----
From: thomas jordan [mailto:thomasjordan474@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 10:17 AM
To: Bobel, Phil
Cc: Pearson, Enid; Renzel, Emily
Subject: Additional Citizen's comments on Preliminary Feasibility Report
Please add this as a supplement to the three page Memo addressed to ARI and
you that I handed to you at the beginning of last night's public meeting. I
do not have the email address for ARI, so will you please forward this to
them.
11. A member of the public at last night's meeting, speaking from the floor,
requested that the Hurlbert & Associates appraisal be re-opened with
instructions from the City to include Palo Alto properties, none of which
were included in the original appraisal. The request was noted on your list
of public comments. This comment is to put an even sharper point on that
request. The City Staff dealing with the appraiser should instruct them to
look at and consider parcels in Palo Alto including the five parcels listed
in CMR 165:10 at Attachment C, page 2 in reaching their conclusion. Those
five parcels were reported by DPW to the City Council less than a year ago
and are clearly relevant parcels to be considered in appraising the 9 acres
at R&D land value.They are all within a stone's throw of the 9 acre and are
all R&D. It is true that all are improved, but appraiser's have conventions
for arriving at the land value of improved lots. It is not improper to
require an appraiser to look at and comment on certain parcels. Their
professional opinion will deal with whether they are comparable. It is error
on the part of the City to direct the appraisers to consider parkland values
when a) the 9 acres will not be parkland if the citizens remove them from
that status, which is the only situation under which the AD Plant can be
built and b) the term "highest and best use" is not a subjective judgement
allowing DPW to decide what it thinks is "highest and best" but is clearly
defined by appraisers as yielding the highest economic return. Therefore, it
was a substantial mistake for DPW to decide that parkland was the "highest
and best use" then direct the appraiser to finding parkland type comparable
parcels. Either disregard the confusing mis-instructed appraisal or do it
right.
12. This leads me to an additional comment. The current appraisal is of bare
land only, but the ARI study is also considering public financing to build
the AD Plant. If the AD Plant is built with, say, $50M of City money, the
rent charged the Refuse Fund will not be a bare land rent but will be for a
$50M plant sitting on that land, which will have a even higher FMV than the
five nearby parcels referenced in #11 above, all of which are merely
warehouse type buildings. In short, the comment is: In your public financing
model, the annual rent charged the Refuse Fund should be based on the FMV of
the 9 acres PLUS the $50M AD Plant.
Thank you for considering this and adding it to the public comments going to
ARI and to the City Council. Tom Jordan
•
-CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA ClTY CLERIS-'S OFFICE To: The Mayor of Palo Alto and to all Members of the CIty Louncil
cc: James Keene, Palo Alto City Manager
Philip Bobel, Department of Public Works
II MAR 16 AM 10= 28
From: Tom Jordan, 474 Churchill Ave, Palo Alto CA 94301 650-327-6034
tsj4 74@gmail.com
Date: 15 March 2011
Re: State of California Existing Lease with Palo Alto for the Landfill and the relation
of that to the ongoing Feasibility Study for an AD Plant in the Baylands
SUMMARY OF THIS MEMO Our formal Complaint to the State Lands Commission
("SLC") on this matter has been sent to each of you and to all City employees
concerned with this matter. There are two purpose of this Memo. One is to bring
your focus sharply to the immediate significance of this issue as it relates to the
Feasibility Study. The second is to respond to the public comments of which we are
aware from City employees and from the advocates for the AD Plant in the Baylands
which seem to deny or defer or generally belittle this important matter.
1. THE IMMEDIATE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS ISSUE The Feasibility Study assumes
that a large AD Plant will be built on the nine acres costing from $33M+ to $84M+,
all of which will be financed either privately or publicly. If the Council decides to
proceed with such an AD Plant the very first question at the very first meeting with
the prospective private company, if privately financed, or with Bond Counsel, if Palo
Alto finances it, will be: "Show us the legal description of the Plant Site and evidence
of the City's clear title to the land, or the City's clear authority to build on the land."
The City Manager will turn to the City Attorney expectantly, and what will the City
Attorney say?
That first meeting will proceed no further than that first question from the outside
attorney and will adjourn right there if the City has no more than it presently has.
The second section below deals with the various responses of City employees and of
AD Plant advocates to date on this issue and explains why they are all completely
and totally inadequate to answer the above question, which will be asked and
cannot be avoided.
Why continue an expensive Feasibility Study which consumes both significant City
money and Staff time, when the most basic first question of building an AD Plant in
the Baylands has not been covered? The City was fully advised of this issue over two
years ago and has done nothing. absolutely nothing. from then to the present to
satisfy this gaping hole. If the issue is easily resolved, as some of the City employees'
comments imply, or, if it is of no consequence, as the AD Plant advocates say, why
has not the matter been settled and resolved by a binding document from the State?
Until the City has that binding State document in hand, it is a waste of money and
time to pursue the Feasibility Study any further. The Council should put the
Feasibility Study on hold and the City Attorney should be instructed to obtain such a
document from the State. Once that State document is obtained, if it can be obtained,
the Study can be resumed.
2. OUR RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS OF CITY EMPLOYEES AND OF AD
PLANT ADVOCATES In one article on this matter appearing 2/11/11 in The
Palo Alto Daily News we see:
"The city maintains that it has been complying with its State Lands Commission
lease, but Silver said it would contact the agency to confirm. She said the city
periodically checks in with the commission, which in exploratory conversations has
indicated it may allow composting on the land."
OUR RESPONSE: It is now more than a month since the "city ... will contact the
agency to confirm" compliance statement was made. Has the City done so? If so, why
not? If yes, what did the SLC say? This should give the Council great concern. If there
is truly no problem, why NOT establish that clearly NOW?
The "exploratory conversations "turn out to be only an exchange of emails in
January 2009 initiated by the City and going only to the SLC's clerk who handles
contacts from the public. She was the same nice cooperative person who sent to me
the SLC leases with the City that are now attached to our Complaint against the City.
The City's inquiry said nothing about an AD Plant on nine acres of current Landfill
which the State claims ownership of; it did not say that the proposed AD Plant
. would cost at least $50M and would be built and operated by a private for profit
company that would expect a 25% annual return on its capital cost of the AD Plant
plus additional profit from operating the plant; it did not state that the City had been
receiving over $lM a year into its General Fund as land rent for the 45 acres in
Parcel IIA and liB that the City promised the SLC in 1992 and in 2000 respectively
that it would open as public parks; it spoke only of the City may "want to continue
compo sting operations on top of the closed landfill".
Of course, the SLC public contact clerk could not respond to what the City never
asked her, so the City should not and really cannot assume anything from her
response about the current proposal under study. But note that the SLC public
contact clerk DID say: "composting is a permissible trust use so long as it is
regional". The proposal of the AD Plant advocates is not now and never has been
regional. The food scraps and yard waste tonnage figures in the Feasibility Study are ,
for Palo Alto only. The SLC clerk went on to say: "should composting become a
revenue generating source for the City, then the SLC may consider charging rent"
Here is trouble!!! The City has been receiving over $lM a year into its General Fund
for the 45 acres of Parcels IIA and liB that it promised the SLC in 1992 and 2000
respectively that it would open as public parks, but the City did not do so. In
addition, the City will receive about $lM a year into its General Fund as land rent for
the nine acres on which the proposed AD Plant is to located. The SLC may want that
•• <
2...
past and future rent to go to the SLC instead. And these are the "exploratory
conversations" which have" indicated it (the SLC) will allow composting on the
land." I don't think so. But no need to speculate. Let the City come clean with the SLC
now re its past and ask the SLC about approval of the proposed AD Plant on nine
acres. Why not?
On 2/10/11 Enid Pearson, Emily Renzel and I met with the SLC Chief Counsel, her
Deputy Attorney assigned to Santa Clara County and his assistant for a full hour at
the SLC office in Sacramento. The SLC attendees were advised three days prior to
that meeting of the specific leases involved and of why we were coming to see them.
At the meeting it was clear that the SLC attendees knew nothing of Palo Alto's failure
to comply with its lease obligations or of a proposed AD Plant in the Baylands. These
were the top SLC staff members who will have to approve any request by the City
for a lease for an AD Plant. Of course, they will not even consider any such request
until after they first decide what to do about the City's complete failure to perform
under the Lease since 1992 and 2000 and to make substantial money for the City in
doing so.
Another article appearing 2/11/11 in The Daily Post states the City's position as
follows:
"Palo Alto disputes that the State owns the land, said Senior Assistant City Attorney
Cara Silver. However, in 1989 City officials Signed a 49 year lease with the state for
the land that reserves certain rights for both the city and the state. Silver said that
the lease was intended to avoid lengthy litigation and is amended periodically to
reflect changed operations at the landfill. She said the latest lease agreement was
entered into in 2009 .... Silver said that if the city were to decide to put an anaerobic
digestion plant on the property, a new lease would have to be obtained from the
commission. ·But she said that the City has not pursued that because the feasibility of
the plant was still being studied by the city. However, she said that the city had done
'preliminary outreach' with the commission, which had indicated it would be open
to the idea."
OUR RESPONSE: As to the 2009 amendment referred to above, it was probably for
the renovation of the old Sea Scout building and had nothing to do with the Landfill,
nothing at all. The SLC leases for the Landfill are all attached to the Complaint that
we gave you and we obtained those directly from the SLC in 2009.
As to the 'preliminary outreach' comment, I repeat that we talked for an hour on
2/10/11 with the three ranking SLC people who would have to approve any request
from the City and none were aware of any such request But there is no need to
speculate. The City should apply to the SLC now and get its binding permission for
an AD Plant in the Baylands now, without further delay. Until the City has that SLC
binding permission in hand, the Feasibility Study should be put on hold.
At the 2/23/11 public meeting on the Preliminary Findings of the Feasibility Study
senior DPW staff described the City's Lease with SLC (I paraphrase from memory)
3
as containing a provision that requires the Lease to be amended before either party
can implement a change in the lease terms.
OUR RESPONSE That statement's literal words are true, but they leave the wrong
impression in the public mind. EVERY lease that exists can be amended if both
parties agree, but there is nothing in this lease that indicates that the SLC WILL
agree if the City requests a change, particularly when the City has been in complete
default of its promises under the Lease since 1992 as to one parcel and since 2000
as to another. The DPW Staffs statement leaves the impression that Palo Alto can
obtain an amendment if it needs to. The statement is not untrue, but it certainly
leaves the wrong impression that all the City has to do is ask. If that is really the
case, the City should ask, and put an end to this issue. I predict that the SLC will say
No.
At the same meeting an AD plant advocate tried to describe the situation as "old
news that has been known for a long time" and emphasized that the City disputes
the State's claim and that the State claim is a weak one. This speaker tried to leave
the impression that it is a matter that can easily be handled by the City and not
worth much attention.
OUR RESPONSE: Again, if the City can handle this quickly, it should do so and
remove this issue from the disc~ssion. We say that the State's claim is strong and
that the City cannot defeat it in court and will not even try. The City's failure to move
on this issue during the past two years is because the City knows that it has a
problem, particularly with being in default under the existing lease, and will, if it
can, try to slide the matter through the SLC beneath the radar, hoping that the SLC
would not be paying attention. The City is counting too much on the SLC not paying
close attention because the SLC has not paid attention in the 19 years of clear and
open default by the City under the existing lease. In addition, the City hopes to
argue that it should be allowed to continue its project because it is so far along in the
planning. Not a very dignified or upright strategy for the City of Palo Alto -it is, in
fact, shameless -but it is the only path the City has if it hopes to succeed.
That plan will not work. The Chief Counsel of the SLC told us on 2/10/11 in
Sacramento that the SLC has to depend on "complaint based enforcement" because
of its huge task of overseeing all State owned lands. That is why the City has gotten
away with nineteen years of default without being called by the SLC. Not because
the SLC cannot or is unable to carry out its mission. The SLC staff has been busy and
has trusted Palo Alto to do what it promised in the lease. But now the SLC does have ,
a Complaint to act on-ours -and it will investigate. There is no reason to expect
that the SLC will not enforce the Lease according to its terms.
The City can continue to deny and delay and avoid facing up to this situation, or the
City can face the situation fully and deal with the SLC re its nineteen years of default.
After that is taken care of the City can ask the SLC for permission to put an AD Plant
on the land that the City has been telling the State since 1989 will be a passive
pastoral park (to use the exact words in the Lease). The City will then add to its
request that it would like to have that new lease of the nine acres rent free from the
State, even though a for-profit private company will be operating a plant there and,
according to the Feasibility Study making a significant annual profit on its capital
investment (25% annually is the assumption that ARI states is necessary to induce a
private company to risk its capital) . Can the City succeed in making that request to
the SLC? That is the question, and it is time to find out before further time and
money is spent on the Feasibility Study. This issue should have been dealt with
before the $250,000 Feasibility Study began, but it was not. There is no logical
reason that it should not be dealt with now. We have supplied to the City the names
and contact information for the proper SLC Staff to approach, and that same SLC
Staff has been briefed on the situation. It is probably better for the City to call them
before the City is called by the SLC.
ADDENDUM
Additional comments regarding the 3/8/11 letter from Walter Hays to the State
Lands Commission in opposition to our Complaint filed 2/10/11
This letter completely misses the points raised in our Complaint. Our principal
points for current action requested of the SLC are to require the City promptly to
open Parcels IIA and lIB as public parks in the same manner and paid for in the
same way that the Parcel I park was opened. To be specific: require the City to
follow its existing plans for completing the parks, which plans are in its files and are
referenced in the Baylands Master Plan. Not just taking down the fencing and
throwing some grass seed on the ground as presently contemplated, and all paid for
from the General Fund, where over $lM a year has been going in land rents from
those same parcels. In addition, Parcels IIA and lIB are to be established as the areas
stated in the SLC leases, not the false configurations used by the City, which are
about 22 acres smaller in size than the real parcels in the SLC leases. This may also
require the immediate removal of the City's existing compost operations which are
illegally being conducted on the true Parcel lIB in clear violation of the terms of that
the 2000 Second Amendment. The 3/8/11 letter to the SLC from Walter Hays says
nothing about any of these points, except a vague reference to " a pattern of greater
flexibility and informality than would appear from the formal language of these .
documents". He omits to show any evidence of this pattern, other than the exchange
of emails, which we have already dealt with above.
As to the current proposal re the AD Plant in the Baylands, we did not ask the SLC to
take any part. We asked only that the SLC state clearly that the City could not do this
without the written approval of the SLC and to point out that the pattern of the
leases establishes a reasonable expectation on the part ofthe SLC that ParcellIC will
all be park. Nothing in the 3/8/11 letter to the SLC disputes that.
Minor, Beth
From: Wayne Davis [WDavis@harvestpower.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:21 AM
To: Council, City
Cc: Paul Sellew; Linda Novick
Subject: Study session on organic waste processing
Attachments: Harvest Itr to Palo Alto 2011-03-15.pdf
To the Mayor and City Councilmembers:
Page 1 of1
CITy 01: PALO ALTO CA
uC1:f¥?lERK'5 OfFICE
" MAR '5 PH 12: "
On behalf of Harvest Power, I respectfully submit the attached letter for consideration at your study session on
organics wastes, scheduled for March 21, 2011.
Wayne H. Davis
Harvest Power, Inc.
221 Crescent Street I Suite 402 I Waltham, MA 02453
781-314-9504 (p) 978-505-2710 (m) 206-666-1870 (f)
Web I Blog I Facebook I Twitter
'HARVEST
3115/2011
,HARVEST'
. Superpowered.
Mayor Sid Espinosa and Councllmembers
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mayor Espinosa and Councllmembers:
CITY Of PALO ALTO, CA
C'lTY CLERK'S OF'F'lCE
~ J MARI5~H 9:21
March lS, 2011
I am writing to urge the City of Palo Alto to continue to pursue a biological solution for processing its
organic wastes and to explore solutions in the Feasibility Study that can best meet the CIty's ambitious
environmental and economic objectives.
My company, Harvest Power, Inc., is committed to ushering In a new era of organic waste
management. In partnership with communities and organic waste generators we finance, build, own and
operate state-of-the-art facilities that produce renewable energy and soli enhancement products from
discarded organic materials. By harvesting these valuable resources, we enable communities and businesses
to increase their energy independence, reduce their environmental impact and reliably manage their organiC
waste in a cost effective manner.
The City of Palo Alto recognizes the potential inherent in organic 'waste' and should be commended
for its ambition to address all three forms of organic resources-food scraps, yard trimmings, and blosolids-
in the most environmentally beneficial and economically efficient manner. The 2010 RFI Issued by the City
was an Important first step towards initiating a more sustainable waste management policy.
There are, however, a broader range of possible solutions than those contemplated in the RFI.
Recent developments in organics processing technology make possible alternative approaches th~ would be
both cost effective and occupy a smaller footprint. These alternatives would still enable the City to achieve
greenhouse gas reduction (through both landfill diversion and avoidance of excess trucking), produce
renewable energy, and return carbon and nutrients to the soil via either compost or organic fertilizer.
As Palo Alto enters the next stage of its exploration, we would urge the City to allow sufficient
flexibility In the process to facilitate the emergence of the best technologies, rather than prematurely
excluding potential solutions. It is our recommendation that the feasibility study explore a variety of
technologies and processes to address the recycling of organics and accompanying production of power (e.g.,
wet and dry anaerobic digestion and compostlng) in order to find what is best for the City.
At Harvest, we recognize that each local situation demands a localized solution, and that no single
technology is best in all situations. In Vancouver, British Columbia, for example, we are building what will be
North America's first commercial scale "dry" anaerobic digestion system, while In london, Ontario we are
constructing a "wet" anaerobic digestion system that will be the largest in North America to produce
renewable energy and organic fertilizer from multiple feedstocks. We encourage Palo Alto to be similarly
open-minded In the search for Its solution.
As the feasibility study advances, we also encourage the City to evaluate a broad set of economic
and environmental factors that will accurately compare both the true costs and benefits of various solutions,
relative to the City's priority objectives. For example, the full costs of exporting organic wastes to other
communities would include not only basic trucking costs, but increased greenhouse gas emiSSions, lack of
221 Crescent Street I Suite 402 I Waltham MA 02453 I T: 781.314.9500 I F: 781.622.3771
www.harvestpower.com
'HARVEST
Superpqwered.
Mayor Sid Espinosa and Councilmembers
City of Palo Alto
March 15, 2011
Page 2
local control, and risk that the promised infrastructure will not be built. The costs of continuing to incinerate
biosolids include not only the obvious environmental factors, but also the potential replacement costs If the
aging equipment fails. We note that the analysis performed to date does not include replacement costs for
the fluidized bed at the incinerator which, we understand, would need to be replaced.
We also note that the cost analysis has been Inconsistent In application of contingency factors to the
various solutions considered. For example, no contingency factor was placed on the export of food waste to
San Jose, despite the fact that the proposed destination Is not yet fully permitted. This will provide fewer
options for Palo Alto since they will only accept food waste and Palo Alto will not have longer term control
over costs and flow. Contingency factors do of course have an appropriate place In any analysiS, but should
be considered for each option.
We believe that If Palo Alto considers both the full solution set and accurately accounts for the costs
associated with each potential solution, it will find that a local solution in which Palo Alto processes its
organics in Palo Alto is both economically and enVironmentally superior to exporting.
Finally, we would like to address one technical question that we understand has been raised since
the analysis of the RFI responses was released: whether dry anaerobic digestion can work for biosolids as well
as for food and yard waste. Based on current technology and experience, we anticipate that a dry system
could handle a portion of the biosollds but not all. Given the relative volumes of the various waste streams,
this would not be adequate to handle all of Palo Alto's biosollds, so an alternative solution would stili be
required. This Is one reason we urge a more complete consideration of wet systems, since a wet system
would be capable of handling both the food waste and blosolids together.
Harvest is pleased to have been able to provide information and perspective to Palo Alto in past
months, and we look forward to continuing to be of assistance as the City pursues its organics diversion and
sustalnabllity goals.
Sincerely,
~p~~
Paul Sellew ,-c16
Chief Executive Officer
Minor, Beth
From: Bill Leikam [bill@ovenclaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 6:48 PM
To: Council, City
Subject: Byxbee Park & Anaerobic Digesters
Dear City Council Members:
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'SOFFICE
II MAR 16 AM 6: "
Page 1 of1
I have been following the developments regarding the Anaerobic Digesters on Byxbee Parkland. I am clearly
opposed to this installation goihg into the landfill/parkland area because if it is built it will destroy a lot of
wildlife habitat and most especially a concentrated habitat for the Gray Fox that live in the area. I could be much
more precise in the location where the fox live, have their young and roam from to keep the rodent numbers
down but just trust that this area will be destroyed and thus the animals -more than just the fox -will suffer.
They are a significant part of the ecological balance of the Palo Alto Baylands.
Byxbee is a gem and it is a part of a continuous chain of parks along the San Francisco Bay. People from far and
wide -not only just Palo Alto citizens -come to take part in this natural environment because it is so rich in
bird-life. People, especially birders as far away as the east coast and even Europe, refer other birders to Byxbee
Park. I could tell stories about such people who have come to the special place.
My second reason for opposing this development is that Byxbee Park will be decertified thus opening the whole
of the parkland for developers to come in and build. We all know what happens when open land is up for grabs.
Greed takes over and the land becomes a cash-cow for developers. We cannot allow that to happen.
I urge the City Council to take the money that can be raised to build this Anaerobic Digester instead be used in
far more eco-friendly ways for the people of Palo Alto and in the process leave Byxbee Park intact.
Sincerely,
Bill Leikam
530 Kendall Ave
Palo Alto Ca 94306
650 -856 -3041
3/16/2011
Minor, Beth
From:
Sent:
Elizabeth Robinson [eliZrObin@comcast.lQ)ttlYOfPALOAlTFO·CCr:.A
Tuesday, March 15, 2011 8:26 PM CITY CLERK'S OF I Ii.
To:
Subject:
Council, City
Anerobic Digester and Byxbee Park "MAR '6 AM 8t I'
Council members,
In the last two months I have spent considerable time trying to understand the complex
issue before the council of using dedicated park land for an Anerobic Digester (AD).
From all the meetings that I have attended, I have three issues with the AD.
One is the cost! Two, the AD's are unsightly. To have a huge physical plant hidden away
in the country is one thing, but the AD plant will be a blight on the beauty and pastoral
scenery that now exist in the park. Three, once land is gone, it cannot be acquired again.
It takes great foresight to preserve land and even more to continue that commitment.
It seems more cost effective to go with the regional approach.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Elizabeth Weingarten
1
March 16,2011
Mayor Espinosa and Members of the City Council
AD Feasibility Study
Dear Mayor and Members of the Council:
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
IIMAR 16 Atilt: 31
I urge this council to step back and stop spending any more money on the feasibility
study of this AD facility. If the definition of feasible means affordable and attainable
goals, then this project is not feasible. The promoters of this project have continued to
tout the AD facility as costing ONLY $13,000,000 and reducing C02 by 20,000 MT. In
fact, we now know it will cost from $50 to $100 million depending on which
inexperienced vendor is chosen. C02 is reduced to 12,000 MT. NOT 20,000 MT -quite
a difference.
How much more money and staff time must be spent trying to make this unworthy
facility feasible?
The City has a projected cumulative budget deficit of $98,600,000 (next 9 years). Are we
now, in good conscience, gomg to add another debt of$50 to $100 million payable by the
25,000 Palo Alto households with ever increasing refuse rates far into the future? What
other services will the 25,000 households give up for this unfeasible project? Are those
service losses calculated into the cost of this AD facility?
It is deceptive that this AD facility has been promoted to the public (without verification
of their claims) as the answer to global warming. It is the antithesis of a global warming
solution. Global warming studies by experts and all national conservation organizations
now state that unabated construction that invades parks, open space, conservation, lands
and natural habitat is a major cause of global warming. Our goal should be to restrict this
unabated construction at all levels especially in our own little town. .
Mayor and members of the Council, you have a chance to stop this hi-jacking of our 45
years of true environmental planning. Please don't continue this unfeasible project.
Stick to the principal of good planning that is truly environmentally sound.
Enid Pearson, Council Member, 1965-75
Minor, Beth
From: John Edwards [drjedwards@prodigy.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:45 AM
To: Council, City
Subject: Baylands Anaerobic Digestion Plant
Council members,
CITY Of PALO ALTO: CA CIT'r'etERlfS OFFICE
11 MAR' 6 AtH\: SI
Page 1 of 1
I am a resident of Palo Alto for over 25 years. I utilize the Byxbee Park and the baylands near the
Interpretive Center near the airport at least 150 days per year for walking, picnicking and bike riding.
In today's Mercury News, March 16,2011, a headline article is "Forecast shows future deficits". The
first paragraph states "Palo Alto's $2.3 million budget deficit in the fiscal year 2012 will likely be
followed by more fiscal shortfalls". I believe both the study and the proposed Anaerobic Digestion Plant
are fiscally irresponsible during these and future times.
Since it appears necessary to take waste material from the region due to the covenant for the land usage,
the citizens of Palo Alto are most likely going to pay increased taxes for supporting the infrastructure
(roads, etc) and inconvenience if such a plant were put on Byxbee park. This is redistribution of Palo
Alto citizen tax dollars for outsiders.
I urge the council to take the following actions:
1. Immediately cease any and all expenditures for the study and implementation of the special
election measure to change the agreement for the Baylands and Byxbee Park usage.
2. Vote as a council to not recommend voting for the land usage change
3. Spend no money to put the measure onto the ballot. Instead have the vested interests of business,
Stanford, etc. pay for all costs so we taxpayers do not pay.
Thank you for your consideration.
John Edwards
Very concerned long time Palo Alto resident and taxpayer
3407 Greer Rd
Palo Alto, Ca 94303-4209
311612011
Minor, Beth
From:
Sent:
To:
Michael Goldeen [goldeen@goldeen.com]
Wednesday, March 16, 2011 11: 19 AM
Council, City
Cc: Renzel, Emily; Pria Graves
Subject: Anrerobic Digester @ 8yxbee Park
Honorable Concilmembers,
CIT Y OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY ClEQK'S Qj;;IHCE
II MAR I 6 AM 11: 3.
What is proposed is too much too fast. Its proponents seek political glory at our expense.
Page 1 of1
The technology is new. What is the experience ofthe facilities now using it? What size? (Scaling has
limits.) What cost? What mean time between failures? What surprises? Most of all for what primary
purpose?
So Palo Alto is the only city on the bay still incinerating sludge. So what. Maybe there is or was a
good reason to be the exception. Like reclaiming precious metals. Gold is not getting any cheaper.
What do other cities do instead of incinerating the sludge? It sounds like there are less radical, but still
attractive alternatives than an untried Anrerobic Dibestor made by a foreign firm.. It's not a matter of
xenophobia. It's a matter of getting service.
Better I think to go for two or three small installations localized at points of production. That way if
there's a problem. we'll only bum a toe.
Thank you for your consideration.
Michael Goldeen
2350 Tasso Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone 650-391-7247
E-mail michael@goldeen.com
3/16/2011
Page 2 of2
impedances of the Palo Alto load and the grid, I would expect the majority of it to run away from Palo
Alto.
A progressive AD facility would sequester the raw biogas C02, or chemically break it into carbon and
oxygen, and sequester the carbon. More forward-looking, it should break the methane into carbon (again
sequestered) and hydrogen, which would boost the coming hydrogen economy. That is expensive, but if
being progressive (as opposed to vaguely appearing progressive) is the motivation for the AD facility, it
is by far the preferred alternative to releasing C02 and making yet more C02 to generate power that
mainly scoots out of town.
Finally, the dream facility that the AD proponents showcase, with its "green roof' and invisibly tucked-
under digester rooms, has nothing to do with the practical facility that ARl is analyzing. In fact, the ARl
analysis will not tell us whether that alleged "green" design is even buildable or operable, let alone what
it would cost the city to build, operate, and maintain.
What ARI is analyzing will look very much like AD facilities everywhertr-a collection of utilitarian
factory structures attended by noisy heavy machinery and piles of raw and spent materials. I do not fault
them for that; they are analyzing with what is known to be workable in the industry, for the Palo Alto
context.
I urge you to take a hard look at the ARl results, particularly the costs. Without being cynical (I make
my living as a government contractor), I ask that you consider how many projects of this size actually
meet their cost goals. With all respect to ARl, this proposed facility will surely cost more than their best
well-intended estimates.
~
Above all, please consider this project in the context of Palo Alto's proven needs and financial
resources. Is it a reasonable and, 'especially, compelling investment for our limited resources?
I'll close with a positive suggestion: if reducing vehicular carbon emissions are truly a civic priority,
consider how to revamp Palo Alto's streets and traffic flow to expedite flow and minimize stop and go.
Every brake-and-accelerate cycle wastes energy extracted from burning the vehicle's gasoline or diesel
fuel, and unnecessary cycles add C02 needlessly to the air. Accomplishing this will take money, but it
will put Palo Alto firmly in the GHG reduction innovation leadership. The money required is almost
I certainly much less than the AD capital cost but, unlike the AD, it will not present a recurring cost
burden on the city, and it will yield continuing undeniable benefits.
David Bubenik
3116/2011
Minor,8eth
From: Emily Renzel [marshmama2@att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 9:55 AM
To: Council, City
Subject: Study Session on ARI preliminary results
Dear Mayor Espinosa and Members of the City Council: March 16, 2011
CITY OF PALO ALTO~ CA CITY CLERK'S OFFrCE
LtHAR r 6' AM If :31
Page 1 of3
I hope that all of you can now see from the ARI Feasibility Study cost figures that the proposed Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Plant is much
more costly than a combination of new Biosolids processing on the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) an9 exporting our
food scraps and yard trimmings to already existing Regional Facilities or perhaps a new regional facility in San Jose. And, the base case
for using Byxbee Park land charged a rent that is about 1I10th of rent currently being charged on the very same land. Using the current rent
would increase the per ton cost by about $13/ton. (See my attachment 1 on Rent.)
Almost half (27,000 tons) of the organic tonnage is the biosolids and about a third of that is paid for by Palo Altans. This also is the
tonnage which will produce the most biogas and also the tonnage that currently has the largest GHG effect because of the incinerator.
The City would do better to focus on the RWQCP processes than to get involved in a very costly new technology that uses parkland and
must be paid for by Palo Alto ratepayers. (See my attachment 2 on Wet AD) And, while the ARI comparisons lump together the per ton
fees for food scraps, yard trimmings, and biosolids, in the end, there will have to be rate increases in two enterprise funds.
This proposal to process organics on parkland in Palo Alto has already cost the Refuse ratepayers over $2 million due to the Commercial
ban, the Task Force staff support, and the ARI study costs. Those costs should also be included in the ARI asSessment.
The ARI cost analysis does not include costs for a Green Roof (estimated $4 -6 million), mitigation measures, cost of developing and
implementing a new Byxbee Park and/or landfill closure plan, so all of ARI's projected AD costs are clearly lower than actual costs to the
ratepayers.
The study is also interrupting a long held plan for completion of Byxbee Park, it is interfering with and complicating our RWQCP Master
Planning process and the RWQCP landscaping process, and it has helped put the Refuse Fund in a very bad financial state by using up the
Rate Stabilization Reserve.
GHG. The devil is always in the details, but there are many assumptions in the footnotes to the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Analysis which
could significantly reduce the differential between the AD proposal and the export proposal. Even so, AD advocates have been
continuing to say 20,000 metric tons/year when the real differential is about 12,000 metric tons/year. Should refuse and sewage
ratepayers be asked to pay exhorbitant prices for that carbon savings when there are more cost effective ways to reduce GHG? (See my
attachment with questions re GHG.) -
This study, despite trying to shave every detail in favor of AD, already shows how costly AD will be. A number of you wanted to know
if this was ''feasible''. and thus voted for the study. It's pretty clear now that if ''feasible'' means financially realistic, it's not. Zillions of
dollars could fallout of the sky to improve the AD odds, but I wouldn't count on it if I were you. Sooner or later the ratepayers must
pay.
Emily M. Renzel, Coordinator
Bay1ands Conservation Committee
<marshmama2@att.net>
Attachment 1
Presented by Emily Renzel, Coordinator, Baylands Conservation Committee 9/23/11
Rent!
1. Why is it 1111 th of current rent at landfill?
2. Why is there no inflation adjustment as with other costs?
3. This facility cannot be built on parkland, so why was a ''park'' appraisal used?
4. Parks are owned by the General Fund and why should we be giving a private AD vendor such a gift of our precious parkland?
5. Why was 8% used as ROI when to date the landfill rent has been based on 10% ?
3/16/2011
Page 2 of3
The Appraisal had not one single Palo Alto comparable. Obvious choices are:
Embarcadero Way Properties. Appraised at $22 to $37 million (3/8/2010) for 8.3 acres = $2.65 million/acre to $5.3 million = for 9
acres $23.85 million to $47.7 million. At 8% ROI (2% lower than currently used on Byxbee Park) that would be rent of
$1,908,000/year to $3,816,000/year.
Los Altos Sewage Treatment Plant Site. Appraised at $6,530,000 for 6.4 developable acres. (10/18/2001).= $1,020,312/acre or
$9,182,812 for 9 acres. At 8% ROI = $734,525/year rent. .
Byxbee Park Landfill Rent. Highest & Best Use in 2005 was Industrial -Research & Development for the exact same land being
proposed for AD. Per email from Dale Wong to Ron Arp dated 3/812011 "Rent on active acreage (phase IIc): (51.24 acres) x ($100,888
per acre) = $5, 133,633. Rent on closed acreage: (phases IIA and lIB): (22.47 acres + 23.19 acres) x $50,094 per acres) = $2,287,292.
Total rent = $5,133,633 + 2,287,292 = $$7,420,925." In CMR 373:06, rent based on an ROI of 5% offair market value
(($50,094/acre/year) was used for the 46 acres of closed landfill Now suddenly a much lower rent of $11,333/acre/year is proposed for
the AD site based on land sales in San Jose, Oakland, and other lower-cost areas. Using current rent of$100,888/acre for 9 acres =
$907,992 minus the rent in the model of $102,900 = $805,092 divided by 62,000 tons = S12.99/ton/year The Appraiser used an 8% ROI
in the model whereas the City has used 10% in the past. Using the appraiser's 8% ROI on land value of $907,992 current landfill rent
would result in rent of $726,394/year.
Winter Lodge Exchange. In 1986, ·3.7 acres of seasonal wetlands at the Golf Course were valued at $2.6 million or $702,702/acre
which at an ROI of 8% (that used for the AD ssite appraisal) would have been $56,2 I 6/acre/yearin 1986! (PA Weekly 10/1/86) It's
doubtful that even with the real estate crash of 2008, the value would be less than that 15 year old appraisal.
Airport Cell Tower: The little 500 sf piece of land at the airport is being rented for $2.40/sf/mo. Comes out to $104,544/acre/mo or
$1,254,528/acre/year. That's a very current comparable.
Attachment 2
Wet AD on RWQCP and transport of food and yard by Emily Renzel 3/9/11
Wet AD on RWQCP $39,349,806 capital costs = $72.87/ton
Wet AD on Byxbee $40,452,501 capital costs = $74.911ton
Wet AD O&M $470,793/year= $17.437/ton
Total Wet AD costs/ton for 27,000 tons/year =
$90.31/ton (RWQCP) to $92.35/ton (Byxbee)
Alternative 2
Wet AD 27000 tons @ $90.3l1ton = $2,438,370/year
FoodIYard 35,000 tons @ $58.00/ton = $2,030,000/year
62,000 tons =$4,468,370/year = $72.07/ton
Wet AD 27000 tons @$92.35/ton =$2,493,450/year
FoodIYard 35,000 tons @ $58/ton = $2,030,000/year
62,000 tons = $4,523,450/year = $72.96/ton
Alternative 3
Wet AD 27,000 tons @$90.31/ton= $2,438,370/year
FoodIYard 35,000 tons @ $52.00/ton = $1,820,000/year
. 62,000 tons = $4,258,370/year = $68.68/ton
Wet AD 27,000 tons @$92.25/ton= $2,493,450/year
FoodIYard 35,000 tons @$52.00/ton= $1,820,000/year
62,000 tons = $4,3 I 3,450/year = $69.57/ton
Export + Wet AD on RWQCP = S 68.68 to S72.96/ton .
3/1612011
Page 3 of3
Attachment 3 -GHG questions
Greenhouse Gas Questions -Emily RenzeI3/9/11
Biogas Efficiency Rate: The Feasibility Matrix used 99% for the collection efficiency rate, but footnote #1 on the 11th page of the GHG
analysis says that 98% might also be used.
Does that mean that if the Feasibility Matrix says that. 1 04,566,531 cu.Ft/year are collected, then with 98% efficiency 1,045,665 cu Ft/year
less would be recovered? What is the GHG tonnage equivalent?
What are the implications for both the GHG and economic comparisons?
If gas revenue is shown as $796,640, then would there be $7,966 less revenue and therefore a commensurate increase in per ton cost of
12.8 cents?
Footnote 9 (my page 27) Is it reasonable to assume that the amount ofbiogas recovered from DAD in SJ for foodscraps is the same as a
combination of yard trimmings and foodscraps? Generally foodscraps are richer in gas than yard trimmings. So would this
underestimate gas recovery from food scraps in San Jose?
Footnote 9 (my page 41) points out that biogas from yard and food DAD is 57.5% but WAD is 65% methane and no adjustment was
made for those differences. What impact does that have on GHG and/or costs?
Note 4 (my page 49) Is electricity for grinding counted only at SMaRT or at both SMaRT and ZBest?
Note 6 (my page 53) What is the implication of making this assumption re C02 and CH4 being equal? A subnote to this note says
that "There is very little basis for this assumption."
Hauling Biosolids. Why is the residual from digesting biosolids 16% of the input, when
food/yard residuals are 29.9%? What are the GHG and cost impacts of this differential? See also note 4 (my page 57 saying that the
WAD & DAD biosolids digestate would be the same when converted to the same moisture content. What are the implications of that for
GHG & costs?
Hauling compost to end users. Is it a reasonable assumption that ag users will use yard/food compost? ZBest experience is that food
scrap compost is used only for non-ag landscaping uses. See Note 5. (my page 61) Is there any assurance that farms in Salinas or
Watsonville would buy food/yard compost from Palo ALto when Zbest has yard trimmings only compost available much closer? What
are the marketing implications if this is a faulty assumption and what would be the GHG/cost implications as well as operational
implications if we are unable to move our compost product?
3116/2011