Big problem for small developments: trash pickup
In the midst of a hot real estate market â with new tracts aiming to coax neighborhood revitalization in the Westside and eclectic, urbanized housing options designed to entice young professionals â Costa Mesa City Hall is bustling these days with requests for approval of residential developments.
Yet for all the public debate, some of it fierce, about density levels, parking standards and traffic worries, planners are seeing a quirkier problem emerging: Where do homeowners put the trash cans?
City and Costa Mesa Sanitary District planners say collecting refuse has become a challenge in new housing tracts where, unlike those built decades ago, space is tight. What once was an afterthought in the planning process is gaining more attention as developersâ plans make their way through the review processes.
Because Costa Mesa is a predominantly built-out community, most of its new developments are considered infill â as in surrounded by already-established buildings. The new-development parcels are relatively small, usually only an acre or two.
So, officials say, each site plan presents its own set of challenges in coordinating trash pickup. Sometimes planners are left wondering if carts for each home â something developers want because they improve marketability â are feasible at all.
During the planning process, the Sanitary District examines the roads that will be handling, week after week, heavy-duty trash trucks. Planners also consider the logistics: How will the trucks maneuver in and out of a development?
Then thereâs the intricate orchestration of trash-cart placement on small roads, within garages and in tiny setbacks.
And when it comes to new âlive-workâ homes planned for the Westside, planners question which kind of service should be provided â traditional, single-family-home trash carts or Dumpster-size bins â because the units are designed with the commercial elements of home offices.
Since April, the Sanitary District has reviewed more than 20 site plans. Seven have been approved.
âWeâre still going back and forth with developers to find a safe, efficient route to pick up the trash,â said Scott Carroll, the districtâs general manager.
*
No longer a planning postscript
The Sanitary District serves residences in Costa Mesa, as well as portions of Newport Beach and unincorporated Orange County. Most of its ratepayers live in single-family homes, where trash pickup is once a week on designated days.
The district also services multifamily apartments of four units or less.
Long-established neighborhoods of single-family homes generally have had space for trash carts to be placed on the curb during trash day and then stored in sideyards.
Residents must remove their carts from public view after trash day. Failure to do so can result in fines.
But this is proving nearly impossible in new Costa Mesa developments, said Javier Ochiqui, management analyst with the Sanitary District.
Carroll says the district has always been on top of planning sewer needs â calculating capacity, identifying the types of required piping. But more than a year ago, after the districtâs contracted trash hauler, CR&R, raised concerns about difficult trash pickups within new developments, a light bulb went off.
The district realized that trash pickup and cart storage could no longer be the planning postscript in the long process for development approvals.
The district wanted to be an âequal playerâ in planning, Carroll said.
âWe need to be in these development review committees,â he added, âand we need to give the city our input before they start approving these plans.â
The district then got involved with the cityâs internal development review committee, which has been very helpful in addressing the new needs, Carroll said.
âItâs nice to be able to comment so we can work it out,â Ochiqui added.
Jerry Guarracino, Costa Mesaâs interim assistant director of development services, says the city is now requiring developers to present plans for trash pickup earlier in the process.
âItâs certainly a larger focus for us now with these new clustered, single-family developments,â he said. âIn new projects this is going to be addressed in a much more comprehensive way than it may have been previously.â
Apparently, âthe wordâs gotten out,â Guarracino added. Some projects are coming into City Hall already designed with trash pickup in mind.
âI think most of the developers know this is an important issue, and they want to solve it,â he said. âThey want to resolve it because it affects their site plan.â
No developer wants housing units cut out âbecause they havenât really thought of the trash pickup,â Guarracino said. âTheyâre motivated to resolve the issue.â
Ultimately, every developer has to make choices, he added.
âWhile his customers might prefer carts, he has to decide: Is it worth losing a unit or two to allow everyone to have cart service in the project?â Guarracino said. âOr does he want to pose a different solution and keep those units? We donât dictate that.
âHeâs got know whatâs more valuable in the market.â
*
âA lot of moving partsâ
Planners say there is no one-size-fits-all solution for trash cart storage and placement for pickups.
âThere are a lot of moving parts with this particular issue,â Guarracino said. âThere are a lot of variables on how you solve it.â
The Sanitary Districtâs representatives agree.
Developers have to figure where the carts will go on trash day. When factoring in the reach of the truckâs pickup arm, the carts also canât be too close to the buildings.
âWe donât want to smash a garage door and dent it as weâre putting the cart back down,â Ochiqui said. âThatâs another issue weâve never looked at because itâs never happened before.â
Developers also have to consider that large, 30-plus-ton trash trucks will travel on a housing tractâs roads â not to mention need to be able to get into and out of that development.
It would be inefficient to make multiple egresses, not to mention dangerous if the truck has to back out onto a major street, Ochiqui said.
He pointed to the planning for a 16-unit live-work project at 2026 Placentia Ave., a 0.78-acre site.
The pickup arm only reaches from one side of the vehicle. Thus, it can only collect from a single side of the street, Ochiqui said.
To collect the other side, the driver would have to back out onto busy Placentia.
âThatâs very, very dangerous,â Ochiqui said.
The compromise is the truck will turn around in Palace Avenue, which is essentially a large alley. Still, the district has concerns about the access gate onto Palace, particularly the possibility of malfunctions.
If that happens, âour truck is pretty much stuck there,â Ochiqui said, adding that spotting help would probably be required to ease the truck back out.
The Placentia development had planned for communal trash and recycling bins, not individual carts, to be located at one end of the lot â which meant residents at the opposite end would have had a decent walk to dispose of refuse, Ochiqui said.
During planning of an eight-unit development at 2519 1/2 -- 2525 Santa Ana Ave., a less-than-perfect compromise was reached for the 0.7-acre lot.
On trash day, the residents will put their carts at a curb that doesnât have any houses behind it. The downside? Homes at the far end of the lot will push their carts more than 150 feet to the pickup point.
The trash truck also will be backing into the development, which isnât ideal.
âThis solution is only on their trash day,â Ochiqui said. âSo if their trash day is on Wednesday, by Wednesday midnight, these carts must be gone and put away in everybodyâs homes.â
If there are some straggling carts left on the curb, itâs going to be hard to know whose they are, Carroll added. The carts donât necessarily have individual addresses on them.
The district wants to recommend that the projectâs homeowners association figure out a solution, because âthat would be a nightmare on usâ if the Sanitary District had to enforce the rule about not leaving trash carts out beyond trash day there, Ochiqui said.
*
Commercial or residential?
The Westside Gateway project, which the council examined in June, is a case study in the complexities of trash planning.
The project at 671 W. 17th St. is larger than most new Costa Mesa developments: 9 acres, with 176 units proposed, some which are the live-work design.
As with other live-work projects, the question lingers: Will these homes use commercial-sized Dumpsters or individual carts?
âItâs harder to predict what the trash generation for live-work units are going to be,â Guarracino said.
If the live-work units require commercial trash service â which the Sanitary District doesnât usually provide but thinks is appropriate for Westside Gateway â the number of Dumpsters on the property and where theyâll go would have to be determined.
A benefit of commercial trash, however, is that the company will provide as many pickups as needed, not just one a week.
The Sanitary District may still provide residential trash service to other portions of Westside Gateway that arenât the live-work units. In that scenario, the developer must design a road system that can accommodate the districtâs large trucks and their required turning radii, Ochiqui said.
District planners say theyâve already seen problems with Westside Gatewayâs primary entrance off Superior Avenue. The parking spaces on that road arenât leaving ample room for the trucks.
Ochiqui also sees a problem with the developmentâs decorative street pavers.
CR&Râs massive trucks âwill chew those up,â he said.
âWe donât want to be liable [for damage] if youâre asking us to go onto your property with heavy trucks,â Ochiqui added.
The Sanitary District, though now a more involved player in trash planning, doesnât necessarily have the power to stop a developmentâs approval if the trash situation isnât figured out, Carroll said.
And if a development goes through without a compromise?
âItâll be a nightmare,â Carroll said. âItâll be extremely challenging for us. We could make it work, but it would just be extremely challenging.â
[For the record, 9:45 a.m. July 28: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the address for a planned development as 2519 Santa Ana Ave. The correct address is 2519 1/2 -- 2525 Santa Ana Ave.]