HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 363-05Recommendation 2: Staff should consider potential effects of waste reduction in planning for
needed landfill space 'and assess whether those benefits could accme to the future landfill park in
the form of lower and/or smoother contours. Staff should inform the City Council of potential
impacts on fmallandfill grading plans as landfill closure nears.
The estimated date for closure of the landfill is just that, an estimate. Actually, closure is
dependent on volume of material being landfilled. For example, it is possible that eventual .
implementation of a zero waste policy will reduce the rate of filling of the landfill and extend its
useful life. On the other hand, an economic upturn would increase the volume of material
landfilled.
Palo Alto landfill's filling heights and grading plans have been approved not only by 'the
CIWMB, but are also the basis for the seismic studies as required by -federal regulation.
Drainage calculations have been conducted and have been based_ on the approved height arid
grading plan. Finally, Palo Alto landfill's current fill capacity is identified and accounted for in
the Santa Clara County Waste Management Plan, a strategic plan that monitors and helps plan
for solid waste generation, disposal capacity, and management within the County.
Any revisions to approv.ed grading plans would require a policy change to the current Baylands
Master Plan and approval by Council and other regulatory bodies. This would entail revising the
preliminary closure/post closure plan, revising specific parcel construction closure plans,
revising closure and post-closure cost estimates; revising the closure fund, updating seismic
$tudies' and drainage calculations, and obtaining approvals from the CIWMB, Regional Water
Quality Control Board {RWQCB), and'the Santa Clara County Department _of Environmental
Health (SSC-DEH) as well as City of Palo Alto site and design review. In addition, CEQA
review would be required for any grading change. Staff estimates that the minimum time to
accompli$h these tasks would ~e civer one and one-half years.
While staff recommends sU;iying with the original grading plan, staff agrees with the Auditor that
providing the Council With regular reports on -actual tonnages, remaining landfill capacity and
updates 8$ landfill closure nears is very appropriate.
Recommendation 3: The Public Works Department should utilize the services of-a landscape
architect to review and help shape refined grading plans prior to landfill closure.
Services of a landscape architect would be utilized for any significant changes to the grading
plan, whi,ch would also be subject to site-and design review. These most likely would not be
required unless an ESC project is approved.
Recommendation 4: If the Council decides to proceed with the project, consideration should be
given to eliminating some component parts of the project where land rent reduces their economic -
benefit.
Staff believes the decision on whether or not to build an ESC should be based on current and
future solid waste program needs for the City of Palo Alto, and that rent paid to the General Fund
should be a secondary issue in determining the future of the project. Again
(Recommendation 1), staff believes Council could refer this issue of rent paid by the Refuse
Fund to the General Fund to the Finance Committee for more in-depth discussion.
CMR:1l4:05 Page 2 ofS
War on Waste Committee, the Santa Clara County Local Task Force, the
city of Mountain View, and the City of East Palo Alto have been
incorporated into the final versions.
Attachment I is the entire SRRE and HHWE, including an executi ve
summary. The consultant will respond to questions on the executive
summary, the SRRE document, and the HHWE document. copies of the SRRE
and the HHWE have been on file at the City Clerk's Office since May 17.
The following chart is a summary of the diversion programs recommended
in the SRRE and the costs ~o the city associated with these programs:
?rograms set forth in SRRE to meet statutory-mandated source reduction and
::-ecycling goals.
COSTS
,ource Reduction
Planning and
Capital
I I
1
Annual Operating 'I
and Monitoring I
• Technical assistance
• Educational efforts , Public recognition and awards
I Local procurement ordinance
~ducation and Public Information
<ecycling
I Expand.participation in multi-
family recycling program
I Expand commercial/industrial
recycling programs
I SMaRT station
I Divert inert solids to a
materials processbr
Add additional material to
drop-off facility .
Add additional material to
r~sidential curbside
~omposting .
Increase participation in
existing program
Increase processing activities
ipecial waste
1 I I I I I I I I I
I ! I
White goods salvaging at . I landf~lll
Ianagement of all New
)i version Programs.
'OTAL I BASED ON NEW PROGRAMS
I I
I I ,
Included in 1-
Education and I
Public Iriformationl
$
1
o I
1
220,000 1
1
260,000 1
o I
o I
103,000 I
460,000 I
I
1
300,000 I
1 I I
o I I I
o I
$ I, 343 , 0003 i
I ,
Included in I
Education and I
Public Information I
I
$ 160,000-188,50°1
126,000
150,000
1
1
1
1 I 166,0001 \
70,000-140,000 I
20,000. 1
240,000 1
1 I
1
53,500-60,000 I
o
37,0002
$l,022~500-
1,127,500
1 !
1
1
1
1 I
I I ,
:===========================================================================
The SMaRT station functions as a transfer station as well as a recycling center; only the
recycling function is reflected in this estimate. .
Approximately .50 of the proposed Solid Waste Manager position will be de.signated for
management of all new diversion programs.
This is a one-time cost in addition to the annual cost.
-2-
CMR: 307: 91
\'
It is estimated that $1,343,000 (1991 dollars) in planning and capital
costs over a five-year period will be needed to implement the SRRE. An
additional $1,022,500 to $1,127,500 (1991 dollars) per year ~ill be the
ongoing operating costs when all programs are in place .. Revenues from
.the saie of recyclables will be approximately $360,000 per year. The
recommended programs will ensure a recycling rate of at least 42 percent
of the waste stream by 1995'and of at least 50 percent by the year 2000.
It is estimated that $430,000 in planning and capital expenditures over
a five-year period will be needed to implement the HHWE. The annual
operating cost for the HHWE is estimated at $356,700 (1991 dollars).
The consultant I in preparing the SRRE for the City,. recommends the
addition of four new personnel to implement the recommended programs:
a solid waste manager, two program assistants, and one composting
attendant. The solid waste manager would be responsible for the SRRE
implementation, managing the recycling programs, and lancifill
operations ... The two program assist·ants would work on the expansion of
current and proposed recycling programs, SRRE and HHWEeducationjpublic
information programs. The three positions (solid waste manager and
program assisti:ms) have been proposed in the FY 1991-92 Refuse Fund
operating budget.
The landfi.ll composting attendant would work on processing activities
generated by the expansion.of the composting·program. staff disagrees
with this addition .and thinks that composting activities could be
handled by existing staff.
Environmental Assessment
The attached proposed negative declaration has been prepared for
consideration by the Council in connection with the adoption of the SRRE
and the HHWE. Copies of the negative declaration have been forwarded to
the CIWMB and the state Clearinghouse. As shown in the negative
declaration, the project will have no significant environmental impacts
for purposes of the California Environmental Q~ality Act (CEQA).
Conclusion
Holding this public hearing will satisfy the requirements of Public
Resources Code Section 41793 and section 18766(b) of the a~companying
regulations for the second public hearing on the SP~E and Hffi~E. Council
is requested to consider all the public comments and to adopt the
negative declaration, the SRRE and the HHWE under the attached
resolution. The final approved SRRE and HHWE wi.ll be forwarded to the
County of santa Clara County befor~July I, 1991, along with the signed
resolution and the adopted negative declaration.
-3-
CMR: 3 07 : 9 1 .