Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-30-1987 City Council staff reportU �t�S07b o2 0&M&'xa(5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 . COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson MEMO SEPTEMBER 30, 1987 ------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- TO: MAYORS & CITY MANAGERS: 'CAMPBELL LOS GATOS MONTE SERENO SARATOGA FM: JOYCE HLAVA SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION ON SUBREGIONAL POLICY The attached memo describes the three final alternatives discussed by the Technical Advisory Committee. They are recommending option 2. The general consensus at the last Solid Waste Subcommittee seemed to favor a combination of options 2 and 3. That is, to recommend to the IGC a policy which has both a short term (option 2) and a long term (option 3) component. There seemed to be a high degree of consensus on this and a feeling that this position would lock in all participants to continue to move forward on this county- wide.problem. I believe that this position is in line with the opinions I have heard from the West Valley Cities. Please let me know your views on this issue. Unless I hear contrary opinions from you I expect to support this proposal. Please feel free to call and discuss this with me (work 973 -9533, home 996- 0264). �w County of Santa Clara California SOLID WASTE PLANNING PROGRAM MEMORANDUM • D nt of Land Use and bevelopment Office of Planning ounty Government Center, East Wing 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, California 95110 (408) 299 -2521 DATE:5 September 11, 1987 T0: Dianne McKenna, Chairperson \off IGC Solid Waste Committee FROM: Gary B. Liss, Chairperson \ Technical Advisory Committee SUBJECT: FINAL TAC RECOMMENDATION ON SUBREGIONAL POLICY The Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the attached options for modification on the Subregional Policy at our September 9 meeting. We are transmitting all three options for your review and discussion but recommend Option 2. a © An Equal Opportunity Employer 00 • 0 PROPOSED SUBREGIONAL POLICY OPTIONS BY TAC 9/9/87 Three issues need to be considered in any option: Geography, Policy & Institutions. OPTION 1 - STATUS QUO a. Geography - Leave existing 4 Subregions working independently to resolve their own disposal problems. b. Policy and Institutions - Continue to use current system for policy development, project implementation and information gathering /dissemination: • Cities establish own policies and develop own projects or contracts for capacity. • IGC Solid Waste Conunittee develops information and oversees county -wide policies on;very limited basis. • County staff gather and disseminate information. OPTION 2 - CURRENT SYSTEM WITH 3 SUBREGIO14S r p OPTION 3 a. Geography - All cities from San Jose north in one subregion; West Valley cities and Guadalupe Mines Landfill as another subregion; Morgan Hill and Gilroy as separate Subregion. `-Franchised wastes of cities will be disposed of within their own Subregion. Non- franchised wastes (e.g. rubbish haulers and public vehicles) will be allowed to flow freely throughout the county as desired. Landfill fact sheets in the COSWMP will be revised during the Triennial review to clarify this open use of facilities. In addition, the boundaries will be detailed in the n� actual plan amendment and may not necessarily correspond to corporate city limits,fe.g. the Guadalupe Mines Landfill will remain in the West Valley Subregion regardless of whether it remains in the County or annexes to San Jose). b. Policy and Institutions - Same as Option 1 for now as a short -term solution to the immediate needs of the North County cities.3.Cities and County commit to keep working through the IGC Solid Waste Committee on detailing policy and institutional improvements while a proposed Plan Amendment on geographic change is circulated for adoption by cities. This recognizes that it may be beneficial in the long term to consider options such as those detailed in Option 3 below to more effectively achieve our common regional objectives. STRONG COU14TYWIDE LEADERSHIP a. Geography - No subregions - all jurisdictions work together. b. Policy and Institutions - A countywide entity (without ratemaking regulation authority implied)'would be empowered by the cities and County to: • Adopt county -wide policies and goals (on a voluntary basis); • Monitor performance of projects; and implementation of policies and • Adopt routine Plan amendments where no opposition is expressed. The specific countywide entity could be one of the following: • The IGC (with recommendations from the Solid Waste Committee); • A Commission (for policy approval purposes solely); • A Countywide Solid Waste Authority (for both project development and policy approval purposes); or • A Countywide Sanitation District (a separate government body with the .power to bond for development of projects). The Countywide entity could also be directed to develop a new landfill outside the city limits of San J for all jurisdictions to use equally to ensure continued competition and sufficient long -term capacity in region. Cities would also be able to develop other projects consistent with countywide policies. c. Increased county staffing would be required to develop the agreed -upon countywide project(s) and assist cities and the private sector to develop other local projects. 1474u i Established by Charter to address joint jurisdictional issues, and to develop cooperative relations between local agencies June 24, 1987 Dear City Councilmember: J ,,J L 1 1987 County Government Center East Wing, Eleventh Floor SANTA CLARA COUNTY 70 West Hedding Street INTERGOVERNMENTAL COUNCIL 4oa 299'24245110 SOLID WASTE PLANNING PROGRAM 408/299 -2521 Now is your city affected by the Subregional Policy in the County Solid Waste Management Plan? You may never have heard of it, but it can affect how your city disposes of solid waste. The IGC Solid Waste Committee is soliciting input from every city for the purpose of developing consensus on the issue. Enclosed is a background paper which sets forth some pros and cons of the Subregional Policy. We urge you to: • Read the enclosed background paper Agendize the issue for discussion with your council • Contact your subregion's representative on the IGC Solid Waste Committee with your views on the policy by October 1 • Ask your IGC representative to join the committee in the Lower Level Conference Room at the County Center from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. on August 10, when we will be hearing the private solid waste industry's views on the policy. Also enclosed is a copy of our Annual Report. You can find your Solid Waste Committee and TAC representatives listed on the inside back cover. Please contact my office if you have any questions. Sincerely, Dianne McKenna, Chairperson IGC Solid Waste Committee Enclosures cc: City Managers, TAC Members IGC Members Elected Officials representing: Campbell Los Altos Milpitas Cupertino Los Altos Hills Monte Sereno Gilroy Los Gatos Morgan Hill m 1 Mountain View Santa Clara County of Santa Clara Santa Clara County School Districts Palo Alto Saratoga Santa Clara County Special Districts San Jose Sunnyvale Santa Clara Valley Water District i 64 4D 4we A Background Paper on THE SUBREGIONAL POLICY from the Solid Waste Management Plan for Santa Clara County Published by The Solid Waste Planning Program, Office of Planning, 70 W. Hedding St., Seventh Floor, East Wing, San Jose, CA 95110, 408/299 -2521; June, 1987. WHAT IS THE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN (CoSWMP)? J State law requires each County in conjunction with the cities to prepare a Countywide Solid Waste Management Plan, which must be approved by: a majority of the cities containing a majority of the incorporated population, the County Board of Supervisors, and the California Waste Management Board. WHAT IS THE SUBREGIONAL POLICY? The Subregional Policy in the Santa Clara County CoSWMP divides the county into four subregions, each responsible for disposing of its solid waste within its own boundaries. Implicit in the policy is a restriction on exporting solid waste to other subregions or areas. The policy has been in the CoSWMP since 1975 and generally reflects the system followed for waste disposal in the county over many years. WILL THE SUBREGIONAL POLICY MEET FUTURE NEEDS? This subregional approach to solid waste disposal has worked for many years in Santa Clara County, but may not work anymore due to up- coming landfill closures.and difficulties in siting new landfills. In addition the policy has implications for allocation of landfill capacity and may create an artificial barrier to exporting waste from one subregion to another. WHAT IS THE IGC SOLID WASTE COMMITTEE DOING TO REVIEW THE SUBREGIONAL POLICY? In recognitition of the breadth of interest in the issue, the IGC Solid Waste Committee is soliciting viewpoints from a number of sources, including: • City councils from each subregion, because they have responsibility for rate setting and arranging for disposal of their community's solid waste • The private solid waste industry, which collects the garbage and, in many cases, owns the landfills • Public officials from elsewhere in the Bay Area, to learn how other counties manage solid waste and disposal capacity Proponents of disposal alternatives such as recycling and waste -to- energy WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THE SUBREGIONAL POLICY? The Solid Waste Committee will solicit input during the summer and early fall and then attempt to develop countywide consensus with regard to the policy. After its deliberations, the IGC Solid Waste Committee will make a recommendation to the IGC to retain, modify, or replace the Subregional Policy. Substantive changes may make a CoSWMP amendment necessary. 6/22/87 THE SUBREGIONAL POLICY COUNTYWIDE PERSPECTIVE Reasons to Retain the Policy 1. Subregions with ample long -term capacity will run out of capacity sooner if other subregions are allowed to use their facilities. 2. Alternatives to landfill disposal may become more attractive if capacity is scarce in a subregion. 3. Waste flow control needed for waste -to- energy plants may be more easily achieved on a subregional basis when there is a history of common interests and intergovernmental cooperative undertakings (e.g. sewage treatment arrangements). 4. The policy discourages continued reliance on landfill disposal by forcing subregions with limited capacity to implement alternatives to landfill disposal. Reasons to Eliminate the Policy 1. Some subregions have adequate potential and existing solid waste disposal sites to serve more than their subregion's needs. 2. New facility siting should be based on environmental and urban use constraints rather than subregional criteria. 3. The Subregional Policy is no longer realistic because some urbanized areas will run out of disposal capacity in the future and will need to look to other areas for.that capacity. 4. The Subregional Policy presents an unnecessary barrier to solving individual local solid waste disposal capacity problems,.further complicating an already complicated process. 5. Other infrastructure needs are met on a mutual benefit basis (e.g., sewage treatment). Solid waste disposal should also. 6. In its only real test (the North County Solid Waste Management Authority), the Subregional Policy did not work in the subregion's attempt to site a new landfill. The 1975 CoSWMP regarded the attempt to develop additional disposal capacity in the Northwest Area as the prototype for future subregional actions on solid waste Santa Clara County Solid Waste Planning Program Revised June 1987 Page 1 THE SUBREGIONAL POLICY NORTHWEST AREA PERSPECTIVE: (Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Sunnyvale and Cupertino) Reasons to Retain the Subregional Policy 1. Proponents of recycling and waste -to- energy may view continued reliance on landfill disposal as counter to resource recovery objectives. 2. Limited disposal capacity heightens public awareness of need for alternatives to landfill disposal including limiting the amount of material thrown away while increasing recycling and composting. Reasons to Eliminate the Policy 1. Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Cupertino, and Sunnyvale will run out of capacity in the early 1990s and presently have no place to dispose of solid waste when current capacity or disposal agreements run out. 2. The above communities will need future long -term capacity and would be likely to favor elimination of the Subregional Policy in order to use landfills in other subregions which can offer long -term disposal capacity.. 3. This subregion is intensely urbanized with few if any future solid waste facility sites available. The need for capacity may make exportation necessary. 4. Mountain View is likely to favor elimination of the Subregional Policy so that other Northwest Area cities have landfill alternatives to the Mountain View site. In addition, Mountain View has lost capacity to development and may eventually need to look outside the subregion as well. 5. Elimination of the Subregional Policy removes a barrier to hauling waste out of the subregion when present agreements and capacity run out. Santa Clara County Solid Waste Planning Program Revised June 1987 Page 2 THE SUBREGIONAL POLICY SOUTHWEST AREA PERSPECTIVE: (Saratoga, Monte Sereno, Los Gatos, and Campbell) Reasons to Retain the Subre ional Policy 1. Southwest area cities have long -term contracts with Green Valley Disposal to collect and dispose of solid waste. As long as Green Valley can dispose of this waste in the Southwest Area, these cities perceive a benefit from the Subregional Policy as it offers some 1 protection from use of Guadalupe by other subregions. Reasons to Eliminate the Subregional Policy 1. The Southwest Area cities use the Guadalupe Landfill, presently considered in the Southwest Area. it is located in the unincorporated area, and the County, as Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), writes the Solid Waste Facility Permit for the site. When the Guadalupe Landfill expansion occurs, the landfill may be required to annex to the City of San Jose. This would place the Southwest Area's only landfill into the Central Area. In that case, San Jose would become the LEA for the Guadalupe Landfill. Santa Clara County Solid Waste Planning Program Revised June 1987 Page 3 N THE SUBREGIONAL POLICY ` CENTRAL AREA PERSPECTIVE: (San Jose, Santa Clara and Milpitas) Reasons to Retain the Subregional Policy 1. San Jose: If the Subregional Policy can serve to keep waste from other areas out of landfills in the Central Area, long -term capacity for San Jose is assured. 2. Milpitas and Santa Clara: Since these cities are part of the subregion which includes capacity -rich San Jose, they would be the only cities "eligible" to share in that capacity. Therefore, they may favor retention of the Subregional Policy. Milpitas has no landfill and Santa Clara's will close in 1992. Reasons to Eliminate the Subregional Policy 1. San Jose: All future Central Area capacity is privately owned but under the permit- writing jurisdiction of the City of San Jose. If San Jose finds a way to generate revenue through sale of disposal capacity at these landfills, the City may favor elimination of the Subregional concept. 2. Santa Clara: The Subregional Policy could pose a barrier to a joint waste -to- energy project between Santa Clara and Sunnyvale, especially the development of long -term waste flow agreements. 3. The private solid waste industry in the Central Area owns all of the future disposal capacity and would probably favor elimination of the Subregional Policy in order to increase business. Santa Clara County Solid Waste Planning Program Revised June 1987 Page 4 e THE SUBREGIONAL POLICY SOUTH COUNTY PERSPECTIVE: (Morgan Hill and Gilroy) Reasons to Retain the Subregional Policy - 1. Like the Central Area, the South County area has long -term disposal capacity for itself. 2. If others use the Pacheco Pass Landfill, its capacity will be used up more quickly, leaving the South County area in need of siting another facility. 3. The South County area, due to its rural nature, is the subregion with the most potential for future solid waste disposal sites; however the South County Subregion does not want solid waste exported to South County. Reasons to Eliminate the Subregional Policy 1. None perceived by either the cities or the collection and disposal company serving them. Santa Clara County Solid Waste Planning Program Revised June 1987 Page 5