Loading...
SWM 09.28.1983 - 10.30.1985 SOLID WASTE MANACM�TU COMMITTEE 1IINUTES SEPT.28 1983-OG'"I_._30_ _1935__ SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COIVIMITTEI,, MINUTES KEPT . 789 1903MOCTo 309 1Y85 MINU'S'S OF THE OF THZ SOLID IdASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 28, 1983, CITY OF CUPERTINO SERVICE CENTER .CALL -'0_ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 8:00 P,:". 0 T K U, CALL. Present : Tom Boyd, Cheryl Block, Lynn Silton, Marvin Curl, Thelma Epstein, Jon Heiner, James Jackson, A.L. Holzman, Donald McLean, Bill I'Milam, Paul Roberts, Joe Sheppela, Absent: Dorothea Balsano, Nancy Binneweg, Shishir Mukherjee. Staff. Bert Viskovich. .PR ES.E INT A T 10 NS: Bob '-flyers, former chairman of the J.P.A. , presented background information on the establishment of the J.P.A. in 1977 and S.W.M.A. in 1981 Mr. Myers gave an overview of how S.W.M.A. had arrived at its current proposals, noting that the closing of the Bay landfill had been the ori-inal impetus for a North County solution. Mr. Myers also presented slides of Eastern incinerator facilities and transfer stations that he had toured. Ciddy 1.11ordell, chairman of the S.W.M.A . Advisory Committee, presented information on the procedures utilized by their group to organize and proceed with their task. She distributed copies of a concern sheet for committee members, noting that environmental concerns were voted first by their committee, and copies of an environmental assessment sheet they used to review each site. S ELECT IO14 OF OFFICERS: The committee selected Tom Boyd as chairman and Thelma Epstein as vice chairman. DISCUSSION: The committee set a tentative work agenda to gather information, formulate a statement of the issues, and make a recommendation. It was suggested that the committee break down into small groups at the next meeting in order to expedite the information gathering process. It was also recommended that we reivew our objectives to determine ifif our focus should be on a Cupertino or a North County solution. The committee agreed to a tentative deadline of December 1 for a recommendation, in order to allow the City Council to present our views to our SsW.M.A. representative prior to the J.P.A. decision. Meetings will be scheduled weekly on Tuesday nights, 7:30 P.M. at the Cupertino Service Center. Meeting adjourned at 10:4r, P.m. Submitted by, CAu1A wl• Cheryl Block, Recording Secretary n k ah ., r, _ ..... ♦ ._.t..� .h3 j"r MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMMEN r OCTOBM. 4, 1983, CITY OF CUPER V INO SERVICE CENTER CALL TO 0 ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. POLL CALL: Present: Tom Boyd, James Jackson, A.L. Holzman, Paul Roberts, Lynn Silton, Cheryl Kock, Thelma Epstein, Marvin Curl, Bill Milam, Dorothea Balsano, Joe Shepela, Jon Heiner. Absent : Nancy Binneweg, Donald McLean, Shishir Mukhe.rjee. RULES OF ORDER: Committee members discussed and established a set of meeting guidelines. Conies will be distributed to all committee members prior to the next meeting. It was also suggested that a calendar of scheduled meeting dates be sent to all members. 'EVIFN OF CHARTER In reviewing the objectives for the committee, members requested that the city attorney provide a concise definition of the city°s legal responsibility to S.W.M.A , and. the J.P.A. It was also sag�zested that the committee consider possible state directions on solid waste disposal; Councilman Johnson recommended Terry 2rvynb1>11, former head of the state Waste Management Board, as a state level information source. Mr. Johnson also reported that Councilman Sparks would be willing to receive our recommendations prior to the J.P.A. vote and that the other council members did not have a set preference. It was moved and seconded that we adopt the four objectives stated in the committee charter as our goals. Approved 11/0. SCHEDULE: It was moved ana seconded that the committee aim for a December 1 preliminary- recommendation date to Enable the City Council to direct Representative Sparks prior to the J.P.A. vote. Approved 11/0. SUBCOMMITTEES: The committee discussed whether to approach their initial fact-finding on the basis of major concerns or the proposed S .'.4.M.A . scenarios. Committee members felt that it was necessary to familiarize themselves with the S.W.M.A, proposals in order to pinpoint community concerns with each and develop alternatives. It was moved and seconded that the committee break into 3 groups to stlxdy the scenarios ( mass burner/incinerator combined as one scenario) and prioritize their concerns for each. ® Approved 8/3. Subcommittees are: Scenario 1 : Maarvin Curl, Thelma Epstein, Lynn Silton, Cheryl Block, Donald McLean; Scenario 2: L'om Boyd, �g t ,_ 7k b Joe Shepela, Bill Milam, Dorot ,9a Balsano, Shishir Mukherjee; Scenario 3s Jim Jackson, Al Holzman, Paul Roberts, Nancy Binneweg, Jan Heiner. Each subcommittee will report at the next meeting. AUDIENCE Mr. Ken Neuman, Cupertino Recycling Center, requested that the committee study a curbside recycling program as a possible alternative. Mr. Neuman will be put on a future agenda to provide details for such a program. The next meeting will be Tuesday, October 11 , at 7: 30 P.M. , Cupertino Service Center. Meeting was adjourned at 9:4o P.m. Submitted by: aey'"-/44k Cheryl G. Block Recording Secretary T17-P M1NU'__!`,17S OF THE MEETING OF THE SOLID WASTE ADVISO(3Y COMMITTEE OCTOBER 11 , 1983 CITY OF CUPERTINO SERVICE CENTER CALL '10 ORDER- t" , he meeting was called to order at 7: 35 P.M. ROLL CALL: Present: Tom Boyd, Jim Jackson, A.L. Holzman, Paul Roberts, Jon Heiner, Joe Shepela, Dorothea Balsano, Marvin Curl, Thelma Epstein, Lynn Silton, Cheryl Block. Absent- : Nancy Binneweg, Donald McLean, Bill Milam, Shishir Mukherjee. MINU"ES: --e minutes for the previous meetings were read and approved. SU3C0!!`.I1'TEES: Each subcommittee presented their concerns for the proposed scenarios. Scenario 1. - Out of Area Landfill - Issues and Concerns I ) Would require transfer stations in Sunnyvale and Los Altos. 2) Would involve Waste Management Co. , Inc. , one of the nation's largest, at Kirby Canyon. Would involve Los Altos Garbage Co. , with whom we have an existing contract, at Pacheco Pass. 3) Kirby Canyon is near Anderson Reservoir - what is the proximity? 4) Traffic problems on 101 to both Kirby and Pacheco. 5) the distance from Sunnyvale transfer stat-icn to Kirby is 26 miles. 6) Landfill is the least financially risky. it is the least capital intensive and requires the lowest need for debt financing. It would have the lowest operating cost initially; with the 6% inflation it would have the lowest cost until 1996 and longer if inflation drops. 7) The inflation rate on tipping fees was not included in the Bryan Canyon scenarios. .8) Use of Kirby irby would require agreement from San Jose. 9) The processing and sorting of garbage should be included for out of area landfills; the potential for building a processing plant should be considered. 10) No actual dumping fees were utilized in estimating costs for alternative 1 . 11 ) Both Kirby and Pacheco are located in rural areas. Alternatives for Scenario 1 1 ) Utilize existing landfill sites. Add a treatment plant to process garbage and increase the life span for the present landfill. 2) Increase recycling efforts including curbside. 3) Attempt to influence packaging at a state level to reduce the waste produced. -MINMES (Cont. ) 2 4) The Shoreline landfill in Mt. View has not renewed Its contract with San Francisco as of October, 1983. There is additional capacity available to other jurisdictions. 5) Santa Clary is reserving 2 parcels of as yet unused landfill for a possible transfer station and/or waste-to- energy facility. Santa Clara has also purchased 586 acres of land in Altamont Pass adjacent to existing sanitary landfill as a potential landfill site. 6) Utilize the Neari Quarry in Los Altos Hills as a landfill. Discussion: The San Jose City Council met today and tabled a request to rescind 'the ordinance prohibiting garbage from outside thr., City. They will make no commitment either way at this time. Dorothea mentioned that the Pacheco landfill is relice-ising and could handle Cupertino's garbage. C> Scenario 2 - Process Landfill in Bryan Canyon - Issues and Concerns 1 ) Processing could be applied to out of area landfill sites, also. 2) Recycling of materials could be included in both scenarios 1 and 2 with sorting at the tipping tables. 3) Consider building a processing plan'--11- by an individual company or with the JPA . Processed waste could increase the longevity of existing landfill sites. Los Altos Garbage Co. has 7 acres available for a processing plant . 4) We need to know what the increased capacity of existing sites and out of area sites would be if processing were included. Ferrari Brothers claim that single baling would triple the life span of their present landfill. Discussion: Dorothea invited anyone interested in processing to tour the Brisbane processing plant on Wednesday at 10:00 A.jq. Ken Neumann, De Anza Recycling Center, brought up that 25-40% of the waste stream is recycleable. The question was raised concerning cover for a landfill in Bryan Canyon. Don Henning, Kaiser representative, stated that Kaiser's daily waste would not be used as landfill cover; hillside material could be utilized. Dirt for the landfill might have to trucked in, adding, to the truck traffic. Mr. Henning also mentioned that clay for the landfill liner was not necessarily available in Bryan Canyon and might have to be trucked in also. Dr. Roberts also noted that the 300 foot earthen dam at the mouth of the canyon would require additional dirt. Mr. Henning mentioned that the 10 million cubic yards for Kaiser's disposal was a potential and not an existing need. Scenario 2 brought up discussion of the proposed access road. Mr. Henning stated that there would be a separate entrance to the landfill site. Mr Henning also estimated that about 2/3 of the Kaiser vehicles would be shifted to the access road. the question was raised as to whether or not the public would have access to the landfill site. What impact would this have on traffic in surrounding areas? '-'he Advisory Committee requests - that the City provide an accurate map of theMp2sed access road . n AINMES (Cont. ) Scenario 3 - Mass Burner or RDF in Bryan Canyon - Issues/Concerns 'he third subcommittee studied the last two scenarios. Scenario 3 involved a transfer station and incinerator (mass burn) in Bryan Canyor. Ash would be dumped into the landfill. Scenario 4 added recycling of materials at the transfer station_, processing of garbage and then incineration. Jon Heiner presented a review of the S'WMA Financial Analysis for scenarios 3 and 4 (see attached) . Jon noted that the disclaimer by Feat/iMlarvick made the figures questionable. Operating costs for both incinerators would be initially higher; sale of energy would bring costs down. It was noted that t3.are is no actual lease in the works for the use of Bryan Canyon as a landfill. the question was raised as to who .could own the rights to the landfill. No figures were given for royalties and revenues to be paid to Kaiser as owners of the site. Mr. Henning responded to several questions regarding Kaiser's role as owner of Bryan Canyon. Kaiser was aware that the City could use "right of condemnation" to acquire the site. He stated that there was "nc written agreement currently between Kaiser and S'9Ty1!?. " Regcardin7 the proposed access road, Mr Henning noted that Kaiser would not go out of business if the road did not go in and that the road was "bait to Cupertino to remove a nuisance" in exchange for its garbage site. Dr. Roberts addressed the environmental concerns for Scenarios 3 and 4: 1 ) 'he EAR presents an optimistic view of the environmental impact. Will meeting the legal requirements ensure the maintenance of our quality of life? ?_) 'he proposed site is 2 mile from residential areas. 3) Arguments regarding potential groundwater contamination have not been responded to. 'his facility is an experiment and the risk of water contamination is too great. A solid waste landfill should not be sited on a valuable groundwater area. 2) arguments for preventing increased air pollution presume technology that is not currently available. No local data has been acquired on air pollution in the immediate area of the proposed incinerator. Although this is a non- attainment area for particulates it is not for carbon monoxide. A recent study by the Bay Area Air Quality Management Board has found that carbon monoxide levels exceed federal standards currently. The proposed incinerator would provide a new stationary source of carbon monoxide emissions and would require special permitting. 3) Costs for either burner will increase to meet EPA air standards; these costs are not documented in the report . Al Holzman addressed the technical feasibility of the nroDosed incinerators. 1 ) 'he EAR gives minimal details of construction. The proposed incinerator will be based on existing facilities but no data is given on bids, plant design, or technology. 2) Pulling recycleables will reduce the amount of energy produced from combustion. 31) --"he amount of money needed to keep either plant in operation ® is not well defined. Processing plants have short life .MINMES (Cont. ) spans. In the event of a shutdown, garbage would have to fo directly into the landfill. 4) Construction costs would be high. Maintenance costs are usually underestimated. .5) Incinerators are noisy systems, especially when, steam is vented. 6) In an affluent society, such as Silicon Valley, a higher percentage of the garbage is plastic. When burned, these generate toxic exhaust products. Temperature alone is insufficient to break down plastics. Jim Jackson discussed the neighborhood impact of Scenarios 3 and 4. 1 ) Scenario 3 will involve 6.5 transfer trucks, Scenario 4 will involve 61. Forty-one collection trucks will go directly to the site without transfer stops. In Scenarios 3 and 4 there is a transfer station on site for residents of Cupertino and' _Los ." Itos ( pg. H5--2-22 of EAR) . No effort has been made to determine the amount of neighborhood traffic to the site. 2) Rail is available only if the Libby site is used; no cost analysis is given. 3) Noise impact would be removed or lessened for 100 homes and increased for 18-22 homes. Plant noise is not considered and information should be gathered from other existing :facilities. Kaiser`had problems in the past with reverberations. ® 3) There is no information on property, value impact . It is + a subjective issue but should be addressed. There would. likely be a negative effect during construction going to a neutral effect once operating. DISCUSSION: Dorothea brought up that Cupertino°s contract with Los Altos Garbage is for pick-up only. The JPA negotiated the contract with the Ferrari Brothers for disposal. If Cupertino leaves the JPA we would have to renegotiate our contract. Regarding our request to the city attorney for clarification of ol:r legal responsibility to the JPA , City Manager Quinlan told Chairman Boyd that the City can withdraw at any time from the JPA and that the JPA cannot force the Bryan Canyon solution on Cupertino. the committee asked that we resubmit our request to the city attorney for a written clarification. Jon Heiner moved and Cher 1 Block seconded that Chairman Boyd request SWK% reschedule the meeting between Emcoii nd Dr. Compton as soon as possible. `— "he agenda for the next meeting will be a working session.. Mr. Ken Neuman, De Anza Recycling Center, will speak at 8:30 P.M. On October 20 the League of Women Voters will hold a League Day and have invited speakers from the Bay Area Water Quality and "Air Quality boards. 'he meeting was adjourned at 10: 15 P.11,11. Submitted by, / Cheryi Block Recording Secretary Ccmments on the SWMA Oraft Financial Analysis Prepared 10/11/83 for the Cupertino Advisory Committee by Jon Heiner Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., a well known accounting firm, has prepared a financial analysis of four solid waste idisposal alternatives for SWMA. The analysis calculates capital expenditures and operating costs and revenues an4 recommends financing alternatives. Ai is emphasised-In the analysis, all inputs into the Peat, Marwick financial model are based on information from SWMA and its consultants, and Peat, Marwick has not evaluated these for accuracy or reasonableness. Based on the analysis. Peat, Marwick concludes that construction costs fog the alternatives range from $20 million for the out-of-area landfill to $13S million .for the ROF Burn option. Operating costs for t-;v incineration option, as measured by the tipping fee paid by users, start out higher than for landfill options, but with time become lower. Ultimately, a profit is generated by selling electricity which more than offsets other costs. In a comparison of net present values, which summarizes future costs by discounting them back to present values at a 10% interest rate and adding them up for 2S years, the report shows that the out-of-area landfill will cost about $135 million over 25 years. the process landfill at Bryan Canyon about $20 million. and the incineration options will produce a "profit" of $10 - 00 million. The Peat Marwick study appears to be competently executed, but its conclusions are valid only to the extent that the data and assumptions provided by SWMA are accurate. While recognising that it is easier to poke holes in projections tnet must go 25 years into the future than it is to make these projections, there a:e enough problems in this case that I do not believe that the final numbers are useful for decision Faking. Tne key issues that should be examined by the committee are: ,>t) Are the engineering cost estimates correct. I have no information on this one way zr the other, but it is obviously an important point. 2) The projections are extremely sensitive to assumptions about inflation, Including the differentials between different item's inflation rates. This point may seem a bit esoteric, but is of extreme importance in assesing the risk of the project. The analysis assumes an inflation rate of 6% over the next 25 years for everything except energy costs, which are expected to escalate by 7%. These are not unreasonable estimates, but they are far from certain. It is important to know if the financial analysis would be different if other reasonable assumptions were substituted. In general, a plan that would remain viable in a variety of economic scenarios would be considered less risky than one which runs into trouble in many of the scenarios. .r SWMA Financial page 2 • As a test of sensitsvity. 1 tried changing the assumptions to another reasonable set, and did a "back of the envelope" calculation to determine whet affect this had. (It would be fairly simple to duplicate the Peet, Marwick model on a personal computer using Viol-Cole, If the committee wanted to explore this topic in more detail and with greater precision.) f I first changed the assumed energy inflation rate to 4%. While energy-prices have been above the general inflation rate the past decade. this has not always been the case. Currently there is an oil glut and OPEC production is dropphig. Saudi .Arabia is publicly projecting oil price increases slightly below the generA inflation rate for the next few years. Thus, I held the assumed general inflation rate at the 6% used in the SWMA analysis, and deducted two percentage points to obtain a 4% rate for energy. This- effects the price at which electrical output could be sold. I then considered the fact that the project is quite labor intensive in its operation, as shown by the detailed, financial projections. and noted that wages generally increase faster than the general rate of inflation, and that this is particularly true for this area. I thus postulated a 9% escalation for labor rates. The financial environment thus postulated could thus be thought of as a moderate inflation version of the 1950-1965 era. With these alternative assumptions, the tipping fee for the ROF incineration option increases by $117/ton in the 25th year. From this, we should conclude not that one or another figure is correct, but simply that results for this project depend dramatically on the exact economic scenario selected. 3) The report assumes that the level of solid waste remains level for 25 years. thus allowing the facility to operate at full capacity over this period, and yet leaving no un-incinerated solid waste. The committee should investigate whether this is a reasonable assumption, and also what will be done if the incineration option is selected, and the amount of solid waste generated increases beyond the assumed level. 4) The reason that the Bryan Canyon alternatives all have dramatically better net present values than. do out of area alternatives is that the value of the unused portion of the dump site is. given a high capitalized value at the end of 25 years. This is an odd way of looking a the situation, since Cupertino could zone the canyon for a dump site but not use it for .25 years, thus creating an even higher value (since all of it would bs available instead of only part) in the 25th year. If this were done, the out-of-area alternatives would look superior to Bryan Canyon. On the whole, I think this is a meaningless number in a financial analysis. 5) No attempt is made to determine the cosh of out-of-area landfill. Initial dumping fees are assumed. and a six percent inflation rate is applied to this. No reason is given to support this computation, and the actual results could be much higher or lower. The $$analysis" differs from Tom Henderson's position that the costs will escalate more rapidly than inflation for an out-of-area landfill. The committee should determine if the operators of the out-of-area landfill sties are r � e SWMA FihtlncSa l Ian` 3 • willing to bid.on long term contracts. subject to politial approval in Sass Jose. (The manager of, the proposed Kirby Canyon site said on the bra tour that they would 6e willing to bid, on a long terse contract.) This would provide an intelligent basis for a financial analysis. 6? It would be useful for the committee to determine whether the terms of the lease from Kaiser for Bryan Canyon, whlc $rq assumed In the analysis, are in fact no* known. ��� In view of all of these problem! and uncertainties, I believe that the financial analysis is useful only as a model which can be used to evaluate different sets of assumptions. The numbers presented in the report are not substantiated sufficiently to be used to support or oppose any of the alternatives. bgNUTES OF THE XMING OP ME SOLID WASTE ADVISORY �10l -W �` OCT'OBER 18, 1983 CITY OF COUPER`t'INO SERVICE CENTER CALL _'O ORDER : the Meeting was called to order at 7: 30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Present : Tom Boyd, Nancy Binneweg, Jim Jackson, Al Holzman, Paul Roberts, Jon Heiner, Joe Shepela, Lynn Silton, Dorothea Balsano, Marvin Curl, Thelma Epstein, Bill Milam, Donald McLean, Cheryl Block. Absent : Shishir Mukher. jee. MINUTES: The minutes for the previous meeting were read and approved. DISCUSSION OF INVESTIGAi`'ION PROCESS: -,'he city attorney will submit a written response to the committee on 1 ) the city's responsibility to the JPA and 2) county and state influence over Cupertino's ,jurisdiction. the committee requested that the city staff provide copies of the remaining parts of the SiIMA report , sections A ,C,D,E,F. It was agreed that the chairman would submit a letter with our questions and concerns to SWMA and request that Mr. Henderson attend our next meeting to respond to these. Committee members agreed to draft their questions and submit these to the chairman by the end of the meeting. PRESENTATION: Mr. Ken Newman, member of the Board of Directors for the De A nza Recycling Center, spoke on recycling. The Center is a voluntary, non-profit drop-off program; funds from the program are utilized for various community programs and scholarships. Mr. Newman noted that most materials are recycleable . including -plastics. Implementation of curbside recycling was discussed. A curbside program would require separation of newspaper, glass, and cans for pick-up. Since Cupertino has a cerzller for the materials it would only need to purchase trucks for pick-up. The usual D_rocedure for initiating a program is to obtain a grant from the state. The initial expenditures for a curbside program are high; the largest cost is pick-up of materials. It is estimated that 30% of the waste stream is feasible for recycling. However, the market for some recycleable materials is questionable. There is currently a glut of scrap metal on the market; tin cans from the De Anza Center are being shipped to Arizona as there is no local market. It was also brought up that incineration is not compatible with recycling as the burner requires a great deal of fuel to produce energy. Dorothea reported on her tour of the Envirocal processing plant in Brisbane. 'he capital outlay for a processing rla.nt is hi,-h. Mr. Herrshon of Envirocal felt that the Ferrari site could handle Cupertino, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills garbage for 15-20 years without processing. M k � i� Y�i lid'!O S ?3= e' y^ :^ "t? "gym t .yk_ ` .• AUDIENCE DISCUSSION: Cynthia Seevers of the County Planning Commission requested time for a presentation of the Santa Clara County plan for solid waste management. The presentation will. be scheduled within the next two weeks. Dorothea Baisano and/or Jon Heiner will represen"- the committee at the League Day workshop on solid waste management , October 20. `Lhe meeting was adjourned at 9:45 P.M. Submitted by, Cheryl G. Block Recording Secretary t- , . ,w� ,., a . MINUTES OF THE MmTING OF THE SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD NOVEMBER 3, 1953 CITY OF CUPERTINO SERVICE CENTER CALL TO ORDER: Phe meeting was called to order at 7s45 P.M. ROLL CALL: Present: Shishir -Mukherjee, Jim Jackson, Donald Mclean, Al Holzman, Paul Roberts, Torn Boyd, Jon Heiner, Lynn Silton, Thelma Epstein, Marvin Curl, Cheryl Block. Absent: Nancy Binneweg, Joe Shepela, Dorothea Balgano, Bill Milam. MINUTES: Were not available. DISCUSSION OF SWMA RECOMMENDATION: The committee received a copy of the SWMA Staff Report recommending a process landfill in Bryan Canyon with the access road. It was moved by Jon Heiner and seconded by Al Holzman to "Recommend that the Cu ertino City Council not a rove any incineration facility n Bryan Canyon without further study." The motion was approved by 7 with 3 abstentions. PRESENTATION - Mr. Warren Terriberry In 1973-75, a county wide waste disposal plan was written in response to a state mandate. The plan was adopted by the County Supervisorso however, participating cities rejected a countywide authority and divided in the current regions. Any facility requiring a state operating permit must be part of a county plan. This is the reason for including proposed sites in -che County General Plan. In 1974, the County studied 'waste disposal alternative and proposed a process landfill, but did not specify a site. The plan did not consider Bryan Canyon available at that time. P4r. "erriberry stated that landfill is finite and that there is a need to pursue other forms of waste disposal. He personally recommended an energy recovery system, but utilizing several small units rather •than 1 large facility. DISCu�5ION: Jon Heiner will contact out-of-area landfill operators on presenting an accurate cost picture for utilizing their facilities. It was suggested that we also invite City Manager Robert Quinlan to present some of Cupertino's possible moves for waste disposal. The next meeting will be held on Thursday due to Dr. Compton and Emcon meeting on Wednesday. Meeting was adjourned pt 10a10 P.M. c- - Respectfully sub tt , M- INTU72S OF THE MEETING OF THE SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD NOVZMBv-.R 17, 1983 CITY OF CUPERTINO SERVICE CENTER CALL "0 0 IR DER The meeting was called to order at 7: 40 P.M. ROLL CALL; Present : Jim Jackson, Al Holzman, Marvin Curl, Jon Heiner, rn - , Lom Boyd, Shishir Mukherjee, .,'helma Epstein, ID a__1 ul 'oberts, Don McLean, Dorothea Balsano, Lynn Silton, Cheryl Block. Absent : Nancy 3inneweg, Joe _­'hepela , 3ill Mlilam. ,,he minutes of the previous meeting were read and approved with -the followinZ amendment : Under Discussion, "It was a consensus of the ldvipory members who attended the 9 meeting between E14CON and Dr. Compton that the speakers were not given sufficient time to comolete their presentations and. that the meeting did not adequately -' arify the issues: members expressed their dissatisfaction with the proceedings and with the exclusion of public participation, " U O1 2 E: `W'DLA Board discussed the issue of a second meeting between EMCON and Dr. Compton at their meeting November 16. "he SWIDIA, Board has requested that our Citizens Advisory Board draw up a written list of specific questions for MICON. The Board also allocated "110,000 to hire a third party to review the data and the quest-lions raised by Dr. Compton. The SWTAA 3oard would not extend their date for a decision at this time. Jon Heiner brought up four points regarding the '131WMA Board's Rctions: 1 ) There is a need for a face-to-face confrontation between R- ICON and Dr. Compton; 2) Their decision excludes public discussion; 5) 'Would the SWMA Board acknowledge the results of a third party report ; 4) Will the Board guarantee that the expert is acceptable to both parties. Al pointed out that $10-,000 is a minimal amount for an evaluation. Paul noted that there is already reasonable doubt regarding the safety of the site. Dorothea suggested that the City of Cupertino hire an outside expert to evaluate Bryan Canyon. Jim noted that we should not lose sight of the other issues of concern by focusing on one question. Lynn agreed to consolidate a list of questions from our Advisory Board to 134COIN. 14embers were asked to submit a list questions and alternative solutions by Sunday, November 27 . It was moved and seconded by Jon arid Lynn that we send a letter. to -S!"IM4 stating 1 ) We do not consider the absence of-a public meetinE_ acceptable and request a public hearing between lwcmi, 7, requests a third party consultant , that this consultant .7-If SwMA__ be deemed expert by ttparties, and that a copy of this letter be s y Council with a request that theT—endorse ent to the Cupertino Git 40 it , The motion was approved unanimously. ........... Chairman Boyd Polled the Advisory members' individually on their opinion of Bryan Canyon as a landfill site. . Al Holzman stated that Bryan Canyon would be acceptable if the question of water contamination is satisfactorily answered. He noted that there is a need for each of the citiea to reduce the volume of their garbage via recycling and small burners in each city. Don 11cLeari recommended against Bryan Canyon if the question of jurisdiction is not satisfactorily answered. He felt that would lose control of the area once it is rezoned. Jon Heiner would not recommend Bryan Canyon until questions on t the geological issues are satisfactorily answered. He also raised the issue of whether Cupertino would have control over further development of an incinerat:)r, and noted that financial questions raised earlier rema�.nid unanswered. Lvnn Silton would not, recommend Bryan Canyon unless the following issues were clarified: 1 ) geological questions, 2) effect on property values, 3) would Cupertino retain ultimate control, 4) further investigation of potential- air problems, and 5) further investigation of out of area altern- atives. Paul Roberts would not recommend Bryan Canyon because of the environmental cosis, the neighborhood impact - which has not been addressed, and the question of jurisdiction. 'helma Epstein would not recommend Bryan Canyon because of the environmental impact, on Cupertino, the trade-off of a road for a dump, and the question of jurisdiction. Jim Jackson would consider Bryan Canyon if the environmental issues and the question of jurisdiction were satisfactorily answered. Marvin Curl would consider Bryan Canyon if the environmental issues were answered and if there was increased sharing of the disposal problem by all the cities. Dorothea Balsano would not recommend Bryan Canyon because of the impact on the environment and the ecology of the area. Shishir Mukheriee would consider Bryan Canyon as one of the last alternativ�s. He felt that technical questions had not been answered, that there should be a focus on reducing garbage in individual cities, and that alternative solutions must be provided. Cheryl Block would not recommend Bryan Canyon because of the environmental and neighborhood impacts. Tom Boyd would not recommend Bryan Canyon because of the environmental questions raised and the issue of jurisdiction. It was noted that there was a consensus among the 12 members -Dresent that any recommendation regarding Bryan Canyon cannot be made until the issues of environmental impact and local jurisdiction are clarified. Meeting was adjourned at 10: 00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Cheryl G. Block Recording Secretary Mod u. 4 MINUTES OF THE CUPERTINO SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTE DECEMBER 13, 1983 CITY OF CUPERTINO SERVICE CENTER CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Epstein at 7:40 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Thelma Epstein, Cheryl B1ock,Don McLean, Jon Heiner, Al Holzman, Dorothea Balsano, Marvin Curl, Shishir Mukherjee. Absent: Paul Roberts, Bil Milam, Lynn Silton, Jim Jackson, Tom Boyd, Joe Shepela, Nancy Binneweg. TECHNICAL ADVISORY REPORT: Bert Viskovich reported that the technical advisory committee voted 4-1 with 1 abstention for an interim landfill at Bryan Canyon with a future burn facility. The vote on the proposed access road was 6-4 in favor. However, in a breakdown by cities, the vote actually stands at 3-3 with Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, and Cupertino for the road, and Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and the County against. ® UPDATE ON MEETING WITH EMCON AND DR. COMPTON: Jon Heiner reported that a meeting between Dr. Compton and EMCON will not take place until January. The majority of members felt that at this late date it would be difficult to set up a public meeting with sufficient notice and that the meeting should be postponed until January, but as early as possible. Jon was requested to draft a letter to Mr. Henderson requesting that a meeting be held the first week in January with sufficient public notification time. Monta Vista High School and the Council Chambers were suggested as possible sites. It was agreed, however, that SWMA and not Cupertino should pay for this meeting. Jon also announced that the 2 consultants hired by SWMA will give their preliminary reports at the SWMA Board meeting, 3:00 p.m. , December 14. REVIEW OF DRAFT: SECTION III: Paul Roberts submitted a preliminary draft for Section III, A, part 1. Since Paul was not present to discuss the draft, it was suggested that revision be postponed. However, it was recommended that more specific data relating to potential groundwater contamination be included. Statement 2 of Section IIIA was revised to read "Danger of ® massive debris flows in the event of a major earthquake has not been addressed by the SWMA reports." Jon Hiener agreed to contact Dr. Compton and Mr. O'Rourke for more specific data for parts 2 and 3 of Section IIIA. ® Jon Heiner presented a draft for Section IIIB on alternatives. After reviewing this draft it was felt that it was too wordy and needed to be revised. Al Holzman agreed to present a revised draft at the next meeting. Shishir Mukherjee presented a list of processing plants currently in operation which are similar to the proposed plant: 1) Akron, Ohio 2) Niagara Falls, New York 3) Madison, Wiconsin 4) Ames, Iowa SECTION II: Tom Boyd prepared a revision of statement 2.5 on the access road. It was felt that the previous statement, which was approved 9-1 at the December 7 meeting, should stand. A meeting for Thursday, December 22, was tentatively scheduled. Cheryl agreed to contact other Advisory members and make sure that a quorum would be present. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cheryl G. Block Recording Secretary MINUTES 12/13 (CONT.) 2 for parts 2 and 3 of Section TIIA. Jon Heiner presented a draft for Section IIIB on alternatives. After reviewing this draft it was felt that it was too wordy and needed to be revised. Al Holzman agreed to present a revised draft at the next meeting. JLV,,4erjet ShishirApresented a list of processing plants currently in operation which are similar to the proposed plant: 1) Akron, Ohio 2) Niagara Falls, New York 3) Madison, Wisconsin 4) Ames, Iowa SECTION II : TOMAprrepared a revision of statement 2,5 on the access road. It was felt that the previous statement, which was approved 9-1 at the December 7 meeting, should stand. A meeting for Thursday, December 22 , was tentatively scheduled. Cheryl agreed to contact other Advisory members and make sure that a quorum would be present. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Cheryl G. Block Recording Secretary -4 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMITTIs DECEMBER 22, 1983 CITY OF CUPERTINO SERVICE CENTER CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m. by Chairman Boyd. ROLL CALL: Present: Al Holzman, Lynn Silton, Bill Milam, Joe Shepela, Tom Boyd, Marvin Curl, Shishir Mkherjee, Cheryl Block. Absent: Jon Hiener, Dorothea Balsano, Jim Jackson, Paul Roberts, Don McLean, Thelma Epstein, Nancy Binneweg. REVIEW OF REVISION OF DETAILED FINDINGS, SECTION IIIB: The following changes were made in the revised draft: Section 3: Change the word "emphsized" to "stated" in the first sentence. Section 4: Change "is little more than a guess" to "is little more that speculation" in the last sentence of the first paragraph. Add the phrase "which was considered" to the end of the 3rd sentence in the 5th paragraph. It was felt that the statements regarding the financial analysis need further revision. Section 8 was added: A reduction in packaging of products to reduce the amount of paper and plastic wastes produced. REVIEW OF FINDINGS: It was recommended that Tom Boyd's revision of statement 2.5 on the access road be substituted for the existing statement. REVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS: Marvin Curl raised a co,icern about the intent of statement 2.6. It was moved and seconded by Al Holzman and Joe Shepela to delete the word "process" in statement 2.6; this was approved unanimously. After further discussion of the wording, it was moved and seconded by Joe Shepela and Cheryl Block that statement 2.6 stand as written. The motion was approved by 6 with Marvin Curl and Bill Milam dissenting. FURTHER REVISIONS: The numbering of Section III was changed to 3.1, 3.2, etc. in keeping with the previous format. Section 3.3 will be on the Processing Station and Section 3.4 will be on Incineration; these sections may be consolidated. Shishir Mukherjee agreed to write a draft for Sections 3.3 and 3.4; Jon Heiner is also working on Section 3.3. Section E is Section 3.5; Lynn Silton and Cheryl Block agreed to work on a draft for this section. Section D is Section 3.6 and Section F is Section 3.7. � '� � F h�,`r �xx M,.a .ttr �c✓75i'+ f r: .� .,li.. '&�,__ ,k`,z ° ,.,�� � 7f;. MINUTES 12/22 (CONT.) PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE: A statement will remain as stands once voted on unless the request for a :,revision comes from a member who previously approved the statement. They next meeting will be Tuesday, January 3, 7:30 P.M. Meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � Cheryl G. Block Recording Secretary t r a s r ® SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Minutes - July 22, 1985 I . The meeting was called to order at 7:37PM 11 . Member not in attendance P. Roberts ill . Minutes of June 19, 1985 meeting were approved as written IV. It was pointed out that Mr. Roberts has not been in attendance for several months. Therefore, Mr. Murkerjee will contact him direct to ascertain his interest in the committee. V. It would appear that the Recycling Committee has completed its work. Shishir will get a copy of the final report. V1 . A discussion ensued about what other cities' citizens groups may be doing and it was thought that we might invite Josephine Rowen to the next meeting. (Santa Clara Group Chair) VIi . In order to "put to bed" the possibilities of a waste-to-energy plant Gene will be contacting the major corporations to ascertain their energy requirements; i.e. , chilled water, steam, and electricity. VIII . The next meeting will be held on August 7, 1985 at 7:30PM in the conference room at City Hall , Ms. Rowen has been contacted and will be in attendance. IX. The meeting was adjourned at 9:OOPM. - _ :ato•:'------ _._.—. .. _ ._..-r---�-'!--_���._�. '�w.tY`�ld'.11 mL:.Lam_....-)--_� .. __ r:i. «.++ • .,ra...:yr--,-.�.,e.,..�,as+,. »e•+ .r.•sr.--ef":--r�--�.e,•e�n+ae•+�.ta/`.^•✓- �--.,rF•r�iisY• x c�•71 -.+".,s'4v-.t:.1;�x"t�b:'4""�i`µ"t_ r'Ja;,•Q+'i�yL.:. .:^;t r; r�Yt"�t_ .. ,ft.•rt.�r�1�• �r��. � X e ' • 5 ` i''' . a Itrrrtti� _ NV 41 44 1l. + �„li,.� } { 3.'wRI. _ a."�`r�' t �Ju•vr. v'K 'RE _ 4 ���' ".'$a F �G�. „s,�"{I= K�. �'2 -h' �� n FFI��/• F � '�. - .. ... ... -;y r�...,t�..e.t, .a�r,�`�'C4t<..r:•�•'' -;v� -�... .�.k,u{''q�&_�:� �._ � �:.}x'. `��,r' f . �.+::�•.�. '�^i..- G y�. 1.Iv 46 �o M" �y 4. - r MAR,41h, Mpi r _ J ...� _. .. -. iy.} �'{ $%..r�+�Cpy��',�s-6 J'�*.� .�'.� Y r i�_Y.' � j .y}-. 'r' Y. _..s� �_...,.. .•.... ..M1.-. .., . .c'' •�r �^ ac.. it t� s s"ut`"'t"�' e t'� tt .Q':"" . e - ..�r d• s �' "'��.y.� •' � � w4`E'!_.- �G"?°f .��t' ,_etC�1�� .. _ . yl- _ - .+7; ��,�. try 7t�s� 4t ...+.�:�.o...�+��+.-0•+�5.-.-�.'^ J � _n. J SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Minutes - August 7, 1985 I . The meeting was called to order at 7:34PM I ! . Members not in attendance, R. Kinsey, P. Roberts, ra S. Murkerjee IIl . The Minutes of the July 22, 1985 meeting were approved as written IV. Mrs. Josephine Rowen of the Citizens Committee for the City of Santa Clara was in attendance. Her committee consists of 18 members whose task apparently is to obtain community opinions on the myriad of the City's works. She explained that the windmill plant in the East Bay now owned by the City was a possible disposal site for their solid waste. However, she had no know- ledge as to whether or not the City had received or applied for the necessary permits. A proposal for a waste-to-energy plant within the confines of Santa Clara has been submitted to the City by Brown Vince and Associates and is under close scrutinization by their City Council. Ms. Rowen went on to explain that since the City attempts to be as self-suf- ficient as possible, Santa Clara takes into consideration many projects with reference to energy generation. V. Gene then reported that he did indeed contact the Bay Area Pollution Control District with reference to the work being done by Combustion Engineering. However, he was given no information. He was informed that the emission level must remain constant to build a plant. VI . Point VII from the July 22, 1985 minutes was tabled to the next meeting. Vil . The next meeting will be held September 4 at 7:30PM in the conference room. VI ' I . The meeting adjourned at 9:OOPM. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Minutes - October 2, 1985 1 . Meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM. 11 . All members were in attendance. 111 . The Minutes of the August 7, 1985 meeting were approved as written. IV. Committee size has been reduced to five (5) as per a City Council Action. V. Gene advised that there is no apparent interest in the Tantau Area at this time. This is mainly due to the softness in the :emi-conductor industry and, therefore, no additional expenditures were being explored even if this additional expenditure were to be an actual savings in the iongrun. VI . Ron reported that the waste-to-energy plant slated for Santa Clara is at an impasse. Nothing more will be done until after the election. VI1 . The committee decided that they would like to discuss with City Council the investigations to date and seek direction. A request for said meeting has been sent to Mr. Quinlan in writing. Vill . Thursday November 14 a Solid Waste Management and Planning Conference is being held in San Jose. Two members are able to attend (Barbara P. Kelly and Ron Kinsey). Request for attendance has been sent to the City for approval and issuance of check. IX. The next meeting will be held on October 30, 1985 at Mr. Kinsey's Office. X. The mee�ing adjourned at 9:15PM• • a SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Minutes - October 30, 1985 1. Meeting called to order at 7:45 p.m. at Ron Kinsey's office. 2. A quorum was present, although Barbara Kelly and Thelma Epstein were absent. 3. The Minutes of the October 2, 1985 meeting were approved as written. 4. The proposed agenda for the study session with the Cupertino City Council scheduled for November 1" , 1985 was reviewed and revised. Ron Kinsey was directed to deliver the proposed agenda to Dorothy Cornelius for distribution to the City Council . 5. The next meeting is scheduled for November 18, 1985 at 5:00 p.m. at Ron Kinsey's office for a briefing session before the City Council Study Session scheduled to convene in the City Hall Conference Room at 5:45 p.m. 6. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Ron Kinsey, cting Secretary RIP- PROPOSED AGENDA STUDY SESSION: NOVEMBER 18, 1985; 5:45 P.M. CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL & LONG TERM SOLID WASTE COMMITTEE A. REVIEW OF ACTIVITIES TO DATE 1. REVIEWED DISPOSAL SITES, TRANSFER STATION POSSIBILITIES, AND WASTE-TO-ENERGY FEASIBILITIES. 2. ATTENDED APWA SYMPOSIUM OCTOBER, 1984. ATTENDED WESTERN REGIONAL SOLID WASTE SYMPOSIUM JUNE, 1985. GATHERING OF INFORMATION REGARDING SOLID WASTE LEGISLATION AND PRAC- TICEF IN OTHER COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE. 3. INVESTIGATED POTENTIAL ENERGY BUYERS AND THE POSSIBLE COLLABORATION WITH OTHER CITIES. B. FUTURE WORK PLAN 1. REQUEST SPECIFIC DIRECTION FROM CITY COUNCIL. 2. POLL COUNCIL ON CONCERNS & PREFERENCES. 3. STUDY ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL METHODS.