HomeMy WebLinkAbout0587.000+.
6
November 29, 1990
THE HONORABLE CIT, COtJI/ClL
Palo Alto~ California
Excess Rubbish Removal Program
Members of the council:
Report in Brief
On June 11, 1990 f in response to Council direction, staff submitted
CMR:29B:O outlininq a new-program for removal of excess non
compostable rubbish, which would. have provided residents 'With a
third alternative for disposal. This material is· no longer
collected at curbside due to implementation of the curbside
compostable debris collection program, which was effective July 1,
19904 Council voted to continue the item :tor six months to allow
staff to determine whether an additional excess non-compostable
rubbish removal program was needed. Based on staff's analysis of
resident traffic at the landfill~ and the number of requests to
Palo Alto Sanitation company (PASCO) for special pickups of excess
non-compostable rubbish under t.."'le present proqram, staff recommends
that council take no action on a new excess rubbish removal
program.
,bckground
On December 4, 1989, Council directed staff to develop an
i:mplementation plan and costs for an excess non-compostable rubbish
removal tagqinq program, effective July l~ 1990, for residential
customers. The progra3 would have allowed residents to leave non
compos~able rubbish for curbside pickup after a special tag had
been purchased and affixed to the rubbish. The program would have
provided a thir~ alternative to the two present ways to dispose of
excess rubbish, which are: (1) requesting-a special pickup by
PASCO, and (2) taking the rubbish to the landfill in one's own
vehicle.
Piscussion
On an onqoing basis~ staff monitors resident use of the two present
methods ot rubbiSh removal by.: tracking request~ tor special
pickups by PASCO; monitoring resident vehicles using the landfill
to dispose of rubbish 4 The first four months of the curbside
-1-
0!R:5B7:0
c~postable program (July to OCtober 1990}, PASCO staff tracked
requests for special pickups and found no increase in the number of
request. and resident traffic at the landfill has decre~sed, as
coapared too the Satrlft period in 1989, a8i shown o-n the following
enart.
~E8IDENT VEHICLBS ENTBRI.a LAKDFILL
JULy
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER
4.,012
3,426
3,089
2,878
3,585
3 .. 060
3,410
2,547
fexcentage Change
increase (decreasQ)
(10.6)
(10.7)
10.4
(11.6)
'These findinqs indiCate that the two p-re:;e:i'rt. .. ethods of excess
rubbish removal are providinq the residents with adequat~ means of
disposal. Therefcre, staff has concluded that implementation of
another alternative is not needed.
Rep2PP?endatipn
Staff recommends that Cou. .. ,cil take no action on is. new excess
rubbish removal program.
Respectfully submitted,
7'~-d~
IUCHAEL 8. MILLER
Deputy Director, Public Works Operations
1) VID G. ADAHS :l1iC works
YLEMIr:! ..
ssistant ~t:-:1:2ger
Related CMR: 29S:0
-2-
CIIR:587:0
..