CC - Item 3I - Oppose SB 1020E M F
S
O 4
Q-
4
~~RPOPArFC 'S
0
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: OLIVER C. CHI, INTERIM CITY MANAGER
DATE: JULY 17, 2007
SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE POSITION ON SIB 1020 - OPPOSE
SUMMARY
Senate Bill (SB) 1020 seeks to increase the waste diversion mandate imposed on local
governments from 50 percent to 60 percent on or before December 21, 2012, and then to 75
percent, effective January 1, 2020. Furthermore, SIB 1020 does not include any mechanism to
provide local governments with additional resources to meet this goal.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council vote to oppose SB 1020.
ANALYSIS
To date, SIB 1020 (Attachment A) has been moving through the California State Legislature without
any significant changes to the measure. In addition, the Los Angeles County Integrated Waste
Management Task Force has taken an "oppose" position on the measure (Attachment B).
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process.
Submitted by:
e ,
Oliver Chi
Interim City Manager
Attachment A: SB 1020
Attachment B: LA County Integrated Waste Management Task Force Letter of Opposition
APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA O
•
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 26, 2007
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 9, 2007
SENATE BILL
u
No. 1020
Introduced by Senator Padilla
(Coauthors: Senators Perata and Romero)
February 23, 2007
An act to amend Section 41780, 41820.5, and 41820.6 acid Article
4 (commencing with Section 40520) to Chapter 3 of Par! 1 gI'Division
30 of the Public Resources Code, relating to solid waste.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSFUS DIGEST
SB 1020, as amended, Padilla. Solid waste: diversion
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which is
administered by the California Integrated Waste Management Board,
requires each city, county, and regional agency, if any, to develop a
source reduction and recycling element of an integrated waste
management plan containing specified components. The source
reduction and recycling element of that plan is required to divert 50%
of all solid waste from landfill disposal or transformation by January
1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities.
97
• •
SB 1020 -2-
for a speeified reason.
The bill would require the board, by July 1, 2009, to develop a
strategic and comprehensive plan to achieve, on or before January 1,
2020, a diversion of 75% ofsolid waste statewide from landfill disposal
or transformation.
The bill would require the board to adopt policies, programs, and
incentives to ensure that on or before December 21, 2012, 60% of all
solid waste generated in the slate is source reduced, recycled, or
composted and to ensure that on or before January 1, 2020, and
annually thereafter, that 75% of all solid waste generated is source
reduced, recycled or composted
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: ye4 io.
The people of the State gl'California do enact as.follows:
SECTION 1. Article 4 (commencing with Section 40520) is
added to Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 30 of the Public Resources
Code, to read:
Article 4. Statewide Diversion
7 40520. The Legislature finds and declares all of the fi~llowing:
8 (a) Since the enactment of this division, local governments and
9 private induslrv have worked jointly to create an extensive material
10 collection and recycling irnfr-astructure and have implemented
1 effective programs to achieve a statewide diversion rate above 50
12 percent.
13 (b) Although the stale now leads the nation in waste reduction
14 and recycling, the state continues to dispose of more than 40
15 million tons of waste each year, which is more than the national
16 average on a per capita basis.
17 (c) To meet the goals of the California Global Warming Solution
18 Act of 2006 (Division 25.5 (commencing with Section 38500) of
19 the Health and Safety Code), there is an regent need to reduce
97
•
-3- SB 1020
4
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
greenhouse gas emissions from all aspects ofsolid waste handling
through increased source reduction, reuse, and recycling.
(d) The purpose oftfris article i.s to build on llre successlirl efforts
of local governments and private industry to achieve a statewide
diversion rate of 75 percent by January 1, 2020, through strategic
statewide initiatives developed and implemented by the board.
40521. On or before July 1, 2009, the board shall develop a
strategic and comprehensive plan to achieve, on or be/breJanuaty
1, 2020, a diversion of 75 percent of solid waste statewide fi-om
landfill disposal or transformation. The plan developed by the
board shall include all of the following:
(a) Place pritnarv emphasis on programs that minimize the
generation of solid waste, maximize diversion fivm landfills, and
manage materials to their highest and best use in accordance with
the waste management hierarchy specified in Section 40051 and
in support of the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006
(Division 25.5 (commencing with Section 38500) of the Health
and SUfety Code).
(h) Inchccle .specific statex,,ide strategies, for promoting prodtuc•er
responsibility, increasing commercial recycling, expanding the
recovery of construction and demolition debris, increasing the
diversion of organics, and increasing recycling opportunities J61-
multifamily housing.
(c) Identijy opportunities to update and expand the source
reduction and recycling elements of the local integrated waste
management plans prepared pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing
with Section 41000) or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section
41300) ofPart 3, to include eost-effective opportunities to advance
waste management practices that increase diversion and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
(d) Include specific strategies that would enable each state
agency to achieve a diversion rate of 75 percent on or before
January 1, 2015.
(e) Identify incentives, investments, and envitnnmentally sound
processing technologies that will be needed to achieve a 75 percent
diversion rate.
40522. The board shall adopt policies, programs, and
incentives to ensure that solid waste generated in this state is
source reduced, recycled, or composted in accordance with the
following schedule:
97
0 •
S B 1020 - 4 -
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
(a) On or before December 21, 2012, ensure that 60 percent of
all solid waste generated is source reduced, recycled, or
composted
(b) On or before January 1, 2020, and annually thereafter,
ensure that 75 percent of all solid waste generated is source
reduced, recycled, or composted.
SFGTION 1. Seetion 41480 of the Publie Resottrees Code *9
amended to read-
38 element that :_..1.
39 of the foliowh.,,.
97
shall divert 50 pereent of all solid waste by 4anuary 1, 2000, and
,
(eernmeneing with Seetion 56000) of Title 5 of the Govemmeni
Code after 4antiary 1, 1990, and befoie janttary 1, 2004-.
0 •
-5- SB 1020
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Q7
.,l s._1:.J waste from landfill transformation f eiNtie vii-thy
• •
SB 1020 - 6 -
1 levei ofserviee mandated by this , within ihe meaning ofSeetion
2 17556 of the c_..°- Code.
O
97
e-, *1 - 47-1 is
fn: JAn SqA vea QA
J1,
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE/
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE, ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803.1331
P.O. BOX 1460, ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460
www.lacourityiswmit.org
DONALD L. VVOLFE
CHAIRMAN
June 28, 2007
TO: All City Mayors in Los Angeles County
Dear Mayor:
SENATE BILL 1020 (AMENDED JUNE 26, 2007)
LMER OF OPPOSITION REQUESTED
On behalf of the Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Task Force (Task Force), I
am writing to request you oppose Senate Bill 1020. SB 1020 would increase the waste
diversion mandate imposed on local governments from 50 percent to 60 percent on or before
December 21, 2012, and to 75 percent, effective January 1, 2020, without providing any
resources to meet this goal.
Just last year, the California Integrated Waste Management Board announced that Califomia
had achieved the 50 percent waste reduction mandate, some 17 years after the passage of
AB 939. This achievement came after hundreds of millions of dollars in investments by local
governments to develop and implement some of the most progressive waste reduction and
recycling programs in the country along with the collection and recycling infrastructure to make
it successful. By and large, the most cost-effective programs have already been implemented,
along with a variety of feasible niche programs in order to meet the waste diversion mandates
outlined in AB 939.
Going from 50 percent to 75 percent will require major investments in new programs and more
radical changes to the State's solid waste management system. However, SB 1020 does not
provide any of the financial or technical resources needed to achieve this higher diversion
mandate, and the Task Force has expressed concerns to the author that without those
resources, jurisdictions will be unable to meet the new diversion requirements and may be set
up for failure.
The Task Force has a long track record of supporting initiatives that reduce the amount of
waste disposed in landfills and improve the quality of life for all residents. However, in a letter
sent to Senator Alex Padilla on April 19, 2007 (attached), the Task Force opposed SB 1020 for
the following reasons: The Bill does not provide local governments the financial and technical
resources needed to achieve the higher diversion mandate.
TO'd Z6S',2 8Sb 9E9 26SE 8Sb 9E9 Qd3 MdGb_1 bO:Lt Le0E_-ii-nnr
•
Dear Mayor
June 28, 2007
Page 2
0
• The BIII does not address the current deficiencies of the State Diversion Rate
Measurement System.
• No cost/benefit analysis has been conducted to evaluate the public health impacts as
well as the feasibility and associated costs of increasing the diversion rate mandate.
• The Bill does not provide diversion credit for activities and processes such as conversion
of biomass to ethanol and/or other products through the use of conversion technologies.
• The Bill, while it places higher waste diversion mandates with related penalties on local
govemments, fails to recognize and place any shared responsibilities on state and
regional governmental agencies as well as the California University and College
systems, school districts, and other special districts.
• The Bill does not place any responsibility on the manufacturing sector forreducing waste
and product stewardship.
To date, SIB 1020 has sailed through all critical votes with no significant revisions, failing to
address even one of the critical issues identified above. SB 1020 would perpetuate the State's
current waste diversion rate measurement system and significantly expand the burden placed
on local governments without providing any resources to meet this goal. We urge cities
throughout the region to express your concerns regarding this legislation.
A draft letter of opposition is attached for your use. If you have any questions, please contact
Mike Mohajer of the Task Force at (909) 592-1147.
Sincerely,
?441 /l ' az+A'
Margaret Clark, Vice-Chair
Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/
Integrated Waste Management Task Force and
Council Member, City of Rosemead
CP/CS:cw
P.\eppub\ENGP„+w\CarttCT\Bllls\58 1020 letter to M yOM.doc
cc: Each Member of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Each City Recycling Coordinator
Each Member of the Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Task Force
Attach.
Z0'd £6S£ 8SV 9Z9 £6S£ 8SV 9E9 Qd3 Ild(XII ro:LT LooE-TT--inf
u
0
SAMPLE LETTER
2007
The Honorable Alex Padilla
State Capitol Room 4032
Sacramento, CA 94249-12345
Dear Senator Padilla:
SENATE BILL 1020 (AMENDED JUNE 26, 2007)
STATEWIDE MANDATORY WASTE DIVERSION RATE INCREASE TO 75 PERCENT
The City of opposes Senate Bill 1020 (SB 1020), which would increase the
waste diversion mandate imposed on local governments from 50 to 60 percent on or
before December 21, 2012, and to 75 percent, effective January 1, 2020. SB 1020
would place higher waste diversion mandates with related penalties on local
governments, without providing the necessary financial and technical resources in order
to achieve an increased diversion mandate.
Local governments across the State have invested millions of dollars into the current
recycling infrastructure, the development and implementation of waste reduction
programs, and the mathematical accounting and documentation required to meet the
current 50 percent mandate. Subsequent diversion increases will require major
investment in new programs and more radical changes to the solid waste management
system in California, including changes to the mathematically oriented Diversion Rate
Measurement System so that the system fairly assesses whether a jurisdiction's level of
program implementation is adequate and appropriate.
It is imperative that, prior to additional increases in the waste diversion mandate, the
State perform a cosVbenefit and lifecycle analysis to evaluate the feasibility, costs to
local government, and life cycle public health impacts of such an increase. The State
must also reassess the current solid waste management hierarchy in light of new and
emerging conversion technologies that can produce energy, fuels and products from
waste while diverting materials from landfill disposal. Such an analysis can guide the
State in providing the necessary financial and technical resources needed to achieve a
higher diversion mandate and implementing a long-overdue reconsideration of the
current Diversion Rate Measurement System and waste management hierarchy.
20'd 26SE 8Sb K9 26S2 8SV K9 Qd9 MdGUI PO:LT LOOE.-TT-inn
•
0
SAMPLE LETTER
While the City of shares the goal of reducing waste disposal and improving
our environment, we urge you to first address the issues raised above, and work with
local government to provide the resources we need to be successful. Therefore, the
City of opposes SB 1020. Should you have any questions, please contact
Sincerely,
Mayor, City of
cc: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Senate President Pro Tern Don Persta
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuf'iez
Each Member of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee
Each Member of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee
Each Member of the California Integrated Waste Management Board
Each Member of the Los Angeles County State Legislative Delegation
Each Member of the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors
League of California Cities
Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Task Force
tO • d 2~b52 East 9c'9 ~Gs2 8st 9E9 ad9 Mdaan 170: Li -I 0O -1 Z-nnr
0 •
DONALD L, WOLFE
CHAIRMAN
April 18, 2007
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE/
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE, ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331
P.O. BOX 1460, ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802.1460
www.lacoijjityiswrntf.org
The Honorable Alex Padilla
State Capitol Room 4032
Sacramento, CA 94249-12345
Dear Senator Padilla:
SENATE BILL 1020 (AMENDED APRIL 9, 2007)
STATEWIDE MANDATORY WASTE. DIVERSION RATE INCREASE TO 75 PERCENT
The Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste Management
Task Force (Task Force) strongly opposes Senate Bill 1020 (SB 1020), which would increase
the waste diversion mandate imposed on local governments from 50 to 75 percent, effective
January 1, 2012, for the following reasons:
• The Bill does not provide diversion credit for activities and processes such as conversion of
biomass to ethanol and/or other products through the use of conversion technologies.
• The Bill as currently drafted does not address the current deficiencies of the State Diversion
Rate Measurement System.
• No costlbenefit analysis has been conducted to evaluate the public health impacts as well
as the feasibility and associated costs of increasing the diversion rate mandate.
• The Bill does not provide local governments the financial and technical resources needed
to achieve the higher diversion mandate.
• The Bill, while it places higher waste diversion mandates with related penalties on local
governments, fails to recognize and place any shared responsibilities on state and regional
governmental agencies as well as the California University and College systems, school
districts and other special districts.
• The Bill does not place any responsibility on the manufacturing sector for reducing waste
and product stewardship.
so'd 26S2 8Sb 9c9 Z6S2 8Sb 9Z9 Qd3 MdGd-l PO:LT Liloc-TT-Ii i
0
The Honorable Alex Padilla
April 18, 2007
Page 2
Pursuant to Chapter 3.67 of the Los Angeles County Code and the California Integrated Waste
Management Act of 1989 (AS 939, as amended), the Task Force is responsible for coordinating
the development of all major solid waste planning documents prepared for the County of
Los Angeles and its 88 cities in Los Angeles County with a combined population in excess of
10 million. Consistent with these responsibilities, and to ensure a coordinated and cost-effective
and environmentally-sound solid waste management system in Los Angeles County, the Task
Force also addresses issues impacting the system on a Countywide basis. The Task Force
membership includes representatives of the League of California Cities-Los Angeles County
Division, the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, the City of Los Angeles, the waste
management industry, environmental groups, the public, and a number of other governmental
agencies.
The cornerstone of AS 939 is the mandate on local governments to reduce the amount of solid
waste disposed at landfills by 50 percent by the year 2000 and thereafter. Failure to
mathematically demonstrate achievement of this mandate may subject them to penalties of up
to $10,000 per day. SB 1020, if enacted, would increase the 50 percent waste diversion
mandate to 75 percent beginning January 1, 2012.
First, while we share a common goal of reducing waste to protect our environment, it is difficult
to understand why the State would increase the diversion rate without first addressing the
inherent deficiencies of the State's Diversion Rate Measurement System. These deficiencies
,have caused many jurisdictions' diversion rates to fluctuate (and in some cases, the fluctuations
were several orders of magnitude) from year to year despite program enhancements. This
fluctuation is especially evident in Los Angeles County which hosts 89 jurisdictions, a diverse
geography and economy, and the most complex solid waste management system In the nation.
The System's faulty nature was acknowledged in a comprehensive report prepared by the
California Integrated Waste Management Board and forwarded to the Legislature in 2002
entitled. "A Comprehensive Analysis of the Integrated Waste Management Act Diversion Rate
Measurement System." Ultimate) the Report determined that there is no clear nexus between
cent waste reduction mandate. As of date, the
within the Report have yet to be enacted.
We are concerned that if the State continues to view the diversion rate measurement system as
an absolute determination of a jurisdiction's compliance with AS 939 without viewing it as an
indicator of the effectiveness of jurisdiction's program, SB 1020 will set up jurisdictions to fail.
We believe that for meaningful waste reduction to occur, Jurisdictions should be measured on
the basis of their program implementation as identified in the California Integrated Waste
Management Board's approved Source Reduction and Recycling Element (or other programs
mutually agreed upon by the jurisdiction and the Waste Board).
Second, local governments across the State have invested millions of dollars in recycling
infrastructure, the development and implementation of waste reduction programs, and the
90'd 26SE 8Sh 929 26SE 8Sb 97-9 Qd3 ridClU 1 SOILS L007--iZ- ini
0
The Honorable Alex Padilla
April 18, 2007
Page 3
IF,
LI
mathematical accounting and documentation required to meet the current 50 percent mandate.
After 17 years, most California jurisdictions have not only implemented the more cost-effective,
higher-return programs, but also a variety of feasible niche programs (in fact, 113 of all diversion
activities in the State occur within Los Angeles County). Thus, subsequent diversion increases
will require major investments in new programs and more radical changes to the solid waste
management system in California. However, without SB 1020 providing the financial and
technical resources needed to achieve this higher diversion mandate, we are also concerned
that jurisdictions will again be set up for failure since many are facing significant budgetary
constraints.
It must be emphasized that the 'ask Force has a long track record in supporting initiatives that
not only reduce the amount of waste disposed in landfills, but also Improve the quality of life for
ail residents. We are ready to work with the Legislature to constructively address the challenges
of solid waste management, and offer the following practical solutions as options for achieving
the stated intent of this Bill:
Provide full diversion credit and establish a level playing field for conversion technologies.
Conversion technologies are state-of-the-art technologies capable of converting residual
solid waste (waste that remains after all recyclables have been removed) into marketable
products, including renewable clean energy. The California Integrated Waste Management
Board has identified over 140 of these facilities operating in Europe and Asia. The City of
Los Angeles' recently adopted RENEW LA Plan and the State's Rioenergy Action Plan and
Climate Action Team Final Report all call for the development of these technologies in order
to meet local and Statewide waste management, renewable energy, and climate action
goals. The RENEW LA Plan calls for an aggressive program that will develop conversion
technology facilities and dramatically reduce the need for landfill disposal. For example, the
City's Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has established a goal to develop a`ull-scale conversion
technology facility by 2010. Providing full diversion credit will not only accelerate the
research and development of conversion technologies without any direct governmental
funding, but will ultimately reduce the amount of waste disposed at our landfills.
Reform the State's mathematically-oriented Diversion Rate Measurement System to a
program-based measurement system to fairly assess whether a jurisdiction's level of
program implementation is adequate and appropriate.
Place more emphasis on producer responsibility which is critical to sustaining the current
and anticipated level of diversion activities. This principle is aimed at ensuring that
businesses who place products on the market take responsibility for those products once
they have reached the end of their life. We believe that the greatest waste reduction gains
can be achieved in the future by requiring manufactures to take responsibility for their
products and implement sustainable recovery programs.
LN ' d ZI6S- est7 K9 26SC 8Sb K9 Qd3 MdGU_1 So : L T LooE-T T--1nf
E
80.0 -ld101
The Honorable Alcx Padilla
April 18, 2007
Page 4
C;
• Improve and enhance the State's recycling market development efforts. As more markets
are created, the diversion of materials will increase proportionately-
Conduct a cost/benefit and feasibility analysis of an increased diversion mandate, in
conjunction with all affected stakeholders, and make a determination that the proposed
increase in the diversion rate is justified-
We stand ready to assist the Legislature in this endeavor and are confident this will result in
a greater level of diversion and resource management for the State as a whole.
Therefore, the Task Force strongly opposes AB 1020. If you have any questions, please
contact Mr. Mike Mohajer of the Task Force at (909) 592-1147.
Sincerely,
Margaret Clark, Vice-Chair
Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/
Integrated Waste Management Task Force and
Council Member, City of Rosemead
CS-cw
PA$e6Serste Bill 1,520
cc: Senate President Pro Tern Don Perata
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nufiez
Each Member of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee
Each Member of the Los Angeles County Legislative Delegation
California Integrated Waste Management Board
Each Member of the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors
Each City Mayor in the County of Los Angeles
Califomia State Association of Counties
League of Califomia Cities
League of California Cities, Los Angeles County Division
Southern California Association of Governments
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
Solid Waste Association of North America
South Bay Cltles Council of Governments
Each Member of the Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Task Force
Each City Recycling Coordinator in Los Angeles County
0-2'd ChsZ 8'-t7 9r7:4 26SE 8Sb 9?9 Qd3 i IdQU_1 SO:Li I 10~-i1-~iif