Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br />2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury <br /> <br />(conditional or otherwise) for restaurants in certain locations. As part of the building permit <br />process, cities have the ability to require and specify the type, location, and frequency of waste <br />disposal. More importantly, all have a general requirement that these areas be maintained at the <br />owner/operator expense in a good and sanitary manner. <br /> <br />WASTE HAULERS / SANITATION COMPANIES <br /> <br />By far the biggest recipient of waste and disposal in the County is Recology San Mateo County <br />serving the cities of Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Menlo Park, Redwood <br />City, San Carlos, and San Mateo, the town of Hillsborough, County of San Mateo, North Fair <br />Oaks, and West Bay Sanitary District. Recology of the Coast provides service to Pacifica. <br />GreenWaste provides service to the town of Atherton. <br /> <br />South San Francisco Scavenger Company (SSFSC) serves businesses and residents in South San <br />Francisco, Millbrae, Brisbane and San Francisco International Airport. Half Moon Bay, Daly <br />City and the unincorporated North County has an agreement with Republic Services, Inc. to <br />provide recycling, compost and garbage collection services. <br /> <br />Each hauler negotiates independently on rates and pick-up policy. The Grand Jury reviewed the <br />Franchise Agreement used by Recology. The agreement provides that the hauler shall replace or <br />repair bins, dumpsters and other containers as needed or upon request. <br /> <br />DISCUSSION <br /> <br />SURVEY <br /> <br />The Grand Jury sent a survey to twenty jurisdictions (see Appendix B). Five jurisdictions relied <br />solely on the County Health Department for enforcement of regulations related to restaurant <br />waste facilities; two inspected and enforced only at the permit renewal stage; and nine assigned <br />the duty to their code enforcement mechanism generally through Planning, Public Works or <br />dedicated Code Enforcement personnel. Only three of the jurisdictions conducted inspections <br />independent of a complaint. The majority, nine of fourteen, only inspected upon receipt of a <br />complaint. (See Appendix B for the tabulated Survey results). <br /> <br />In summary, survey responses demonstrate that the Cities rely on the County Health Department <br />for inspections of restaurant interiors and, in general, only respond to exterior conditions upon <br />receipt of a complaint. <br /> <br />OBSERVATIONS <br /> <br />The condition at any one site is dependent on the frequency of trash removal. The site may be <br />fine right after removal but, as the week goes on, the situation worsens. There does not appear to <br />be any site-specific requirements (or at least any that are enforced) for residual cleaning such as <br />power washing. Few sites inspected had any method of controlling wash down or steam cleaning <br />waste from flowing into the storm sewers. The type of restaurant also impacts its output, e.g., <br />some generate grease, oil and animal fat, which require special containers. <br />6.F. - Page 8 of 32 <br />52