BILL ANALYSIS Ķ
AB 818
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 11, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cameron Smyth, Chair
AB 818 (Blumenfield) - As Introduced: February 17, 2011
SUBJECT : Solid waste: multifamily dwellings.
SUMMARY : Requires owners of multifamily dwellings to provide
recycling services. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires an owner of a multifamily dwelling to provide
recycling services that:
a) Are appropriate for the multifamily dwelling;
b) Comply with local ordinances relating to adequate areas
for collecting and loading recyclable materials in
development projects; and,
c) Comply with any other state or local law or requirement,
including a local ordinance or agreement, applicable to the
collection, handling, or recycling of solid waste.
2)Defines "multifamily dwelling" as a residential facility that
consists of five or more living units.
3)An owner of a multifamily dwelling is not required to arrange
for recycling services if:
a) There is inadequate space for recycling containers, as
certified by a solid waste enterprise that would otherwise
serve the multifamily dwelling. The certification is valid
for no more than five years.
b) The cost of recycling services creates a financial
hardship for the multifamily dwelling owner. An owner can
claim a financial hardship if the recycling services result
in a cost increase of 30% 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.
AB 818
Page 2
c) There is no solid waste enterprise providing recycling
services that serves the property.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires local agencies to divert, through source reduction,
recycling, and composting,
50% of solid waste disposed by their jurisdictions by the year
2000.
2)Requires local enforcement agencies for solid waste 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)The author indicates that only 15% of waste generated at
multifamily dwellings is currently diverted from disposal and
that less than 40% of those living in multifamily housing have
access to curbside recycling. The author argues that
expanding curbside recycling to these residents would increase
the amount of waste diverted from disposal, which would in
turn reduce the amount of greenhouse gases generated by the
state's landfills.
2)In California, about 8% of the disposed waste stream (3.3
million tons) comes from multifamily dwellings. Additionally,
multifamily dwellings account for nearly 45% of housing units
in San Francisco, 34% in Los Angeles, and 29% in San Diego,
which is significantly higher than the national average of
16%. However, for a variety of reasons, including tenant
turn-over and cost for services and space, recycling at
multifamily dwellings is generally difficult to implement.
Successful recycling programs in multifamily housing require
AB 818
Page 3
the education, participation, and commitment of residents; the
cooperation of local agencies; and the participation of solid
waste haulers.
3)Existing law requires each local agency to adopt an ordinance
to ensure adequate space for collecting and loading recyclable
materials in all development projects, including multifamily
dwellings. If a local agency fails to adopt such an ordinance
by September 1, 1994, existing law requires that a model
ordinance developed by the CalRecycle take effect on that
date. Beginning on July 1, 2005, existing law prohibits a
local agency from issuing a building permit to a development
project unless the project provides adequate areas for
collecting and loading recyclables.
4)Previous legislation :
a) AB 399 (Montaņez), introduced in 2005, established the
Multifamily Dwelling Recycling Program Law to increase
recycling in multifamily dwelling and required CIWMB, local
governments and owners and managers of multifamily
dwellings to provide information and assistance to achieve
higher levels of recycling in multifamily dwellings. This
bill was vetoed.
b) AB 2206 (Montaņez), introduced in 2006, required CIWMB
and owners and managers
of multifamily dwellings to provide information and
assistance to residents to achieve higher levels of
recycling in multifamily dwellings. This bill was vetoed.
c) AB 548 (Levine), introduced in 2008, required owners of
multifamily dwellings to provide recycling services by July
1, 2008. This bill was vetoed.
d) AB 473 (Blumenfield), introduced in 2009, was
substantively identical to this bill.
AB 473 was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger with the
following veto message:
"As I have indicated in my previous veto messages on this
topic, I support efforts to reduce the amount of solid
waste going to the state's landfills. However, this bill
AB 818
Page 4
could place costly requirements directly on the
owner/operators of multifamily dwellings.
It is problematic for the State to be engaged in this
activity when local governments already have the authority
to mandate the action envisioned by this bill. I encourage
the Integrated Waste Management Board, and its successor
agency as of January 1, 2010, the
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, to continue
efforts to provide adequate tools and resources to local
jurisdictions in order to make available increased
recycling opportunities for multifamily dwelling
residents."
5)Support arguments: Supporters, including the California Refuse
and Recycling Council, believe that AB 818 will substantially
increase the state's solid waste diversion levels by providing
access to convenient recycling options.
Opposition arguments: Opposition could argue that local
governments already are able to require recycling services for
multifamily dwellings so an additional mandate from the state
is not necessary.
6)This bill was heard by the Natural Resources Committee on
April 12, 2011, where it passed with a 6-3 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
CA Refuse and Recycling Council
CA State Association of Counties
City and County of San Francisco
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Katie Kolitsos / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
AB 818
Page 5