Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1991/08/15 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CI'IY OF (}IULA VISTA CI'IY COUNCIL Thursday, August 15, 1991 Council Conference Room 4:46 p.m. Public Services Building CAI.I.F.D TO ORDER 1. CALL THE ROLL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Grasser Horton, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader ABSENT: Councilman Malcolm [attending Coastal Commission Hearing] ALSO PRESENT: George Krempl, Deputy City Manager; Bruce Boogaard, City Attorney; Berlin Bosworth, Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency BUSINESS 2. REPORT RECYCLING STATUS - The purpose of the report is to provide an overview of recycling program implementation to date, as well as the upcoming decision points and necessary public hearings coming before Council over the next year. Staff recommends Coundl accept the report. (City Manager) Stephattie Snyder, Printpal Management Assistant, stated that recycling had many interrelated issues which would be addressed in various reports staff will be presenting to Council throughout the year. There are three driving forces most critical to the City's recycling program: the first being, AB939 (the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989). AB939 is the law which mandated that the cities and counties throughout the State of California meet certain diversion requirements by a certain timetable. Staff is in the process of preparing a Plan (the state's term is "Element") which will go to two public hearings, the first will be brought before Council in draft form in October. The Plan, as mandated by the state, will be circulated to members of the Interjurisdictional Task Force to achieve regional cooperation about what the issues are and how to deal with them. With their input, as well as other public input, staff will then return to Council in December with a fmal Plan to be adopted and forwarded to the State. When all cities prepare their "Elements" and forward them to the State, the County of San Diego will be responsible for pulling those 18 Elements together into what they formally call "The Plan" which is due to the State in 1994. An additional "Element" which is important is the "Siting Element", which pertains to political issues. The second item concerns the issue of the San Marcos landfill site and expansion. The Board of Supervisors at their September 10 meeting will be considering the front-end fadlity of the Trash to Energy Plant as well as the issue of an emergency plan on how to meet the need in the interim until decisions have been made. One component of the emergency plan will be the possible diversion of trash from the North County site to the South County. Councilman Rindone questioned what the anticipated date was for closure of the Otay site. Ms. Snyder responded that it was estimated to be 1998. That time frame does not factor in a diversion program (recycling) nor does it factor in additional trash if same is sent in from other landfills. The third item is the County Solid Waste Ordinance. In order for the County to meet the regional requirements, the Ordinance (mandatory reryding) sets the timetable by which certain items will not be acceptable at the County landfill. This is an issue that drives some of the information staff will be presenting. Athena Bradley, Conservation Coordinator, stated that Chula Vista generates almost 180,000 tons of trash annually which is the equivalent of about 1.3 tons per person per year. Reviewing the statistics, 53 percent Minutes August 15, 1991 Page 2 of the waste is generated from residential sources and 47 percent from commercial/industrial sources. In 1989, the first organized recycling program was implemented in the City of Chula Vista with the curbside recycling expanded Citywide to all single-family residents in February 1991. Participation is currently at about 82 percent which translates to an average 270 tons per month that is diverted from the landfill. The City began its Office Recycling Program in July 1991 with more than 500 Civic Center employees having the opportunity to participate in this multi-material recycling program. Staff is developing and will implement a Business Recycling Outreach Project and an office recycling guide is being developed to be distributed, in coordination with the Chamber of Commerce and other business association, to area businesses. The County~s Solid Waste Ordinance ("Mandatory Recycling") introduces the complicated issue of enforcement. Under the County Ordinance, cities are faced with developing and enforcing a mandatory ordinance for residential, commercial, and industrial recycling according to the timeline established by the County or face the consequences of penalties that will be placed on haulers bringing refuse from the City to County landfills which will more than likely be passed along to City residents. The Count3/s Solid Waste Ordinance timelines are: Residential Single Family, March 1, 1992; Industrial, October 1, 1992; Yard Waste (greens), January 1, 1993; Commercial (Office and Hospitality), July 1, 1993; and Residential Multi-family, July 1, 1993. Adoption of the County's Solid Waste Ordinance and enforcement is to begin in March 1992. The Enforcement Ordinance for single-family recycling programs will be brought to Council in November 1991 at which time a public heating will be required. An additional issue to be discussed at that time will be recycling in mobilehome parks. A Request for Proposal to contract for collection and processing for yard waste has been drafted is expected to go before Council in November 1991. Enforcement of the yard waste program for both single-family and multi-family residences is to begin in January 1993. Additionally, staff is developing a pilot backyard compostLug program to begin in October 1991. Residents will be allowed to purchase, at cost, a compostlag bin and staff will develop a "how to" guide for general compostLug and the use of composting bins. The diversity of industrial, construction, and demolition activities in the City does not allow for a standardized collection practice for recycling. Additionally, most of these sites provide their own refuse collection and therefore an RFP for collection of recydables is not appropriate. Enforcement of industrial recycling is to begin in October 1992. The most challenging of the recycling programs is the development and implementation of commercial recycling. The City could develop an RFP and award a contract to one provider for all establishments, projects could be awarded to multiple providers, i.e. based on established geographical boundaries or service areas, or it could be decided not to issue an RFP leaving collection service to be provided on an open free market basis by all interested haulers. A series of meetings will be held with the Chamber, developers, businesses and property managers to develop the best recycling program options for the City and ies businesses. Staff will also be exploring the option of requiring businesses to develop their own recycling plan. A fee for staff review and monitoring the plan could be established to cover some of the costs of implementation of the City's commercial recycling program. Staff will be bringing the RFP issue for commercial recycling to Council within the next month as direction from Council is desired for staff to move ahead with the current grant funded business recycling outreach project. Enforcement of commercial recycling is to begin in July 1993. Program planning for multi-family residences, as with commercial recycling, could be awarded to a single provider, multiple provider, or left open. Cooperation with managers and tenant/owners associations will be crucial both for enforcement and collection. The RFP issue will be brought to Council in January 1992. Enforcement of the program is to begin in July 1993. However, because of the tonnage grants being awarded by the County, the City may wish to implement a pilot program for multi-family recycling or phase in services prior to that date. Each of the recycling programs outiined will include design for recycling, source reduction, procuremeat and disposal of hazardous materials. Staff will be developing an ordinance that will mandate sufficient space allocation for recycling in new developments and reqnire the remodeling of establishments, as necessary, to allow for recycling. All of the City's recycling and composfing programs will incorporate education information and guidelines on ways to reduce waste. Buying recycling products closes the recycling loop and is essential to any comprehensive program. A procurement ordinance for the City is being developed to expand upon this current use and to be utilized as a model ordinance for the greater Chula Vista community. Staff has also developed an information flyer regarding the proper disposal of household Minutes August 15, 1991 Page 3 hazardous materials that will be distributed at community events. Staff is working on a proposal that will be submitted under the Count3/s technical assistance grant program for the development of a comprehensive guide to commercial and industrial recycling, the expansion of the business recycling data base now being developed by staff, and the continued targeting of local businesses for direct assistance in program development. Through all of these programs, the City should successfully meet the challenges presented by AB939 and diminishing landfill capacity. Mayor Nader questioned whether staff had a recommendation regarding the impending county action on the trash to energy plant when it comes back on September 10th. City Attorney Boogaard stated there was a very important dollar difference between what the front-end recycling was to include. If it is to include the typical material recycling facility, that could be as much as $40 million. If it is a front-end that requires preparation for the eventual incinerator, that could be $80 million. Every $1 million is spread to the rate payer of the unitary system. The support position, at this stage, until a more thorough cost analysis can be done, is to support that front end facility only to the point that it is necessary to do material recycling and not preparation for an incinerator. Mayor Nader stated it was his understanding that City Attorney Boogaard's comments included a policy statement for the Council regarding this issue. He requested that the Resource Conservation Commission's comments and recommendations be included in any future information being presented to Council for action. He questioned why a Council decision regarding an RFP was not being done now rather than so far in the future. Councilman Rindone stated that another creative way would be by sections, which he felt should have serious consideration as it would encourage competition, which in turn encouraged lower rates. Mayor Nader felt that the sooner the decision was made as to what the process would be, the sooner the rest of the program could move forward. He felt that in dealing with the RFP process all at one time, it would afford the developing of a process for keeping the rates lower and encouraging competition. Ms. Bradley stated it was her intention to bring the commercial RFFs before Council next month. The multi- family decision could also be brought forward at that time but it may need further discussion. The service sector idea would be appropriate for both commercial and multi-family. Mayor Nader questioned whether the County mandated any specific type of range of enforcement or did they simply say "you will have enforcement". Ms. Bradley responded that the County had said that cities, in order to avoid the penalties at the landfill, will have to adopt an ordinance for mandatory recycling similar to the County's ordinance. There will be some sort of enforcement mechanism which they are leaving up to the individual cities. They have also said that if the cities adopt the ordinance and a recycling plan that states recycling will be implemented in each sector by the timelines published, they are not going to force the cities to enforce it, i.e. not stopping the trucks or having "hot" checks. Mayor Nader questioned if the 25% by 1995 and 50% by 2000 was a percentage of the waste generated as of the time AB939 was enacted or a percentage of the total waste that exists the time the target is to be met. Ms. Bradley responded that it was a 1990 baseline which was a percentage of total waste. Mayor Nader further stated it was his understanding that the more the City grows and the more waste that is generated, because there is more people generating waste, the more difficult it becomes to meet out goal. Minutes August 15, 1991 Page 4 Councilman Moore questioned whether the City had to reduce the baseline of what is taken to the landfill by a certain percentage or reduce the amount of trash accumulated. Mrs. Snyder responded that it was the amount of trash generated. Staff would have to research the issue of growth with a report back to Council at a later date. Councilman Rindone felt that staff should be given time for research regarding growth and annexation as this was of vital importance. Mayor Nader suggested that in addition to coming back with a response, if there is a growth impact that staff routinely address this in the review documents. Councilman Rindone felt staff should also look at the legislative side as Chula Vista was probably not the only city asking these questions. Mayor Nader requested clarification regarding the business recycling plan being a prerequisite for a business license. Ms. Bradley responded that she was interested in exploring that option. The City of San Diego is currently doing this and are now holding public hearings regarding the issue. This would be one way of streamlining staff time in getting businesses to recycle. It would benefit the businesses as they could then develop their own plans with staff help. A model program conid be established for utilization by businesses. Mayor Nader stated he was concerned that this not become a large layer of bureaucracy of a unique deterrent to bringing in business to Chula Vista. He questioned whether it would be easier if a requirement were set comparable to the residential recycling program. He had been contacted by apartment owners expressing concern over the requirement of adequate space for bins inside older and smaller units. He questioned whether it was intended that the City would require remodeling of existing units. He felt that there may be a need to establish a common collection area as opposed to remodeling all the older apartments in town. Ms. Bradley responded that in some areas it would be pn~dent, i.e. multi-family units. She would be investigating this with business owners and owners of multi-family units to see what the needs are for Chula Vista. She stated that staff was very sensitive to the issue of costs. Councilman Rindone complimented staff on the report. He felt it was very enlightening and a major step in looking at the "whole picture". He questioned the effects on the consumers regarding multiple pick-ups, different firms, different days, understanding what goes where when, etc. This could be very frustrating and he felt that should be considered. He requested that staff look at ways that would provide easy identification and access to encourage partidpation. Health concerns should also be addressed for other areas than cornposting. The City should encourage competition and partidpation, and staff should consider an abatement on business license fees, or increases on other things. The main objective is to obtain voluntary participation, Council and staff should be looking at the "big picture". Councilwoman Grasser Horton questioned how staff would select the businesses for the pilot commercial recycling program. She also questioned how many buy-back recycling fadlities were in Chula Vista. Ms. Bradley responded that a number of businesses had contacted her and she had also been working with the Chamber. The original idea is to target three large, three medium, and three small businesses. There are currently eight to ten buy-back centers in Chula Vista. Some of these are small fadlities that are not Minutes August 15, 1991 Page 5 capable of recycling all recydables at one fadlity. There is no facility currently located in eastern Chula Vista. CouncilwomanGrasserHononfeltthiswasanissuethatshouldbeaddressed. Many citizens were unaware of where they could take their recydables. She had been informed that the only zone a recycling fadlity could locate in was industrial. It was her understanding that there were not many industrially zoned properties in the northern sectors. Ms. Bradley responded that there were no industrially zoned areas that could handle a large facility at this time. She is working with the Planning Department in drafting a memorandum regarding the zoning issue and siting of fadlities. Coundlman Moore questioned whether staff could find our who the Otay Landfill users were north of 94, i.e. percent or tonnage. It was his understanding that it was mainly construction debris. He also questioned whether staff had envisioned a "kit" for residents of the City to purchase to do their own backyard cornposting and what the down-side of cornposting was, i.e. safety, groundwater, etc. Ms, Bradley responded that staff was currently looking at several different bids at this time. It is antidpated that staff will develop a "how to" booklet regarding cornposting. She stated that staff would have to return with more information in the future regarding the down-side of cornposting. Councilman Moore questioned whether the Planning Department was preparing for design elements that included recycling. George Krempl, Deputy City Manager, responded that staff was addressing this issue and would report back to Council in the future after more study had been done. 3. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) - None 4. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) - None 5. COUNCIL COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT AT 5:55 P.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, August 20, 1991 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk by: Berlin Bosworth, Secretary to the Redevelopmerit Agency