Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Thursday, July 16, 2009, 2:30 AM

New plan for local compost site wins support
Proposal to realign section of Embarcadero Road onto vacant airport land would create site by sewage plant -- and not encroach on parkland

by Jay Thorwaldson
Palo Alto Online Staff

Posted by huh?, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Jul 16, 2009 at 9:41 am

I don't get it. We are seriously considering spending several million dollars to move the composting operation a few hundred feet?

Posted by Carroll Harrington, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Jul 16, 2009 at 9:50 am

Accolades to Bob, the Blue Ribbon Task Force and the City of Palo Alto staff for reaching this recommendation! I have been on its email list and been tremendously impressed with the level of detailed information that they developed to find consensus on this complicated issue, one that was dividing environmentalists. I worked with Bob coordinating the implementation of curbside recycling and was quite pleased when he took on composting. Green gigabytes of gratitude to ALL of you!

Carroll Harrington

Posted by Green, a resident of Stanford, on Jul 16, 2009 at 9:50 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Kir, a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, on Jul 16, 2009 at 10:30 am

This is a great legacy for the current council to leave the citizens of Palo Alto. They have given us:

- Increased wetland parkland which benefits us both as recreation and as a costal buffer against the bay water flooding

- a local solution to organic waste composting, saving on fuel and shipping costs, carbon emissions, and putting us on target to cut our trash stream closer to zero.

- a solution that can accommodate future use of anaerobic tanks. These can co-generate methane fuel, and possibly compost a broader range of organics- such as food waste from restaurants and fruit trees.

This solution is much better than the current composting operation, and shows visionary planning.

Posted by Bob Wenzlau, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 16, 2009 at 10:35 am
Bob Wenzlau is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

This can be a tough audience on Palo Alto Online. I wanted to address the topic of money. Economics are very important in the consideration. A city will spend money on waste management, the question is how to you spend this money optimally. One could posit the choice of hauling to a distant facility versus handling it locally -- there is not a choice of letting the materials pile up. With the prospect of energy generation and savings by diverting from disposal, and enjoying numerous government green investment incentives offered for these project, green "skeptics" might be pleased with how the numbers play out. Still any reminder toward economics is helpful.

We did discover in the project the chance to begin saving money through immediate recommendations that Council will consider. Undoubtedly it is more interesting to bash a project proponent, but please recognize that we all feel the economy's pinch, and we are very judicious in public investment. This public investment would likely not be general fund, but rather derive from refuse funds set to do these functions. The public investment could generate returns and energy spending offsets striving toward neutral or even positive cash flow.

Posted by Paula Sandas, PA Chamber CEO, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 16, 2009 at 11:08 am

This is great news ~ and it proves that people can work together to solve a problem given the time and opportunity to do so. Congratulations to Bob Wenzlau and the Blue Ribbon Task Force.

Posted by Susan Stansbury, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jul 16, 2009 at 1:17 pm

Great job, Blue Ribbon Task Force! This is a very complex issue and we appreciate all the time and effort you've put into a good ecological and economic solution. Your efforts show the power of listening to all of the stakeholders and working faithfully together towards an optimal solution.

Posted by T, from Duveneck/St Francis, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jul 16, 2009 at 2:44 pm
T, from Duveneck/St Francis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

I see no one responded to the question from "Huh?", so I will attempt to do so. I am a layperson so, please, the rest of you who are more closely affiliated with this issue, correct or clarify anything that may require it.

By way of background, the section of land that currently houses our landfill and composting facilities is scheduled to be converted into parkland in a few years. I believe the conversion process is tied to a piece of legislation, so neither the conversion date nor the parcel of land involved could be changed without overturning the legislation. The decision-makers as well as the public appeared to be split into two camps: those who support overturning the legislation to keep composting facilities in their current location, and those who feel the parkland should be created exactly as defined in the legislation, as doing otherwise would nullify an agreement made in good faith some number of years ago. It was widely known that any attempt to overturn the legislation would be met with resistance; therefore pursuing that alternative would be very costly. On the other hand, if composting operations for Palo Alto were to take place elsewhere, the question was, "where?" No good answer emerged. Some people supported having our green waste trucked to the SMART Station in Sunnyvale. Others felt that shipping our green waste would be irresponsible and Palo Alto should handle it here in our own city since we have the ability to do so. But, again, the question was where to do so?

I believe this is the genesis for the solution that was suggested by Bob Wenzlau. It appears Bob's solution will satisfy all the decision-makers and, for what it's worth, I like it, too. I think it's a clever solution that should cost less in the long run than the other options that were under consideration.

Posted by Solon, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 16, 2009 at 3:06 pm

So, this has no negative effect on the airport, and is consistent with the long term viability of the airport, including, if necessary, expansion?

Is there any runway or FAA issue?

So will the funding for the relocation come fro the dumpl closing pot, or from the users of the composting site?

Hopefully, not from the City which is broke.

Mr. W did a good deed, but what of the details?:

Posted by Joel, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jul 16, 2009 at 3:25 pm

I am tickled Green by the solution. The Palo Alto process really does work. Thanks to the Task Force for your excellent deliberations.

Posted by huh?, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Jul 16, 2009 at 4:17 pm

Thanks, T, that explains it. Amazing what people will do because they can.

Posted by abc, a resident of another community, on Jul 17, 2009 at 1:50 am

Palo Alto will essentially put Embarcadero Rd back where it use to be decades ago. The jog in the road near the airport was put in to slow drivers down before driving off into marsh near the yacht harbor. The airport benefited with this roadway move years ago, now it is going back now that the harbor is closed.

Now the visitors to the baylands will have another source of stinky smell, not just from the treatment plant and the duck pond. Overwhelm your olfactory senses.

Posted by Kevin, a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, on Jul 17, 2009 at 10:12 am

Wish there was some way to keep a small area for recycling!

Posted by A question, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 17, 2009 at 11:49 am

Overall, sounds like a good solution. I'm wondering about Embarcadero and airport changes. What are the costs related to those pieces of the project?

Posted by Bob Wenzlau, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 17, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Bob Wenzlau is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

Kevin, The city has a plan for a new recycling drop-off center located at the end of Embarcadero Way -- and it looked pretty good. If you have driven to the Water Pollution Control Plant, you hit a dead end. The area between the end of Embarcadero Way and the treatment plant is being studied for conversion to a new drop-off (it is not on park land). We don't have a concept of whether drop-off of yard trimmings would be integrated into this site, or a separate drop-off closer to the proposed new facility. Hopefully with Greenwaste's new menu of recyclables we can minimize the need for separate trips to drive recyclables.

Posted by More money!, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 17, 2009 at 11:03 pm

So, it will cost a few million - what's that to our City government? They can raise the money easily by increasing our garbage collection rates - problem solved!!!!

Posted by Cedric de La Beaujardiere, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jul 18, 2009 at 3:38 am

Regarding cost, people should be aware that all options have costs, and inaction is not a viable strategy.

Before the Council created the Task Force to consider alternatives, the default option was and still is to send all yard trimmings and food scraps to Sunnyvale's SMaRT station, and from there to Z-Best in Gilroy (53 miles from here), at an estimated cost of $41/ton. We generate about 34,000 tons per year of these two materials, so that comes out to $1.4 Million a year, in perpetuity--assuming gas prices never go up. (As an asside, by now you should be aware that we are nearing the end of cheap oil--there may be a lot of oil left, but it's in hard to extract places like tar sands under virgin Boreal forests, and it's going to be extremely expensive and ecologically damaging to get it.)

Our current Windrow Composting does not have space to accept food, and must close within about 6 months after the landfill. The Windrows are not covered, so dust and odors can not be captured, while water evaporates quickly so a lot is used to keep it moist.

I don't know how much it would cost to move the road, probably a few million, and it's a one time cost.

The Aerated Static Piles would cost about $2 Million, and could handle all our yard and food material locally. These piles are covered, so water evaporation is minimized, and odors and dust are captured and filtered out. While i don't know this system's annual operating cost, i can tell you that the Windrows, which are somewhat similar, have cost about $0.5M/yr, so even if you double this figure to $1M, we'd still be saving $0.4M/yr, which would quickly pay off our investment.

In the longer term, the City may pursue a Dry Anaerobic Composting facility. While the capital costs are higher, in the realm of $18M, it is projected that this facility could actually be a net revenue generator, so again, our investment gets paid off. Plus, since this system would generate electricity, its cost could be partly covered by the City's Calaveras Reserve which is dedicated to energy-generating projects. And since this system would handle our sewage biosolids (which are currently incinerated at a net loss of energy), it would likely be partly paid for by the Water Quality Control Plant.

Please keep this information in mind before alleging that the council would senselessly waste money just because it can. The council and the compost task force and other such groups are comprised of earnest citizens who cherish Palo Alto and are working for the long-term viability of our City.

You can get lots of information about this issue at the Compost Task Force web page: Web Link

Peace

Posted by Another Rubbish Waste of Money, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Jul 19, 2009 at 7:05 am

There seems to blaring loud questions that dont seem to get answered. I only seem to here that this is the right thing for Palo Alto to do. It is our waste and we should handle it.

Please answer this question:

How do other cities around Palo Alto deal with this? Why can Palo Alto not do the same - and why is this being sold to Palo Altans by throwing a guilt complex at them?

Care to answer??

Posted by Bob Wenzlau, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 19, 2009 at 8:04 am
Bob Wenzlau is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

To "Another Rubbish Waste of Money",

Obviously your rhetorical question implies a built in answer, but the challenge is worthy. Why should Palo Alto be different, and not enjoy the apparent efficiencies next door communities have settled toward? My answer is the approach is consistent with communities with the same circumstances, but they just don't happen to be our next door neighbors.

- Common In Cities with Water Pollution Control Plants: The approach we are considering is common when conducted at or near a waste water treatment plant. San Jose most recently targeted an approach similar to our offered approach: Web Link The reason is that water pollution control plants are existing infrastructure being leveraged by noticing that organic treatment has common practices and needs whether the organic is delivered in a sewer pipe or in a collection truck.

- Common in Cities that Are Municipal Utilities: Palo Alto, separate from other neighboring communities is its own utility. Please shift your thinking to recognize that this is an energy producing facility using the town's organics as a fuel, rather than a waste infrastructure that happens to produce a fuel. As such, it is typical for municipal utilities to have distributed and local power. In this case, it is a green power source. During visits with the Palo Alto Utility, we discussed the premium economic value placed on biogenically generated methane. It underscores the prudent investment a municipal utility might be involved with using an urban-generated fuel.

I have offered two ways that this is a reasonable practice for cities with the same circumstance. I hope this helps answer your question.

Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 5:03 pm

Why move Embarcadero Road at all? My not put the new Composting site next to the airport and save the expense?