BILL ANALYSIS �
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