BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 818 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 4, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Wesley Chesbro, Chair AB 818 (Blumenfield) - As Introduced: February 17, 2011 SUBJECT : Solid waste: multifamily dwellings SUMMARY : Requires an owner of a multifamily dwelling with five or more living units to arrange for recycling services that are appropriate and available for the multifamily dwelling. EXISTING LAW : 1)Requires local agencies to divert 50 percent of solid waste disposed by their jurisdictions on and after the year 2000 through source reduction, recycling, and composting. 2)Requires local enforcement agencies for solid waste (generally cities or counties) to enforce statewide minimum enforcement standards for solid waste handling and disposal. 3)Requires local agencies to annually submit a report to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) summarizing progress in reducing and diverting solid waste as part of their diversion mandates. 4)Requires local agencies, on and after September 1, 1994, to adopt ordinances relating to adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects and prohibits a local agency from issuing a building permit after July 1, 2005 for a building that does not comply with this requirement. THIS BILL : 1)Requires an owner of a multifamily dwelling (MFD) to arrange for recycling services that are appropriate and available for the MFD. For the purposes of the bill an MFD is a residential facility that consists of five or more living units. 2)An owner of an MFD is not required to arrange for recycling services if: a) There is inadequate space for recycling containers, as AB 818 Page 2 certified by a solid waste enterprise that would otherwise serve the MFD. The certification is valid for no more than five years. b) The cost of recycling services creates a financial hardship for the MFD owner. An owner can claim a financial hardship if the recycling services result in a cost increase of 30 percent or more over the cost of providing solid waste service alone. As part of the claim, the owner must include the contact information of the solid waste enterprise that provided the information on which the claim is made. The claim is valid for no more than five years. FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown COMMENTS : 1)Background. According to the author, more than 7.1 million Californians live in approximately 2.4 million MFDs. Most of these residents are renters, but fewer that 40 percent of them have access to recycling services where they live. While a homeowner can choose to recycle, a renter who wants to recycle is not able to when his/her landlord does not provide the opportunity to do so. In California, about 8% of the disposed waste stream (3.3 million tons) comes from MFDs. Additionally, MFDs account for nearly 45% of housing units in San Francisco, 34% in Los Angeles, and 29% in San Diego--significantly higher than the national average of 16%. Successful recycling programs in multifamily housing require the education, participation, and commitment of residents; the cooperation of local agencies; and the participation of solid waste haulers. A 2001 report prepared by the California Integrated Waste Management Board, "Recycling in Multifamily Dwellings," concludes that much of the cost associated with recycling at MFDs is offset by reduced disposal fees. 2)AB 32 Draft Regulations. Pursuant to the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), the California Air Resources Board (ARB) has prepared a scoping plan that includes draft regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by requiring commercial businesses to recycle. An MFD would be considered a commercial business under these proposed regulations. In addition to the recycling requirements, local governments AB 818 Page 3 would have to provide education and outreach to, and monitoring of, the commercial businesses. ARB will hold a hearing at the end of April 2011 to consider the adoption of these regulations. The bill and the AB 32 draft regulations share a similar goal: increase recycling of solid waste at MFDs through convenient recycling opportunities. However, the bill and the draft regulations contain different provisions for implementation. For example, the bill creates exemptions for an MFD owner that are not included in the proposed AB 32 regulations. Another example is that the proposed AB 32 regulations may ultimately define an MFD as a residential facility that consists of 16 or more living units, as opposed to 5 or more living units. The author and the committee may wish to consider monitoring the draft regulations as this bill moves forward and amending this bill if necessary to assure it does not enact requirements that are less stringent than the regulations. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support California State Association of Counties Opposition None on file Analysis Prepared by : Mario DeBernardo / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092