PC 032702 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Sullivan asked if it is correct that right now there is no documentation or paper r trail from PGS that shows what they do with the materials when it gets to PGS. Ms. Seto advised that during the annual audit ofPGS's books, the City determines the amount of material that is being recycled by looking at revenue that is received from the sale of recycled materials and comparing that to the amount of materials that is coming in. It was noted that tracking does not currently exist for construction and demolition materials. Mr. Fialho advised that the City does currently receive a quarterly report that shows the level of recycling for commercial and residential that occurs for individual commodities. He further advised that this information becomes the backup material to support the information in the annual diversion report that is submitted to the State. He commented that the City of Pleasant on requires PGS to report the destination points for the commodities as part of the quarterly report and that a local auditing firm prepares this information. Mr. Fialho reported on the level of residential and commercial recycling that has been attained during previous years. Discussion ensued regarding the materials that PGS recycles in-house and the process used to recycle materials off-site. Mr. Fialho advised that under the franchise agreement the City gets 50% of the funds received for recyclable materials collected in the City and PGS keeps 50% of those funds. He further advised that the monies received by the City are used to fund recycling programs, as well as offsetting residential and commercial rate increases. r- Commissioner Arkin stated that he likes the concept of the C&D Ordinance, but he does not want the developers who will be participating in this program to be subsidizing PGS. He further stated that it sounds like if this ordinance is enacted, PGS will just be the middle man, and there will be no way to determine the profit that PGS will be making. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Fialho advised that PGS is not cost competitive with other typical recyclers, with regard to what PGS can do in terms of collection and recycling of construction and demolition debris. He stated that he feels a third party hauler can probably collect the material for a rate below that ofPGS. He noted that the City has a franchise agreement that is restricted and that does not expire until 2018. He advised that there is a requirement that both parties must agree in order to renegotiate the agreement. Mr. Fialho advised that he feels the program that has been developed by staff with the Alameda County Waste Management Authority best fits the environment in which the City must work. Commissioner Sullivan questioned whether PGS is capable of recycling 75% of a project like the Applied Biosystems project. Ms. Maier noted that PGS is probably not capable of achieving that, however, there are a number of items on the LEED scorecard that such a project would get by default and others they would not receive because of California Building Codes being more stringent. She stated that because the City must work within the franchise, the proposed ordinance is what staff feels is manageable at this time. Chairperson Maas noted that there is a provision for the developer to hire a third party if PGS declines. Ms. Seto reported that she understands that PGS advised that they were not able to recycle the concrete from the demolition of a building on the Safeway site and a third party hauler was used. r- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 27,2002 Page 6