Parcel 6 Patterson Pass
Content
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ALAMEDA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
January 28, 2009, Wednesday, 3:00pm
1537 Webster Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Meeting is wheelchair accessible. Sign language interpreter may be available upon five (5)
days notice by calling 510-891-6500. Members of the public wanting to add an item to a future
agenda may contact 510-891-6500.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT
Page IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
1 1. Approval of Minutes of December 17, 2008 Motion
7 2. Property Management – Parcel 6 Action
Recommendation from the Programs/Planning Committee that the
Board authorize the Executive Director or (Designee) to enter into
Memorandum of Agreement for the purpose of establishing a temporary
Air monitoring sample site, and to take steps necessary to improve the
ingress and egress to the site at Patterson Pass Road
13 3. Multifamily Unit Recycling Information/
Recommendation from the Programs/Planning Committee to the Action
Authority Board for further discussion of Multifamily Recycling
as part of the FY 09/10 Budget Process
V. OPEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION
An opportunity is provided for any member of the public wishing to speak on any matter
within the jurisdiction of the Authority, but not listed on the agenda. Total time limit of 30
minutes with each speaker limited to three minutes.
VI. REGULAR CALENDAR
1. Committee Minutes Information
25. a. Programs/Planning Committee of January 13, 2009
30. 2. Landfill Ban Ordinance Second Reading and Adoption Motion
An ordinance to ban plant debris from Alameda County landfills
3. Interim appointment(s) to the Recycling Board for WMA Motion
appointee unable to attend future Board Meeting(s)
VII. COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS
VIII. OPEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION
An opportunity is provided for any member of the public wishing to speak on any
matter within the jurisdiction of the Authority, but not listed on the agenda. Total time
limit of 30 minutes will be provided if necessary with each speaker limited to three
minutes or as adjusted at the discretion of the presiding officer.
CLOSED SESSION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT
(Authority Counsel, Interviews and selection) – Confidential materials mailed separately
IX. ADJOURNMENT
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
December 17, 2008, Wednesday, 3:00 p.m.
1537 Webster Street
Oakland, CA 94612
510-891-6500
I. CALL TO ORDER
President Quan called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
City of Alameda Beverly Johnson (arrive 3:30 p.m.)
City of Albany Robert Lieber
City of Berkeley Gordon Wozniak
Castro Valley San. Dist. Dennis Waespi
City of Emeryville Ken Bukowski
City of Hayward Olden Henson
City of Livermore Marjorie Leider
City of Newark Luis Freitas
City of Oakland Jean Quan
Oro Loma San. Dist. Laython Landis
City of Pleasanton Matt Sullivan
City of San Leandro Tony Santos
City of Union City Mark Green (arrive 3:07)
Absent:
County of Alameda Keith Carson
City of Fremont Bob Wasserman
City of Piedmont Garrett Keating
City of Dublin Kasie Hildenbrand
Staff Participating:
Karen Smith
Debra Kaufman
Tom Padia
Tamara Galanter, Authority Counsel
g/data/boards/WMA/WMA Bd Mtgs/minutes/WMA 12-17-08.doc 1
DRAFT
III. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT
President Quan invited people to stay for the reception following the meeting. She thanks
everyone for the extra effort during the transition.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approval of the WMA Minutes Motion
Mr. Henson moved the Consent Calendar and Mr. Landis seconded. The motion passed 15-0
(Johnson, Carson, Wasserman, Hildenbrand and Keating absent).
V. OPEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION
There was none.
VI. REGULAR CALENDAR
1. Committee Minutes Information
a. Admin & Org Committee of December 3, 2008
Mr. Wozniak asked that the minutes be amended A&O minutes section to read “Mr. Wozniak
asked if certifications for multi-family building such as those issued by the Green Business
Program had been developed.”
b. Programs/Planning Committee of November 18, 2008
No comments.
Ms. Quan asked that staff put on an upcoming meeting agenda an item to discuss seeking federal
funding for projects in light of the new presidential administration and federal lobbying. Mr.
Green added that if a compost facility was ready to construct, we could seek funding.
2. Landfill Ban Ordinance Public Hearing First Reading/
Recommendation from the Programs/Planning Committee Motion
Ms. Kaufman presented the staff report. Ms. Kaufman directed Board members to the Ordinance
key components listed on page 23 of the Board packet. Both Boards have agreed to pursue a ban
on plant debris from the landfill. The ordinance originally developed included cardboard but due
to market fluctuation, cardboard has been removed. Cardboard can be added later. Compost
markets don’t experience the same fluctuation as cardboard. The Programs/Planning Committee
reviewed the ban and made some small changes. Feedback had been solicited from stakeholders.
The ordinance will affect those who generate 4 cubic yards or more of materials. Waivers can be
sought if service is not available or adequate space is not available for collection containers.
There will be enforcement at the landfill or transfer station for self haul. At the November 18
Programs/Planning Committee meeting, the Committee approved the ordinance.
Ms. Kaufman presented the staff recommendation that "An Ordinance Prohibiting the Disposal of
Certain Materials at Alameda County Landfills" be considered by title only, waiving the reading
of the full text and move that the ordinance be introduced.
Ms. Quan opened the public hearing.
g/data/boards/WMA/WMA Bd Mtgs/minutes/WMA 12-17-08.doc 2
DRAFT
Mr. Nick Lapis, Californians Against Waste (CAW), applauded the leadership of ACWMA on
this issue. He noted that the Authority is seen as a leader statewide and has set a path for the rest
of the state by pursuing this landfill ban. The benefits of the materials used outside of the landfill
are many, such as building soil quality, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, pesticide reduction,
VOC reduction and water quality benefits. It is clear that plant debris is better managed outside
landfills.
Mr. Jason Warner, General Manager, Oro Loma Sanitary District, presented a PowerPoint
presentation. He stated that they had hired a consultant to study greenhouse gas emissions and
have reached different conclusion than staff. Emissions generated by a compost facility, the study
suggests, contain significant amounts of methane. He recommended that staff conduct a CEQA
study to identify best management practices.
Mr. Thomas Hendrey P.E., Whitley Burchett & Associates, a consultant for Oro Loma Sanitary
District, stated that some composting facilities in the Central Valley produce significant amounts
of methane, none of which is collected. He stated that there was not a clear answer on recent data.
Mr. Steve Sherman, California Compost Council board member and Berkeley resident, but
speaking for himself, strongly supports landfill bans of green waste. Over 100,000 tons of green
waste is generated in Alameda County. Twenty three other states have banned green waste from
the landfill. In 1987, New Jersey banned plant debris and has achieved a 78% diversion rate. He
stated that landfill bans have worked well in many other states for many years and encouraged the
Board to pass the staff recommendation.
Mr. Kevin Drew, San Francisco Department of the Environment, expressed the Department’s
support for the ban. He urged Board members to add cardboard and consider food waste for
possible inclusion. The City of San Francisco is preparing a mandatory recycling ordinance that
includes food waste.
Ms. Quan closed the public hearing. She asked staff to respond to the comments.
Ms. Kaufman noted that the staff stands behind the recommendation and stated that they have not
seen the data cited by Oro Loma. She acknowledged that in poorly run compost facilities,
anaerobic pockets can develop that may contribute to small amounts of methane. But well-run
composting facilities keep anaerobic pockets and, therefore, methane production to a minimum.
The research she had found and included in the Board packet, leads staff to the conclusions stated
in the staff report.
Mr. Wozniak stated while the argument staff makes is compelling, the response to Oro Loma’s
concerns was not helpful as it was buried within a 30 page report.
Mr. Lieber made the motion that "An Ordnance Prohibiting the Disposal of Certain Materials at
Alameda County Landfills" be considered by title only, waiving the reading of the full text and
moved that the ordinance be introduced.
g/data/boards/WMA/WMA Bd Mtgs/minutes/WMA 12-17-08.doc 3
DRAFT
Mr. Henson stated that the implementation schedule should be revisited with Member Agency
recycling staff. Ms. Smith stated that staff would call together a working group to help
jurisdictions with implementation.
Mr. Sullivan asked what the process would be to include additional materials to the landfill ban.
Ms. Kaufman stated that staff would bring back a staff report and go through a process similar to
the current one, for any added materials.
Mr. Sullivan asked what the performance mechanisms were at composting facilities. Ms.
Kaufman stated the number of regulatory agencies regulate compost facilities and enforce permit
conditions. The CIWMB conducts inspections of facilities for regulatory compliance. Ms. Quan
stated that most facilities can report their performance rates.
Mr. Landis asked if staff analysis was based on paper studies or on site visits. Ms. Kaufman stated
that the staff report was based on paper research based on site-based data.
Mr. Henson seconded and the motion was carried by a roll call vote, 14-1 (Landis No, Carson,
Wasserman, Hildenbrand and Keating absent.)
3. Interim appointment(s) to the Recycling Board for WMA appointees Motion
unable to attend future Board Meeting(s)
Ms. Smith stated the next Recycling Board meeting will be January 8, 2009 at 4:00 p.m.
Mr. Sullivan requested an interim appointment. Mr. Bukowski volunteered to serve as interim.
Mr. Bukowski made the motion to appoint himself as the interim member to the Recycling Board.
Mr. Henson seconded and the motion was carried 15-0 (Johnson, Carson, Wasserman,
Hildenbrand and Keating absent.)
4. California Recycling and Commodities Markets Information
Presented by Waste Haulers and Labor unions Presentation
Mr. Pellegrini, Alameda County Industries, stated that recycling markets have suffered a
catastrophic collapse. Implications will affect the diversion of materials. Sooner or later, rate
payers will have to pay. Recycling has lost $16 million in revenue since October 1, 2008.
Materials are moving but very slowly. The value of the commodities has always offset rates. The
biggest problem is the fiber market which makes up 70% of the residential waste stream.
Collectors need support due to the decline of the markets. Some consideration in the future will
need to be made for small haulers collecting recyclables.
Mr. Valle, TriCED Recycling, offered a suggestion. He encouraged the Authority to support the
expansion of AB2020 to include wine and liquor bottles in the CRV system. He noted that it
would take political will to address the wine industry but that many other states have done this
with good results. He stated that 76% of CRV materials are recycled, whereas only 30% of non
CRV materials are recycled. He asked that the Authority and member agencies send letters to the
State Senate President, Darrell Steinberg to include wine, liquor and wine cooler bottles in
AB2020.
g/data/boards/WMA/WMA Bd Mtgs/minutes/WMA 12-17-08.doc 4
DRAFT
Mr. Aubrey Van Buren, TriCED Recycling, noted that TriCED is able to sell materials but that he
expects markets will continue to decline, as they are connected directly to the commodities
markets. He would like to continue to communicate with the Authority regarding markets and
invited interested parties for a tour of TriCED.
Mr. Dominic Shedary, Teamsters, represents drivers and recyclers. The Teamsters are in support
of the previous speakers.
Mr. Fred Pecker, International Longshoremen #6, stated that the picture looked pretty bleak. His
constituents receive pay based on the commodities market and are often the lowest paid workers in
the waste field. If recycling is important, the workers who perform the work, should be treated
better and paid more.
Mr. Nick Lapis, CAW, appreciated the current situation but pointed to the bright spot in recycling,
the glass sector. If wine bottles are included, recycling rates will increase and more jobs will be
made available and local markets will be improved.
Mr. Bernard Meyerson, recycling consultant, stated that while it is true that markets for recyclable
materials have dropped significantly in recent months, there are indications that the current
situation won’t last too long. It is expected that China will increase demand for recycled material
feedstock in 2009. He suggested that the current market conditions should not be looked upon as
permanent and that it would be a great time to start giving serious thought to appropriate locally
based businesses instead of relying on international markets.
Mr. Henson asked what Mr. Valle estimated the timeline would be to modify AB 2020. Mr. Valle
stated that CAW is working within a structure to bring modifications of AB 2020 forward. But,
any changes would be dependant on political will to include new materials in AB 2020. Ms.
Smith stated that staff would bring a legislative update to the Board in April. Ms. Quan asked
staff to seek to build support and make modifying AB 2020 part of the Agency’s legislative
agenda.
Ms. Quan stated that Board members could contact Senator Steinberg to find out what steps need
to be taken to amend AB 2020 and include wine, wine cooler and liquor bottles.
Mr. Pellegrini stated that the current market situation has hit all haulers very hard. While there
had been a major windfall when the markets were high, a catastrophe occurred, creating serious
cash flow issues. All smaller haulers have used windfall profits to keep costs down, offsetting
increased labor and other market forces.
Mr. Wozniak remarked that it would be a better practice in the long term, to shift recycled material
to use in local markets. Local markets and industries need to be developed as input for other
products.
Ms. Quan stated that the Recycling Board gives loans and grants to local companies and that it
would be worth considering seeking federal funds to increase local markets and businesses.
g/data/boards/WMA/WMA Bd Mtgs/minutes/WMA 12-17-08.doc 5
DRAFT
g/data/boards/WMA/WMA Bd Mtgs/minutes/WMA 12-17-08.doc 6
VII. COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS
Mr. Lieber stated that due to reassignment of tasks, Joanne Wile will be the City of Albany
representative on the WMA. Mr. Lieber stated that he would serve as the alternate.
Mr. Quan stated that she has been reappointed to the League of Cities Environmental Committee.
She encouraged other members to seek appointment to the Committee to advance the efforts of
this Board.
VIII. OPEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Mary Lou Van Deventer, President of NCRA, wished to commend Karen Smith for her efforts and
that Ms. Smith has done a remarkable job at a remarkable agency.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:10pm
________________________________________________________________________
January 15, 2009
To: Alameda County Waste Management Authority Board
From: Gary Wolff, Executive Director
By: Brian Mathews, Senior Program Manager
RE: Property Management – Parcel 6
Recommendation: Action
BACKGROUND:
The Alameda County Waste Management Authority (Authority) owns real property located off
of Patterson Pass Rd. referred to as Parcel 6. The map designation of the Parcel 6 is the N/E
quarter section of Section 10, Township 3 South, Range 3 East (map attached) and physically
occupies both sides of Patterson Pass. Current tenants on Parcel 6 include Green Ridge Wind
Power and Ether Web Network, LLC which occupy the Comcast building, a grazing lease and a
residential tenant.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (District) has approached the Authority seeking
to temporarily place an air monitoring and sampling station at the Comcast building location.
This memo outlines the request from the District, identifies issues and solutions and recommends
Programs and Planning Committee action.
DISCUSSION:
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the state's first regional agency dealing with air
pollution, was created by the California Legislature in 1955. The District's jurisdiction
encompasses all of seven counties - Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo,
Santa Clara and Napa, and portions of two others - southwestern Solano and southern Sonoma.
The mission of the District is to implement the requirements of the federal and state Clean Air
Acts.
To accomplish their mission, the District periodically conducts air monitoring and sampling
studies to better understand the presence and distribution of criteria air pollutants.
Patterson Pass was recently identified as an optimum location to collect air samples and
meteorological data to study the formation of ozone from the Tri Valley area. A letter to the
Authority from Jean Roggenkamp, Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer at the District, dated
December 1, 2008, outlines the proposal to establish the air sampling site (attached).
The District proposal is to place a trailer within the existing Comcast building fence which
would hold air sampling and meteorological equipment. The trailer would need to be wired with
a 100 Amp service which is available at the site. Meteorological equipment would be placed on
7
the existing tower and air sampling equipment would be in the trailer to periodically collect air
samples. The District would like to establish the site for a three year period with the possibility
of 2 one-year extensions. If approved the District would pay an annual lease $2,400 indexed to
CPI.
Because the study dictates weekly visits to the site to calibrate equipment and replenish spent
sampling canisters, staff reviewed the ingress and egress to the site at Patterson Pass Rd. The
review determined the gate into the property and associated fencing needs to be relocated for
safety reasons. The modification will be coordinated with the Alameda County Public Works
Agency Roads Division and will move the gate further into the property so a vehicle can pull
fully off the road and have room to open the gate. District has agreed to contribute to this
improvement through a one time payment of $5,000, to be paid with the execution of an
agreement. The total cost of the modification is estimated to be less than $7,500 with the
remaining coming from FY 2008/09 Property Management project budget.
Staff has discussed the proposal new use with the current tenants and determined there are no
conflicts. There is public benefit by approving an agreement with the District in that the data
collected at the site will be used to inform decision makers with the responsibility of protecting
public health through the implementation of air quality regulations. An approval for this use by
the District would be consistent with Agency policy to work cooperatively with regional
agencies.
On a related note, the BAAQMD is working cooperatively with the Organics Processing
Development project team to develop a protocol for air dispersion modeling of health risk
assessment and odor for the North Flynn Rd. property. The other site studies, water availability
and biological assessments are progressing with deliverables expected in the spring.
Program and Planning Committee
This item was considered by the Programs and Planning Committee at their regular meeting on
January 13
th
, 2009. The Committee received a staff report, discussed the terms of the agreement
and unanimously approved the staff recommendation.
Recommendation:
The Programs & Planning Committee recommends the Authority Board review the attached
maps and correspondence and adopt the following;
Authorize the Executive Director (or designee) to enter in to a Memorandum of Agreement
for the purpose of establishing a temporary air monitoring and sampling site within the
existing Comcast enclosure at Patterson Pass.
Authorize the Executive Director (or designee) to take the steps necessary to improve the
ingress and egress to the site at Patterson Pass Rd.
Attached: Area Image of Patterson Pass
Detail Image of Parcel 6
December 8, 2008 letter from BAAQMD
8
9
10
11
BAyAREA
AIRQl!ALlTY
MANAG E M EN T
D I STRIC T
SINCE 1955
ALAMEDA COUNTY
Tom Bates
(Secretary)
Scott Haggerty
Janet Lockhart
Nate Miley
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
John Gioia
Mark Ross
Michael Shimansky
Gayle B. Ui lkema
MARIN COUNTY
Harold C. Brown, Jr.
NAPA COUNTY
Brad Wagenknecht
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
Chris Daly
Jake McGoldrick
Gavin Newsom
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Jerry Hill
Carol Klatt
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Erin Garner
Yoriko Kishimoto
Liz Kniss
Ken Yeager
SOLANO COUNTY
John F. Silva
SONOMA COUNTY
Tim Smith
Pamela Tarfialt
(Chair)
Jack P. Broadbent
EXECUTIVE OFFICER/APeD
Karen Smith, Executive Director
StopWaste.Org
1537 Webster Street
Oakland, CA 94612
December 1, 2008
RECEIVED
DEL U 3 2008
SUbject: Establishing an Air Monitoring Station at the Authority Patterson Pass
Property
Dear Ms. Smith:
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (District) is committed to achieving
clean air to protect the public's health and the environment in the San Francisco Bay
Area. To these ends, the District periodically conducts air monitoring for criteria
pollutants covered by the federal and State Clean Air Acts.
In order to better understand the migration of pollutants within, and to and fi'0111 our
air basin, we have identified an information gap that needs to be addressed to better
infonn decision makers in the development and implementation of policy. To
address the information gap, we are proposing to establish an air monitoring station
at the Authority property at Patterson Pass, with the general coordinates of Latitude
37.689590 and Longitude -121.631947, to make air quality and meteorological
measurements over a three year period. This type of monitoring station typically
consists of an instrumented trailer with a footprint of 6 by 12 feet and a 30 foot
tower. The power requirement to operate a station like this is about 100 amps.
Collecting air quality and meteorological data at this location is vital to our
understanding of ozone formation in the Livennore Valley. The area within the
District's jurisdiction currently does not meet the national 8-hour ozone standard of
75 ppb. Data collected at the Authority site will be incorporated into the process of
developing control measures to meet the national ozone standard and the citizens of
Alameda County will reali ze a long-tenn benefit from improved public health. In
addition, data collected at this site will be shared with StopWaste.Org, neighboring
air quality agencies, and the California Air Resources Board. The data will be
available to the pnblic when requested.
Due to the uncertainty of the quality of information that may be derived from the
site, we are requesting an agreement with an initial tenn of three years with the
option of two one-year extensions.
The Air DlstrlCf I S d Cerr l fled Green
PrlniE'd soy - based In k s on loao,e, post - c onsumer re c ycled c ontent paper
939 ELLIS STREET' SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94109 • 415.771.6000 • WWWBMQMD.GOV
12
Karen Smith -2- December I, 2008
We appreciate your help in this important research effort. Your staff has been very
helpful and informative assisting us in this project. We look forward to being able to
work cooperatively with your agency on this and other projects where our missions
intersect. If you have any questions about the proposed station, please contact our
Research and Modeling Manager, Dr. Saffet Tanrikulu at (415) 749-4787 or Air
Quality Meteorologist, James Cordova at (415) 749-5104.
Sincerely,
cc: Saffet Tanrikulu
James Cordova
Air Pollution Control Officer
gement District
Attachment: Sample Standard Air Monitoring License
________________________________________________________________________
January 16, 2009
TO: Alameda County Waste Management Authority
FROM: Robin Plutchok, Program Manager
SUBJECT: Multifamily Unit Recycling Assistance
BACKGROUND:
The Agency Multifamily Unit Assistance Project provides technical assistance and grant
funding to member agencies with the goal of improving results of multifamily recycling
collection programs.
The Board has expressed interest in improving multifamily recycling participation rates.
In the 2007/08 budget year, the Board authorized a $50,000 contract with SAIC to
evaluate the current status of Multifamily Recycling. This study provided a review and
evaluation of multifamily dwelling (MFD) recycling efforts in Alameda County and
compared them to local and nationally recognized programs. Member agency programs
and the Agency’s grant programs were evaluated to establish best practices and
recommendations on what is working and how to direct our efforts in the future.
DISCUSSION:
Multifamily housing makes up roughly one third of the residential housing in Alameda
County. The waste collected from multifamily units is about 9 percent of the overall
landfilled waste generated from all sources, compared to 23 percent from single family
residents and 44 percent from commercial and roll-off accounts (the remainder is self
haul).
The contractor provided an overview and evaluation of MFD recycling programs in
Alameda County. MFD is defined as a residence of 5 or more units with shared
collection. The objectives of this project were to:
• Create a baseline understanding of the MFD programs of the member
jurisdictions.
• Evaluate the Agency’s multifamily grant program.
• Identify best practices implemented locally and nationally.
13
This memo summarizes the key findings from the contractor’s research. The results of the
study are further described in the attached Executive Summary. The full report is posted
online at http://www.stopwaste.org/docs/mfd_evaluation_rpt.pdf.
Multifamily recycling is a challenge in our county, statewide and nationally. Nationally,
participation rates in multifamily programs tend to be half those for single family
households. The contractors identified key obstacles to improved multifamily recycling
and provided suggestions for addressing some of those obstacles.
All jurisdictions in Alameda County offer multifamily recycling collection programs. In
Alameda County, approximately 82% of MFDs are signed up for recycling service.
Despite the fact that 82% of the buildings have been set up with recycling collection
service, tenant participation in that service could be improved.
FINDINGS
One of the key findings of the contractor’s research was the lack of data on MFD
recycling available to evaluate programs. There was very little data available and what
was available, was not comparable. While franchised haulers are required to provide
service, they generally are not required to report participation rates or diversion data
specific to MFDs. Collecting and reporting MFD data is challenging due to the fact that
most MFD routes are commingled with commercial or single family routes, making it
difficult to separate out the tonnage of each.
For those few cities that did have separate significant data, it appeared that recycling
diversion rates matched those reported nationally for multifamily recycling,
approximately 20% of multifamily waste, compared to 40% for single family households.
This is not to be confused with overall reported diversion rates which take into account
commercial diversion as well.
The contractor reported that MFD recycling is a challenging sector that is not
homogenous across or within jurisdictions. The potential for diversion from the
multifamily sector varies by jurisdiction. Jurisdictions with larger percentages of
multifamily housing have devoted more resources to this sector than those with smaller
percentages of such housing. Jurisdictions prioritize the level of effort in implementing
MFD recycling programs based on their communities’ demographics, diversion potential,
available staff and logistics of providing service.
In general, multifamily recycling has been a lower priority for our jurisdictions than
single family and commercial recycling because of both the lower diversion potential and
the many challenges associated with multifamily recycling. Even in jurisdictions that
have a very high percentage of multifamily housing, such as Emeryville, Berkeley,
Oakland and Hayward, commercial and industrial waste dwarf multifamily residential
waste. All jurisdictions report devoting more of their limited resources to diverting
commercial and industrial waste than multifamily waste. Despite being a lower priority
diversion sector, improvements to multifamily participation rates can be made.
14
G:\DATA\Member Agency\Multifamily\SAIC\contract\Programs Memo- MFD recycling_108b.doc
The contractor, through its research in our county and nationwide, reported on the
following primary challenges to achieving high and consistent levels of diversion and
participation:
Challenges to Multifamily Recycling:
1. Insufficient space and access for recycling;
2. Manager and tenant transience;
3. Lack of education and outreach to MFDs tenants;
4. Contamination of recycling;
5. Insufficient franchise provisions and lack of enforcement of franchises; and
6. Lack of data to measure impact of outreach efforts.
The contractor noted that there is no “one size fits all” to the many challenges of MFD
recycling. The time and resources dedicated to MFD recycling programs by member
agency staff and their franchised haulers varies widely. Successful MFD recycling
programs require regular outreach to residents, owners and property managers; working
more closely with service providers; and more specificity in franchise agreements and
enforcement of those agreements.
Challenges, findings and recommendations to address those challenges are more fully
described in the attached Executive Summary.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE REPORT TO ADDRESS
OBSTACLES:
The following outlines some of the key recommendations from the report to improve
multifamily recycling participation and address the challenges associated with this sector.
• Franchise Agreements: Goals and expectations including outreach frequency,
service levels, data collection and reporting requirements need to be specified in
the franchise agreement. Jurisdictions need to be familiar with and enforce the
elements of their agreements.
• Outreach: Information should be distributed to MFDs a minimum of once or twice
per year. Basic elements that are often lacking from MFDs include signage in
collection areas, color-coded and labeled bins and carts.
• Property Manager Participation: Property managers are the gatekeepers to the
buildings and the tenants. Providing information, technical assistance and
educational materials to the property managers is crucial to a successful program.
In Fremont during 2005–2006, the hauler customer service representative worked
to contact property managers quarterly once recycling collection was established
and was able to increase diversion by 7% by volume during that time period.
• Staff time: MFD recycling program implementation and maintenance is labor
intensive. Hauler, jurisdictional or contracted staffing is required for recruitment,
15
G:\DATA\Member Agency\Multifamily\SAIC\contract\Programs Memo- MFD recycling_108b.doc
outreach, site visits and right-sizing service. Prioritizing larger MFDs and those
with engaged owner and managers can provide efficiencies in time and labor. In
their franchise agreements, the cities of Fremont and Dublin require the hauler to
dedicate contractor time to assist with MFD outreach.
• Targeting MFDs: By prioritizing buildings for outreach, recycling coordinators
and haulers can achieve the greatest increases in diversion for an investment of
time and money. High priorities include: large buildings, MFDs with engaged
onsite property managers, owner-occupied buildings, or those where residents pay
for garbage service.
• Require/Obtain Better Data: It is challenging for haulers to separate tonnages for
garbage and recycling from MFDs, but in order to track and improve MFD
recycling this data is needed. Member agencies need to implement and enforce
data collection and reporting requirements with their franchised haulers. It is
recommended that jurisdictions require haulers to provide data in their franchises
and consistently obtain the information. The City of Fremont set measureable
goals for franchised hauler staff, including proactively contacting a set number of
MFDs per quarter; and required data reporting on each complex contacted. Union
City is developing a similar set of goals.
BEST PRACTICES LOCALLY AND NATIONALLY:
In the contractor’s review of local and national programs, some innovative approaches
were identified. Due to the lack of data from national and local programs, it was difficult
for the contractor to determine whether these practices were truly best practices or simply
innovative approaches. National and local best practices are discussed in more detail in
the full report, but some examples include:
• Tenant move-in/move-out kits: RecycleWorks of San Mateo County produced
tenant move-in/move-out kits for distribution by Property Managers. Move-
in/move-out kits have been produced and distributed by local jurisdictions
including Oakland and Hayward.
• Innovative rate structure: San Francisco’s new rate structure provides incentives
for increased recycling through recycling service-based rate reductions.
• Composting of residuals: To achieve waste diversion goals in San Jose,
recyclables are processed from waste collected from MFDs and the non-
recyclable residuals are composted at a nearby facility.
• Partnerships: The City of Oakland partnership with DOC and StopWaste.Org
leveraged funds and resources, as described below.
16
G:\DATA\Member Agency\Multifamily\SAIC\contract\Programs Memo- MFD recycling_108b.doc
• Site Audits and frequent follow-up: Three jurisdictions (Castro Valley Sanitary
District, Dublin and Fremont) have incorporated the best practice of offering on-
site assessments into their franchise agreements. Castro Valley Sanitary has
partnered with their hauler to provide customized service to increase recycling
through site assessments and customized recycling proposals and outreach
materials. Follow-up visits are conducted and outreach materials are distributed
focused on problem materials.
In the review of national and local multifamily recycling programs, other innovative
ideas are identified and discussed in the full report. However, the contractor identified
the key recommendations discussed in the previous section as priorities for the
institutionalization of a strong multifamily recycling program.
CONTRACTOR EVALUATION OF AGENCY MF GRANT PROGRAM
As part of the study, the consultants reviewed the Agency’s efforts to promote and
provide assistance to increase multifamily recycling. Since 2002, the Agency has
provided grant funding, technical assistance and resources available to all the member
agencies. The grant money can be used for educational materials, infrastructure
improvements and in-unit containers. Requests for other items have been granted on a
case-by-case basis. Member agencies, MFD complexes and housing authorities have
applied for and received grants. Other member agencies have used resources, such as
graphics, for their programs. Approximately $130,000 in funding has been awarded and
outreach has been conducted to over 20,000 units. The average cost for program
implementation was less than $10 per unit.
Based on the results, the contractor reports that the grant program appears successful and
cost effective in providing resources towards improving MFD outreach and
infrastructure. It is recommended that the grant program continue and that the data
reporting requirement of the grant program be expanded for more than one year in order
to better evaluate long term program effectiveness. This recommendation needs to be
balanced with jurisdictional concerns about not making reporting too onerous.
OTHER AGENCY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE MF RECYCLING
In a recent pilot program, begun after the contractor’s work, StopWaste.Org partnered
with the City of Oakland and the California Department of Conservation (DOC) to
increase multifamily recycling capture. The DOC awarded a grant totaling $444,700 in
funding and in-kind services for promotion of multifamily recycling in low-income
populations. The grant paid for development of an outreach campaign that included door-
to-door distribution of materials, recruitment and technical assistance as well as the
development of a print and radio campaign. The City of Oakland and StopWaste.Org
contributed funds to an advertising campaign resulting in bus, transit and billboard ads
that were posted in the area of the targeted low-income MFD housing. As of the writing
of this report, this extensive effort has resulted in the addition of 32 new buildings set up
with recycling service and distribution of materials to 1250 MF units. As a result of this
17
G:\DATA\Member Agency\Multifamily\SAIC\contract\Programs Memo- MFD recycling_108b.doc
effort, approximately 100 additional tons per year will be diverted. Concurrent with the
grant funded outreach which targets only low-income housing, Oakland is conducting
outreach to all MFD complexes citywide for improved recycling services and has
distributed materials to 1000 units.
SUMMARY:
Participation in multifamily recycling tends to be lower than that for single family
recycling due to the challenges noted above. This is true nationally and locally.
Additionally, since multifamily waste represents a fairly small fraction of the waste
stream, staff resources tend to be spent on higher diversion potential programs such as
single family and commercial recycling.
Despite the perception that they are not being served, recycling service is offered at
approximately 82% of MFDs countywide. Participation in those programs, however,
remains below that of single family households. Experience in Alameda County and
across the nation has shown that significant effort and resources are required to make
long-lasting gains in participation. The level of time and effort to devote to this sector
depends on jurisdictions’ demographics and available resources. Education, infrastructure
improvements and data collection requirements as described in the report, can help
improve participation and should be specified in franchise agreements.
Recommendations contained in the report will be discussed with member agency staff.
Recommendations related to multifamily recycling contained within the report will be
considered in the upcoming budget process, and will be brought back to the Board in that
context.
NEXT STEPS:
At the January 13, 2009 meeting, the WMA Planning/Programs Committee unanimously
recommended that the Executive Summary of the Multifamily Recycling report, attached,
be forwarded to the January 28, 2009 meeting of the full Authority for information/action
and that changes to the multifamily project be discussed as part of the FY09/10 Budget
Process.
Attachment: Executive Summary of the Multifamily Dwelling Recycling Programs
Evaluation Report
18
StopWaste.Org Multifamily Dwelling Recycling Programs Evaluation Report
Executive Summary
This report serves as an overview and evaluation of multifamily dwelling (MFD) recycling
programs in Alameda County. For the purpose of this report, MFD is defined as a residence of
5+ units with shared collection including: townhomes, mixed use buildings, condominiums, and
mobile homes. The objectives of this project were to:
• Create a baseline understanding of the MFD programs of the member jurisdictions.
• Identify best practices.
• Identify means by which StopWaste.Org and its member agencies can increase MFD
diversion and create sustainable successful programs.
The span of this report covers best practices in Alameda County and compares them with other
municipal programs in North America. Research conducted by Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC) is the source of the data and improvements recommended in
this report. Research conducted includes:
• Surveys of member agency multifamily recycling outreach practices, past efforts and
current initiatives to create jurisdictional profiles.
• Research and interviews of state and national programs to identify best practices and
innovative ideas.
• Evaluation of StopWaste.Org’s MFD Grant Program, including feedback from member
agency applicants.
Baseline:
Approximately one-third of Alameda County’s residences are multifamily units. Multifamily is
defined as five or more units with shared collection service. All Alameda County jurisdictions
offer recycling services to MFDs. Recycling service is reported to be offered at an average of
82% of MFDs countywide. Although 82% of MFDs have access to recycling and efforts have
been continuously made to provide services to MFD residents, opportunities for improvement
exist. In a 2007 opinion survey of Alameda County residents, two-thirds of Alameda County
MFD residents interviewed are aware of on-site recycling at their building. The survey found
that of those MFDs with no program, the majority of those surveyed reported that they would
likely participate if one were implemented at their building or complex
1
.
To provide perspective, according to the Alameda County Waste Characterization Study of 2000,
MFDs contributed 9% by weight of the materials disposed to landfill, compared to 23% for
single family homes or 44% from commercial and roll-off accounts (the remainder is self-haul).
Figure 1 below depicts the percentage of tonnages disposed by sector.
1
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates.
1
\\stopwaste.org\shares\WMA\DATA\Boards\WMA\Programs & Planning\Working Drafts\2009\Executive Summary.doc
19
StopWaste.Org Multifamily Dwelling Recycling Programs Evaluation Report
Percentage of Landfilled Disards (Weight, Year 2000)
Roll-Off
21%
Commercial
23%
Single Family Residential
23%
Multifamily Residential
9%
Self Haul
24%
Figure 1 – Percentage of Landfilled Discards by Sector (Weight, Year 2000)
A study of national municipal MFD recycling programs reported an average diversion rate of 15
percent through recycling
2
. Eleven of the 40 communities studied achieved MFD recycling rates
of more than 20 percent. A few cities have been able to surpass a 25 percent goal for MFD
diversion by creating incentives and mandates which motivate the various constituents involved
with MFD program implementation and usage.
3
In Alameda County, the lack of MFD diversion
data made it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of our MFD programs. The data that we do
have indicates that Alameda County’s diversion rates are typical of nationwide averages.
Challenges:
It is widely recognized that there are a number of challenges specific to MFD recycling, which
make it difficult to achieve high and consistent diversion. Challenges include:
• Space and Access: Many buildings were not designed with adequate space for
separate collection of recyclables. Many buildings have garbage chutes with no
accompanying recycling chute; making recycling less convenient for tenants.
• Manager and Tenant Transience: Frequent turnover of residents and property
managers make program consistency difficult.
• Education and Outreach: Educational materials, such as garbage bill inserts and other
2
Multi-family Recycling: Costs, Diversion, and Program Characteristics, U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1999.
3
CIWMB/ILSR Recycling in Multifamily Dwellings: A Model for Local Government Recycling and Waste Reduction:
September 2001.
2
\\stopwaste.org\shares\WMA\DATA\Boards\WMA\Programs & Planning\Working Drafts\2009\Executive Summary.doc
20
StopWaste.Org Multifamily Dwelling Recycling Programs Evaluation Report
communications from the hauler and City, tend to reach only the owner or manager.
Tenants do not receive regular education and outreach.
• Contamination: Contamination in recycling generally stems from a lack of education
about the recycling program, motivation to participate in the program or from illegal
dumping in recycling containers.
• Data tracking & Collection Infrastructure: MFD recycling is difficult to track and
measure because it is collected with single family residential, commercial, and roll-
off routes by haulers. This does not affect participation itself, but does create
challenges for program tracking and evaluation.
• Insufficient and Unenforced Franchises: Goals and expectations including outreach
frequency, service levels and data collection requirements are often not specified in
the franchise agreement. Jurisdictions need to be familiar with and enforce the
elements of their agreements
• Priorities: MFDs often house residents whose communities are focused on social
issues more pressing than recycling. The tenants generally do not receive or pay the
garbage bill and are therefore unmotivated by garbage bill savings.
Multifamily recycling programs are viewed as similar to small business recycling programs.
MFD recycling is often serviced by haulers on the same routes as small and medium sized
enterprises. These programs can be successful, but in general there are greater barriers along with
a lower potential for diversion. For a number of municipalities, MFD outreach programs or
small business recycling assistance are implemented as a civic responsibility to provide equal
access to recycling rather than for diversion.
One of the biggest challenges in evaluating MFD recycling program success is the lack of data.
While franchised haulers are required to provide service, they generally are not required to report
participation rates or diversion data specific to MFDs. In order to make sound decisions
regarding what initiatives would increase recycling diversion; data is needed to establish the
current state of recycling for MFDs. Member agencies need to put data collection and reporting
requirements into place for haulers to provide this information.
Key Findings & Best Practices:
There is no “one size fits all” solution to MFD recycling. Recycling should be made as easy and
convenient as possible, within the limitations of the property and the waste collections system.
Variations in building size, layout, resident characteristics, landscaping, and trash disposal
systems require unique arrangements to suit specific sites. A great deal of effort and resources
are required to make lasting gains in recycling collection at MFDs. The time and resources
dedicated to MFD recycling programs by member agency staff and their franchised haulers vary
widely. Education and infrastructure improvements can be made and should be specified in
franchise agreements. Key findings and recommendations from the research conducted are
summarized below.
3
\\stopwaste.org\shares\WMA\DATA\Boards\WMA\Programs & Planning\Working Drafts\2009\Executive Summary.doc
21
StopWaste.Org Multifamily Dwelling Recycling Programs Evaluation Report
• Jurisdictional Franchises - Franchise agreements negotiated between a jurisdiction and
their selected hauler become the framework around which municipal recycling programs are
built. This mutually agreed upon contract details the hauler’s responsibilities of outreach,
education and reporting, and meeting diversion goals. Member agencies should enforce the
franchise provisions that support MFD recycling programs and ensure that their franchised
haulers deliver on those requirements. Best Practices include the development of specific
goals such as:
Determine the number of MFDs to be contacted for a specific time period and include
education and outreach requirements (quarterly or twice annual contact
recommended).
Prioritize which MFDs to contact (e.g. regular outreach and education to large MFD
complexes, as defined by the member agency).
Establish data and recordkeeping requirements (i.e., annually) to determine actual
participation rates or recycling diversion.
Require periodic audits of MFD accounts to verify service/service levels.
Specific performance standards for collection frequency, minimum service levels and
diversion of franchised material by weight.
• Targeting MFDs - By prioritizing buildings for outreach, recycling coordinators and haulers
can achieve the greatest increases in diversion for an investment of time and money. High
priorities include: large buildings, MFDs with engaged onsite property managers, owner-
occupied buildings, or those where residents pay for garbage service. Lower priority MFDs
include those with compactors, functional garbage chutes (and little interest in other
collection options), and those with numerous violations with the building department.
• On-going Outreach - Successful MFD programs require regular outreach. Several
jurisdictions indicated that outreach occurs once per year or less. Reminders about recycling
should occur at least twice a year to mitigate tenant transiency. Image-based messages help
reach multi-lingual groups and those with varied levels of literacy. To streamline efforts,
messages should include signage in collection areas, color-coded and labeled bins and carts.
Move-in /Move-out kits can be provided to MFD owners and managers to help bridge the
gap in tenant transience. Franchise agreements can stipulate outreach requirements and
frequency.
• Work with Property Owners and Managers - Successful programs depend heavily on the
level of commitment from property managers. Working directly with owners and property
managers can help solve problems unique to that site and institutionalize recycling from the
top down. Working with Property Management firms and real estate organizations can
provide a means to streamline outreach and integrate recycling into lease language.
• Site Visits and Right Sizing - Site visits provide face time with resident and managers, and
an opportunity to distribute educational materials and/or in-unit collection containers. On
these visits, staff can verify service, assure adequate recycling capacity and troubleshoot
problems. MFD accounts should be audited periodically to verify service/service levels and
update information for more accurate reporting. Franchise agreements can stipulate that the
hauler conduct twice annual site visits including service evaluation and right-sizing.
4
\\stopwaste.org\shares\WMA\DATA\Boards\WMA\Programs & Planning\Working Drafts\2009\Executive Summary.doc
22
StopWaste.Org Multifamily Dwelling Recycling Programs Evaluation Report
• Require/Obtain Better Data - Mixed commercial and MFD routes make it challenging for
haulers to separate tonnages for garbage and recycling, but in order to track and improve
MFD recycling this data is needed. Program baseline data needs to be established and data
tracked. Member agencies are not consistent in requiring their franchised haulers to provide
data or analysis. In order to make sound decisions regarding what initiatives would increase
recycling diversion; data is needed to establish the current state of recycling for MFDs.
Member agencies need to implement and enforce data collection and reporting requirements
with their franchised haulers. It is recommended that jurisdictions require haulers to provide
data in their franchises and consistently obtain the information.
Program Review:
• StopWaste.Org Grant Assistance - Since 2002, the Agency has provided grant funding,
technical assistance and resources to member agencies. Approximately $130,000 in funding
has been awarded and outreach has been conducted to over 20,000 units. The average cost
for program implementation was less than $10 per unit. Based on the results, the grant
program appears to be successful and cost effective.
• Leveraging Resources - In a FY07/08 pilot program, StopWaste.Org partnered with the City
of Oakland and the California Department of Conservation (DOC) to increase multifamily
recycling capture. The DOC awarded a grant totaling $444,700 in funding and in-kind
services for promotion of multi-family recycling in low-income populations. Funding was
used for design and advertising, printing, purchase of in-unit containers, and consultant
assistance for recruitment and material distribution. The DOC, StopWaste.Org and City of
Oakland all contributed towards a media campaign promoting recycling. Technical
assistance, in-unit recycling bags and outreach materials had been distributed to over 30
buildings and new recycling service has been added. This project is still in progress but
provides an example of the possibility for partnerships.
• Organics Collection - Most cities are not offering wide-scale organics recycling services to
MFDs (5+ units). Many MFDs do not have yard waste collection service due to franchise
constraints, limited or no landscaping, or privately serviced landscaping contracts; thus
making a commingled plant debris and food scrap collection program difficult to implement.
Currently, 11 jurisdictions offer green waste collection to MFDs with eight collecting food
scraps, mostly on a by request basis. If food scrap collection is offered, it is recommended
that MFDs with strong traditional recycling programs and active onsite management be
prioritized.
• Space and Access for Recycling - Limited capacity for recycling and restricted access by
recycling vendors is a recurring challenge in multifamily units and complexes interested in
establishing successful recycling programs. For strong program participation, recycling must
be as convenient as taking out the trash. Addressing this issue is difficult in existing
buildings. StopWaste.Org has developed “Recycling Guidelines for Multifamily Housing
Design” and has incorporated the practices into the Multifamily Green Building Guidelines.
The document covers how to estimate capacity for discards; how to calculate allotment for
recycling and trash containers; recommendations of where to place interior and exterior bins;
considerations for mixed-use buildings and how to address the challenge of chutes that are
5
\\stopwaste.org\shares\WMA\DATA\Boards\WMA\Programs & Planning\Working Drafts\2009\Executive Summary.doc
23
StopWaste.Org Multifamily Dwelling Recycling Programs Evaluation Report
6
\\stopwaste.org\shares\WMA\DATA\Boards\WMA\Programs & Planning\Working Drafts\2009\Executive Summary.doc
used in tall buildings. Several member agencies in Alameda County have developed
processes, documents or ordinances to support the equal access to and allocation of space for
recycling containers.
Conclusions
MFD programs have lower participation rates due to the multiple variables influencing success.
Multifamily waste represents a fairly small fraction of the waste stream. Despite the perception
that they are not being served, recycling service is offered at approximately 82% of MFDs
countywide. Experience in Alameda County and across the nation has shown that significant
effort and resources are required to make lasting program gains. How much time and effort to
devote to this sector depends on jurisdictions’ demographics and available resources.
It is recommended that jurisdictions work to institutionalize MFD recycling in their franchise
agreements and enforce existing requirements. Data is needed to evaluate program success and
progress. Accurate data can inform decision-making regarding where to focus limited resources.
Education, infrastructure improvements and data collection requirements can be made and
should be specified in franchise agreements. One-time outreach efforts are beneficial, but
ongoing outreach is needed to maintain program participation. The Agency should continue to
provide grant and technical assistance to member agencies, including franchise assistance. The
Agency can also serve as a medium for sharing resources and tracking insights and practices
from local and national programs. Partnership opportunities provide a unique opportunity to
expand the scope and momentum of multifamily residential programs.
24
DRAFT
ALAMEDA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
PROGRAM/PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES
January 13, 2009, Tuesday, 10:00 a.m.
1537 Webster Street
Oakland, Ca. 94612
(510) 891-6500
Present: Joanne Wile, City of Albany
Dennis Waespi, Castro Valley Sanitary District
Olden Henson, City of Hayward
Luis Freitas, City of Newark
Jean Quan, City of Oakland (arrive 10:20)
Matt Sullivan, City of Pleasanton
Mark Green, City of Union City
Staff Present: Gary Wolff, Executive Director
Brian Mathews
Robin Plutchok
Tom Padia
Debra Kaufman
Roberta Miller
Pat Cabrera
1. Convene Meeting
Mr. Waespi called the meeting to order at 10:03.
2. Public Comment
There were no comments from the public.
3. Approval of Minutes of November 18, 2008 Motion
Ms. Wile made the motion to approve the minutes of November 18, 2008. Mr. Freitas seconded
and the motion was approved 6-0 (Quan absent).
4. WMA – Parcel 6 Motion
Recommendation to the Authority Board to authorize the Executive
Director (or designee) to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
25
Mr. Mathews presented the staff report. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) is seeking to place an air monitoring and sampling station at the Comcast building
location on Agency owned property, parcel 6 on Patterson Pass Road. The proposal is to place a
trailer within the existing Comcast enclosure. The trailer would hold air sampling and
meteorological equipment. BAAQMD would like to use the site for 3 years with a possible 2
year extension for an annual payment of $2,400, indexed to the CPI. BAAQMD has also agreed
to provide a one time payment of $5,000 to help improve the ingress and egress to the site.
Mr. Henson asked about any benefits the Agency would receive other than annual payment and
site improvement funds. Mr. Mathews stated that we will receive any data generated on site and
electrical improvements made to the site.
Mr. Waespi asked about the condition and length of the road leading to the site. Mr. Mathews
indicated that the gravel road was approximately one tenth of a mile long. The Agency would be
required to maintain the road in the future.
Mr. Henson made the motion to approve the staff recommendation as written in the staff report.
Mr. Sullivan seconded and the motion was passes 7-0.
5. Multifamily Unit Recycling Assistance Information/Action
Recommendation from staff that the Programs and Planning
Committee forward report to the full Authority Board
Ms. Plutchok presented the staff report. In fiscal year 07/08, a consultant was hired to evaluate
the current status of Multifamily Recycling and the state of multifamily recycling efforts in
Alameda County, locally and nationally. The scope of work for the contractor included:
Identifying challenges to multifamily recycling.
Developing baseline understanding of the member jurisdictions multifamily programs.
Evaluating the Agency’s multifamily grant program.
Identifying best practices implemented locally and nationally.
Multifamily housing accounts for about 1/3 of all housing in Alameda County. Approximately
82% of multifamily dwellings throughout the County are reported to be signed up for recycling
collection service. Participation rates in multifamily recycling programs tend to be half those for
single family households and could be improved. Waste collected from multifamily units is
about 9% of the overall landfilled waste generated from all sources, compared to 23% from
single family residents and 44% from commercial and roll-off accounts.
Challenges identified by the contractor were transience of tenants and property managers; the
need for continual education and outreach to multifamily units leading to contamination of
recyclables and lack or participation in programs and less convenient access to recycling.
Key findings included:
Lack of data available to evaluate multifamily program participation and success, due to
the fact that most MF materials are collected commingled with commercial or sometimes
single family routes.
26
Multifamily recycling has been a lower priority for jurisdictions than single family and
commercial recycling because of both the lower diversion potential and the many
challenges associated with it. While all jurisdictions in Alameda County have multifamily
recycling collection and outreach efforts, cities with a higher percentage of MF housing
have devoted more resources to the effort.
Successful MFD recycling programs require regular outreach to residents and property
managers; working closely with service providers; and more specificity in franchise
agreements and enforcement of those agreements.
Best practices identified include:
Tenant move-in/move-out recycling kits which have been used successfully used in San
Mateo County and locally in Oakland and Hayward.
Innovative rate structure: San Francisco’s new rate structure provides incentives for
increased recycling service.
The dirty MRF approach. In San Jose, in order to meet diversion goals, the hauler
collects MF waste, sorts out recyclables, some waste and composts the rest.
Key recommendations to improve multifamily recycling participation include:
Greater specificity and enforcement of franchise agreements with regards to multifamily
recycling, such as identifying goals and expectations including outreach frequency,
service levels, reporting requirements.
Increased outreach to multifamily units. Information should be distributed a minimum of
once per year.
Better data collection so that recycling can be improved and tracked. Member agencies
need to implement and enforce data collection and reporting requirements with their
franchised haulers. For example, the City of Fremont has set measureable goals for
franchised hauler staff, including proactively contacting a set number of multifamily units
per quarter; and required data reporting on each complex contacted. Union City is
developing a similar set of goals.
Increased staffing to implement and maintain recycling programs are needed. Hauler,
jurisdictional or contracted staffing is required for recruitment, outreach, site visits and
right-sizing service. In their franchise agreements, the cities of Fremont and Dublin
require the hauler to dedicate contractor time to assist with multifamily outreach.
The Agency recently partnered with the City of Oakland and the DOC to increase multifamily
recycling in low-income communities in an innovative project. This effort, although time and
resource intensive, is showing strong results and is expected to divert approximately 100 tons per
year.
Ms. Plutchok stated that staff will take the consultants’ recommendations into consideration as
part of the strategic planning process and budget development for the upcoming fiscal year.
Mr. Henson asked if staff has engaged rental housing associations. Hayward has found that
some rental housing associations were resistant to the placement of recycling bins due to space
constraints and increased illegal dumping. He stated that site audits of multifamily units were
helpful to encourage diversion.
27
Ms. Wile asked if staff could provide a summary of the final report for the Oakland DOC grant
project. Ms. Plutchok stated that the City of Oakland created kits for multifamily housing
managers as well as door hangers. A consultant helped staff identify areas within Oakland that
had low participation in recycling programs. CiviCorp, formerly known as East Bay
Conservation Corp, was hired to distribute materials. Targeted media efforts were used to
publicize the program.
Ms. Wile asked if materials were printed in multiple languages. Ms. Plutchok affirmed that the
City of Oakland prepared outreach materials in at least 3 languages as well as using more visual
images and less text heavy documents.
Mr. Green asked which best practice garnered the highest result. Mr. Wolff stated that he would
like to amend the recommendation so that the report was sent to the WMA board as an
information item. Staff would evaluate the recommendations of the report and bring it back
during the budget process.
Mr. Sullivan asked for more information about the San Francisco rate structure. Mr. Padia stated
that San Francisco’s rate structure starts with a base rate per account. A per cubic yard charge
for garbage, recycling and organics and recycling and organics are subtracted from the per cubic
yard charge. This method incentivizes recycling and organic collection.
Mr. Sullivan asked if contamination rates increased in San Francisco when the program was
implemented. Mr. Padia stated that he would check with San Francisco staff and report back to
the Committee.
Mr. Green asked if public housing recycling rates were better than other multifamily units. Ms.
Plutchok stated that she didn’t have any information specific to Housing Authority properties.
Mr. Green stated that since the units were operated by local government, they should set the
example with good diversion rates.
Mr. Waespi asked that since all jurisdictions offer multifamily recycling and 82% of all units
have service, why the recycling rates are still low. Ms. Plutchok stated that participation is low
due to access issues.
Mr. Henson asked if outreach had been conducted with rental housing associations. Ms.
Plutchok stated that presentations and outreach had been done with Northern Alameda County
rental housing associations but not to the southern part of the county. Mr. Henson recommended
that outreach be conducted.
Mr. Green asked if all member agencies checked for adequate space for collection containers and
vehicle clearance for recycling vehicles in all new construction projects. Ms. Plutchok stated
that state law requires space be provided for recycling collection containers but she was
uncertain if it occasionally slipped by inspectors. Ms. Kaufman stated that state law requires
cities to require space allocation for new construction. Mr. Wolff stated that Agency staff would
check with member agencies on their implementation of this.
28
Mr. Waespi thanked staff for the report.
6. Member Comments
Ms. Quan encouraged committee members to visit the 17
th
Street businesses that had been hit by
recent vandalism.
Mr. Green stated that he attended former committee and Board member Janet Lockhart’s going
away event in Dublin last weekend.
7. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 am.
29
January 16, 2009
TO: Alameda County Waste Management Authority
FROM: Gary Wolff, Executive Director
BY: Tom Padia, Recycling Director and Debra Kaufman, Senior Program Manager
SUBJECT: Landfill Ban Ordinance Second Reading & Adoption
BACKGROUND
At the meeting of December 17, the Authority board opened and closed a public hearing on this ordinance
to ban plant debris from Alameda county landfills, waived the requirement to read the full text of the
ordinance and had the first reading.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Authority have a second reading at the January 28th meeting to adopt the
ordinance to ban plant debris from Alameda County landfills.
30
ORDINANCE 2008-01
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN MATERIALS AT
ALAMEDA COUNTY LANDFILLS
The Board of the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (“Authority”) ordains
as follows:
SECTION 1 (Enactment)
The Board of the Authority does hereby enact this Ordinance in full consisting of Section
1 through Section 12.
SECTION 2 (Findings)
(a) The Authority has the power to enact this Ordinance pursuant to the Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement for Waste Management (“JPA”). The JPA grants the Authority the
power, duty, and responsibility to prepare, adopt, revise, amend, administer, enforce and
implement the County Integrated Waste Management Plan (“CoIWMP”), and the power
to adopt ordinances necessary to carry out the purposes of the JPA.
(b) The prohibition of certain recyclable and compostable materials at Alameda County
landfills is reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of the JPA and implement the
CoIWMP, including the following goals and policies. Goal 2 of the CoIWMP calls on
the Authority and its member agencies to “achieve maximum feasible waste reduction”
and to “reduce the amount of waste disposed at landfills through improved management
and conservation of resources.” Objective 2.1 is to “achieve countywide waste reduction
of 75 percent by 2010.” Policy 2.1.1 adopts a waste management hierarchy that ranks
management of waste through source reduction and then recycling and composting above
landfill disposal. Policy 4.1.1 of the CoIWMP is to “promote conservation of landfill
capacity.” Policy 4.4.1 states that “the Authority shall encourage feasible waste
reduction operations at landfills and transfer stations.”
(c) The State of California through its Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, Assembly
Bill 939 (AB 939), required that each local jurisdiction significantly increase its diversion
of discarded materials from landfills to 50% by December 31, 2000, and thereafter
maintain or exceed that diversion rate.
(d) The Waste Reduction and Recycling Act of 1990 (Measure D), a ballot initiative passed
by the voters of Alameda County, established the Alameda County Source Reduction and
Recycling Board and the policy goal of reducing the total tonnage landfilled of materials
generated in Alameda County by 75%.
(e) While the quantity of plant debris being composted has increased over the last five years,
significant quantities of plant debris continue to be landfilled. This material has
significant potential for waste reduction and composting.
(f) In order to implement the CoIWMP and meet the goal of 75% diversion by the year
2010, disposal must be significantly reduced from current levels.
(g) Composting plant debris will further the Authority’s efforts to reduce waste and
1
31
implement the CoIWMP, AB 939, and Measure D.
(h) Recycling conserves resources for future generations. Waste prevention and recycling
decrease the need for virgin resources extracted from forests, oil reserves, and mines.
(i) Recycling is an energy conservation method. The steps required to supply recycled
materials to industry (i.e., collection, processing and transportation) use less energy than
the steps in supplying virgin materials (i.e., extraction, refining, processing, and
transportation). These energy savings translate into reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
(j) There are facilities available that can effectively recycle, compost or otherwise process
and market plant debris discarded in Alameda County and thereby divert such material
from landfills while conserving resources and creating jobs.
(k) Landfills are the leading source of anthropogenic methane. Methane, a potent
greenhouse gas with a global warming potential 23 times greater than carbon dioxide, is
produced when organic materials decompose under anaerobic conditions. Keeping
organic materials such as plant debris, paper and food out of landfills is the best way to
reduce the amount of methane generated at landfills.
(l) The use of composted plant debris conserves water in landscapes.
(m) The use of composted plant debris reduces the need for chemical fertilizers and
pesticides, which are energy intensive to manufacture and transport.
(n) The use of composted plant debris can help mitigate the decline in soil quality in
California and Alameda County expected to result from climate change.
SECTION 3 (Definitions)
The following definitions govern the use of terms in this Ordinance:
(a) “Alameda County” means all of the territory located within the incorporated and
unincorporated areas of Alameda County.
(b) “Authority” means the Alameda County Waste Management Authority created by the
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for Waste Management.
(c) “Authority Representative” means any agent of the Authority designated by the Authority
to implement this Ordinance, including the County Local Enforcement Agency and
private contractors hired for purposes of monitoring and enforcement.
(d) “Compliance Plan” means the plan required pursuant to Section 6 of this Ordinance.
(e) “Composting” means the controlled biological decomposition of organic Waste that is
kept separate from the Refuse stream, or that is separated at a centralized facility.
(f) “Covered Material” means Plant Debris.
(g) “Disposal” means the final deposition of Solid Waste onto land, into the atmosphere, or
into the waters of the state. “Disposal” includes but is not limited to the use of materials
2
32
as “beneficial reuse,” as defined in 27 Cal. Code Regs. § 20686 or as the regulations may
subsequently be amended or reorganized. “Disposal” does not include a Landfill’s use of
material purchased by the Landfill. “Disposal” does not include the use of materials for a
Landfill’s final erosion-resistant layer, as the term in used in 27 Cal. Code Regs. § 21090
or as the regulations may subsequently be amended or reorganized. To “Dispose” means
to perform the act of Disposal.
(h) “Diverted” means Waste transferred or used for any purpose other than Disposal in a
Landfill or Transformation facility.
(i) “Enforcement Official” means the designated Authority staff person(s) or contractor
authorized and responsible for implementing this Ordinance.
(j) “Executive Director” means the individual appointed by the Authority Board to act as
head of staff and perform those duties specified by the Authority Rules of Procedure and
by the Board.
(k) “Hauler” means a Person whose primary business is to collect Waste for Disposal,
Recycling, or Composting.
(l) “Landfill” means a location that accepts Solid Waste for land Disposal.
(m) “Operator” means a Person to whom the approval to operate a Solid Waste Enterprise is
granted.
(n) “Person” includes an individual, firm, limited liability company, association, partnership,
political subdivision, government agency, municipality, industry, public or private
corporation, or any other entity whatsoever.
(o) “Plant Debris” means all accumulations of grass, leaves, shrubbery, vines, tree branches
and trimmings that are normally associated with the care and maintenance of gardens and
landscaping, except for palm trees and any parts of palm trees. “Plant Debris” does not
include organic materials that have been unintentionally contaminated with materials that
do not biodegrade, where the mixture has passed through a screen as follows: (1) the
openings in a screen used by a Person processing source-separated organic Waste shall be
no larger than one inch; and (2) the openings in a screen used by a Person engaged in
Recycling shall be no larger than two inches.
(p) “Recycling” means the process of collecting, sorting, cleansing, treating, and
reconstituting materials that would otherwise become Solid Waste, and returning them to
the economic mainstream in the form of raw material for new, reused, or reconstituted
products which meet the quality standards necessary to be used in the marketplace.
(q) “Refuse” means Waste that is designated for Landfill Disposal and does not include
Covered Material.
(r) “Self Hauler” means a Person who delivers Waste to a Landfill or a Transfer Station and
is not a Hauler.
(s) “Significant Amounts” means more than ten percent (10%) by volume of the contents of
3
33
the container or vehicle load, as ascertained through a visual inspection, or five (5) cubic
yards, whichever is less.
(t) “Solid Waste Enterprise” means (1) a franchised Refuse Hauler or a municipal Refuse
Hauler that delivers Waste to Alameda County Transfer Stations or Landfills, and (2) a
Transfer Station or a Landfill located in Alameda County.
(u) “Transfer Station” means those facilities utilized for Transformation and those facilities
utilized to receive Solid Waste, temporarily store, separate, convert, or otherwise process
the materials in the Solid Waste, or transfer the Solid Waste directly from smaller to
larger vehicles for transport.
(v) “Transformation” means incineration, pyrolysis, or distillation, and excludes
Composting, biomass conversion, and anaerobic digestion.
(w) “Waste” or “Solid Waste” means all materials of any kind or nature as defined in Public
Resources Code § 40191 or as the code shall subsequently be amended or reorganized.
(x) “Waste Generator” means a Person who produces Solid Waste by any means including,
but not limited to, residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial activities.
SECTION 4 (Restrictions on Waste Generators)
(a) No Waste Generator in Alameda County shall discard Significant Amounts of Covered
Material such that it will be delivered to Alameda County Landfills for Disposal.
SECTION 5 (Restrictions on Self Haulers)
(a) No Self Hauler shall Dispose of or deliver for Disposal Significant Amounts of Covered
Material at Landfills or Transfer Stations located within Alameda County, unless
deposited in designated separate containers or locations within the Landfill or Transfer
Station for purposes of Recycling and/or Composting.
(b) Any Self Hauler who brings a load to a Landfill or Transfer Station with a Significant
Amount of Covered Material shall separate out the Covered Material before re-
attempting Disposal, if feasible, or pay a surcharge equivalent to 50% of the normal
tipping fee, not to exceed $100 for the first occurrence, $200 for the second occurrence
within one year and $500 for each additional occurrence within one year.
(c) The Landfill or Transfer Station shall assess the surcharge described above in subsection
(b) and may retain 50% of this surcharge to cover its administrative expenses, remitting
the remainder to the Authority.
SECTION 6 (Compliance Plans)
(a) Every owner or Operator of a Solid Waste Enterprise shall submit a Compliance Plan to
the Authority that describes the actions to be taken to comply with this Ordinance and
help prevent disposal of Covered Material at Alameda County Landfills.
(b) The Compliance Plan shall include the following:
4
34
(1) Methods for preventing Covered Material from being Disposed in Alameda County
Landfills.
(2) Methods for assisting the Authority in identifying Waste Generators that violate this
Ordinance, including recording practices to be followed when noncompliance is
observed.
(3) Procedures for redirecting Covered Material away from Alameda County Landfills,
to the extent that such redirection is feasible and compliant with other applicable laws.
(4) For Transfer Stations and Landfills, a loadchecking program to prevent the
acceptance of Covered Material. This program must at a minimum provide for:
(i) the number of random loadchecks to be performed;
(ii) recording of loadchecks; and
(iii) the training of personnel in the recognition, proper handling, and disposition
of Covered Material.
(5) For Transfer Stations and Landfills, description of efforts the facility will take to
install informative signage regarding the Covered Material ban at facility entrances and at
waste receiving areas. The signage shall consist of permanent visible signs, prominently
displayed, clearly indicating that Covered Material is prohibited from Disposal and
delivery for Disposal. These signs shall be in place within 30 days of approval of the
Compliance Plan.
(6) Additional information requested by the Authority as necessary to determine
compliance with the Ordinance and how best to achieve compliance with the Ordinance.
(7) Identification of any impediments to and suggestions relating to the ongoing
implementation of this Ordinance.
(c) Every owner or Operator of a Solid Waste Enterprise shall submit its proposed
Compliance Plan to the Enforcement Official no later than 120 days after the effective
date of this Ordinance.
(d) The Enforcement Official will review the Compliance Plan for adequacy and make a
determination as to its adequacy within 30 days of receiving the Compliance Plan.
Adequacy determinations shall be based on the inclusion of all elements required in
Section 6(b) of this Ordinance and on the inclusion of all reasonable measures to
effectively prevent the disposal of Covered Material at Alameda County Landfills. Each
Solid Waste Enterprise must have an approved Compliance Plan in place no later than
180 days after the effective date of this Ordinance.
(e) Every owner or Operator of a Solid Waste Enterprise must submit an annual report
detailing the steps taken during the course of the prior year to comply with the Solid
Waste Enterprise’s Compliance Plan. The first annual report shall be for the period
through June 30, 2010, and shall be due on July 31, 2010. Subsequent annual reports
shall be due at the end of July for each year thereafter. Failure to comply with an
5
35
approved Compliance Plan shall constitute a violation of this Ordinance
(f) An owner or Operator of a Solid Waste Enterprise shall update or revise the existing
Compliance Plan if the Enforcement Official determines that revision is necessary to
achieve compliance with this Ordinance.
SECTION 7 (Inspections by Authority Representatives)
(a) Authority Representatives are authorized to conduct random inspections of those loads of
Solid Waste brought to Landfills and Transfer Stations by Haulers and Self Haulers.
(b) Authority Representatives are authorized to conduct inspections, without notice, of the
compliance by Landfills and Transfer Stations with this Ordinance and with their
Compliance Plans.
(c) Authority Representatives are authorized to conduct random inspections of all Solid
Waste at the point of collection.
(d) Authority Representatives are authorized to conduct any other inspections necessary to
further the goals of this Ordinance.
SECTION 8 (Waivers)
(a) Properties that both produce less than three (4) cubic yards of Waste on a weekly basis
and are not single-family homes are not required to comply with the requirements of
Section 4.
(b) This Ordinance does not apply to circumstances where appropriate Recycling and/or
Composting services are unavailable or infeasible for a particular type of Covered
Material, such as, for example, multifamily or commercial properties without provision
of Plant Debris collection by the franchised Hauler. The Enforcement Official is
authorized to determine the applicability of this waiver to particular circumstances.
(c) If the Enforcement Official determines that any type of Covered Material cannot feasibly
be Recycled and/or Composted for a specific time period, then the Enforcement Official
may permit the Disposal of that component of Covered Material at any Landfill for that
time period.
(d) Any Waste Generator may seek a waiver from the Enforcement Official to all or portions
of this Ordinance by submitting documentation, such as third party verification by a
licensed architect or engineer that shows that the property does not have adequate storage
space for containers for Covered Material. The Enforcement Official, in cases where
space limitations are determined to exist after on-site verification, may evaluate the
feasibility of shared Covered Material containers for contiguous properties and, where
feasible, require container-sharing in lieu of providing a waiver.
(e) Any Waste Generator may seek a waiver from the Enforcement Official to Section 4 of
this Ordinance by presenting evidence that more time is needed to fully implement a
compliant program. The application must show that the Waste Generator has in place an
active program to come into compliance and must demonstrate a good faith effort to
comply as soon as feasible.
6
36
SECTION 9 (Enforcement and Phasing)
(a) Violation of any provision of this Ordinance may be enforced by a civil action including
an action for injunctive relief.
(b) Violation of Section 4, Section 5(a), or Section 5(b) of this Ordinance shall constitute an
infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed $100 for the first violation, a fine not to
exceed $200 for the second violation within one year and a fine not to exceed $500 for
each additional violation within one year. Violation of Section 6 or Section 5(c) of this
Ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $500 for the
first violation, a fine not to exceed $750 for the second violation within one year and a
fine not to exceed $1000 for each additional violation within one year. There shall be a
separate offense for each day on which a violation occurs. .
(c) Violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall constitute grounds for assessment of an
administrative citation and fine by an Authority Representative in accordance with
Government Code § 53069.4 or as the code shall subsequently be amended or
reorganized. A separate citation and fine may be imposed for each day on which a
violation occurs. The fine shall not exceed the amounts detailed in Section 9(b) of this
Ordinance. The citation shall list the specific violation and fine amount and describe how
to pay the fine and how to request an administrative hearing to contest the citation. The
fine must be paid within 30 days of the citation and must be deposited prior to any
requested hearing. A hearing will be held only if it is requested within 30 days of the
citation. Evidence may be presented at the hearing. The Executive Director, or its
designee, shall conduct the hearing and issue a final written order. If it is determined that
no violation occurred, the amount of the fine shall be refunded. The Authority shall serve
the final order on the Person assessed an administrative citation by first class mail.
(d) Enforcement pursuant to this Ordinance may be undertaken by the Authority through its
Executive Director, counsel, or any Authority Representative. In any enforcement action,
the Authority shall be entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs from any Person
who violates this Ordinance.
(e) Enforcement of Sections 4 and 5 of this Ordinance shall not occur until October 1, 2009.
Prior to October 1, 2009, the Authority will conduct outreach and educational efforts
regarding the requirements of the Ordinance. From October 1, 2009 to December 31,
2009, enforcement will consist of warnings rather than the issuance of citations.
(f) Hotels, retail establishments, and special events will not be held responsible for violations
of this Ordinance by patrons, so long as the hotel, retail establishment, or special event
can demonstrate a good faith effort to support the goals of this Ordinance.
SECTION 10 (Local Regulation)
Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to prohibit any member agency of the
Authority from enacting and enforcing ordinances and regulations regarding the collection,
transport, storage, processing, and Disposal of Solid Waste within its jurisdiction, provided that
any such regulation or ordinance does not conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance.
7
37
8
SECTION 11 (Severability)
If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any situation is held to be invalid,
the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be
given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this
Ordinance are declared to be severable.
SECTION 12 (Notice and Verification)
This Ordinance shall be posted at the Authority Office after its second reading by the
Board for at least thirty (30) days and shall become effective thirty (30) days after the second
reading.
Passed and adopted this __ day of ____, 2008 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINING:
ABSENT:
I certify that under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy
of the ORDINANCE NO. 2008-01
____________________________
KAREN SMITH
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
38
39
ALAMEDA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 2008-01
PROHIBITING THE DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN MATERIALS AT
ALAMEDA COUNTY LANDFILLS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on January 28. 2009 at 3 PM at 1537 Webster Street.
Oakland. California. the Governing Board of the Alameda County Waste Management
Authority will conduct the second reading and consider adoption of proposed Orditlance
No. 2008-01. which would prohibit the disposal of plant debris at Alameda County
landfills.
The proposed ordinance would prohibit waste generators and self haulers (including
landscapers and others whose primary business is not waste collection) ti'om disposing of
signiticant amounts of plant debri s in Alameda County landtills. The proposed ordinance
would al so require landfill s. transfer stations. and retuse haulers to adopt compliance
plans describing the actions they will take to promote compliance with the ordinance. A
variety of exceptions apply. The proposed ordinance has been reviewed and
recommended by the Programs/Planning Committee.
A copy of Ordinance #2008-01 is available for review at the otlice of the Alameda
County Waste Management Authority. 1537 Webster Street. Oakland. CA 94612. during
regular business hours. -,
L . ! . ! ! ! ~ l f f . E ecutive Directo L// /
~ : January 21. 2009
