Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1991-08-05 7-22-91/8-5-91 Approved: I Attest: Seal Beach, California August 5, 1991 The city council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 4:01 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Laszlo Councilmembers Doane, Forsythe, Wilson Absent: Councilmember Hastings Solid Waste Advisorv committee Members/ReDresentatives Present: Members Antoci, Baker, Erickson, winter Absent: . None Vacancy: One I~ Also present: Mr. Bankston, city Manager Ms. Bennington, Secretary to the City Manager Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk Mr. Perry, Kleinfelder, Inc. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications at this time. JOINT WORK SESSION - AB 939 PRELIMINARY DRAFTS - SOURCE REDUCTION ELEMENT/HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT Mr. Perry introduced himself as being associated with the consultant firm, Kleinfelder, Inc., retained by the city to assist is producing the Source Reduction and Recycling Element. As a point of background he explained that the adopted Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 effectively required each city to become aware of and responsible for the amount of solid waste being generated and to develop a plan that would recycle, reduce, and reuse twenty five percent of that waste by 1995 and fifty percent by the year 2000, the plan to document how each city is going to accomplish the waste diversion goals, the guidelines for such setting forth what must, at minimum, be addressed I~ within the. planning document. Mr. Perry gave a brief overview of the decision process of the Advisory Committee _"~ over the past six months to develop a plan that will ensure the City will achieve its diversion and recycling goals based upon the solid waste practices as set forth by the Act, the most important being source reduction, reducing the amount of waste generated or preventing the generation of such waste, the second step being recycling, which is the separation of recyclable materials that are made into another usable, purchasable product, another step being composting or bio-degradation, turning greenwaste or I I I. 8-5-91 agricultural waste into a soil amendment or mulch type of material, the last step being landfilling, which is the least preferable for most communities as well as posing a problem given the lack of landfill sites. Mr. Perry noted that several possibilities as well as dilemmas were realized in Seal Beach, the community basically divided into four areas, downtown, Leisure World, the Naval Weapons station, and Surfside, each having different characteristics and collection methods, the problem being to devise a plan to effectively deal with waste as a total and reduce the waste stream with the least amount of disturbance to existing systems. He said the Seal Beach waste stream for planning purposes is approximately forty-six tons per year, of which the primary contractor is collecting sixty-seven percent, the area contractors collecting sixteen percent in Leisure World, seven percent from the Weapons Station, and ten percent from Surfside, and pointing out that the total waste generated consists of what is being landfilled as well as what is being diverted through recycling, source reduction, etc. Mr. Perry reported the focus of the Committee was to look at the eleven components required of a Source Reduction/Re- cycling Element which includes source reduction, recycling, composting, special waste which takes in washers, dryers, sewer sludge, tires, etc., funding for the program, public education, as well as integration of all of the components to develop a uniform plan. He noted that when the County conducted the Waste Characterization study, the basis for establishing the total generation of the City, all of the waste going to the landfills was calculated, then it was identified as to where the waste originated by means of the hauler or source of the truck. Mr. Perry stated that construction demolition waste could not be identified, was apparently being recycled for road base or new asphalt use, which amounted to 1.2 million tons of waste where the source could not be identified, the County divided the total tonnage by County population, then the population of the individual city was used as the determining factor as to the amount of recycled material allocated to the specific city, which resulted in thirty-six thousand tons of waste for Se~l Beach as currently being recycled, for a total fifty-two percent recycling rate locally. He noted that a problem with that methodology is that as 1995 approaches and should the County change the method of allocation whereby the city would lose the thirty-six thousand tons, the community would be not be near ach~eving its recycling goals, therefore the first decision of the Committee was to keep the thirty-six thousand tons in reserve and develop a plan based upon what is known is occurring within the city. He presented an overview of the pros and cons of the curbside separation program, the co-mingled program, and the material recovery facility (MRF) program as set forth in the Recycling Options Report. Mr. Perry reported a number of programs were considered dealing with recycling, source reduction, and disposal, the conclusion being a recommendation for MRF processing of waste from within the City based upon the diversity of the community, as opposed to a curbside program would further impact the streets with additional truck traffic, result in additional litter and scavenging, the co-mingled program having the same type of problems. He noted also that to be effective any program . must be convenient otherwise participation will drop, therefore recycling and reduction of waste will not be realized, and it has been shown that the most participation that can be achieved through a curbside or co-mingled 8-5-91 program is about sixty percent of the residents which in turn reduces the waste stream in the area of six percent, which is inadequate to reach the twenty-five percent. Mr. Perry pointed out that with a MRF Program there is one hundred percent participation, the recyclable materials are collected with the waste and then processed for separation, that the program does not prevent a resident from recycling their own cans, bottles, or papers, also that there is no additional trucks or transportation problems associated with the program. He noted that although there will be a cost involved, as there would with any of the programs, there may be some return to the hauler through the recyclables, however that amount will most likely not equal the cost to the contractor for his equipment and processing, and suggested that a consideration should be what program will be the most convenient, have the least environmental impact on the City, be the most effectively handled administratively, and still achieve the reduction goals in the short and long term. He said it should also be recognized that the curbside programs deal with residential waste which constitutes only about one-third of the City'S waste stream therefore two-thirds of the waste is not being recycled, reduced, or separated in an effective manner, as an example in Seal Beach it would be difficult for a business owner to store and separate cardboard, glass, wood, etc. for recycling, the MRF program eliminating that constraint where there is a single container, the waste is separated and processed offsite, and eventually made into other products. A member of the Committee mentioned that some cities have joined together to combine their waste reduction programs, also that the Cypress program is utilizing a one hundred ten gallon container to which residents are objecting, and questioned how the waste reduction programs are going work since there is no market for recyclables. Mr. Perry said since there are now more than four hundred cities recycling, the market may presently be low but is expected to rebound, and in response to Council stated that the CR&R firm is considered to be one of the largest recycling firms in the California, have secured markets both domestic and foreign for recycled products, and ship most of their waste to Pacific Rim countries. He noted that of the cities his firm represents, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, La Habra, and Seal Beach, some have chosen the curbside programs, however have recognized that to achieve the twenty-five percent reduction goal it will be necessary to process commercial and industrial waste through a MRF. Mr. Perry suggested it would seem appropriate at this time for the City to commence working with the waste hauler with regard to costs, agreements, etc., noted that the City could contract directly with the hauler or with the material recovery facility. He said he was not aware of cities banding together to address waste reduction at the source or the manufacturing level, and realistically the message to manufacturers will most effectively be from the product consumer, however reported there is legislation pending with regard to an advanced disposal system where certain costs will be imposed on the manufacturers, yet acknowledged that those costs will be passed on to the consumer. Councilmember Forsythe explained that in discussions with the refuse hauler he did appear to be amenable to a percentage return to the City from recycled materials in addition to a reduction of the gate fee, that the large container and automated collection system were also mentioned which in turn may result in a saving to the hauler and the City. Mr. Perry confirmed that the automated truck I I I . 8-5-91 I system is a more economical collection method if just from the standpoint of reducing workers comp injuries and being less labor intensive. Mayor Laszlo provided a brochure regarding the CC&R facility that he and Councilmember Hastings had visited. He mentioned that when the City's trash hauler transports to the landfill his cost is $22.75 per ton, when transported to CC&R they charge $12.90 for each ton of waste dropped off yet that is a benefit to the hauler through transportation, labor, and equipment cost savings, and described the CC&R recycling procedures by means of conveyor belts and hand sorting. A member of the Committee said as a general rule twenty-five percent of waste is recyclable, mostly paper, cardboard, and glass, and although the city would have the option to contract directly with a recycling facility, it is not certain that would be the best course to take. Mr. Perry said at the present time the only composting facility is located in the Irvine area, however as yet it has not received a permit from the California Waste Management Board, and in developing the City's program there was an attempt to not rely on composting at this time for the reasons that there is presently no market and those cities that are utilizing composting up front will flood whatever market is eventually developed, however pointed out that there will be a need to rely on compo sting in the long term to achieve the fifty percent waste reduction. A Committee member mentioned a comment of the City Manager that in an area of New York landfills were reopened and through a MRF program approximately fifteen additional years of utilization were realized, which she said may "be something for California to consider. I Mr. Perry advised that the next step in the process is to finalize the Preliminary Draft Source Reduction and Recycling Element which will then be available to the pUblic, forwarded to the adjacent cities, and the California Waste Management Board, those agencies having forty-five days to review and comment on the Draft, and based upon the comments a decision will be made as to whether to amend the plan, acknowledge the comments, or move forward, a forty- five day review period for the Final Draft as well, the County having fifteen days to review and comment, the Final Draft then considered under public hearing and adopted by resolution. In response to Council, Mr. Perry stated it would not be the responsibility of the city to dispose of special waste components, asbestos as an example is governed by state and Federal regulations and the city has no control with the exception of ensuring compliance with those regulations in connection with the issuance of permits, and waste generated by the Goodyear Store as an example, is counted in the city's waste stream however they are also recycling, and it was noted that when one now purchases a vehicle tire there is an additional charge for its eventual disposal. It was suggested that a paper recycling unit be placed at the Seal Beach Center, or any other shopping area, where local groups/organizations would be required to man and/or dispose of the paper on a per month basis and be allowed to retain the monies therefrom. Councilman Doane inquired to what extent the study involved Leisure World since they have a completely different system. Mr. Perry acknowledged that Leisure World does have a recycling program, that it was not the intent to change that process, however Leisure World is lOOking at how they can attain even further reduction, possibly through a MRF program. He clarified that there will be a separate Household Hazardous Waste Element, integrated with the other Elements. Mr. Perry noted that the original deadline for review and I 8-5-91 submittal of the Plan under AB 939 was July, 1991, that there is pending legislation to extend the submittal deadline to January 1, 1992, however that extension will not change the compliance requirement for achieving recycling goals. Mr. Perry reviewed the Funding Component and Estimated Short-term Funding Requirements, and given the assumed goal that MRF processing would commence in 1993 and I using the estimated $12 per ton cost, the 1993 recycling program implementation cost would be approximately $325,970, therefore one scenario to fund the program would be that since twenty-two percent of the waste stream is generated by single family residential it is assumed that a like percentage of the cost should be borne by that group, and since seventy percent is generated by business and multi- family residential they should likewise bear that percentage of the cost.. Based upon that scenario he explained that if $1.45 per month were charged each of the four thousand one hundred twenty-six single family units, $71,713 would be generated in 1993 to the recycling program, also assuming two thousand piCk-Ups per month for businesses and multi- .. family units, $211,000 would be generated, or a total of $283,600, leaving a shortfall of $42,736, which is representative of waste generated by demolition projects, etc. and that shortfall should be recovered through an increase of fees, grants, franchise fees, etc. Mr. Perry acknowledged their recommendation that a recycling coordinator be established by 1992 with the program in operation by 1993, explaining that each program of the Element is required to identify who and what agencies will be responsible for implementing the program, therefore their recommendation that someone be retained to specifically carry out the duties and responsibilities such as education, I public outreach, verification that the programs are being implemented, assisting businesses, waste audits, etc., an option also being to retain a coordinator jointly with another city, and noted that legislation that would have required a coordinator was not approved. It was pointed out that the intent is that the source reduction/recycling programs are to be self-funded. Suggestions were made that any monies generated should be placed in a specific fund other than the ~~~eral Fund and possibly used for waste reduction education purposes, and that every city truck should carry a bin for the collection of aluminum cans and" other recyclables that they come upon. Mr. Mario Voce, 730 Catalina Avenue, pointed out that a great percentage of refuse is greenwaste, suggesting that the city develop its own composting area if there is space to do so, an area where landscapers could also deposit their waste, and after the necessary period of time either use or sell the composted top soil, also that the MRF program should be looked at more closely, citing specifically the number of trash items that are not recyclable and will be lost in the process. Mr. Voce indicated he has personally achieved the year 2000 goal, that he composts all of his greenwaste without danger or odor by means of shredding, I recycles all bottles, paper of various types, cardboard, etc., stated his opinion that industry is not going to , cooperate, that caution should be paid to whomever provides recycling to ensure the accuracy of their reporting to the City and that there are no violations, and that the MRF system does not provide assurance that one hundred percent of the recyclables are being recycled. Mayor Laszlo suggested the EQCB may wish to review the preliminary draft element. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, spoke in opposition to retaining a coordinator as well as any renegotiation with the present refuse hauler, stating circumstances have 8-5-91/8-12-91 I changed, the contract should therefore be null and void, and that the contract should be put to bid rather than renegotiated. She suggested there are areas in the community that could be used for composting, that a bagging system could be initiated as is done on the east coast, that application should be made now for any necessary permits, also that a recycling contract should be with the materials recovery facility rather than the trash hauler. Mayor Laszlo suggested that Ms. Corbin's comments be presented to the Solid Waste Committee. Mr. Perry pointed out that even upon adoption of the Plan there is a requirement for annual review by the California Waste Management Board or the city and should significant changes occur, the Plan would be required to be revised or amended accordingly to reflect the current situation, and should the bag method be determined an effective program in the future, that method could be adopted, also noted that composting is significantly different in the easterly states than the westerly states. He pointed out that a permit to compost would require compliance with CEQA, possibly an environmental impact report, approval by the Water Quality Control Board, etc., and it may be in the City'S best interest to contract rather than compost locally. Ms. Corbin claimed that Leisure World has a more acceptable refuse contract because they solicited bids, where bids were not sought for the Briggeman contract. I Mayor Laszlo declared a recess at Committee members to be excused. at 5:35 p.m. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. 5:32 p.m. to allow the He reconvened the meeting ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 5:36 p.m. of the Approved: J~..L 4F~- Mayor Attest: 'I Seal Beach, California August 12, 1991 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:01 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag.