The Sierra Club Yolano Group recently posed a series of local environmental-related questions to the Davis City Council candidates. Written responses are limited to 400 words for questions relating to the surface water project and 200 words for all other questions.
All responses are reported exactly as received from candidates with the exception that minor formatting changes were made to ensure consistency and to minimize space requirements. Responses were arranged alphabetically by last name for the first question and then rotated for each subsequent question.
This is the first of three parts.
4. Wood Smoke Reduction Many Davis residents experience significant air quality problems in winter months due to nearby residential wood burning. Davis currently has no mandatory restrictions on wood burning unlike most Central Valley cities and the entire Bay Area. What restrictions, if any, on residential wood burning would you support, or how would you otherwise address this problem?
Stephen Souza
The problem is that many Davisites burn wood in old, dirty devices. Traditional fireplaces are so inefficient they don’t heat a room unless they’ve been retrofitted with a wood or pellet insert. Swapping out older wood stoves for newer EPA Phase 2 fireplace inserts and wood stoves that emit no visible smoke after heating up is part of the solution. We can and should find funding to help this happen. Many residents have shown an eagerness to shift to newer, cleaner burning stoves and inserts if given a little help.
Oregon had federal stimulus money for stove swap-outs, when will California find a source to help local air quality districts with this task. Regulations often seem to be heavy on the stick and thin on the carrot, which is part of the reason there is so much opposition to a mandatory wood-burning ban. The other part of the solution is to implement some form of a mandatory wood-burning prohibition on bad air days instead of the voluntary prohibition we have in place now. And finally we need to find a means other than law enforcement intervention to take care of nearest neighbor smoke effect.
My grandmother had COPD and my brother has asthma, so I am very sensitive to this issue. And I don’t doubt that there are instances in our community where particulate matter (PM) creates localized health concerns. However, as a whole, our air quality is not as bad as other air districts in the Central Valley and Bay Area, which is why the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District has not had to impose similar mandatory restrictions. This was reinforced by the work of the UC Davis DELTA Group for the city. This should caution our community against imposing community-wide mandatory restrictions – and attendant enforcement measures – on wood burning.
Now, that’s not to say the status quo is ideal, since, again, I do recognize that there are localized instances of air quality problems due to wood burning. We need to work with YSAQMD to provide incentives to property owners to switch out their old fireplaces. Providing more education to the public about the effects of wood burning – and encouraging neighbors to work with one another – would also be beneficial. Lastly, in particular instances it’s not clear to me why private nuisance law could not be utilized to curtail wood burning.
I support regional air quality policy and would like to see the Yolo Solano AQMD take action for the entire district. I realize that many think that the local air district won’t do that, but I would be strong advocate for a regional solution, and I would work to make it happen. I do believe that the first step voluntary action of “Don’t Light Tonight” has been a step in the right direction. My household participated in this voluntary program where we received the emails from the YSAQMD and abided by the “Don’t Light Tonight” requests.
Asthma is a serious issue, and many in Davis suffer from real respiratory issues, throughout the year, and not just in the winter months. We need to work on those air quality issues, and continue to strategize ways to reduce emissions, and continue to improve upon air quality.
I do support similar actions that the Bay Area AQMD/ or the Sac AQMD have taken, with their “Don’t Light Tonight” Program being mandatory instead of voluntary. Aside from the winter months/wood burning issues, there are other air quality improvement measures that I support, including reduction of gas lawn mowers and gas leaf blowers through incentive programs for switching them for electric equipment. A previous landlord of mine had a cordless electric mower for us to use; it was wonderful. We have chosen to not have a lawn and we use our small yard for fruit and vegetable gardens,(but still remember enjoying using the electric mower), and we appreciate not having to use leaf blowers or mowers.
Sue Greenwald
Like the plastic bag bans, this tends to be a very divisive issue. Hopefully, the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Control District will come up with a plan to address this wood smoke reduction region-wide. Otherwise, I think it might make sense to adopt the Sacramento regulations, and to make use of their data and their warning day system in order to save money.
I do think that we should allow EPA certified wood-burning stoves in fairness to those who tried to be environmentally responsible citizens by investing heavily in what was then the most cutting-edge technology. We don’t want to discourage people from investing in environmentally responsible technology because they are afraid that their investments could be soon rendered useless by new laws.
Require all new buildings or major remodels to have EPA certified or equivalent inserts.
Require all new units that install fireplaces to pay a nominal fee that will fund a retrofit program.
Using the retrofit program, encourage and assist current homeowners to upgrade their fireplaces to natural gas or EPA certified (or equiv) inserts.
Set a time in the near future, perhaps 2015 where Davis will agree to abide by no burn days. Ideally, UCD could have a local monitoring station so that the no burn days would be determined based on our local conditions.
Ultimately, work towards the elimination of the old fashioned method of burning wood by incentives and education; I do not believe a blanket ban is the answer. If the voluntary and incentive based approach is found to be ineffective, I would be willing to revisit this issue.
5. Single-Use Bag and Non-Recyclable or Compostable Take-out Food Container Reduction – Davis has adopted a Zero Waste Resolution striving to achieve zero waste by 2020. Many cities in California have banned or restricted distribution of single-use plastic bags by stores and/or imposed a fee on store-provided paper bags. Some cities have also restricted the use of non-recyclable or non-compostable food take-out containers. Would you support or oppose such restrictions in Davis?
Dan Wolk
I would certainly support measures to curb the use of single-use bags. No matter where one stands on this issue, I think we can all agree that such bags pose significant environmental and economic challenges. I commend the NRC for sparking a community dialogue on this issue and devising an ordinance to address it.
That being said, I think there may be a better way to go about addressing this issue, and that is to follow the lead of Washington, D.C., which implements a fee on single-use bags and then uses that fee to clean up the Anacostia River. Replace the Anacostia River with, say, Putah Creek and environmental education, and you have a makings of a good local policy, particularly considering that it fundamentally preserves consumer choice, addresses all single-use bags (paper and plastic), and does not provide a windfall to retailers. This idea has not been fully explored because current state law prohibits it, but that law is set to expire on January 1, 2013. I think we should seriously explore this fee option, which has also been endorsed by the Sierra Club.
Regardless, any ordinance cannot be burdensome; it must be sensible and involve input from businesses.
Lucas Freirichs
Single use plastic bags are an environmental nightmare. I would really like to see CA statewide plastic bag legislation that is consistent and easily implementable. (AB 298 failed on the CA Senate floor two years ago- for lack of enough Democrats’ votes.)
In lieu of a statewide ban, one way in moving toward a statewide law is to pass local regulations and once momentum is gained through the local legislation and best practices are known and unintended consequences are understood then passable legislation could be drawn up at the state level. The local ordinance that was just recommended for a CEQA review by the NRC has some good components and I generally support bag/styrofoam ordinances that are incentivizing in nature, not penalizing. A good example of this is in Ireland, where (in 2004) a roughly 10 cent fee was placed on each single use plastic bag used, and in one years time, there was a 95% reduction in usage of plastic bags in Ireland. We should examine doing that in Davis.
This current proposed ordinance does concern me with the requirements of tracking the bag use by the business. For example, the Davis Food Co-op, as leaders in reduction of waste from bag use (both paper and plastic) does not track at the POS at the checkout, but tracks based on orders, and this current proposed requirement seems unwieldy for businesses.
I would like to see the business community, including the DDBA and Chamber lead a proactive campaign, similar to “Keep Austin Weird” but around “Make Davis Green”, where they encourage new ways of thinking about our local businesses. I could see a reusable bag given away when a Downtown Gift Card is purchased, or reusable take home food containers where there are places that shoppers could put a deposit on a take out container, and return those for the deposit returned (clean or dirty) or for a new container. This is similar to the reusable container system that I helped institute at the Whole Earth Festival over 10 years ago.I know there are more ideas out there; I will listen to them and collaborate with you to find solutions that work.
When I was a child, plastic bags were not used, except for vegetables, and take-out food came in paper and cardboard. I don’t recall this ever being a problem. As a child, I remember thinking: “Hmmm…I guess they’re switching to plastic bags now. Weird.”
I try to remember to bring my reusable bags with me when I shop, and when I forget, I don’t mind using paper bags. On the other hand, I recognize that, like wood burning, this issue is particularly divisive and has created a lot of anger and anxiety on the part of many merchants and some citizens.
Many jurisdictions in California have already regulated single-use plastic bags. I think that it is very important to limit non-biodegradable waste to the extent possible. It is understandable that coastal cities have moved first when it comes to plastic bags since plastic bags used in coastal cities are more likely to end up in the ocean. I am also aware that plastic bags from Davis constitute a small fraction of the solid waste at the Yolo landfill. However, I respect that fact that CALPIRG has made this effort their number one priority, and it is an important step.
I hope that we can work with our merchants and citizens to craft a policy that most can live with. We really don’t need plastic bags; it has just become a habit.
Require businesses of all sizes (no exemptions) to charge 10 cents for disposable bags (paper or plastic). Implement rule after Jan 1, 2013, since the current state law prohibiting charging for plastic bags expires on Jan 1, 2013. I am not a fan of an outright ban on plastic bags. For many consumers, the plastic bag choice is the optimal choice.
Plastic bags and paper bags both have their environmental drawbacks. By charging for both types of bags, communities that have done this have found a dramatic reduction in uses of both.
http://www.reuseit.com/learn-more/myth-busting/why-paper-is-no-better-than-plastic
I do not believe there is a need for an outright ban on either paper or plastic bags; charging for the bags should be sufficient to achieve the goals of reduction in resource use and a dramatic reduction in pollution (bag litter).
Yes, I would like take-out food containers to be compostable or recyclable. Polystyrene needs to be eliminated. Other cities all over CA have done this already: http://www.cawrecycles.org/issues/plastic_campaign/polystyrene/local
We should consider GHG emissions in addition to aesthetic blight when drafting an ordinance regulating single-use bags. A wide range of policy options are available to achieve these goals, including bans on certain types of bags, fees on bags at the point of distribution, credits given at the point of distribution for reusable bags, and recyclable content standards for single-use bags.
An exemption to the ordinance should be included for liquor stores, pharmacies and restaurants and other non-grocery retail businesses.
In 2010 AB 1998 was introduced by Assemblywoman Julia Brownley. Her bill was a good model. My preference would be to wait for the state or county to adopt a uniform ban on single-use bags before we adopt our own ordinance. But given the fact that it will not happen this year I think it is incumbent upon our city to craft an ordinance which can be a win-win for our environment and the economy.
6. Green Waste Containerization – Davis is one of the few communities in the state that still permits green waste (lawn clippings, prunings, etc.) to be placed in the street instead of green waste containers for pick up. Because of this practice the City also sweeps the streets once per week entailing significant additional expense. Further, run-off from street-deposited green waste sends organic materials, fertilizers, and harmful pesticides into the storm drains potentially increasing mosquito breeding in the wetlands. Would you support or oppose conversion to containerized green waste pick-up in Davis?
Lucas Frerichs
The street side pick-up was thought of as an innovative program when it was developed, but times have changed and I wholeheartedly support containerization of green waste. On the whole, Davis could collect more types of waste, including compostable waste. It would improve safety of the bicycle corridors, which, with more people safely riding bikes, would also reduce our GHG emissions.
In some areas of town, including those lots with small yards, it can be difficult and unsightly to store an extra container. I would ask Davis Waste Removal to be proactive in switching the larger black “waste” containers with smaller containers to make this adjustment easier. (We should NEVER have had a default “waste” container that was 96 gallons in the first place). In addition, I would like to see a waste disposal cost structure that promotes conservation, unlike our current waste disposal cost structure, and would proactively work with DWR to make this a reality.
Sue Greenwald
We might be required to go to green waste containerization.
I have lived in a number of different cities on the east coast and coastal California, and I can tell you that, living in an older part of Davis, we face unique challenges, especially for senior citizens. In our older neighborhoods, our tree canopy, unlike that at the California coast, is mostly composed of very large deciduous trees. On the East Coast, the leaves fall over a short period of time, and people would rake or blow their leaves into one huge pile and burn them (not acceptable today!). It was a big job, but manageable. In Davis, leaves fall slowly over many, many months. And residents are not allowed to cut down the street trees, nor would it be good for the environment to allow them to do so.
Many senior citizens cannot lift their leaves into containers. And because the leaves fall over a very long period, the expense of hiring someone to do this over a four or more month period would be great, especially for senior citizens on fixed incomes who are also facing massively high water/sewer bills.
Any green waste containerization program in our climate should take into account the needs of senior citizens in our heavily-treed areas of town.
I support containerization of green waste. I think an additional container for green waste that is picked up on trash day would be a good thing. In most cases, the container would be of sufficient size to handle all of the green waste needs of the resident.
For the times when the container is of insufficient size, I would like there to be the option for a homeowner to be able to call and schedule on an as needed basis the current type of units to come and collect the green waste from the curb.
There are times during the year when a homeowner is performing a large yard project where having the ability to use the present method would be appropriate.
I would also like the same ability for the homeowner to call and have large items hauled away (mattresses, sofa’s, etc.)
Stephen Souza
New water quality concerns related to green waste practices have emerged among state storm water program regulators. Residues of urban yard waste have been identified as contributing to the depletion of dissolved oxygen and increases in algae growth in waterways, and, consequently, to adverse effects on aquatic life forms. In response communities have been required to prevent green waste from entering storm water systems that discharge to waterways.
The City should engage the public in a discussion on a reasonable program that will move us to green waste containerization. There will still need to be street pile collection during the time of the year when leaves would overwhelm a 96 gallon container. There could also be street pickup on a once a month basis.
Yes, I strongly support the containerization of green waste. Not only would it reduce harmful run-off, it would also increase bicycle safety. However, I would go further. I would like to see a citywide composting program in place. Our city was the first in the region to adopt a zero-waste resolution, and the only way to truly accomplish that is through significant waste diversion by individual households. Some downtown restaurants are already doing so as part of a pilot program.
We should work with Davis Waste Removal and others to develop a community-wide curbside composting program. DWR is willing and able; they just need the green light. And in light of AB 341, we frankly don’t have much of a choice when it comes to waste diversion.
wow, talk about loaded questions!
91, they seem like very good questions to me. The answers provided do support the old saying that you can’t please all the people all the time.
You really can’t please all of the people all of the time, because I believe all three questions in various forms were requested by people on this site.
I agree with Octane, especially with regard to #6. It is an editorial, not a question.
Let’s try #6 again.
The City of Woodland has a green waste disposal/pickup program as follows:
During leaf drop season, green waste street piles are collected weekly. During the rest of the year, street piles are collected once per month from each address and are allowed for only one week before each pickup date.
Would you support or oppose such a program for Davis?
[quote]Brett Lee: For the times when the container is of insufficient size, I would like there to be the option for a homeowner to be able to call and schedule on an as needed basis the current type of units to come and collect the green waste from the curb.
There are times during the year when a homeowner is performing a large yard project where having the ability to use the present method would be appropriate.
I would also like the same ability for the homeowner to call and have large items hauled away (mattresses, sofa’s, etc.)[/quote]
How about containerization via black plastic bags? A lot cheaper solution, and one that was used previously and worked just fine. However, I love Brett’s idea of being able to call for a special pick up of large yard clippings or furniture items…
Don: Do you think it really impacted the answers?
Elaine: “How about containerization via black plastic bags?”
Seems like a bad idea on multiple fronts – wasteful and not practical. And I don’t see why it is cheaper in the long run.
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”How about containerization via black plastic bags? A lot cheaper solution, and one that was used previously and worked just fine. However, I love Brett’s idea of being able to call for a special pick up of large yard clippings or furniture items…”[/i]
I’m not sure black plastic bags is indeed cheaper Elaine, because you would have to pay for the labor to tear each bag open and empty its content into the green waste composting process. Then on top of that you have to dispose of all the torn-open empty black bags. Finally we have to decide what level of fee we need to impose for each bag used and then how to pass that fee onto the homeowner who incurred the fee. The accounting for the fees and their payment would be an expensive nightmare.
BTW, in El Macero we have lots of older residents. All use green cans. In addition Mondays are our “call days” for green pile pickup by Davis Waste Removal. We pay a $4.00 per pile fee for those called-in Monday pickups.
To ERM re: “How about containerization via black plastic bags?”
Black plastic bags did used to be allowed but are now prohibited from green waste piles because they cause such headaches to remove prior to delivering the green waste for composting.
Otherwise, one of the big drivers for containerization is cost driven. Right now there are 3 vehicles required for green waste pickup – 1) the “claw”, 2) the truck being loaded with the claw, and 3) the street sweeper that has to come by weekly because of all the debris left behind by the claw. If you go to containerized green waste, you elimiate the claw entirely and street sweeping can easily be throttled back to once per month. The city ratepayers are paying about $750,000/year for street sweeping weekly. Cutting it back to 1/mo cuts $562,500 in costs. You will almost certainly save $500,000 in costs by eliminating the claw resulting in a $1,000,000+ per year in operating costs savings by going to green waste containerization.
Another big issue is the bike safety problem. Every year there are reports through Davis Bicycles! that a number of very serious injuries (broken bones, concussions, etc.) occur in Davis through mishaps with bicyclers and green waste piles. The biggest cause is that the rider did not see the pile because of poor street lighting or that there were wayward limbs or debris sticking out of the pile that caught the rider or spokes in the bike. Bicyclists also complain that many piles are put into dedicated bike lanes forcing them to swerve into the street to avoid accidents. As a result, green waste containerization is a huge issue for bicyclists in Davis.
I do support, however, allowing homeowners to call in and schedule a pickup of green waste by DWR’s claw at the homeowner’s expense. The homeowner can thus choose to either have DWR pick it up at the then stipulated tariff rate or have a landscape service pick it up and take it to the dump at that negotiated price. Some cities also bring the claw back for several months during late fall and winter at no additional charges when there are large piles of leaves to be removed. Most cities only come and pick up the leaves in fall/winter if requested, though, and for an additional charge.
Obviously there will need to be lots of community input on this before it moves ahead
I second Elaine’s support of Brett’s idea – being able to call for pick up of large items, or even going back to having one day a year for the city to pick these items up at curbside. I have no place to store broken/unused large items and I don’t have access to a truck, so getting rid of a piece of furniture or a large appliance usually means I have to call someone who does hauling and that usually runs $80 to $100. That’s quite a chunk to pay just to get rid of a mattress or an old sofa.
[quote]Black plastic bags did used to be allowed but are now prohibited from green waste piles because they cause such headaches to remove prior to delivering the green waste for composting. Otherwise, one of the big drivers for containerization is cost driven. Right now there are 3 vehicles required for green waste pickup – 1) the “claw”, 2) the truck being loaded with the claw, and 3) the street sweeper that has to come by weekly because of all the debris left behind by the claw. If you go to containerized green waste, you elimiate the claw entirely and street sweeping can easily be throttled back to once per month. The city ratepayers are paying about $750,000/year for street sweeping weekly. Cutting it back to 1/mo cuts $562,500 in costs. You will almost certainly save $500,000 in costs by eliminating the claw resulting in a $1,000,000+ per year in operating costs savings by going to green waste containerization. [/quote]
If containerization would [i][b]truly[/b][/i] be a cost savings, then I probably would be for it – but having a third container is a bit of a problem. The two I have now are a darn nuisance. There must have been a reason the idea of containerization was ditched after a pilot program tried out the idea. What went wrong?
“The two I have now are a darn nuisance.”
And dumping your waste in the street isn’t a darn nuisance for a number of other people?
When you have interest groups whose interest conflict, it is best to work out a compromise. Landscapers and active gardeners can tell you that a normal residential landscape produces considerably more green waste, at certain times of year, than could possibly be containerized. Bike safety is important as well. So you come up with a solution which reduces the frequency of street piles, yet allows the commercial landscapers and avid gardeners to continue putting their waste out at certain intervals.
That is what Woodland has done. I believe they tried going to containerization, and found they had to resume the pile pickup. They have different schedules for leaf drop season due to the higher volume of leaves (there is no way you could containerize the leaves from any respectable-size sycamore tree, for example, on a weekly basis during November).
Unfortunately, in Davis there is a tendency to press for absolute answers, rather than compromise. Ban this, ban that, rather than seek to bring together stakeholders and work out a solution that is mostly agreeable to everyone. And that is especially true on environmental issues.
To ERM re: :There must have been a reason the idea of containerization was ditched after a pilot program tried out the idea. What went wrong?”
I am aware that Sacramento (http://www.cityofsacramento.org/utilities/solid-waste-recycling/residential/yard_waste.cfm) and Woodland (http://www.cityofwoodland.org/gov/depts/pw/areas/environmental_services/compost.asp) have both gone to containerization but allow for pickups on request and at times of the year when there are lots of leaves. Their programs are still ongoing. I do not believe a pilot program was ever attempted in Davis. It was proposed by the NRC about six (?) years ago but shot down by the Asmundsen-Saylor Council.
Don –
Woodland never considered containerization during leaf drop season because they knew the volume of leaves would overwhelm the containers. The Davis NRC tried to get Davis Public Works to institute a pilot containerization program but they resisted mightily – and as a result, Davis the proclaimed”green city” still can’t put its money where its mouth is. Dealing with the Public Works Dept. here is very frustrating.
I am intimately familiar with the containerization program in Sacramento . The main beneficiaries were the container vendor, the sales rep and the logistics company hired to deliver the 96 gallon cans. It created many opportunities for graft and corruption of public officials, which usually concerns David . Containerization also offers more opportunity to contaminate the greenwaste with paint, motor oil, etc. They also create substantial obstacles to cyclists and others, at least on the night before pick-up, as a 96 gallon cart full of lawn clippings can weigh over 100 lbs . The program is not the panacea that some would have you believe .
Don Shor said . . .
“Landscapers and active gardeners can tell you that a normal residential landscape produces considerably more green waste, at certain times of year, than could possibly be containerized.”
Don, help me understand your comment above. We have lots of grass in El Macero, but also have no problem with any grass waste being placed on the street. It simply [u]never[/u] happens. Why is that possible in El Macero, but not in Davis? Landscape (pruning) waste definitely does get piled on the street on occasion, but if you drive through El Macero on a Monday (our scheduled waste-from-the-street pickup day) you rarely see more than one landscape waste pile for every thirty to forty houses (10-15 piles for the total 410 houses). The source of that information is Davis Waste Removal. The typical week has between 1 and 5 pickups of landscape waste for the entire 410 homes. Is there some reason why Davis may be different from El Macero with respect to the generation/removal of grass/landscape waste?
Don, can you please also delete the final paragraph of my post above “Bike safety is . . . ” I forgot to delete that quote before I hit the Add comment icon. Thanks.
Matt: Housing density is the first difference. Much higher lawn to shrub/tree ratios. Most homes are maintained by commercial maintenance gardeners, who (presumably) haul away the green waste, pay to dump it elsewhere (we hope), and charge you for that service.
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/elmacerodensity.png[/img]
When we did pruning work in El Macero we had to add a hefty pickup charge to the landscape estimate.
Don, I agree that the lawn to shrub/tree ratio is higher, but that would appear to mean we produce more green recyclable waste rather than less. Maintenance is indeed performed in many cases by commercial gardening services, but why would that be any different in Davis. My own experience is that my wife and I maintain our (no grass) garden and most weeks I have more than enough room in my green can to hold the green waste. When I exceed the capacity of the green can I call for a claw pickup on the Monday pickup day. Our neighborhood rules are that piles can’t be put on the street before Saturday night in anticipation of the Monday pickup. Most everyone is able to comply with that good neighbor guideline.
Although she was less specific (more politically neutral) on the actions she supports or does not support, Sue Greenwald most matches my interests and opinions on these things ( sorry Sue! 😉
Wood smoke bans are a stupid idea. Next step… keep me from using by BBQ and meat smoker in my back yard. Keep me from smoking a cigar in my back yard. I feel for people with asthma and COPD, (my wife has one or both), but if they live in the valley, there are MANY, MANY bothersome NATURAL things floating in the air. One bad fire season puts MUCH more particulate matter in the valley air than does several seasons of resident’s burning wood for heat. Fireplace smoke is just not that big of a deal here. Get over it. Get on with it. The market will fix the problem as natural gas prices fall from frac drilling, and pellet stoves get more popular and less expensive compared to the labor and cost of wood. In any case, if we let these hypersensitive whiners win on the fireplace burning ban, there is no question that the backyard BBQ is next.
Plastic bag bans are also a stupid idea. I am fine with paying a single-use bag tax of $.05. This is a nominal fee, but it will encourage some people to switch to reusable. The revenue collected should be used to pay for cleanup of natural areas around the city. Zero waste is also a stupid idea. The market will do a better job reducing waste as consumers demand more environmentally-correct packaging.
Citywide containerization is a stupid idea for all the reasons that Sue mentioned and the one mentioned by Lucas Frerichs that many homeowners do not have room to store another container of sufficient size. I don’t think I can support any candidate supporting this stupid idea. There is a simple solution. For streets that allow street parking, the piles should not protrude into the street any farther than a parked car. Property owners should be cited for exceedingly large piles. Bikes and pedestrians cannot ride or walk through and parked car, so they should not complain if the piles take up the same space. For streets that do not allow parking (too narrow, etc.), containerization might be the best answer. However, this is not the only solution.
“Citywide containerization is a stupid idea for all the reasons that Sue mentioned and the one mentioned by Lucas Frerichs that many homeowners do not have room to store another container of sufficient size.”
Yet somehow that’s not a problem for all other cities I have ever lived in.
David: please interview a couple of maintenance gardening services for their opinions on the green waste issue.
Matt:
1. Your El Macero yard is very atypical.
2. lawn waste takes up much less room than green pruning waste.
It is very impractical to put pruning debris into containers.
3. [i]Maintenance is indeed performed in many cases by commercial gardening services, but why would that be any different in Davis.[/i]
Because El Macero residents are much wealthier than the rest of Davis. There are many neighborhoods in Davis where income levels don’t allow for commercial gardening services. People do their own work. I’m actually surprised you’re asking me these questions. El Macero is a golf course country club with much older residents who pay people to do things. No offense intended, but that leads to very different outcomes in terms of landscape management.
[i]”Yet somehow that’s not a problem for all other cities I have ever lived in.”[/i]
Says who?
The only yard wastes that may need to be picked up are tree and some shrub prunings. If you insist on having a lawn then use a mulching mower so that the clippings remain on the lawn to feed the soil. Leaves, annual plants and softwood prunings all compost readily so there is no reason to throw them in the street. The only thing that should need to be taken away are tree and some shrub prunings, and using containers for these items is simply a poor option. If you want someone to take away your yard trash, hire a service to do so. Otherwise, stop whining and compost it yourself.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Matt:
1. Your El Macero yard is very atypical.”[/i]
Atypical how Don? If it differs from Davis yards it is probably in its production of more green recyclables than average.
[i]”2. lawn waste takes up much less room than green pruning waste. It is very impractical to put pruning debris into containers.”[/i]
I’ve been maintaining my own yard now for 14 years, and I haven’t found there to be any significant problem getting my pruning waste into my green can. The key is removing all the natural air spaces that prunings have through compression. Since I have no lawn, I have no direct experience with lawn waste, but my indirect experience with it based on my neighbors is that compression is also a real opportunity in lawn waste as well as pruning waste.
[i]”3. Because El Macero residents are much wealthier than the rest of Davis. There are many neighborhoods in Davis where income levels don’t allow for commercial gardening services. People do their own work. I’m actually surprised you’re asking me these questions. El Macero is a golf course country club with much older residents who pay people to do things. No offense intended, but that leads to very different outcomes in terms of landscape management.”[/i]
As I said above, I maintain my own yard, and the issue is not the cost associated with landscape maintenance in a green container world, but rather the physical limitations that you have said green containers have. Both my neighbors do indeed use landscape services, and the services put the grass clippings and pruning waste into their green cans.
Matt: We have a smaller Davis-sized yard with small front and back lawns. We have a compost bin and some raised planter beds that use a fraction of the grass clippings and dead leaves. I have to do major pruning of my trees, shrubs, rose hedges and creeping fig ivy, and clean out underneath my three redwoods 2-3 times a year. It takes me the good part of a day each time and I create a pile about the size of a small car. Other than these big pruning days, my grass clipping and leaves would fit in a container. But if I had to use a container for those other days, it would take a very large container and several hours more of work to chop everything to a size that would fit in a container. Even then it would take at least 2-3 runs to rid myself of all the material.
However, I could make it work… while complaining about the extra work it takes.
The larger problem for me is container storage. I simply do not have any room. The homes in my neighborhood have 5 ft. setbacks from the lot-lines. We already have to squeeze by the fence and the standard large garbage bin. With it and the recycle bin and my air conditioner, there is no more room. I doubt you have the same yard-space problem in El Macero where the lots are very big, but it is a problem for me and I suspect most of Davis homeowners.
Well said Jeff. I too have a number of times when I create my own “small car” as DWR has a 5 feet by 5 feet by 5 feet pile limit, and since we have extensive oleanders, the long stems can be assembled like Lincoln Logs to create a very dense structure with truly vertical sides. I agree that the green cans do not address everything, but they do address most.
Regarding cutting things up to fit in, I would be doing that regardless because it is a long way to the street from the major shrubbery growth areas in my back yard, so I have a round plastic can I use as a tote. In order to have the round can carryable, I’ve gotten used to using my Felcos to cut all my prunings into two foot lengths. So each six foot long oleander stem with leaves gets broken down into three segments. Snip. Snip. Snip. Pittisporum, Mahonia, Cottoneaster, Xylosma, Orange, Lemon all get the same treatment. Then my wife and I carry the round trash can to the green can on the side of the house and dumped into it. Three such round cans will typically fill the green can to the top, and then I compress the inevitable air spaces out of those first three accumulations and the green can typically ends up 1/3 full, ready for two more round cans of prunings and another compression. In the end I can usually get nine round trash cans worth of prunings into the green can it yells “uncle.”
Our side yard is 8 feet rather than 5, but I have a tool shed and planting bench in that area, so the functional area available is no more than your 5 feet. Between the ladders, the firewood pile, the wheelbarrow, the round trash cans and the three DWR cans (green, trash and recycleables) it is pretty much a 15 foot by 5 foot rubic’s cube between the front yard gate and the back yard gate, but it works pretty well for the most part.
Perhaps I’m just a bit more obsessive than some people are, and therefore what works for me might not work for others.
[quote]Require all new buildings or major remodels to have EPA certified or equivalent inserts.–[b]Brett Lee[/b][/quote]New construction already forbids wood burning fireplaces.[quote]I would also like the same ability for the homeowner to call and have large items hauled away (mattresses, sofa’s, etc.)–[b]Brett Lee[/b][/quote]They already have this ability, for a reasonable fee http://cityofdavis.org/pw/recycle/pdfs/Bulky_door_hanger.pdf
Matt: 91, they seem like very good questions to me. The answers provided do support the old saying that you can’t please all the people all the time.
lol, the questions are written under the assumptions the candidate is extremely supportive of the latest environmental fads. God forbid a candidate actually be allowed not to support them.
91: “wow, talk about loaded questions!”
David M. Greenwald
“You really can’t please all of the people all of the time, because I believe all three questions in various forms were requested by people on this site.”
lol, I rest my case.
Good discussion of the pros and cons of containerization. Obviously containerization is not the panacea some would have you believe…
[quote]And dumping your waste in the street isn’t a darn nuisance for a number of other people?[/quote]
The waste probably takes up less space and is less of an obstacle than a big green 98 lb container!
[quote]Landscapers and active gardeners can tell you that a normal residential landscape produces considerably more green waste, at certain times of year, than could possibly be containerized. [b]- Don[/b][/quote]
My experience confirms Don’s statement. Like Jeff and Matt, I’m a DIY gardener. I would hate to see the City go to containerized yard waste [i]only[/i].
I understand the problem of yard waste piles blocking the bike lanes, having tripped head over heels on one of them on an early morning run. (The fall was my fault, not the pile’s.) It is evident that many residents fail to consider the placement, size and shape of their waste piles. I would hope that people could be educated on this to reduce the hazard. OTOH, bikers and runners must take responsibility for paying attention to where we’re going (as I found out) rather than demand that the world be made safe for us.
Many residential streets in town have little traffic because they don’t lead anywhere (such as the cul-de-sac I live on) or are otherwise infrequently travelled. On those streets, the waste piles would seem to be less of a problem.
For those of us who live on older, larger lots, curbside yard waste removal is almost a necessity. Our lots produce a large amount of biomass (while also producing a large amount of oxygen) in some seasons. While our lot generally produce less than one 5x5x5 yard waste pile each week, there are times when I’ve produced as many as 5 or 6 such piles while on a pruning binge. That stuff just doesn’t compact well. It would have taken many standard containers and a hell of a lot of extra work with loppers and a saw to fit all of it.
[quote]Most homes are maintained by commercial maintenance gardeners, who (presumably) haul away the green waste, pay to dump it elsewhere (we hope), and charge you for that service. [b]- Don[/b][/quote]
Some of the commercial gardeners in my neighborhood don’t haul it away. They pile the prunings and blow all the clippings into a pile with those gawd-awful leaf blowers. Maybe the reason Matt sees so few yard waste piles in El Mo is because the commercial gardeners there [i]do[/i] haul the waste away.
As I alluded to in an earlier post, let’s not let the water supply issues and the containerized waste debate lead us into treating landscaping and yards as evil or neglecting the benefits of vegetation.
I assume we all still enjoy oxygen…
“The waste probably takes up less space and is less of an obstacle than a big green 98 lb container!”
The container I am familiar with is a big plastic trash can with a lid and wheels sometimes called a mini-dumpster. It doesn’t weigh anything close to 98 pounds.
E Roberts Musser
[i]”The waste probably takes up less space and is less of an obstacle than a big green 98 lb container!”[/i]
I don’t agree Elaine. The waste must be placed on the street, otherwise the claw can’t pick it up. On the other hand, each Tuesday morning when I put out my three cans I put them off the street on the edge of my driveway. The DWR truck’s extension arm has no problem reaching across the bike lane and lifting the can and then after emptying it, putting it back on my driveway. So the comparison is some space in the public right of way and the bike lane vs. no space.
David Suder said . . .
[i]”My experience confirms Don’s statement. Like Jeff and Matt, I’m a DIY gardener. I would hate to see the City go to containerized yard waste [u]only[/u].”[/i]
I completely agree David. “Only” makes that approach unworkable and impractical.
David Suder said . . .
[i]”Some of the commercial gardeners in my neighborhood don’t haul it away. They pile the prunings and blow all the clippings into a pile with those gawd-awful leaf blowers. Maybe the reason Matt sees so few yard waste piles in El Mo is because the commercial gardeners there do haul the waste away.” [/i]
Good point David. In fact I know that the County portion of Willowbank has historically had a problem with commercial gardeners coming into their neighborhood and dumping green waste on the side of the street . . . green waste that came from a totally different site/neighborhood.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”The container I am familiar with is a big plastic trash can with a lid and wheels sometimes called a mini-dumpster. It doesn’t weigh anything close to 98 pounds.”[/i]
When empty that is true David, but when full, I can guarantee you that my green can frequently weighs significantly more than 100 pounds. Thank god for the wheels.
Elaine:
My mother was kind enough to send me this picture. This is what I’m talking about – nowhere near 98 pounds.
[img]https://davisvanguard.org/images/stories/green-waste.jpg[/img]
[quote]My mother was kind enough to send me this picture. This is what I’m talking about – nowhere near 98 pounds.[/quote]
I’ll bet it is when packed full of wet green waste.
[quote]I wholeheartedly support containerization of green waste. [b]- Lucas[/b][/quote]…says the guy with no yard.
An interesting variety of responses (or not) regarding who each candidate expects to listen to and/or collaborate with on the single-use plastic bag issue:
[quote]Regardless, any ordinance cannot be burdensome; it must be sensible and involve input from businesses. [b]- Dan Wolk[/b][/quote][quote]I hope that we can work with our merchants and citizens to craft a policy that most can live with. [b]- Sue Greenwald[/b][/quote][quote]I know there are more ideas out there; I will listen to them and collaborate with you to find solutions that work. [b]- Lucas Frerichs[/b][/quote][quote]I think it is incumbent upon our city to craft an ordinance which can be a win-win for our environment and the economy. [b]- Stephen Souza[/b][/quote][quote]
I am not a fan of an outright ban on plastic bags.
I do not believe there is a need for an outright ban on either paper or plastic bag.
I would like take-out food containers to be compostable or recyclable. [b]- Brett Lee[/b][/quote]I acknowledge that the above snippets are taken out of context, but the full statements are above.
[quote]I don’t agree Elaine. The waste must be placed on the street, otherwise the claw can’t pick it up. On the other hand, each Tuesday morning when I put out my three cans I put them off the street on the edge of my driveway. The DWR truck’s extension arm has no problem reaching across the bike lane and lifting the can and then after emptying it, putting it back on my driveway. So the comparison is some space in the public right of way and the bike lane vs. no space.[/quote]
We don’t have a bike lane in our neighborhood. The trash containers have to go out on the street – there is nowhere else to put them. They would be just as much an obstacle as dumped yard waste – probably more so bc it would be considerably taller.
[quote]Elaine:
My mother was kind enough to send me this picture. This is what I’m talking about – nowhere near 98 pounds.
[/quote]
One more of these, and there will be no room for my car in the garage!
E Roberts Musser
[b]
[i]”We don’t have a bike lane in our neighborhood. The trash containers have to go out on the street – there is nowhere else to put them.[/b] They would be just as much an obstacle as dumped yard waste – probably more so bc it would be considerably taller.”[/i]
Is there not room on the apron of your driveway? From my experience it is truly amazing how far the arms of the DWR trucks can extend in order to pick up a can.
[i]”One more of these, and there will be no room for my car in the garage!”[/i]
Interesting comment. It never occurred to me to put them in the garage. That truly would be a space eater. Untill I wheel them out on pickup day, mine sit out on the concrete walkway that dominates my 5 foot side yard.