HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-14 City CouncilRecommendation 2: Staff should consider potential effects of waste reduction in planning for
needed landfill space and assess whether those benefits could accrue to the future landfill park in
the form of lower and/or smoother contours. Staff should inform the City Council of potential
impacts on final landfill grading plans as landfill closure nears.
The estimated date for closure of the landfill is just that, an estimate. Actually, closure is
dependent on volume of material being landfilled. For example, it is possible that eventual
implementation of a zero waste policy will reduce the rate of filling of the landfill and extend its
useful life. On the other hand, an economic upturn would increase the volume of material
landfilled.
Palo Alto landfill's filling heights and grading plans have been approved not only by the
CIWMB, but are also the basis for the seismic studies as required by federal regulation.
Drainage calculations have been conducted and have been based on the approved height and
grading plan. Finally, Palo Alto landfill's current fill capacity is identified and accounted for in
the Santa Clara County Waste Management Plan, a strategic plan that monitors and helps plan
for solid waste generation, disposal capacity, and management within the County.
Any revisions to approved grading plans would require a policy change to the current Baylands
Master Plan and approval by Council and other regulatory bodies. This would entail revising the
preliminary closure/post closure plan, revising specific parcel construction closure plans,
revising closure and post-closure cost estimates, revising the closure fund, updating seismic
~tudies and drainage calculations, and obtaining approvals from the CIWMB, Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental
Health (SSC-DEH) as well as City of Palo Alto site and design review. In addition, CEQA
review would be required for any grading change. Staff estimates that the minimum time to
accomplish these tasks would be over one and one-half years.
While staff recommends staying with the original grading plan, staff agrees with the Auditor that
providing the Council with regular reports on actual tonnages, remaining landfill capacity and
updates as landfill closure nears is very appropriate.
Recommendation 3: The Public Works Department should utilize the services of a landscape
architect to review and help shape refined grading plans prior to landfill closure.
Services of a landscape architect would be utilized for any significant changes to the grading
plan, which would also be subject to site and design review. These most likely would not be
required unless an ESC project is approved.
Recommendation 4: If the Council decides to proceed with the project, consideration should be
given to eliminating some component parts of the project where land rent reduces their economic
benefit.
Staff believes the decision on whether or not to build an ESC should be based on current and
future solid waste program needs for the· City of Palo Alto, and that rent paid to the General Fund
should be a secondary issue in determining the future of the project. Again
(Recommendation 1), staff believes Council could refer this issue of rent paid by the Refuse
Fund to the General Fund to the Finance Committee for more in-depth discussion.
CMR:114:05 Page2of5
The proposed ErR and cost-benefit study will analyze several alternative site plans that include
different combinations of project components and their associated costs. Staff recommends that
Council wait to decide to eliminate any components of the project until it receives the EIR and
accompanying cost-benefit study.
Recommendation 5: Staff should begin planning a request for proposal process for curbside
collection services beginning in 2009 that considers whether to continue offering City-owned
land for contractor offices and storage.
Staff in Public Works has already begun planning for the 2009 request for proposal process. As
indicated in the current agreement, in September 2005 staff will present Council with a review of
the performance of the current collection contractor to determine whether the contractor has
complied with the standards for performance set forth in the agreement during the previous 24
months. If City, in its sole discretion, determines that Collector has substantially met the
standards for performance set forth in the agreement, and the review shows that Collector's cost
of service is within the target cost range, the agreement would automatically continue in full
force and effect until June 30, 2009. If City, in its sole discretion, determines that Collector has
not substantially complied with the standards for performance set forth in the agreement or if the
review shows that Collector's cost of service is not within the target cost range, the agreement
will terminate as of June 30, 2007. At that time, the services can either be put to bid or the
agreement can be renegotiated based on Council direction. Any future contract will evaluate
land for the contractor's offices and storage and will evaluate economic trade-offs to see which
are the most cost effective.
Recommendation 6: The City Council should request additional information about the benefits
of a permanent household hazardous waste facility before committing to building a facility at the
proposed ESC that increases annual additional operating costs.
In 1991, Council adopted a document that set policies, objectives, and programs for collection of
HHW in compliance with state mandates (CMR:307:91, Attachment A). The Auditor's report
indicates that Palo Alto's program spends approximately $10.86 per household as compared to
Santa Clara County's program that spends $5.30 per household. However, the report also notes
that compared to the County program, Palo Alto's program offers a higher level of service and
has a higher participation rate (14 percent versus the County's four percent). Staff will pursue
doing a cost-benefit study of this component of the ESC proposal.
Recommendation 7: The Planning Department and City Attorney's office should research
whether there are outstanding agreements or commitments to other entities from previous actions
at the landfill and determine their legal standing.
The City Attorney's analysis and documents reviewed have been prepared by the City Attorney's
Office and will be provided under separate cover.
Recommendation 8: Planning staff should immediately review landfill grading plans for
conformance to the approved Byxbee Park Plan. If necessary, staff should request the assistance
of a landscape architect to make this determination. If Planning staff determine that the grading
plan is different from the approved park plan, landfill staff should be directed to grade to levels
CMR:114:05 Page 3 of5
indicated in the park plan or lower, while filing an application for site and design review and a
park improvement ordinance.
On March 27, 1989 the City Council approved the landscape plan for Byxbee Park designed by
the landscape architect George Hargreaves. At the time the landscape plan was designed and
approved, a grading and drainage plan (December, 1988) was prepared for the City by a separate
engineering firm, Mark Thomas & Co. Inc., to implement the landscape plan. This grading plan,
as updated to comply with changing regulations, is the state-approved grading plan for landfill
construction and closure currently being used at the landfill.
In comparing the grading plan and the Byxbee Park landscape plan, staff has discovered that
while the grading plan and the landscape plan conform for' the completed part of the park
(Phase I) and for the areas that have been closed (Phase IIA and liB), the grading plan does not
conform to the approved landscape plan for the area currently being filled (Phase IIC). It is not
known why discrepancies between the grading plan and the landscape plan in Phase IIC were not
resolved at the time the Byxbee Park plan was approved. According to the staff report for'the
March 1989 project approval, the Hargreaves landscape plan was designed to comply with all
landfill technical and regulatory requirements.
The Phase IIC area where the differences occur is the remaining unclosed northwest portion of
the landfill, with slopes facing toward the ITT marsh, the wastewater treatment plant and the
inner harbor. The discrepancies in the plans in this area would result in final land forms that are
physically and visibly different from those in the Council-approved landscape plan. Compared
to the landscape plan, some of the differences in the grading plan are: higher and steeper side
slopes, a smaller and more irregularly shaped upland meadow, and contours throughout that are
generally more angular instead of the naturalistic sweeping contours of the approved landscape
plan.
Public Works staff will consult with the landscape architect, Hargreaves Associates, and an
engineering firm if needed to resolve the differences between the grading plan and the approved
landscape plan in Phase IIC. If any changes are proposed to the Council approved landscape
plan, it will be subject to site and design review.
Recommendation 9: Staff should provide photo simulations or other means to help visualize the
final shape of the landfill and proposed ESC in the larger context of the larger park areas.
The EIR consultant contract includes a task to compare the proposed ESC plan with the
approved Byxbee Park plan. In performing this task, the EIR consultant will prepare visual
simulations of the ESC as seen from selected vantage points that would represent visually
sensitive areas. The simulations would assist the public and Council in assessing how the ESC
relates to the existing visual setting and will consider the project's contrast and compatibility
with surrounding open space and commercial development pattern, the effect on the existing
scenic views, the visual/recreational experience for Byxbee Park users and provide a basis for
comparison with the approved Byxbee Park plan. .
The consultant will be, asked to produce a digital 3D model of the terrain and the proposed
structures (based on architectural CAD files) and grading plans. The consultant will then
digitally input, align and combine the digital 3D images with the respective photographic
CMR:1l4:05 . Page 4 of5
images, ultimately rendering the approved Byxbee Park plan and the revised plan with the ESC
in a photo-realistic fashion with landscaping.
Recommendation 10: As they compile an updat~ of the Baylands Master Plan, the Planning
Department should clearly spell out the existing boundaries, names and acreages of dedicated
parklands in the Baylands.
Staff agrees with the recommendation.
Recommendation 11: The Community Services Department should develop a natural resources
management plan.
The Parks and Recreation Commission has made the development of a natural resources plan for
the Baylands a priority for calendar year 2005. Staff and the Commission will determine the
scope of the project and will provide the Council with the timeline and process details for
implementing the plan's development. .
Recommendation 12: The economic feasibility of the project should be re-evaluated based on
project modifications and mitigation requirements imposed (or expected to be imposed) during
the review and approval process.
Staff recommends Council approve the award of contract for an EIR that also provides an
·additional task of producing a cost-benefit analysis for the proposed ESC and a cost-benefit
analysis for each of the alternatives, as they may be refined by the scoping process and
discussion with City staff.
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: CMR:307:91
CMR:114:05
~~
Deputy Director of PW IOperations l:L A.ru---
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
'--0~
EMIl1y HARRISON .
Assistant City Manager
Page 5 of5
War on Waste committee, the Santa Clara County Local Task Force, the
city of Mountain View, and the City of East Palo Alto have been
incorporated into the final versions.
Attachment I is the entire SRRE and HHWE, including an executi ve
summary. The consultant will respond to questions on the executive
summary, the SRRE document, and the HHWE document. Copies of the SRRE
and the HHWE have been on file at the City Clerk's Office since May 17.
The following chart is a summary of the diversion programs recommended
in the SRRE and the costs ~o the city associated with these programs:
?rograms set forth in SRRE to meet statutory-mandated source reduction and
:-ecycling goals.
30urce Reduction
, Technical assistance
, Educational efforts
I Public recognition and awards
I Local procurement ordinance
~ducation and PublIc Information
~ecycling
I Expand.participation in multi-
family recycling program
COSTS
Planning and I Annual Operating
Capital I and Monitoring
Included in 1-Included in
Education and I Education and
Public Information 1 Public Information
I
$ 0 1 $ 160,000-188,500.
I
220,000 I. 126,000
260 ,000 I 150,000 I Expand commercial/ industrial.
recycling programs
I SMaRT Station
I Divert inert solids to a
materials processor
Add additional material to
drop-off facility
o o 166,0001 ,
I· I
70,000-140,000 I
Add additional material to
residential curbside
~omposting
Increase participation in
existing program
Increase processing activities
;pecial Waste
1 I
I I I I
White goods salvaging at • I landfl.lll
Ianagement of all New
)i version Programs'.
~OTAL, BASED ON NEW PROGRAMS
I I I I I
103 I 000
460,000
300,000
o
o
$1 , 34 3 I 0003 I
I
20,000 .
240,000
53,500-60,000
o
37 , 0002
$1,022,500-
1,127,500
1 I I I
I
I I I I I I
I I I ============================================================================
The SMaRT Station functions as a transfer station as well as a recycling center; only the
recycling function is reflected in this estimate. •
Approximately .50 of the proposed Solid Waste Manager position will be designated for
management of all new diversion programs.
This is a one-time cost. in addition to the annual cost.
-2-
CMR:307:91
It is estimated that $1,343,000 (1991 dollars) in planning and capital
costs over a five-year period will be needed to implement the SRRE. An
additional $1,022,500 to $1,127~500 (1991 dollars) per year will be the
ongoing operating costs when all programs are in place. .Revenues from
the saie of recyclables will be approximately $360,000 pet year. The
recommended programs will·ensure a recycling rate of at least 42 percent
of the waste stream by 1995 and of at least 50 percent by the year 2000.
It is estimated that $430,000 in planning and capital expenditures 'over
a five-year period will be needed to implement the HHWE. The annual
operating cost for the HHWE is estimated at $356,700 (1991 dollars).
The consultant, in preparing the SRRE for the City, recommends the
addition of four new· personnel to implement the recommended programs:
a solid waste manager, two program assistants, and one composting
attendant. The solid waste manager would be responsible for the SRRE
implementation, managing the recycling programs, and. landfill
operations.· The two program assistants would work on the expansion of
current and proposed recycling programs, SRRE and HHWEeducationjpublic
·in~ormation programs. The three positions (solid waste manager and
program assistans) have been proposed in the FY 1991-92 Refuse Fund
operating budget. .
The landfi.ll composting attendant would work on proce$sing activities
generated by the expansion. of the composting·program. Staff disagrees
with this addition and thinks that composting activities could be
handled by existing staff.
Environmental Assessment
The attached proposed negative declaration has been prepared for
consideration by the Council in connection with the adoption of the SRRE
and the HHWE. Copies of the negative declaration have beem forwarded to
the CIWMB and the state Clearinghouse. As shown in the negative
declaration, the project will have no significant environmental impacts
for purposes of the California Environmental Q~ality Act (CEQA).
Conclusion
Holding this public hearing will satisfy the requirements of Public
Resources Code Section 41793 and section 18766(b) of the a9companying
regulations for the second pu}:llic hearing on the SP-RE and Hffi'1E. Council
is requested to consider all the public comments and to adopt the
negative declaration, the SRRE and the HHWE under the attached
resolution. The final approved SRRE and HHWE wi~l be forwarded to the
county of santa Clara County befor~ July 1, 1991, along with the signed
resolution and the adopted negative declaration.
-3-
CMR:307:91
SECTION 3. The council hereby direc~s the city Manager or
his designee to transmit the SRRE and the HHWE, on behalf of the
City, to the County for incorporation into the countywide Integrat-
ed waste Management Plan.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
Assistant City Attorney
Director of Public Works
2
910606 bdc 0020333
, ,.
.. I
I
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS -PALO ALTO
INITIAL STUDY* **
I. Project Title/Address: City of Palo Alto Source Reduction and
Recycling Element and City of Palo Alto Household·Hazardous Waste
Element -City of P~10 Alto·
II. Project Description: See Attached Project Description (attachment A)
III. Environmental Setting: City-Wide (see attached location map)
IV. Environmental Impact Checklist (Explanation of all "yes" answers are in
Section V)
l. Earth. Will the propos a 1 result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes
in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soi l?
c. Change in topographY or gfound
surface relief features?
d. The destruction, co~ering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features? .
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, either on or off the site?
f. Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides, mudslides, ground fa ill1're
or similar hazards?
g. Changes in siltation, deposition, or
erosion which may modify the channel
of a river or the bed of a bay or
inlet?
YES HAYBE
_x_
* Adapted frDm Appendix I, California Guidelines for Implementation of
CEQA, December 14, 1976.
** Updated May 1982, June 1983
p:\II\srre.~kl
' . . .
NO
-L
-L
-L
_x_
_x_
91-EIA-12
. .
Only those alternatives specifitally identified to be implemented by the Lity
have been evaluated in this Initial Study.
Palo Alto currently diverts approximately 17.5 percent of its total waste
stream through existing recycling and composting prpgrams. The ~RREfocuses,
on increasing diversion ~o meet or exc~ed the goals set by the State through
increased recycling, composting; and source reduction efforts. Most of this
increase can be integrated fairly easily into eXisting programs.
The SRRE includes participation by ~alo Alto in a mechanized material recovery
,operation (Sunnyvale Materials and Recovery Transfer (SMaRT) Station) to be
located in the City of Sunnyvale and, as most currently being negotiated,
operated by a private company. Approximately two-thirds of Palo Altots waste
would be taken to the SMaRT station instead of the City landfill.
Approximately 20 percent of the waste delivered to the station would be
recycled. 'The remaining waste would be landfilled at a location under
contract to the, SMaRT Station (most likely Kirby Canyon landf~ll located in
San Jose). This would result in the life span of the City landfill being
extended from year 2002 (if all SRRE programs are fully met) to year 2029.
Should the City not contract for use of the SMaRT Station, alternative
progra~s involving increased recycling efforts (e.g., .mandatory commercial
recyclin~) would need to be implemented to make up for the 20 percent
diversion estimated' to result from use of the SMaRT Station. Additional
environmental review may be required at the time of the selection of these
alternative programs.
SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT SUMMARY
An Executive Summary of the City of Palo Alto Source Reduction and Recycling.
El ement is attached ... .
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT SUMMARY
A summary of the Palo Alto Hazardous Household Waste Program is provided
below.
The main short-and medium-term objectives of the,Palo Alto Household
Hazardous Waste Element are to:
p:\lt\srre,ckl
provide disposal alternatives for Household Hazardous Waste .(HHW)
generated in the city, including the tlevelopment of a permanent
collection facility; ,
provide education programs to reduce the volume and hazards of HHW
entering the waste stream by encouraging:
-proper use and disposeil of hazardous ~prod,ucts,
-waste reduction, ~ncluding the use of safer alternatives;
91-EIA-12
9
·'
. I I·
promote proper storage and handling methods to protect the
public's health and safety;
establish a waste exchange progr~m at the permanent HHW facility
to reduce the amount of HHW requiring d~sposal;
recycle HHW to the extent possible
To ensure these objectives are met, the el~ment proposes continuation or
implemertation of the following programs:
1. Monthly C077ection Events. These events are on-going and have been
successful in the past. More than 1,226 vehic~es, r~presenting 1,442
households, participated in the first eight collection events held in FY
1990~91. The collection events are c~rrently held at the Regional Water
'Qua1ity Control Plant. located on Embarcadero Way ·in Palo Alto. These
events will continue to be held on a monthly basts u~til a permanent
collection facility is operational ..
2. Permanent Col7ection Facility. To operate a permanent collection
program, the City will need to develop a collection and storage
facility. Suitable locations for such a facility are currently being
evaluated. Such a facility is considered desirable because it will. help
reduce the amount of HHW disposed of in the landfill by offering
residents an ongoing disposal option. Additionally, such a facility can
sponsor a program for exchanging suitable materials to reduc~ the
quantity of HHW requiring collection an~ disposal.
3. Curbside Co 77 ect ion Program. Palo Alto currently operates a curbs i de
ctil1ection program for used oil. This curbside collection program is
proposed to be expanded to accept antifreeze. Antifreeze can easily be
incorpo~ated into the existing oil pickup pr~gram because it can be
• transported in the same collection vehicle compartment as oil.
4. Load-Checkin~ Program. The purpose of a load-checking program is to
detect and deter attempts to dispose of prohibited waste. It involves a
visual inspection for hazardous waste .at the entrance to the landfill
and at the working face. Palo Alto has been operating a load-checking
program since 1987 and, as required by law, will ~ontinue to operate
this program.
5. Recycling Program f6r Waste Oils, Paints and Batteries. Palo Alto
currently recycles selected HHW through several programs, :inc1uding: a)
used oil curbside collection; b) used oil and vehicle' batteries
collection at the Drop-Off Center; and, c) latex paint recycling during
temporary collection events. Since a Hazardous Waste per"mit is no
longer needed for coll ect i on and reuse of some HHW, an expallded
recycling program will be included in the operations of .the Drop-Off
Center and, eventually, the permanent facility. 1he following materials
will be accepted for recycling at the Drop-Off Cenler, until 'the
permanent facility is constructed: latex paipt; used oil; antifreeze;
p:\lt\srre.ckl
; .
91·EIA-12
10
spent lead-acid batteries; nickel-cadmium, alkaline and carbon-zinc, and
other small batteries. The City will continue to recycle these
household wastes at the Drop-Off Center and the periodic collection
events. the recycling activities will .be relocated to the permanent
collection facility once ·it is operational.
6. Public Education and Information. Education and public information
programs proposed by the City include infor.ming the public about
services available through (1) the curbside collection program, (2) the
Drop-Off Center, and (3)'collection events. Once the permanent
collection facility is operational, the information program would be
geared towards inf9rming residents about the services available at the
facility.
p:llt\srre.ckl
·91·EIA·12
11
, ,
! ..
6.a. Noise.
. I I·
Increased pick up of recyclable materials by trucks on City streets would be
necessary in order to meet the recycling goals established by the SRRE.
Currently, two trucks make three trips to pick up garbage and recyclable
materials. On~truck picks up garbage and then ret~rns for the· compost
materials; the second truck picks up the other recyclable materials. In order
to increase the amount and types of recyclable materials being collected,· the
City's waste hauler.will need to increase the number of trips and/or the
number of trucks used to collect materials. This could result in a slight
increase in noise levels where additional truck trips are needed. This is not
expected to have an impact on commercial and industrial land uses, where most .
of the increase is expect~d. On residential streets, some residents may be
bothered by the additional noise generated by an additional pick up.
Mitigation
In .order to reduce disturbance to neighborhoods, garbage ahd recycling pick
ups do not begin in residential areas before the hour of 6:00 a.m. The City's
waste hauler (pASCO) will continue this practice. PASCO currently receives on
average only two complaints each month regarding noise from garbage and
recycling trucks. Although no significant noise impacts are anticipated as a
result·of increased recycling operations, an employee will ·be designated to
handle any complaints from residents resulting from additional recycling truEk
pick ups. When necessary, the designated employee will work with the City's
waste hauler to alter pick up times or pick u~ routes, or find other
acceptable means to minimize noise disturbance. .
8 .. Land Use. (Although this item is marked "no" on the checklist, some
comments are provided here for explanation).
Palo·Alto ha~ approved a master plan for the reuse of the City's landfill ~s a
park (8yxbee Landfill· Park Master Plan). The continued operation of a portion
of the landfill well into the future, and the phased construction of the park
impro~ementi as other portions of the landfill are closed, was considered by
the Master Plan. Therefore, no changes in the expected land use of the
landfill area are anticipated by the SRRE. Potential conflicts between park
. users and. the active landfill were addressed by the environmental assessment
. prepared for the Master Plan and Phase I park i~provements (SCH# 89081506,
City reference 89-EIA-06).
Future phase~ of the park improvements will be evaluated for any additional
environmental impacts at the time details for each phase are presented to the
City's Architectural Review Board for approval.
10. Risk ·of Upset.
To ensure proper disposal of household hazardous waste and increase the amount
of hazardous waste diverted from landfills, the City proposes to locate and
p:\lt\srre.ckl 91.-EIA-12
13
" I I
Currently, two trucks make three trips to pick up garbage and recyclable
materials. One truck picks up garbage and then returns for the compost
materials; the second truck picks up the other recyclable materials. 'In order
·to increase the amount and types of recyclable materials being collected, the
City's waste hauler may need to increase the numberof·trips and/or the number
of trucks used to collect materials. The additiona1 truck trips needed to
handle increased recycling levels (pickup in most cases is limited to once per
week) are. considered to be minimal, and are not expected to result in any
tra ffi c impacts.
12;c. Transportation/Circulation.
The Palo Alto SRRE proposes to divert two-thirds of Palo Alto's refuse from
·the Palo Alto landfill to the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer
(SMaRT) 'Station to be located in the City of Sunnyvale. This would re~ult in a majority of refuse truck trips travelling on Highway 101 to the SMaRT
Statipn instead of travelling on E~barcadero Road to the'City of Palo Alto
1 andfill. The impact of this increased traffic on Highway 101 was analyzed .in
the Environmental Impact Report prepared foi the SMaRT Station ("Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer
Station", dated June 18, 1990 (SCH #89022812), pr~pared for the City of
Sunnyvale Publi~ Works Department by Thomas Reid Associates). A copy of this
EIR is .available for review.at the Palo Alto Public Works Operations Division,
Municipal Service Center.
P~oject-generated PM peak hour traffic o~ Highway 101 a£ a result of Palo Alto
and Mountain View's use of the SMaRT Statibn was projected at 28 trips, a 0.2%
increase in exi~ting Highway 101 peak hour tr~ffic. Total daily weekday trips
to·the SM~RTStation from Palo Alto was estimated at 116 truck trips and 124
public trips. The impacts of this traffic on Highway 101 were found to not be
significant and no mitigations were identified (Chapter 4, pages 19-39).
13.e. and f. Public Services.
A permanent Household Hazardous Waste collection facility is' proposed to be
located in the City to provide greater opportunities for residents to properly
. dispose of household hazardous waste. This new facility would require careful
and proper m~intenance to avoid potential risks associated with collection and
storage of these materials.
In order to meet the State mandated goal of 50 percent waste diversion by year
2000, the Palo Alto SRRE proposes adding' new, and expanding: eXisting recycl ing
and composting programs. These new and expanded programs will result in the
need for a slight increase in governmental servtces to start-up and maintain
their operation.
p:\lt\srre.ckl 91-EIA-12
15