OLA# 011-867

LEGISLATIVE ANALYST REPORT

TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

FROM: [ADAM VAN DE WATER, (415) 554-7788, adam.vandewater@sfgov.org]

DATE: [February 13, 2002]

SUBJECT: [LITTER RECEPTACLES]

SUMMARY OF REQUESTED ACTION

The Board of Supervisors, via Supervisor Newsom, directed the Office of the Legislative Analyst (OLA) to conduct an analysis on best practices regarding the number of litter receptacles used in other major cities in the United States, including the actual number of receptacles per capita in these cities, and to make a recommendation on how the Department of Public Works (DPW) could modify its current policy regarding the number of litter receptacles in the City and County of San Francisco.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DPW estimates that San Francisco has 5,000 publicly serviced litter receptacles currently on the street in addition to the 5,000 - 6,000 receptacles serviced privately by restaurants and shopkeepers. A survey of nine comparable municipalities revealed that San Francisco has at least twice the number of receptacles per capita than all cities surveyed (with the sole exception of Berkeley, see Appendix A). While this finding does not directly account for unique variations such as geographic size, number of nonresident visitors, or population density, San Francisco"s 64 receptacles per 10,000 residents were twice those found in New York City, four times those in Los Angeles, five times those in Portland, OR and 16 times those found in the City and County of Denver.

Subsequent interviews with DPW staff confirm that San Francisco currently has an ample number of receptacles in service. The problem of trash on city streets, according to Scott Shaw of the Bureau of Street and Environmental Services, results more from the misuse of existing receptacles than the need for additional ones.

The OLA therefore finds that DPW does not need to alter its policy regarding the number of litter receptacles in San Francisco. However, should the Board of Supervisors wish to address the amount of litter in San Francisco, the OLA finds that the recently created Litter Control Fund may provide a promising means of financing a new litter control strategy.

LITTER RECEPTACLES IN SAN FRANCISCO

The Department of Public Works (DPW) estimates that San Francisco services approximately 5,000 public litter receptacles citywide. This is in addition to the approximately 5,000-6,000 privately-serviced receptacles required by Article 5.1, Section 173 (adopted in 1978) of the Public Works Code which states that, "any person, firm or corporation operating a grocery store, a liquor store or an establishment selling food or beverages for consumption off the premises shall place and maintain a litter receptacle outside of each exit from said premises for the use of the patrons thereof during business hours."

Location and Supply

New development, public requests, and anticipated need dictate the supply and location of these receptacles. DPW gives priority to placement in areas of high trash volume such as near existing bus stops, in commercial areas, and surrounding tourist destinations. While the siting of these receptacles changes to meet these conditions, DPW feels confident that the addition of approximately 200 receptacles per year for each of the last five years (a total increase of 25 percent) has met any increases in demand.

Recycling

The receptacles currently in use on the streets are made of concrete, contain removable 35-gallon plastic bins, and cost $700 each. Currently, DPW is in the process of adding $325 recycling canisters atop existing receptacles in Civic Center, Mission Bay and along standard parade routes. However, due to the low volume of recyclable materials and the high costs of collecting them, DPW does not currently recycle the contents of these canisters. Instead, DPW relies on individual residents looking to collect the associated bottle or can deposits to collect the contents via easily accessible trapdoor. DPW hopes that this addition will reduce the incidence of overturned or emptied receptacles that spread trash into the street as well as improve its ability to service the community more efficiently.

Collection

The 5,000 city-owned receptacles are serviced by two privately contracted collection agencies: Sunset Scavengers and Golden Gate Disposal and Recycling Co. Sunset Scavengers services primarily residential areas during daylight hours while Golden Gate primarily services commercial areas through the night. All receptacles are emptied daily and some -- along busy corridors such as Market Street, Mission Street and in Chinatown -- are emptied up to three times per day.

Litter Culture

According to Scott Shaw of the Bureau of Street and Environmental Services, the presence of trash on the streets is not a problem of too few receptacles but rather a more complicated function of three primary conditions:

1. continually changing demand for service (depending on such factors as outside temperature, season of year, changing transit routes, and irregularly scheduled events),
2. public tampering with existing receptacles (including removal of trash to sort for recyclable materials, unlawful dumping of residential garbage, and damage to the receptacles themselves), and perhaps most commonly,
3. "People with bad habits" including those who leave newspapers on benches or are unwilling to walk to the corner to throw away their garbage.

POLICY ANALYSIS

The OLA surveyed eight municipalities in addition to San Francisco and found that San Francisco has the highest number of publicly-serviced litter receptacles per capita and has at least twice the number found in seven of the eight comparison cities (see Appendix A). Excluding the additional 5,000 - 6,000 privately-serviced receptacles required by Section 173 of the Public Works Code, San Francisco still has twice the number found in New York City, four times those found in Los Angeles and five times those in Portland, OR. Interviews with veteran employees of DPW"s Bureau of Street and Sanitation confirmed the finding that San Francisco has an ample supply of receptacles.

The OLA therefore does not find that the DPW needs to alter its policy regarding the number of public litter receptacles in San Francisco. However, should the Board of Supervisors wish to further address the three sources of trash accumulation on the city streets identified above, they might consider the following:

1. Demand for Service: While demand for service changes irregularly, assessing and meeting that demand may be more easily solved by DPW than through legislative action. A letter of inquiry to DPW Director Ed Lee would be an appropriate initial response to any perceived breakdowns in service.
2. Public Tampering: The San Francisco Police Code already prohibits individuals from damaging public property or illegally dumping residential garbage in public receptacles. Furthermore, current efforts underway at DPW to add recycling canisters to existing receptacles have already begun to reduce the incidence of emptied receptacles on the street. Therefore, while public tampering continues to be an occasional problem in San Francisco, it appears that appropriate measures exist for addressing infractions.
3. "People with Bad Habits": Addressing public behavior and encouraging people not to litter may offer the most promising solutions to our municipal trash problems. This could take two forms: imposing punitive fines on violators ("the stick") or providing positive incentives for cleaning up the streets ("the carrot").

• "The stick": Currently, violators of state and municipal codes prohibiting littering, if caught in the deliberate act of littering, are issued notices to appear in municipal court and may either submit payment of bail at the Hall of Justice or face a (usually lesser) fine based on the court"s bail schedule. Typically, these fines range from a low of $80 for the first violation to a high of $1000 for the third violation. However, as the San Francisco court system does not currently have a way to track recidivism, maximum bail rarely exceeds $135. Any attempts to raise these fines, institute tracking, or increase enforcement, therefore, would be subject to existing language contained in the San Francisco Police, Public Works and Public Health Codes as well as the State Penal and Government Codes.
• "The carrot": The Board of Supervisors may wish to declare a city campaign aimed at reducing litter on the streets of San Francisco. This could take any form but may include one or more of the following: a "keep our city beautiful" public relations effort to clean up the city, the formation of a city or volunteer sanitation crew (such as the existing "Clean City Coalition" and "Clean Teams"), public recognition of organizations or individuals willing to voluntarily "adopt" a block and maintain its cleanliness, or the exercise of an option to undertake community service in lieu of paying fines for certain misdemeanor offenses.

Should the need be identified, one potential source of financing for a city-sponsored litter control or cleanup campaign already exists. The Public Works Litter Control Fund was established in 2000 to receive "all cash gifts, donations and contributions of money that may from time to time be offered to the City and County through any of its officers, boards or commissions for litter control."

CONCLUSION

The City of San Francisco has an adequate number of public litter receptacles and does not need to change its policy in this regard. However, should the Board wish to reduce the level of litter on the streets, initial evidence suggests that this problem is caused primarily by poor waste disposal habits on behalf of the public. While appropriate measures appear to exist to address service and public tampering issues, the OLA finds that the Board has many options to influence public behavior, ranging from punitive use of the municipal court system to encouraging litter reduction through the creation of a new cleanup campaign.

Appendix A: Estimated Receptacles per Capita in Nine Major Cities