10 Draft Integrated Waste Management Plan - City Council - City of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2012 Davis Integrated Waste Management Plan 4.2 Evaluation of Alternatives 4.2.1 Yard Material Carts An alternative to collecting yard materials loose in the street is to “containerize” the yard materials—to collect it in carts, similar to how trash and recycling is collected. The City recognizes that any discussion of containerization of yard materials should be considered in conjunction with a residential and commercial food scrap collection. As of October 2012, there are only 4 cities in California that offer exclusive loose in the street pick-up of yard materials: Davis, Sacramento, San Jose and Modesto. In November 2012, City of Sacramento voters approved a measure to containerize yard materials throughout the city. While containerizing yard materials has historically been a contentious issue in Davis, the concept of containerization is not new. In fall 2002, the City began a containerization pilot program on East 8th Street, between B Street and the railroad tracks to enhance the safety of bicyclists. All the residents and businesses on that section of East 8th Street placed their yard materials in 90 gallon wheeled carts for pick-up. This pilot is still running. The City attempted to expand the pilot area in 2007, but the attempt failed. One of the key issues with containerization, particularly as it relates to the goals of the Plan, is its effect on diversion. There is the potential that containerization of yard materials can lead to less material being collected. With loose-in-the-street collection of yard materials, customers can place as much yard materials as they wish, provided they follow the proper pile placement guidelines. Customers seem to be taking full advantage of the virtually unlimited yard materials collection; see Appendix L for DWR yard material collection data. Once residents are no longer given the simple option of piling virtually unlimited amounts of yard materials on the street and are limited to what can be placed into one or two carts each week, any excess materials may be placed into the trash or recycling carts instead. This is common problem in other jurisdictions, particularly those with variable cart rates. Contamination of recycling carts is an issue of concern, and must be considered and coordinated out with DWR. Containerization also may lead to increased contamination of the yard material collected. DWR collectors cannot see what is in a cart until it is being emptied—however, with the loose-in-the-street collection system, it is much easier for drivers to visually estimate the amount of contamination in piles. More heavily contaminated piles may be skipped until the contamination is removed. DRAFT Another item to consider is the potential impacts associated with residents having to store an additional cart on their property. By switching from loose-in-the-street to containerized collection of yard materials, the City may be able to cut back on the weekly street sweeping performed by DWR and reduce DWR related charges, potentially lowering solid waste rates for customers. Street sweeping could be done every other week, or once a month (most common), except perhaps during leaf drop season. Interestingly, when it comes to overall cost of the yard material collection system, several factors come into play. It takes a driver more time to empty carts full of yard materials than it takes to scoop up the same material loose in the street. In switching to collecting yard material in carts, there is also the added cost of purchasing all the carts. A major factor in the total cost of the two collection systems is the frequency of street sweeping. In Davis, street sweeping is performed every week following yard material collection, to clean up any remaining Page | 4-10
2012 Davis Integrated Waste Management Plan yard debris that the claw may leave behind. This weekly street sweeping makes loose-in-the-street collection costly for Davis. If Davis were to shift to collecting yard materials in carts, it may be possible to reduce street sweeping service to only once per month, resulting in an overall cost savings. In contrast, the City of San Jose offers loose-in-the-street collection of yard materials and only performs street sweeping monthly; they have been able to see a cost savings with their loose-in-the-street collection. Another issue of concern is the effect that loose-in-the-street yard materials collection may have on storm water quality. Initially, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) staff, in review of the City’s Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) submitted in March 2003, had found the current yard material management program to be inadequate. RWQCB staff contended that loose yard material in the street degraded storm water quality and emphasized that yard material containerization or its equivalent was needed. See section 5 for more details on the RWQCB, yard materials and street sweeping. In December 2006, the City was issued a storm water permit that did not require containerization. The permit did require enhanced education on the proper placement of yard material piles. At present, there is no science to indicate what the collection method effect on the amount of organics in storm water is, however, it is very possible that future permits could continue to advocate or require containerization. It should be noted however, Perhaps one of the most contentious points in the containerization debate is the concern for bicycle safety. The current collection method of yard materials loose in the street poses safety concerns for bicycle riders. The conflict between piles of yard materials and bicyclists in the same bike lane has been recognized over the years and appears in the City of Davis Bicycle Plan as an issue needing improvement. This is a public safety issue. Yard material carts may also pose a hazard to bicyclists, if they are place in the bike lane. To limit this potential hazard, the City of Sacramento placed a notice on their yard material carts to draw attention to bicycle safety, see the figure below. FIGURE 4-3 BIKE LANE WARNING ON YARD MATERIAL CART DRAFT Aesthetics have been another argument in favor of containerization. Over the last several years, especially after converting to automated trash and recycling pick up, some residents have voiced their preference for containerized pick up for yard materials. The concern is the aesthetics of having yard materials loose in the street and blowing material on windy days. During pick-up, loose materials are spread and dispersed in the wake of “the claw”. Several options for containerization are possible: Containerized yard materials only Containerized yard materials, then later food scraps Page | 4-11
Page 1 and 2: DRAFT
Page 3 and 4: 2012 Davis Integrated Waste Managem
Page 25: 2012 Davis Integrated Waste Managem
Page 77 and 78:
2012 Davis Integrated Waste Managem
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259:
show all

10 Draft Integrated Waste Management Plan - City Council - City of ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?