BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 818
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 818 (Blumenfield)
As Amended July 1, 2011
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |51-25|(May 19, 2011) |SENATE: |24-12|(July 14, |
| | | | | |2011) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: NAT. RES.
SUMMARY : Requires an owner of a multifamily dwelling (MFD) with
five or more living units to arrange for recycling services that
are appropriate and available for the MFD except under specified
circumstances.
The Senate amendments establish that this bill shall become
operative only if AB 341 (Chesbro) of 2011, is not enacted and
does not become effective on or before January 1, 2012.
EXISTING LAW requires:
1)Local agencies to divert 50% of solid waste disposed by their
jurisdictions on and after the year 2000 through source
reduction, recycling, and composting.
2)Local enforcement agencies for solid waste (generally cities
or counties) to enforce statewide minimum enforcement
standards for solid waste handling and disposal.
3)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)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.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill has been keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
AB 818
Page 2
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill:
1)Required an owner of a 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)Stated that an owner of an MFD 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 MFD. The certification is valid for no more than
five years; and,
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% 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.
COMMENTS : 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 than 40% 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.
AB 818
Page 3
AB 32 draft regulations . Pursuant to the Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006 ÝAB 32 (Nuñez and Pavley), Chapter 388,
Statutes of 2006], 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 would have to provide
education and outreach to, and monitoring of, the commercial
businesses. ARB will hold a hearing at some point this year to
consider the adoption of these regulations.
This bill and the AB 32 draft regulations share a similar goal,
which is to increase recycling of solid waste at MFDs through
convenient recycling opportunities. However, this bill and the
draft regulations contain different provisions for
implementation. For example, this 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
five or more living units.
Similar legislation . AB 341 (Chesbro) of 2011 would require,
among other things, the owner or operator of an MFD of five
units or more to arrange for recycling services. AB 341
(Chesbro) does not include the exemptions regarding inadequate
space or financial hardship.
Analysis Prepared by : Mario DeBernardo / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092
FN: 0001483