Loading...
4f - Legislative Analysis Quarterly Report (Dec-Feb)Protecting our community's health and the environment by providing solid waste and sewer collection services. www.cmsdca.gov Attachment A Costa Mesa Sanitary District ….an Independent Special District California Legislative Analysis The Legislative Analysis provides the Board of Directors with analyses of measures pending in Sacramento that are of interest to the District. On July 22, 2010, the Board of Directors gave authority to the President to write support and/or opposition letters on behalf of the Board if that position has been taken by an agency the District is a member of. For all other bills, staff recommendations for formal District positions on legislation will be agendized and presented for Board action at their regular Board of Directors meetings. When the Board takes formal action on a piece of legislation, the President will advocate the support or opposition of individual bills as approved by the Board. This Legislative Analysis also provides the Board of Directors with informative updates on State issues. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 1. SUPPORT: AB 792 (Mullin) SB 254 (Hancock) SB 556 (Corbett) 2. OPPOSE: AB 194 (Campos) AB 218 (Dickinson) AB 323 (Chesbro) AB 536 (Wagner) AB 1333 (Hernandez) SB 594 (Hill) 3. WATCH: AB 158 (Levine) AB 164 (Wieckowski) AB 215 (Chesbro) AB 686 (Quirk) AB 1001 (Gordon) AB 1022 (Eggman) AB 1031 (Achadijan) SB 405 (Padilla) SB 529 (Leno) Legislative Analysis December 10, 2013 Page 2 of 18 SACRAMENTO LEGISLATIVE REPORT CMSD SUPPORT BILLS AB 792 (Mullin) Local Government: Open Meetings– As Introduced on February 04, 2013 – SUPPORT Author: Assembly Member Mullin Status: 05/23/13 - Referred to Com. on GOV. & F. (End status: In Committee Process) Hearing Date: To be introduced in January 2014. Reviewed: ASSEMBLY OF BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION Supported By: California Special Districts Association [SPONSOR] Association of California Cities – Orange County Association of California Health Care Districts Association of California Water Agencies California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials California Association of Joint Powers Authorities California Association of Sanitation Agencies California School Boards Association California State Association of Counties League of California Cities Opposed By: The Apartment Association, California Southern Cities East Bay Rental Housing Association NORCAL Rental Property Association Watched By: This bill clarifies current Brown Act open meeting law requirements related to online agenda posting. It also clarifies that local government agencies may continue conducting the business of the local agency even if they are unable to post agendas online due to technical glitches, so long as specific requirements are met, including adhering to all other Brown Act open meeting laws. Analysis: This bill offers a reasonable solution for local agencies experiencing technical difficulties in posting on-line meeting agendas and notices that still provides access and transparency for the public. SB 254 (Hancock) Mattress Recycling– As Introduced on March 11, 2013 – SUPPORT Author: Assembly Member Hancock Status: Approved by the Governor on September 27, 2013. Hearing Date: Reviewed: SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Supported By: Californians Against Waste Marin County Hazardous & Solid Waste Management JPA NRDC City of Berkeley City of Oakland City of Richmond ILWU 6 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisor Legislative Analysis December 10, 2013 Page 3 of 18 City/County of San Francisco Costa Mesa Sanitary District Napa Recycling & Waste Services LFP Recycling Richmond Police Department DR3 Recycling City of Sunnyvale Opposed By: None on file Watched By: CASA, CSDA The bill would authorize a qualified industry association, to establish a mattress recycling organization, and be certified by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to develop, implement, and administer a mattress recycling program on or before July 1, 2014. The bill would require manufacturers and retailers of mattresses to register with the mattress recycling organization on or before January 1, 2015. This bill would prohibit, on and after January 1, 2016, the manufacturer or retailer from manufacturing or selling a mattress in this state under circumstances of noncompliance with the bill’s requirements. The act would require the retailer, by July 1, 2014, to give a consumer the option to have a used mattress picked up, at no additional cost, at the time a new mattress is delivered. This bill would require the mattress recycling organization, by April 1, 2015, to develop a state plan for recycling used mattresses in the state that includes specified goals and elements and to submit the plan to the department, as specified. The bill would require the organization, by July 1, 2016, to annually prepare and approve a proposed program plan budget for the next calendar year and to submit the approved budget to the department, as specified. The bill would require the department to notify the organization of the department’s direct costs in implementing the act and the organization would be required to reimburse the department for those costs. The bill would require the department to deposit these amounts submitted by the organization into the Used Mattress Recycling Fund, which the bill would establish in the State Treasury. The bill would require the department to expend the moneys in the fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to administer and enforce the act. This bill would require the organization to annually set the amount of a state mattress recycling charge that would be added to the purchase price of a mattress, and would require a manufacturer, retailer, wholesaler, distributor, or other party that sells a mattress to add the charge to the purchase price for the mattress and remit the charge collected to the organization. The bill would constitute a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 2/3 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This bill would authorize the department to impose an administrative civil penalty on a manufacturer or retailer who sells a mattress in violation of the act. The bill would require the department to deposit these penalties into the Mattress Recovery and Recycling Penalty Account, which the bill would create in the Used Mattress Recycling Fund. The department would be authorized to expend the moneys in that account, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to implement the act. Analysis: This bill would require manufacturers to pick up mattresses at the end-of-life, at no cost to the consumer and the public agencies. Many consumers do not want to pay landfill disposal fees and result to illegally dumping mattresses on city properties. This bill could Legislative Analysis December 10, 2013 Page 4 of 18 potentially reduce the financial burden on local governments and protect the environment by requiring manufacturers to take responsibility for implementing a collection and recycling program for used mattresses. SB 556 (Corbett) Contracting Liability– As introduced on 2/22/2013 – SUPPORT Author: Senator Corbett Status: 9/11/2013 - Ordered to inactive file on request of Assembly Member Atkins. Hearing Date: 9/11/2013 Reviewed: SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Supported By: Opposed By: CSDA Watched By: This bill would prohibit a person, firm, corporation, or association that is a nongovernmental entity and contracts to perform labor or services for a public entity from displaying on a vehicle or uniform a seal, emblem, insignia, trade, brand name, or any other term, symbol, or content that reasonably could be interpreted as implying that the labor or services are being provided by employees of the public agency, unless the vehicle or uniform conspicuously displays a disclosure, as specified. Analysis: This bill would create new requirements for independent contractors or their employees under contract with a public agency who wear uniforms or drive a vehicle bearing a logo of that public agency. This would require the phrase “not a government employee” to be included on the logo of the uniform or vehicle, as specified. CMSD OPPOSE BILLS AB 194 (Campos) Open Meetings: Protections for Public Criticism: Penalties for Violations– As Introduced on January 28, 2013 – OPPOSE Author: Assembly Member Campos Status: 5/3/2013 – Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61 (a) (2). Hearing Date: None Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT Supported By: Opposed By: CASA, CSDA, ACSA Watched By: League of California Cities This bill would make it a misdemeanor for a member of a legislative body, while acting as the chairperson of a legislative body of a local agency, to prohibit public criticism protected under the act. This bill would authorize a district attorney or any interested person to commence an action for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination that an action taken by a legislative body of a local agency in violation of the protection for public criticism is null and void, as specified. Because this bill would establish a new misdemeanor crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Analysis: This bill creates unwarranted misdemeanor charges against local legislative body chairs who limit public criticism at public meetings. This could potentially lead to unnecessary litigation and deter civic leadership involvement. Legislative Analysis December 10, 2013 Page 5 of 18 AB 218 (Dickinson) Employment Applications: Criminal History – As Introduced on February 04, 2013 – OPPOSE Author: Assembly Member Dickinson Status: Approved by Governor October 10, 2013. Reviewed: ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE Supported By: None on file. Opposed By: California District Attorneys Association CASA, CSDA (unless amended) Watched By: Existing law prohibits both public and private employers from asking an applicant for employment to disclose, either in writing or verbally, any information concerning an arrest or detention that did not result in a conviction. This bill would prohibit a state or local agency from asking an applicant to disclose information regarding a criminal conviction, except as specified, until the agency has determined the applicant meets the minimum employment qualifications for the position. This bill would include specified findings and declarations of the Legislature in support of this policy. Analysis: This bill would impose new requirements on local agencies relative to employment application procedures. This bill could potentially delay and create inefficiencies in the hiring process. AB 323 (Chesbro) Solid Waste Recycling: Green Materials– As Introduced on February 12, 2013 – OPPOSE Author: Assembly Member Chesbro Status: 05/24/13 – Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). 2-Year. Hearing Date: Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Supported By: Californians Against Waste California Refuse Recycling Council Opposed By: OC Board of Supervisors Fourth District Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee Watched By: CASA, CSDA This bill would seek to regulate the management of solid waste organic material. Specifically, this bill would eliminate diversion credit for green material used as Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) and require Cal Recycle by 2017 to develop regulations to mandate the source separation of organics for large commercial organics generators. The bill includes a clause that would delay the date of the ADC regulation by up to two years if Cal Recycle determines that there is insufficient infrastructure to handle green material. In addition, AB 323 directs Cal Recycle to conduct analysis of the use of residual fines from material recovery facilities (MRF) and materials left over from the composting process for use as ADC and other forms of beneficial use in the design and operation of a solid waste landfill. Analysis: If enacted, this bill would eliminate the use of green waste as alternative daily cover (ADC) for the purposes of meeting the State’s waste diversion mandate, facilitate the use of so called “MRF fines” for use as ADC, and require as of yet undefined “large-quantity commercial organics generators” generating “significant” amount of “organic” waste to arrange for separate collection and diversion of these materials from landfill disposal through recycling and/or composting. In addition, it would be difficult to comply with in Southern California, due Legislative Analysis December 10, 2013 Page 6 of 18 to the lack of markets for compost, insufficient composting infrastructure due to stringent air quality standards, and contamination issues with curbside collected green waste. AB 536 (Wagner) Contractors: Payments– As Introduced on February 20, 2013 – OPPOSE Author: Assembly Member Wagner Status: 5/10/2013 – Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61 (a)(3). Hearing Date: Reviewed: ASSEMBLY ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION Supported By: Engineering Contractors’ Association California Fence Contractors’ Association California Chapter off the American Fence Association Marin Builders Association Flasher Barricade Association Opposed By: Construction Employers' Association CASA, CSDA (unless amended) Watched By: Existing law allows specified persons to withhold from a contractor or subcontractor no more than 150% of the disputed amount if there is a good faith dispute over the amount due on a contract payment. This bill would exclude specified amounts from being considered disputed amounts. Analysis: The current law provides for the distribution of retained proceeds on a public work of improvement to an original contractor within 60 days, unless there is a dispute over payment, in which case the public agency is allowed to withhold 150% of the disputed amount until the dispute is resolved. This provision helps to ensure prompt and satisfactory completion of public works projects. Allowing a public agency to withhold funds in the case of a dispute provide the District with a tool to correct defective or incomplete work. Moreover, it ensures that agencies have sufficient funds to honor stop payment notices filed by subcontractors and suppliers. AB 1333 (Hernandez) Local Government: Contracts– As Introduced on February 22, 2013 – OPPOSE Author: Assembly Member Hernandez Status: 07/12/2013 – Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(10)(SEN). Hearing Date: Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT Supported By: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO [SPONSOR] California School Employees Association California Teamsters Public Affairs Council Glendale City Employees Association Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund Organization of SMUD Employees San Bernardino Public Employees Association San Luis Obispo County Employees Association Santa Rosa City Employees Association Service Employees International Union, California State Council United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council Opposed By: Advance Disposal Company Legislative Analysis December 10, 2013 Page 7 of 18 Advance Disposal Company and Recycling Center Amador Valley Industries American Medical Response Autocar Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. Cal Disposal California Association of Sanitation Agencies California Refuse Recycling Council California Waste Recovery Systems City of Imperial Beach City of Lakewood Clean Energy Clover Flat Resource Recovery Park Concord Disposal Service Contra Costa Waste Service CR&R Incorporated Desert Valley Disposal East Bay Sanitary Co., Inc. EDCO Waste and Recycling Services EPIC Escondido Disposal, Inc. Fallbrook Waste and Recycling Services Freeman and Williams, LLP Garden City Sanitation Gilton Solid Waste Management, Inc Green Hasson Janks League of California Cities MarBorg Industries Marin Sanitary Service Midstate Solid Waste and Recycling Mill Valley Refuse Service Mt. Diablo Recycling Napa Recycling and Waste Services, LLC Northern Recycling Operations and Waste Services, LLC Olympic Wire and Equipment, Inc. Palm Springs Disposal Services Peninsula Sanitary Service, Inc. Pleasanton Garbage Service, Inc. R.J. Proto Consulting Group Rainbow Environmental Services Ramona Disposal Service Reliable Pump Stops RJ McConnell Insurance Services San Diego County Disposal Association Solid Waste Insurance Managers South Lake Refuse and Recycling South San Francisco Scavenger Company, Inc. SSI Schaefer Standard Iron and Metals Stanford Recycling Center The Rule Group Tracy Material Recovery and Solid Waste Transfer, Inc. TRG Insurance Services Legislative Analysis December 10, 2013 Page 8 of 18 Turlock Recycling Turlock Scavenger Turlock Transfer Upper Valley Disposal and Recycling Varner Bros., Inc. Westhoff, Cone and Holmstedt One individual Watched By: CSDA Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city, county, or district to enter into contracts for various services, and, among other things, to include within the contract a time within which the whole or any specified portion of the work contemplated is to be completed. This bill would require the legislative body of a city, county, or district to review any contract with a private party, with a total annual value of $250,000 or more and containing an automatic renewal clause, at least once every three years on or before the annual date by which the contract may be rescinded. This bill would require the review of the contract to include a consideration as to whether the private party pays at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality to its employees. This bill would require the contract to be rescinded unless the review of the contract contains findings that the private party pays at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality, or a living wage given the locality, whichever is greater, to its employees, and the contractor retains the employees of the prior contractor or subcontractor for at least 90 days. Analysis: This bill would require the District to review contracts with a total annual value of $250,000 or more that have automatic renewal clauses before the date on which the contract can be rescinded. Before the contract is renewed, this bill requires the District to make findings regarding whether the contract contains updated information and whether it meets the needs of the local agency. This bill also requires evergreen contracts to be rescinded unless the review finds that the contractor pays prevailing wages and retains employees of a prior contractor for at least 90 days. If enacted, the need for more recycling infrastructure would increase. These facilities are very expensive to build and operate. The impact on ratepayers is lessened when the loan costs can be spread over a term of several years. However, this bill would impose new conditions on this form of contracting that would discourage annual renewals that could lead to fewer privately financed projects and facilities. SB 594 (Hill) Use of Public Funds– As Introduced on February 22, 2013 – OPPOSE Author: Senator Hill Status: Approved by Governor on October 12, 2013. Hearing Date: September 11, 2013 Reviewed: Sen. Elections and Constitutional Amendments Supported By: California Clean Money Campaign California Labor Federation California Nurses Association California Professional Firefighters California State Association of Counties Consumer Federation of California Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Peace Officers Research Association of California Planned Parenthood Legislative Analysis December 10, 2013 Page 9 of 18 State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO Opposed By: CSDA Watched By: This bill prohibits nonprofit organizations and their employees from using funds received from local agencies in connection with conduit bond financing for campaign purposes, as specified. This bill requires a nonprofit organization that receives significant amounts of money from local agencies in connection with conduit bond financing to maintain a separate bank account for campaign activities and to disclose the sources of the funds it receives for campaign activities, as specified. Analysis: Existing law makes it unlawful for an elected state or local officer, appointee, employee, or consultant to use, or permit others to use, public resources for a campaign activity. CMSD WATCH BILLS AB 158 (Levine) Solid Waste: single-use carryout bags – As Introduced on January 22, 2013 – WATCH Author: Assembly Member Levine Status: In committee: Hearing postponed by committee (05/24/13). Hearing Date: Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Supported By: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO Bag It Californians Against Waste California Coastal Coalition California Coastkeeper Alliance City of Encinitas City and County of San Francisco Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund Environment California Environmental Working Group Green Sangha Heal the Bay Long Beach Coalition for a Safe Environment Los Angeles Waterkeeper Monterey County Board of Supervisors PlasticBagLaws.org Plastic Pollution Coalition Natural Resources Defense Council Seventh Generation Advisors Sierra Club California State Lands Commission staff Surfrider Foundation Team Marine, Santa Monica High School Turtle Island Restoration Network United Food & Commercial Workers Western States Council Legislative Analysis December 10, 2013 Page 10 of 18 Valley Industry and Commerce Association 5 Gyres Institute Opposed By: American Forest & Paper Association Association of California Cities, Orange County Watched By: Existing law, until January 1, 2020, requires an operator of a store, as defined, to establish an at-store recycling program that provides to customers the opportunity to return clean plastic carryout bags to that store. This bill as of January 1, 2015, would prohibit stores that have a specified amount of dollar sales or retail floor space from providing a single-use carryout bag to a customer. The bill would require these stores to meet other specified requirements regarding providing recycled paper bags, and compostable bags, or reusable bags to customers. The bill would require these stores to make reusable grocery bags available to customers. The bill would, on and after July 1, 2016, additionally impose these prohibitions and requirements on convenience food stores, foodmarts, and certain other specified stores. The bill, beginning January 1, 2016, would require a reusable grocery bag producer bags to submit to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery a biennial certification, including a certification fee established by the department, that certifies that each type of reusable grocery bag that is imported, manufactured, sold, or distributed in the state and provided to a store for sale or distribution meets that are sold or provided to a store by a reusable grocery bag producer meet specified requirements. The bill would require the department to deposit the certification fees all penalties collected for violations of these requirements into the Reusable Bag Account, which would be established by the bill in the Integrated Waste Management Fund. The bill would require that moneys in the account be expended by the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to implement the certification these requirements. A violation of these certification requirements would be subject to an administrative civil penalty assessed by the department. The department would be required to deposit these penalties into the Penalty Subaccount, which the bill would create in the Reusable Bag Account, for expenditure by the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to implement the certification requirements. The bill would require the department, by January 1, 2017, to submit a report to the Legislature regarding the implementation of the bill’s provisions. The bill would repeal this report requirement on January 1, 2018. The bill would allow a city, county, or city and county, or the state to impose civil penalties for a violation of the bill’s requirements, except for the certification requirements. The bill would require these civil penalties to be paid to the office of the city attorney, city prosecutor, district attorney, or Attorney General, whichever office brought the action, and would allow the penalties collected by the Attorney General to be expended by the Attorney General, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to enforce the bill’s provisions. The bill would provide that these remedies are not exclusive, as specified. Analysis: This bill prohibits retail stores from providing single-use bags to customers, and requires retail stores to provide only reusable grocery bags. AB 164 (Wieckowski) Infrastructure Financing – As Introduced on January 23, 2013 – WATCH Author: Assembly Member Wieckowski Status: 8/13/2013 – Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 94. Statutes of 2013. Hearing Date: Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT Legislative Analysis December 10, 2013 Page 11 of 18 Supported By: American Subcontractors Association of California [SPONSOR] Air Conditioning Trade Association Building Industry Credit Association California Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association California Concrete Contractors Association California Landscape Contractors Association California Legislative Conference of the Plumbing, Heating and Piping Industry California Precast Concrete Association California State Association of Electrical Workers California State Pipe Trades Council Painting and Decorating Contractors of California Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association of California Western Electrical Contractors Association Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers Opposed By: None Watched By: CASA, CSDA Existing law permits a governmental agency to solicit proposals and enter into agreements with private entities for the design, construction, or reconstruction by, and may lease to, private entities, for specified types of fee-producing infrastructure projects. Existing law requires certain provisions to be included in the lease agreement between a governmental agency undertaking an infrastructure project and a private entity, as specified. Analysis: This bill would require a lease agreement between a governmental agency undertaking an infrastructure project and a private entity to include performance bonds as security to ensure the completion of the construction of the facility and payment bonds to secure the payment of claims of laborers, mechanics, and materialmen employed on the work under contract. This bill will protect the public and subcontractors when they invest in, or provide materials and labor for, local agency P3 infrastructure projects. AB 215 (Chesbro) Solid Waste Recycling– As Introduced on January 31, 2013 – WATCH Author: Assembly Member Chesbro Status: 7/12/2013 – Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61 (a)(10)(SEN). Hearing Date: Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE Supported By: None on file. Opposed By: None on file Watched By: CASA, CSDA This bill would require rigid plastic packaging containers that are sold or offered for sale in this state to meet, on average, one of specified criteria and defines terms for purposes of those requirements. One of those criteria that a rigid plastic packaging container may meet to satisfy this requirement is that the container be source reduced. The act provides for the enforcement of these requirements by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery and provides that an entity making a false certification pursuant to those requirements is subject to a violation for fraud. This bill would revise the definitions of the various terms used in the requirements, including revising the definition of the term “source reduced” to impose new requirements, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program by changing the definition of a crime. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for Legislative Analysis December 10, 2013 Page 12 of 18 making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Analysis: This bill updates the definitions within the Rigid Plastic Packaging Container (RPPC) law to be consistent with current regulations and to ensure equitable treatment of similar containers. AB 686 (Quirk) Hazardous Waste: pharmaceutical facilities– As amended on May 24, 2013 – WATCH Author: Assembly Member Chesbro Status: 6/25/2013 – In committee: Set, second hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. Hearing Date: Pending Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE Supported By: American Pacific Fine Chemicals Opposed By: None on file Watched By: Existing law requires hazardous waste facilities, including, but not limited to, treatment facilities, to operate under hazardous waste facilities permits or other grants of authorization issued by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. Existing law exempts pharmaceutical neutralization activities from certain requirements of the hazardous waste control laws and certain regulations adopted pursuant to that law if specified conditions are met with regard to the pharmaceutical manufacturing or process development activities, including the management of air emissions and wastes generated as a result of those activities. This bill would require the department, by January 1, 2016, to develop recommendations for standards and guidelines for the operation of onsite waste management and recycling of hazardous waste at facilities engaged in pharmaceutical manufacturing or pharmaceutical process development. The department would be required, by January 1, 2016, to submit a report to the Legislature on those recommendations, including any recommended statutory and regulatory actions needed to assure the safe and efficient management of waste from pharmaceutical manufacturing or pharmaceutical process development activities. The bill would repeal this report requirement on January 1, 2019. Analysis: This bill would require the state Department of Toxic Substances Control to develop recommendations for standards and guidelines for the operations of on-site waste management and recycling of hazardous waste at facilities engaged in pharmaceutical manufacturing or process development. The bills require a report to include any statutory recommendations and regulatory actions needed to assure the safe and efficient management of waste by such manufacturing or activities. AB 1001 (Gordon) Bottle Bill Modernization– As Introduced on February 22, 2013 – WATCH Author: Assembly Member Gordon Status: 8/26/2013 – In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of the author. Hearing Date: Pending Referral Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Legislative Analysis December 10, 2013 Page 13 of 18 Supported By: California League of Conservation Voters Californians Against Waste City of Sunnyvale Environment California Epic Plastics Global PET, Inc. Napa Recycling and Waste Services Natural Resources Defense Council Nexcycle Northern California Recycling Association Peninsula Sanitary Service, Inc. Planning and Conservation League rePlanet Opposed By: Watched By: CASA, CSDA An act to amend the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, which requires a distributor to pay a redemption payment for every beverage container sold or offered for sale in the state to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. The department is required to deposit those amounts in the California Beverage Container Recycling Fund. The act defines the term beverage as including specified types of beverages that are sold in aluminum beverage containers, glass beverage containers, plastic beverage containers, or bimetal containers. This bill would define the term "regulated beverage" as a beverage that meets the definition of beverage under the act, but is sold in a beverage container that is not one of those containers. The bill would also include, as a regulated beverage, 100% fruit juice in a container that is 46 ounces or more in volume and vegetable juice in a container that is more than 16 ounces in volume. Analysis: This bill would expand the state’s landmark bottle bill to include aseptic and paperboard type beverage containers and vegetable and fruit juices of all sizes, which has the potential to add 1.6 billion containers to the program. In addition, the bill includes several measures to modernize the program and protect its integrity. AB 1022 (Eggman) Electronic Waste – As Introduced on February 22, 2013 – WATCH Author: Assembly Member Eggman Status: 8/30/2013 – In committee: Held under submission Hearing Date: Pending Referral Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Supported By: Californians Against Waste (sponsor) California Association of Recycling Market Development Zones Glass Packaging Institute Natural Resources Defense Council Sims Recycling Solutions Opposed By: None on file Watched By: CASA, CSDA Existing law, the Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003, requires a retailer selling a covered electronic device in this state to collect a covered electronic waste recycling fee from the consumer, as specified. These fees are deposited in the Electronic Waste Recovery and Recycling Account, and the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) is Legislative Analysis December 10, 2013 Page 14 of 18 continuously appropriated the money in the account to, among other things, make electronic waste recovery payments and recycling payments. This bill would require the department to make CRT glass, as defined, market development payments to a manufacturer or an electronic waste recycler who uses CRT glass to manufacture a product in this state, pursuant to a specified claims procedure. The bill would repeal on an unspecified date the requirement to make these payments. The bill would additionally authorize the expenditure of not more than $10,000,000 each year of the continuously appropriated funds for the purpose of making those market development payments, until that unspecified date. Analysis: This bill would help increase e-waste recycling, expand the market for CRT glass and support the development of a California-based recycling infrastructure. It would allow for market incentive payments to recyclers that will help offset cost of separating out lead from the CRT glass. Manufacturer payments will incentivize manufacturers to use the cleaned CRT glass in their products instead of other materials. AB 1031 (Achadjian) Local Government: Open Meetings– As Introduced on February 22, 2013 – WATCH Author: Assembly Member Achadjian Status: 5/10/2013 – Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(3). Hearing Date: Pending Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Supported By: None on file Opposed By: None on file Watched By: CASA, CSDA Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires each legislative body of a local agency to provide notice of the time and place for holding regular meetings and an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted. The act also requires that all meetings of a legislative body be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized. This bill would make technical, non-substantive changes to a provision of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Analysis: This bill makes technical, non-substantive changes to a provision of the Ralph M. Brown Act, which requires each legislative body of a local agency to provide notice of the time and place for holding regular meetings and a specified agenda. SB 405 (Padilla) Solid Waste: Single-use carryout bags– As Introduced on February 20, 2013 – WATCH Author: Assembly Member Padilla Status: Ordered to inactive file on request of Senator Padilla (6/03/13). Hearing Date: Reviewed: SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Supported By: Azul Bag It! California Coastal Coalition California Coastkeeper Alliance Legislative Analysis December 10, 2013 Page 15 of 18 Californians Against Waste Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority City of Palo Alto City of Sacramento City of San Francisco Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force Contra Costa Clean Water Program County of San Francisco Environment California Green Chamber of Commerce Green Sangha Green Vets Los Angeles Heal the Bay La Mode Verte Productions Marin County Hazardous & Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority Napa Valley CanDo Natural Resources Defense Council Northern California Recycling Association Pacifica Environmental Family Planning & Conservation League plasticbaglaws.org Santa Monica High School Save Our Shores Seventh Generation Advisors Sierra Club Surfrider Foundation The 5 Gyres Institute Turtle Island Restoration Network United Food & Commercial Workers Western States 2 Individuals Opposed By: 99¢ Outlet Achasi’s Mini Market Advance Polybag, Inc. American Forest and Paper Association Angela’s Drive In Dairy Arctic Hot Spot Azusa Council Member Angel Carrillo Bell Gardens Chamber of Commerce Bell Gardens Mayor Sergio Infanzon Brianna’s Miss Store Cities Restaurant Clear Skies Enterprises Congress of Racial Equality of California Crown Poly, Inc. (and 206 employees of Crown Poly) Drive In Rancho Market Eagle Portables EDD Elkay Plastics Co., Inc. ETS First Store 989 Fiscal Credit Union Legislative Analysis December 10, 2013 Page 16 of 18 GDS Institute Hilex Poly Co. Hollywood Work Source Center La Alicia Meat Market Watched By: CASA, CSDA Existing law, until January 1, 2020, requires an operator of a store, as defined, to establish an at-store recycling program that provides to customers the opportunity to return clean plastic carryout bags to that store. With specified exceptions, as of January 1, 2015, would prohibit stores that have a specified amount of dollar sales or retail floor space from providing a single- use carryout bag to a customer. The bill would require these stores to meet other specified requirements regarding providing recycled paper bags, compostable bags, or reusable grocery bags to customers. The bill would additionally impose these prohibitions and requirements on convenience food stores, food marts, and certain other specified stores. The bill would require a reusable grocery bag that a store is required to sell on and after July 1, 2016, to meet specified requirements. A violation of that requirement and the requirements that would be imposed upon grocery bag producers to submit certain laboratory test results would be subject to an administrative civil penalty assessed by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. The department would be required to deposit these penalties into the Reusable Bag Account, which would be created in the Integrated Waste Management Fund, for expenditure by the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to implement those requirements. The bill would allow a city, county, or city and county, or the state to impose civil penalties for a violation of the bills requirements Analysis: This bill would ban plastic bags in stores and create a reusable bag certification program. It will create a uniform policy across the state by Jan. 1, 2015 and remove one of the most common forms of marine pollution, the single-use plastic bag, from the waste stream. A statewide ban will help reduce the enormous burden of clean up and management costs on local governments while benefitting California’s ocean based economy. This bill supports the District’s “Zero Waste Plan,” however the District does not have the authority to regulate this provision at the local level. SB 529 (Leno) Fast Food Packaging & Marine Pollution Reduction– As Introduced on March 11, 2013 – WATCH Author: Senator Leno Status: Held in committee and under submission. (05/23/13) Hearing Date: May 23, 2013 Reviewed: SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Supported By: Californians Against Waste (Sponsor) AFSCME Azul BagIt California Coastal Coalition California Coastkeeper Alliance California Teamsters Public Affairs Council City and County of San Francisco Environment California Green Chamber of Commerce Green Cities California Heal the Bay La Mode Verte (LMV) Productions Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Task Force Legislative Analysis December 10, 2013 Page 17 of 18 Napa Valley CanDo Natural Resources Defense Council Northern California Recycling Association Pacifica's Environmental Family Planning & Conservation League Save Our Shores Seventh Generation Advisors Sierra Club California Surfrider Foundation Turtle Island Restoration Network World Centric 5 Gyres Institute Opposed By: American Chemistry Council American Forest and Paper Association Biodegradable Products Institute Brea Chamber of Commerce California Chamber of Commerce California Manufacturers and Technology Association California Restaurant Association Camarillo Chamber of Commerce Chemical Industry Council of California Foodservice Packaging Institute National Federation of Independent Businesses PACTIV Southwest California Legislative Council SPI, the Plastics Industry Trade Association Valley Industry & Commerce Association Western Plastics Association Watched By: CASA, CSDA This bill would enact the Plastic and Marine Pollution Reduction, Recycling, and Composting Act and would define terms for the purposes of that act. The bill would define the term “fast food facility” as a facility that is subject to specified federal requirements for the posting of calories and nutrients imposed upon restaurants and other retail food establishments, and that meets other specified requirements with regard to the dispensing and preparation of food. The bill would prohibit a fast food facility, on and after July 1, 2014, from distributing disposable food service packaging or a single-use carryout bag to a consumer, unless the type of disposable food service packaging or single-use carryout bag meets the criteria for either compostable packaging or recyclable packaging specified in the bill. The bill would also prohibit such a facility, on and after July 1, 2016, from distributing disposable food service packaging or a single-use carryout bag to a consumer, unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the department that the type of disposable food service packaging or single-use carryout bag is recovered for composting or recovered for recycling at a rate of 25 percent or more, at a rate of 50 percent on and after July 1, 2018, and at a rate of 75 percent or more on or after July 1, 2020. The bill would specify requirements for the demonstration of that composting or recycling rate. The bill would provide for the imposition of a civil penalty upon a person in violation of the act and would require the department to publish annually a list setting forth any penalties that have been levied against a violator of this act. Legislative Analysis December 10, 2013 Page 18 of 18 This bill would require the department to deposit all penalties paid pursuant to the act into the Marine Pollution Reduction Account, which the bill would create in the Integrated Waste Management Fund in the State Treasury. The bill would authorize the department to expend the moneys deposited in the account, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to provide public education and assist local governmental agencies in efforts to reduce plastic waste and marine pollution, and for the department’s costs of implementing the act. Analysis: This bill would require fast food facilities to only distribute food in recyclable or compostable packaging beginning on July 1, 2014. This bill also defines compostable and recyclable packaging based on whether that packaging is accepted for composting or recycling in a residential collection program available to at least 60 percent of the households in the jurisdiction in which the packaging is distributed, as determined by CalRecycle. It would also create measurable, material-neutral, recycling objectives while leaving it up to the marketplace to support materials that can be cost effectively recycled or composted. Although it would promote the District’s “Zero Waste Plan,” the District does not have the authority to enforce or regulate at the local level.