Existing law provides that the Office of Planning and Research serves the Governor and the Governors Cabinet as staff for long-range planning and research, and constitute the comprehensive state planning agency. In that capacity, existing law requires the office to, among other things, assist local governments in land use planning. Existing law, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, establishes the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to administer an integrated waste management program. Existing law establishes a goal that statewide landfill disposal of organic waste be reduced from the 2014 level by 75% by 2025.

This bill, on or before June 1, 2026, would require the Office of Planning and Research, in consultation with the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, to develop and post on the offices internet website, a technical advisory, as provided, reflecting best practices to facilitate the siting of composting facilities to meet the organic waste reduction goals. The bill would require the office to consult with specified entities throughout the development of the technical advisory.

The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development, and the development of certain lands outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a land use element that designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses of land, as prescribed.

This bill, upon a substantive revision of the land use element, as specified, on or after January 1, 2028, would require a city, county, or city and county to consider, among other things, the best practices reflected in the technical advisory and to consider updating the land use element to identify areas where composting facilities may be appropriate as an allowable use. By increasing duties on a city, county, or city and county, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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 making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law provides that the Office of Planning and Research serves the Governor and the Governors Cabinet as staff for long-range planning and research, and constitute the comprehensive state planning agency. In that capacity, existing law requires the office to, among other things, assist local governments in land use planning. Existing law, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, establishes the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to administer an integrated waste management program. Existing law establishes a goal that statewide landfill disposal of organic waste be reduced from the 2014 level by 75% by 2025.

This bill, on or before June 1, 2026, would require the Office of Planning and Research, in consultation with the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, to develop a model zoning ordinance that facilitates and post on the offices internet website, a technical advisory, as provided, reflecting best practices to facilitate the siting of composting facilities by cities or counties to meet the organic waste reduction goals. The bill would require the office to consult with specified entities throughout the development of the technical advisory.

The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the legislative body of any city or county to adopt ordinances regulating zoning by, among other things, regulating the use of buildings, structures, and land, as specified. Existing law establishes procedures for amending a zoning ordinance. requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development, and the development of certain lands outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a land use element that designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses of land, as prescribed.

This bill, beginning on the date of completion of the model zoning ordinance, and before January 1, 2027, upon a substantive revision of the land use element, as specified, on or after January 1, 2028, would require a city or county, upon amending any zoning ordinance, to additionally amend an appropriate zoning ordinance to allow composting facilities based on the model ordinance developed by the Office of Planning and Research. city, county, or city and county to consider, among other things, the best practices reflected in the technical advisory and to consider updating the land use element to identify areas where composting facilities may be appropriate as an allowable use. By increasing duties on a city or county, city, county, or city and county, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law vests air pollution control districts and air quality management districts with the primary responsibility for control of air pollution from all sources other than vehicular sources, including from composting facilities. Existing law authorizes every district board to establish, by regulation, a permit system that requires, except as otherwise provided, before any person builds, erects, alters, replaces, operates, or uses any article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance that may cause the issuance of air contaminants, the person to obtain a permit to do so from the air pollution control officer of the district.

Existing law, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, designates the State Water Resources Control Board and the California regional water quality control boards as the principal state agencies with authority over matters relating to water quality. Under existing law, the state board and the 9 California regional water quality control boards regulate water quality and prescribe waste discharge requirements in accordance with the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program established by the federal Clean Water Act and the act.

This bill would require, no later than 30 calendar days after a district or a regional board, as applicable, has received a permit application for a new or revised permit for a compost facility, the district or regional board to determine in writing whether the permit application is complete and correct and to immediately transmit the determination to the applicant for the permit. The bill would further require, no later than 60 calendar days after acceptance of a permit application for a new or revised permit for a compost facility as complete and correct, the district or regional board to conduct a review of the permit and accept or deny the permit. The bill would authorize the district or the regional board to charge each applicant a fee in an amount not to exceed the reasonable amount necessary to provide the services required by the bill. The bill would require the fee to be collected as part of the application fee charged for the permit. By imposing a higher level of service on air pollution control districts and air quality management districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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 making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, establishes an integrated waste management program. Existing law provides that it is the policy goal of the state that at least 75% of solid waste generated annually be source reduced, recycled, or composted, and that statewide landfill disposal of organic waste be reduced from the 2014 level by 75% on or before 2025. Existing law prohibits a person from establishing or expanding a solid waste facility in a county after a countywide or regional agency integrated waste management plan has been approved unless the solid waste facility is, among other things, a disposal facility, a transformation facility, or an EMSW conversion facility that meets specific criteria. Existing law authorizes the department, by regulation, to specify classifications of solid waste facilities that are exempt from these and other facility regulations if the department makes specific findings, including that the nature of the solid wastes poses no significant threat to the public health, the public safety, or the environment.

This bill would require the department, in coordination with the State Air Resources Board and the State Water Resources Control Board, to develop a policy that promotes the development of coordinated permitting and regulation of composting facilities while protecting the environment.

Date of Hearing: August 7, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1045

Author:(Blakespear) – As Amended Ver:April 29, 2024

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop a technical advisory on best practices to facilitate the siting of compost facilities, and requires cities and counties to consider updating the land use element to identify areas for siting compost facilities.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires OPR, by June 1, 2026, to develop, in consultation with the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), a technical advisory that reflects best practices to facilitate the siting of composting facilities to meet the state’s organic waste reduction goals, and to post the advisory on OPR’s website.
2. Requires the technical advisory to include sample general plan goals, policies, and implementation measures and a model ordinance for potential adoption by a local agency.
3. Requires OPR to consult with representatives of urban, suburban, and rural counties and cities, operators of composting facilities, and private and public waste services.
4. Requires, upon a substantive revision of a land use element on or after January 1, 2028, and after the technical advisory is posted, a city, county, or city and county to consider the best practices in the technical advisory; and update the land use element to identify areas where composting facilities may be appropriate as an allowable use.

FISCAL EFFECT:

OPR estimates General Fund one-time costs of $448,000 for two full-time positions until the technical advisory is complete for one Attorney III position to draft the technical advisory and provide technical assistance to facilitate siting of composting facilities and one Associate Governmental Policy Analyst to support the Attorney III and assist with required outreach.

CalRecycle reports minor and absorbable costs from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

This bill imposes a state mandated local program, but also provides that the mandate is not reimbursable because a local agency has authority to levy assessments to pay for the mandate.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years. 

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

Organic materials make up half of what Californians send to landfills and emit 20% of the state’s methane. CalRecycle estimates that the state still needs approximately 50 to 100 new or expanded organic waste recycling facilities, such as composting facilities, for sufficient capacity to successfully implement SB 1383 (Lara, 2016).

The siting and permitting of composting facilities is currently complicated and time-consuming – taking over a decade to finalize, in some cases. We recognize that state and local officials are balancing a complex web of important environmental regulations. However, as responsible policymakers acting on behalf of the state, we must prioritize the development of new organic waste recycling infrastructure to meet our SB 1383 goals. Otherwise, the state risks sending thousands of tons of recyclable food waste to our landfills to decompose and release damaging methane into the atmosphere for years to come.

1. Background. SB 1383 (Lara), Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016, requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to complete, approve, and implement a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCP) in the state to achieve, among other things, a reduction in the statewide emissions of methane by 40% relative to 2013 levels. To achieve these methane reductions, SB 1383 set a goal of reducing landfill disposal of organic waste 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2025, and to rescue at least 20% of currently disposed of surplus food for meals by 2025.

Organic waste accounts for more than a third of California’s waste stream. CalRecycle reports that 2.5 billion meals worth of potentially donatable food is landfilled in a year, and decomposing organic waste in landfills accounts for about 20% of the state’s total methane emissions.

SB 1383 regulations adopted by CalRecycle require local jurisdictions to meet organic waste procurement and recovery targets based, in part, on population. A 2023 report by the Little Hoover Commission concluded that California failed to reach its 2020 targets and is not on track to reach its 2025 goals. One reason is delay in deploying compost facilities. According to CalRecycle, the state needs approximately 50 to 100 new or expanded organics facilities to recycle the additional 20 million to 25 million tons of organic waste that will be collected to meet the SB 1383 organic waste reduction targets.

1. Related Legislation. A number of bills relating to organic waste management have been introduced in the current legislative session. While viewed individually, these bills have modest impacts on the state’s efforts to achieve its SLCP reduction goals; however, added together, they may result in further hindering the state’s ability to reduce these critical GHG emissions. Such bills still under active consideration include AB 2311 (Bennett), AB 2346 (Lee), AB 2514 (Aguiar Curry), AB 2902 (Wood), SB 972 (Min), and SB 1046 (Laird).

Analysis Prepared by: Jacqueline Kinney / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 26, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Juan Carrillo, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1045

Author:(Blakespear) – As Amended Ver:April 29, 2024

SENATE VOTE: 32-7

SUBJECT: Composting facilities: zoning

SUMMARY: Requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop and post on their website a technical advisory on best practices to facilitate the siting of compost facilities, and requires cities and counties to consider updating the land use element to identify areas where it may be appropriate for compost facilities to be an allowable use. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires OPR to develop, in consultation with the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, a technical advisory that reflects best practices to facilitate the siting of composting facilities to meet the state’s organic waste reduction goals by June 1, 2026, and to post the advisory on OPR’s website.
2. Specifies that the technical advisory include sample general plan goals, policies, and implementation measures and a model ordinance, which shall be suitable for adoption or modification by a city, county, or city and county.
3. Requires OPR to consult with representatives of urban, suburban, and rural counties and cities, operators of composting facilities, and private and public waste services throughout the development of the technical advisory.
4. Requires, upon a substantive revision of a land use element on or after January 1, 2028 and after the technical advisory is publically posted, a city, county, or city and county to consider:
   1. The best practices reflected in the technical advisory; and,
   2. Updating the land use element to identify areas where composting facilities may be appropriate as an allowable use, which may vary based on the types or sizes of the facilities.
5. Specifies that no reimbursement is required by the bill pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, as specified.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Allows, under the California Constitution, cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.”
2. Requires every county and city to adopt a general plan with seven mandatory elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. General plans must also either include an eighth element on environmental justice, or incorporate environmental justice concerns throughout the other elements.
3. Establishes, under SB 1383 (Lara, 2016), as part of a broader short-lived climate pollutant reduction strategy, targets to achieve a 50% reduction in the level of statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020, and a 75% reduction by 2025.
4. Requires the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in consultation with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), to adopt regulations to achieve those targets for reducing organic waste in landfills.
5. Creates the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) as the state’s comprehensive planning agency and allows OPR to offer technical assistance and information to local agencies regarding land use planning.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. OPR estimates costs of approximately $448,000 annually for 2.0 PY of staff to conduct outreach and consult with CalRecycle and other interested parties, and to research and draft the technical advisory. Staff notes that these costs would be incurred through 2025-26, but there would be some measure of ongoing costs to provide the technical assistance to local agencies that would be siting composting facilities. (General Fund)
2. CalRecycle indicates that any costs to provide consultation to OPR in the development of the technical advisory would be absorbable. (Integrated Waste Management Account)
3. Unknown local costs for cities and counties to consider identifying areas where composting facilities may be appropriate when updating land use elements in their General Plans. These local costs would not be state-reimbursable as local agencies have the authority to charge various fees and charges to offset the costs of any new planning mandates. (local funds)

COMMENTS:

1. Land Use Authority. The California Constitution allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public—including land use authority.

Every county and city must adopt a general plan with seven mandatory elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. General plans must also either include an eighth element on environmental justice, or incorporate environmental justice concerns throughout the other elements. Cities’ and counties’ major land use decisions—including zoning ordinances and development permitting—must be consistent with their general plans. In this way, the general plan is a blueprint for future development.

To help local officials interpret these statutory requirements, OPR publishes General Plan Guidelines. OPR’s General Plan Guidelines recommend the information that local planners should collect, suggest goals, policies, and objectives that local general plans could adopt, and list a wide range of potential implementation measures to carry out those local goals. State law requires OPR to periodically revise the General Plan Guidelines. OPR’s last comprehensive update of the General Plan Guidelines occurred in 2017. OPR also releases subject-specific updates and technical advisories.

1. Organic Waste. Organic material accounts for more than a third of California’s waste stream: food waste accounts for approximately 18% of landfilled material, and yard waste accounts for another 7% of the total waste stream. According to the CalRecycle, methane emissions from decomposing organic waste in landfills account for approximately 20% of the State’s total methane emissions. Methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a climate pollutant over a 20-year timescale.
2. SB 1383 Regulations. In 2016, the Legislature enacted SB 1383 (Lara, 2016), which established emission reduction targets for short-lived climate pollutants, including hydrofluorocarbon gasses, anthropogenic black carbon, and methane. Among other requirements, SB 1383 directed CARB to approve and implement a comprehensive short-lived climate pollutant strategy that included a 2030 target of reducing methane emissions by 40% relative to 2014 levels. In order to achieve these reductions in methane emissions, SB 1383 set a goal of reducing landfill disposal of organic waste by 50% before 2020 and by 75% before 2025 from 2014 levels, and to redirect at least 20% of currently disposed of surplus food for meals by 2025. SB 1383 gave CalRecycle the authority to adopt regulations to meet these organic waste reduction requirements, which were finalized in November 2020 and became effective on January 1, 2022.
3. City and County Responsibilities under SB 1383. Local governments play a key role in achieving the SB 1383 targets. The SB 1383 regulations require cities, counties, and special districts that provide solid waste collection services to take a variety of actions, including to, among other things:
   1. Establish an organic waste collection program, including mandatory curbside collections for certain waste generators, that require sorting of organic waste into proper containers; and
   2. Enforce organic waste collection requirements by monitoring and inspecting commercial businesses and reviewing waste routes for compliance, notifying entities in violation, providing a deadline to comply, and if necessary, assessing penalties and fines for continuous violations.

Local governments must also plan for adequate capacity to ensure that there are sufficient facilities for processing the organic waste collected. Specifically, every city, county, special district, and regional agency that provides waste collection services must:

• 1. Estimate the amount of organic waste that will be disposed of within its jurisdiction annually;
  2. Identify the amount of existing organic waste recycling infrastructure capacity that is verifiably available to the jurisdiction through a contract or other similar means of documentation; and
  3. Estimate the amount of new capacity needed to process all of the estimated organic waste from the jurisdiction. If there isn’t enough capacity, local governments must also submit an implementation schedule to reach sufficient capacity, including a schedule of actions needed to obtain funding for the necessary organic waste recycling infrastructure and identifying the facilities and activities that could be used to provide additional capacity.

Counties are further responsible for compiling the data above for local governments within their boundaries and filing capacity reports with CalRecycle on a prescribed schedule.

Local governments that don’t comply with the SB 1383 regulations are subject to fines ranging from $500 to $10,000 per day, depending on the severity of the violation. However, CalRecycle must first attempt to work with local governments to bring them into compliance. Additionally, a local government may be eligible for an exemption or temporary waiver from some portions of the SB 1383 regulations if they have small populations, are located in rural areas or at high elevations, or generate small amounts of waste.

1. Organic Waste Recycling Facilities. SB 1383 requires local governments to divert organic waste from landfills to other facilities to process that waste in accordance with the law. These facilities can include composting, mulching, biomass energy plans, and anaerobic digestion facilities that break organic waste down and recycle it into usable products. The state currently does not possess sufficient capacity to process the amount of waste that needs to be diverted from landfills to meet the SB 1383 goals. Specifically, the Little Hoover Commission, in a June 2023 report on the status of SB 1383 implementation, noted that the state currently only has the capacity to process a little over half of the estimated 18 million tons of organic waste that will need to be diverted to organic waste recycling facilities in 2025. According to CalRecycle, the state needs approximately 50-100 new or expanded facilities to process the organic waste diverted from landfills under SB 1383.
2. Bill Summary. This bill requires OPR to develop a technical advisory, in consultation with the Department of Resources and Recycling and Recovery, by June 1, 2026, and to post the advisory on OPR’s website. This advisory will include best practices for siting composting facilities to meet California's organic waste reduction goals and will feature sample general plan goals, policies, implementation measures, and a model ordinance. OPR must consult with representatives from various counties and cities, composting facility operators, and waste services during this process.

Starting January 1, 2028, upon any substantive revision of a land use element, cities and counties must consider the best practices in the advisory and update their land use elements to identify suitable areas for composting facilities.

This bill is sponsored by the California Compost Coalition.

1. Author’s Statement. According to the author, “Organic materials make up half of what Californians send to landfills and emit 20% of the state’s methane. CalRecycle estimates that the state still needs approximately 50 to 100 new or expanded organic waste recycling facilities, such as composting facilities, for sufficient capacity to successfully implement SB 1383 (Lara, 2016).

“The siting and permitting of composting facilities is currently complicated and time-consuming – taking over a decade to finalize, in some cases. We recognize that state and local officials are balancing a complex web of important environmental regulations. However, as responsible policymakers acting on behalf of the state, we must prioritize the development of new organic waste recycling infrastructure to meet our SB 1383 goals. Otherwise, the state risks sending thousands of tons of recyclable food waste to our landfills to decompose and release damaging methane into the atmosphere for years to come. And according to CalRecycle, methane is a climate super pollutant 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide, which will further intensify the climate crisis.”

1. Arguments in Support. The California Compost Coalition, the sponsor of this bill, writes, “Composters recognize that state and local officials are balancing a complex web of important environmental regulations. However, building critical SB 1383 infrastructure in a timely manner will require the state to mitigate existing permitting barriers that do not impact our environmental standards.

“Meeting the state’s SB 1383 targets will require state and local regulators to recognize that building new organic waste recycling infrastructure is essential, and to remove permitting barriers where possible. Otherwise, the state risks sending thousands of tons of recyclable food waste to our landfills to decompose and release damaging methane into the atmosphere for years to come. According to CalRecycle, methane is a climate super pollutant 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide.”

1. Arguments in Opposition. None on file.
2. Related Legislation. SB 972 (Min) requires CalRecycle, ARB, and the California Environmental Protection Agency to hold at least two joint meetings each calendar year to coordinate the implementation of policies that affect organic waste reduction targets. SB 972 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 1046 (Laird) requires CalRecycle to develop a Program Environmental Impact Report for small and medium-sized compost facilities by January 1, 2027. SB 1046 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 1175 (Ochoa Bogh) requires CalRecycle to consider alternatives to census tracts when establishing the boundaries for a low-population or elevation waiver from the state’s organic waste reduction requirements. SB 1175 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

1. Double-Referral. This bill was double-referred to the Natural Resources Committee, where it passed on a 9-0 vote on June 17, 2024.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Compost Coalition (SPONSOR)

Californians Against Waste
California Council for Environmental & Economic Balance (CCEEB)
California State Grange
League of California Cities
Little Hoover Commission
Rancho Cucamonga, City of

Recology
Republic Services INC.
Resource Recovery Coalition of California
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
Upper Valley Disposal Recycling
Waste Connections, INC.
WM

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Claire Norton / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958

Date of Hearing: June 17, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Isaac G. Bryan, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1045

Author:(Blakespear) – As Amended Ver:April 29, 2024

SENATE VOTE: 32-7

SUBJECT: Composting facilities: zoning

SUMMARY: Requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop a technical advisory on best practices to facilitate the siting of compost facilities.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop a comprehensive strategy to reduce the emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCP) to achieve a 40% reduction in methane emissions, 40% reduction in hydrofluorocarbon gases, and 50% reduction in anthropogenic black carbon below 2013 levels by 2030. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) 39730-39730.5)
   
2. Requires the state to reduce the disposal of organic waste by 40% from the 2014 level by 2020 and 75% by 2025 to help achieve the state's methane reduction goal. (HSC 39730.6)
3. Requires the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in consultation with the Air Resources Board (ARB), to adopt regulations to achieve the targets for reducing the disposal of organic waste in landfills. (Public Resources Code (PRC) 42652.5)
   
4. Establishes the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA), which requires each public agency to provide a development project applicant with a list that specifies the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project. (Government Code (GC) 65921)
   
   1. Establishes timelines for agencies responding to permits under the PSA, including:
      
      1. An agency has 30 days after an application is submitted to inform an applicant whether or not the application is complete. If the agency does not inform the applicant within that 30-day period, the application is "deemed complete." The 30-day period restarts with a re-submission of an application. (GC 65943).
         
      2. Once an aplication is deemed complete, specified public agencies must approve or disapprove the permit within a specified time limit (between 60 and 180 days), or the permit is "deemed approved." (GC 65956).
5. Requires, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project to prepare a negative declaration (ND), mitigated negative declaration (MND), or environmental impact report (EIR) for the project, unless the project is exempt from CEQA. (PRC 21000 et seq.)
   

THIS BILL:

1. Requires OPR to develop, in consultation with CalRecycle, a technical advisory that reflects best practices to facilitate the siting of composting facilities to meet the state’s organic waste reduction goals by June 1, 2026.
2. Specifies that the technical advisory include sample general plan goals, policies, and implementation measures and a model ordinance.
3. Requires OPR to consult with representatives of urban, suburban, and rural counties and cities, operators of composting facilities, and private and public waste services throughout the development of the technical advisory.
4. Upon a substantive revision of a land use element on or after January 1, 2028 and after the technical advisory is posted, requires a city, county, or city and county to consider:
   1. The best practices reflected in the technical advisory; and,
   2. Updating the land use element to identify areas where composting facilities may be appropriate as an allowable use, which may vary based on the types or sizes of the facilities.
5. Specifies that no reimbursement is required by the bill pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, as specified.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. OPR estimates costs of approximately $448,000 annually for 2.0 PY of staff to conduct outreach and consult with CalRecycle and other interested parties, and to research and draft the technical advisory. Staff notes that these costs would be incurred through 2025-26, but there would be some measure of ongoing costs to provide the technical assistance to local agencies that would be siting composting facilities. (General Fund)
2. CalRecycle indicates that any costs to provide consultation to OPR in the development of the technical advisory would be absorbable. (Integrated Waste Management Account)
3. Unknown local costs for cities and counties to consider identifying areas where composting facilities may be appropriate when updating land use elements in their General Plans. These local costs would not be state-reimbursable as local agencies have the authority to charge various fees and charges to offset the costs of any new planning mandates. (local funds)

COMMENTS:

1. Organic waste management. SB 1383 (Lara), Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016, requires ARB to approve and implement a comprehensive SLCP strategy to achieve, from 2013 levels, a 40% reduction in methane, a 40% reduction in hydrofluorocarbon gases, and a 50% reduction in anthropogenic black carbon by 2030. In order to accomplish these goals, the law specifies that the methane emission reduction goals include targets to reduce the landfill disposal of organic waste 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2025 from the 2014 level. SB 1383 also requires that by 2025, 20% of edible food that would otherwise be sent to landfills is redirected to feed people.
   
   To achieve these targets, California’s waste management infrastructure is going to have to process and recycle much higher quantities of organic materials, involving significant investments in additional processing infrastructure. Organic waste is primarily recycled by composting the material, which generates compost that can be used in gardening and agriculture as a soil amendment and engineering purposes for things like slope stabilization. Anaerobic digestion is also widely used to recycle organic wastes. This technology uses bacteria to break down the material in the absence of oxygen and produces biogas, which can be used as fuel, and digestate, which can also be used as a soil amendment.

Though California has made significant progress toward achieving its SLCP reduction goals, more needs to be done. Since the program’s implementation in 2022, 75% of California communities (464 out of 616 jurisdictions) report that they have residential organic waste collection in place. According to CalRecycle, California now has 206 organic waste processing facilities and is building 20 more, and CalRecycle has invested over $220 million in grants and loans for organics processing infrastructure. CalRecycle states that the state needs approximately 50 to 100 new or expanded organics facilities to recycle the additional 20-25 million tons of organic waste that will be collected to meet the SB 1383 organic waste reduction targets.

1. CEQA. CEQA is intended to make government agencies and the public aware of the environmental impacts of a proposed project, ensure the public can take part in the review process, and identify measures to mitigate a project’s environmental impacts. CEQA is enforced by civil lawsuits.

The CEQA process begins with an initial study to determine the level of environmental review required for a project. If a project has no significant effects on the environment, or if those effects can be fully mitigated, the project can move forward with a ND or MND. If the initial study finds that the project has potential significant effects on the environment, an EIR is conducted to analyze the significant environmental impacts of a project and to identify mitigation measures for any significant effects identified.

1. Compost facility permitting. In addition to CEQA review, new composting facilities, depending on size and feedstock, are required to obtain local and state permits to operate. While these various permits provide important environmental protections, the layers of regulatory oversight and overlapping requirements make siting new compost facilities complex and costly. According to the California Compost Coalition, siting new compost facilities can take more than a decade to complete. Moreover, many local governments have not incorporated organic waste recycling facilities into their land use planning.

Local air districts regulate stationary sources of air pollution. Actively composting piles of organic feedstock emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which can react in the atmosphere with oxides of nitrogen (NOx) to make ground-level ozone, a criteria pollutant. VOCs can also react with ammonia to create particulate matter (PM 2.5), another criteria pollutant. The amount of emissions released during composting appears to be highly variable, and is influenced by the types of feedstock, types of facilities, and even climate. The relationships between the types of gases being emitted at any one time are complicated and remain poorly understood. Air districts rules and regulations for compost facilities can include detailed operational criteria, such as temperature and pressure requirements for composting aeration systems, and control efficiency rates for VOC and ammonia emissions.

The State Water Resources Control Board and regional boards are charged with issuing waste discharge requirements (WDRs) for composting facilities. In 2015, the Water Board developed and adopted its General Waste Discharge Requirements for Composting Operations (Composting General Order), which is intended to protect against potential threats to water quality from discharges from composting operations, and establishes general criteria that can be applied to composting facilities across the state in order to streamline the permitting process for composting operations that have similar materials and operations.

1. Permit Streamlining Act. The PSA was enacted in 1977 to expedite permit processing for development projects. The PSA sets timelines for government agencies to approve or deny permits. Under the PSA, an agency has 30 days after an application is submitted to respond to the applicant and tell them whether or not the application is complete. If the agency doesn't respond to the applicant in that timeframe, the application is deemed complete.

After an application is deemed complete, the PSA sets time limits for development project permit applications. The timeline depends on the level of environmental review required under CEQA for the project. If a project is eligible for an exemption from CEQA, the lead agency has 60 days to approve or deny the development permit. If the project requires more environmental review than needed for an exemption, the lead agency has 30 days after the project application is completed to conduct an initial study, which determines whether to require the preparation of an EIR or ND. Following the completion of the initial study, the lead agency has 60 days for a ND or 180 days for an EIR. The time limits for approval of applications may be extended up to 90 days by mutual agreement between the applicant and the public agency. If the agency fails to act within the specified timeline, the permits are deemed approved.

1. Author’s statement:

Organic materials make up half of what Californian’s send to landfills and emit 20% of the state’s methane. CalRecycle estimates that the state still needs approximately 50 to 100 new or expanded organic waste recycling facilities, such as composting facilities, for sufficient capacity to successfully implement SB 1383.

The siting and permitting of composting facilities is currently complicated and time-consuming – taking over a decade to finalize, in some cases. We recognize that state and local officials are balancing a complex web of important environmental regulations. However, as responsible policymakers acting on behalf of the state, we must prioritize the development of new organic waste recycling infrastructure to meet our SB 1383 goals. Otherwise, the state risks sending thousands of tons of recyclable food waste to our landfills to decompose and release damaging methane into the atmosphere for years to come. And according to CalRecycle, methane is a climate super pollutant 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide, which will further intensify the climate crisis.

1. Cumulative impacts. A number of bills relating to organic waste management have been introduced this year. While viewed individually, these bills have modest impacts on the state’s efforts to achieve its SLCP reduction goals; however, added together, they may result in further hindering the state’s ability to reduce these critical greenhouse gas emissions. As the bills move through the process, the authors should work together and with CalRecycle, stakeholders, and the relevant policy committees to ensure that the bills are complimentary and not duplicative or conflicting and that they do not negatively affect the state’s SLCP reduction efforts. The bills include:

AB 2311 (Bennett) adds edible food recovery activities to the activities eligible for funding from CalRecycle’s grant program that provides financial assistance to promote the development of organic waste infrastructure and waste reduction programs (infrastructure grant program). This bill has been referred to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

AB 2346 (Lee) authorizes local jurisdictions to be credited for the procurement of recovered organic waste products through contracts with direct service providers, and authorizes jurisdictions to receive procurement credit for investments made in projects that increase organic waste recycling capacity. This bill has been referred to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

AB 2514 (Aguiar Curry) exempts small counties with a population less than 70,000 from the state’s organic waste reduction requirements. This bill defines pyrolysis as the thermal decomposition of organic material at elevated temperatures in the absence of oxygen. This bill also requires CalRecycle to include hydrogen and pipeline biomethane converted from organic waste as eligible for procurement credit by local jurisdictions and requires CalRecycle to consider life cycle impacts when providing incentives to facilitate progress toward the organic waste reduction targets. This bill has been referred to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

AB 2902 (Wood) indefinitely extends the exemption for small rural counties with a population below 70,000 from the state’s organic waste reduction requirements, as specified. This bill provides additional compliance flexibility for small counties that produce less than 200,000 tons of solid waste annually. This bill also provides a process by which jurisdictions located at higher altitudes may receive an exemption from CalRecycle where food waste collection bins pose a threat to public health or animal safety due to bears. This bill has been referred to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

SB 972 (Min) requires CalRecycle, ARB, and the California Environmental Protection Agency to hold at least two joint meetings each calendar year to coordinate the implementation of policies that affect organic waste reduction targets. This bill has been referred to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

SB 1046 (Laird) requires CalRecycle to develop a Program Environmental Impact Report for small and medium sized compost facilities by January 1, 2027. This bill has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 1175 (Ochoa Bogh) requires CalRecycle to consider alternatives to census tracts when establishing the boundaries for a low-population or elevation waiver from the state’s organic waste reduction requirements. This bill has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

1. Double referral. This bill has also been referred to the Assembly Local Government Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Compost Coalition

California State Grange

Californians Against Waste

Recology

Republic Services, Inc.

Republic Services, Western Region

Resource Recovery Coalition of California

Rural County Representatives of California

Upper Valley Disposal Recycling

Waste Connections, Inc.

WM

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. /

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 1045

Author: Blakespear (D)

Amended: 4/29/24

Vote: 21

SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE: 5-2, 4/17/24

AYES: Durazo, Glazer, Skinner, Wahab, Wiener

NOES: Seyarto, Dahle

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 4/24/24

AYES: Allen, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Menjivar, Skinner

NOES: Dahle, Nguyen

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/16/24

AYES: Caballero, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Wahab

NOES: Jones, Seyarto

SUBJECT: Composting facilities: zoning

SOURCE: California Compost Coalition

DIGEST:

This bill requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop a technical advisory on best practices for facilitating siting of compost facilities and requires cities and counties to consider the technical advisory.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Allows, under the California Constitution, cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.”
2. Requires every county and city to adopt a general plan with seven mandatory elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. General plans must also either include an eighth element on environmental justice, or incorporate environmental justice concerns throughout the other elements.
3. Establishes, under SB 1383 (Lara, 2016), as part of a broader short-lived climate pollutant reduction strategy, targets to achieve a 50% reduction in the level of statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020, and a 75% reduction by 2025.
4. Requires the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in consultation with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), to adopt regulations to achieve those targets for reducing organic waste in landfills.
5. Creates the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) as the state’s comprehensive planning agency and allows OPR to offer technical assistance and information to local agencies regarding land use planning.

This bill:

1. Requires OPR to develop a technical advisory on or before June 1, 2026, reflecting best practices to facilitate the siting of composting facilities to meet the SB 1383 goals for organic waste recycling. The technical advisory must include both of the following in a manner that is suitable for adoption or modification by a city or county:
   1. Sample general plan goals, policies, and implementation measures; and
   2. A model ordinance.
2. Requires OPR, when developing the advisory, to consult with CalRecycle, representatives of urban, suburban, and rural counties and cities, operators of composting facilities, and waste services providers.
3. Requires cities and counties, upon the next substantive revision of the land use element of their general plan on or after January 1, 2028, to consider:
   1. Best practices reflected in the technical advisory; and
   2. Updating their land use element to identify areas where composting facilities may be appropriate as an allowable use.
4. Provides that this revision requirement only applies to revisions after OPR publicly posts the technical advisory.

Background

Land use authority. The California Constitution allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public—including land use authority.

Every county and city must adopt a general plan with seven mandatory elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. General plans must also either include an eighth element on environmental justice, or incorporate environmental justice concerns throughout the other elements. Cities’ and counties’ major land use decisions—including zoning ordinances and development permitting—must be consistent with their general plans. In this way, the general plan is a blueprint for future development.

To help local officials interpret these statutory requirements, OPR publishes General Plan Guidelines. OPR’s General Plan Guidelines recommend the information that local planners should collect, suggest goals, policies, and objectives that local general plans could adopt, and list a wide range of potential implementation measures to carry out those local goals. State law requires OPR to periodically revise the General Plan Guidelines. OPR’s last comprehensive update of the General Plan Guidelines occurred in 2017. OPR also releases subject-specific updates and technical advisories.

Organic waste. Organic material accounts for more than a third of California’s waste stream: food waste accounts for approximately 18% of landfilled material, and yard waste accounts for another 7% of the total waste stream. According to the CalRecycle, methane emissions from decomposing organic waste in landfills account for approximately 20% of the State’s total methane emissions. Methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a climate pollutant over a 20-year timescale.

SB 1383 regulations. In 2016, the Legislature enacted SB 1383 (Lara, 2016), which established emission reduction targets for short-lived climate pollutants, including hydrofluorocarbon gasses, anthropogenic black carbon, and methane. Among other requirements, SB 1383 directed CARB to approve and implement a comprehensive short-lived climate pollutant strategy that included a 2030 target of reducing methane emissions by 40% relative to 2014 levels. In order to achieve these reductions in methane emissions, SB 1383 set a goal of reducing landfill disposal of organic waste 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2025 from 2014 levels, and to redirect at least 20% of currently disposed of surplus food for meals by 2025. SB 1383 gave CalRecycle the authority to adopt regulations to meet these organic waste reduction requirements, which were finalized in November 2020 and became effective on January 1, 2022.

City and county responsibilities under SB 1383. Local governments play a key role in achieving the SB 1383 targets. The SB 1383 regulations require cities, counties, and special districts that provide solid waste collection services to take a variety of actions, including to, among other things:

• Establish an organic waste collection program, including mandatory curbside collections for certain waste generators, that require sorting of organic waste into proper containers; and
• Enforce organic waste collection requirements by monitoring and inspecting commercial businesses and reviewing waste routes for compliance, notifying entities in violation, providing a deadline to comply, and if necessary, assessing penalties and fines for continuous violations.

Local governments must also plan for adequate capacity to ensure that there are sufficient facilities for processing the organic waste collected. Specifically, every city, county, special district, and regional agency that provides waste collection services must:

• Estimate the amount of organic waste that will be disposed of within its jurisdiction annually;
• Identify the amount of existing organic waste recycling infrastructure capacity that is verifiably available to the jurisdiction through a contract or other similar means of documentation; and
• Estimate the amount of new capacity needed to process all of the estimated organic waste from the jurisdiction. If there isn’t enough capacity, local governments must also submit an implementation schedule to reach sufficient capacity, including a schedule of actions needed to obtain funding for the necessary organic waste recycling infrastructure and identifying the facilities and activities that could be used to provide additional capacity.

Counties are further responsible for compiling the data above for local governments within their boundaries and filing capacity reports with CalRecycle on a prescribed schedule.

Local governments that don’t comply with the SB 1383 regulations are subject to fines ranging from $500 to $10,000 per day, depending on the severity of the violation. However, CalRecycle must first attempt to work with local governments to bring them into compliance. Additionally, a local government may be eligible for an exemption or temporary waiver from some portions of the SB 1383 regulations if they have small populations, are located in rural areas or at high elevations, or generate small amounts of waste.

Organic waste recycling facilities. SB 1383 requires local governments to divert organic waste from landfills to other facilities to process that waste in accordance with the law. These facilities can include composting, mulching, biomass energy plans, and anerobic digestion facilities that break organic waste down and recycle it into usable products. The state currently does not possess sufficient capacity to process the amount of waste that needs to be diverted from landfills to meet the SB 1383 goals. Specifically, the Little Hoover Commission, in a June 2023 report on the status of SB 1383 implementation, noted that the state currently only has the capacity to process a little over half of the estimated 18 million tons of organic waste that will need to be diverted to organic waste recycling facilities in 2025. According to CalRecycle, the state needs approximately 50-100 new or expanded facilities to process the organic waste diverted from landfills under SB 1383.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author:

“Organic materials make up half of what Californian’s send to landfills and emit 20% of the state’s methane. CalRecycle estimates that the state still needs approximately 50 to 100 new or expanded organic waste recycling facilities, such as composting facilities, for sufficient capacity to successfully implement SB 1383 (Lara, 2016). The siting and permitting of composting facilities is currently complicated and time-consuming – taking over a decade to finalize, in some cases. We recognize that state and local officials are balancing a complex web of important environmental regulations. However, as responsible policymakers acting on behalf of the state, we must prioritize the development of new organic waste recycling infrastructure to meet our SB 1383 goals. Otherwise, the state risks sending thousands of tons of recyclable food waste to our landfills to decompose and release damaging methane into the atmosphere for years to come. And according to CalRecycle, methane is a climate super pollutant 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide, which will further intensify the climate crisis.”

1. Where’s the beef? Local governments already have strong incentives to plan for and permit organic waste recycling facilities in their jurisdictions. Specifically, the SB 1383 regulations require local governments that don’t have sufficient capacity to recycle their organic waste to conduct capacity planning for organic waste disposal facilities. Those that don’t comply with the law face significant fines. SB 1045 requires local governments to consider locations for compost facilities in their land use element, but it is unclear whether this requirement will provide any greater nudge to local governments to do this planning that the laws on the books. The OPR technical advisory may be of some assistance to cities and counties, but local governments are likely to adopt take steps on their own to ensure they have enough capacity to meet the organic recycling requirements of SB 1383.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• OPR estimates costs of approximately $448,000 annually for 2.0 PY of staff to conduct outreach and consult with CalRecycle and other interested parties, and to research and draft the technical advisory. Staff notes that these costs would be incurred through 2025-26, but there would be some measure of ongoing costs to provide the technical assistance to local agencies that would be siting composting facilities. (General Fund)
  
• CalRecycle indicates that any costs to provide consultation to OPR in the development of the technical advisory would be absorbable. (Integrated Waste Management Account)
  
• Unknown local costs for cities and counties to consider identifying areas where composting facilities may be appropriate when updating land use elements in their General Plans. These local costs would not be state-reimbursable as local agencies have the authority to charge various fees and charges to offset the costs of any new planning mandates. (local funds)

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/16/2024)

California Compost Coalition (source)

California Council for Environmental & Economic Balance (CCEEB)

California State Grange

Californians Against Waste

League of California Cities

Little Hoover Commission

Recology

Republic Services, Inc.

Resource Recovery Coalition of California

Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)

Upper Valley Disposal Recycling

Waste Connections, Inc.

WM

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/16/2024)

None received

Prepared by: Anton Favorini-Csorba / L. GOV. / (916) 651-4119

5/17/24 10:09:19

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

SB 1045 (Blakespear) - Composting facilities: zoning

Bill Summary:

SB 1045 would require the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), in consultation with the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) and other interested parties, to develop a specified technical advisory on best practices for facilitating siting of compost facilities. The bill would also require cities and counties to consider updating land use elements to identify areas where composting facilities may be appropriate.

Fiscal Impact:

• OPR estimates costs of approximately $448,000 annually for 2.0 PY of staff to conduct outreach and consult with CalRecycle and other interested parties, and to research and draft the technical advisory. Staff notes that these costs would be incurred through 2025-26, but there would be some measure of ongoing costs to provide the technical assistance to local agencies that would be siting composting facilities. (General Fund)
  
• CalRecycle indicates that any costs to provide consultation to OPR in the development of the technical advisory would be absorbable. (Integrated Waste Management Account)
  
• Unknown local costs for cities and counties to consider identifying areas where composting facilities may be appropriate when updating land use elements in their General Plans. These local costs would not be state-reimbursable as local agencies have the authority to charge various fees and charges to offset the costs of any new planning mandates. (local funds)

Background:

Organic material accounts for more than a third of California’s waste stream: food waste accounts for approximately 18% of landfilled material, and yard waste accounts for another 7% of the total waste stream. CalRecycle indicates that methane emissions from decomposing organic waste in landfills account for approximately 20% of the State’s total methane emissions.

In 2016, the Legislature enacted SB 1383 (Lara, 2016), which established emission reduction targets for specified short-lived climate pollutants. Among other requirements, SB 1383 directed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to approve and implement a comprehensive short-lived climate pollutant strategy that included a 2030 target of reducing methane emissions by 40% relative to 2014 levels. In order to achieve these methane emission reductions, SB 1383 established a goal to achieve a 50% reduction in statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 levels by 2025, and a 75% reduction by 2025.

CalRecycle regulations to meet these organic waste reduction requirements were finalized in November 2020 and became effective on January 1, 2022. The regulations require cities, counties, and special districts that provide solid waste collection services to take a variety of actions, including establishing an organic waste collection program, enforcing organic waste collection requirements through monitoring and inspections, and planning for adequate capacity to ensure there are sufficient facilities to process the collected organic waste.

Specifically, every city, county, special district, and regional agency that provides waste collection services must estimate the amount of organic waste that will be disposed of each year, identify the verifiable amount of existing organic waste recycling infrastructure capacity available to the jurisdiction, and estimate the amount of new capacity needed to process the estimated amount of waste from the jurisdiction. If sufficient capacity does not exist, the local agency must submit an implementation schedule to reach sufficient capacity, as specified. Counties must compile these data for local agencies within their boundaries and file capacity reports to CalRecycle. Certain local agencies, including those with small populations, those located in rural areas or at high elevations, and those that generate small amounts of waste, may qualify for exemptions or temporary waivers from the CalRecycle regulations. Local agencies that fail to comply with these requirements after attempting to resolve compliance issues with CalRecycle are subject to fines ranging from $500 to $10,000 per day, depending on the severity of the violation.

Proposed Law:

SB 1045 would require OPR, in consultation with CalRecycle, to develop and post on its website by June 1, 2026, a technical advisory that reflects best practices to facilitate the siting of composting facilities to meet specified organic waste reduction goals. The technical advisory must include a model ordinance and sample general plan goals, policies, and implementation measures. The bill would also require OPR to consult with representatives of urban, suburban, and rural counties and cities, operators of composting facilities, and private and public waste services throughout the development of the technical advisory.

SB 1045 would also require cities and counties, upon a substantive revision of the land use element on or after January 1, 2028, to consider the best practices reflected in the technical advisory, and to consider updating the land use element to identify areas where composting facilities may be appropriate as an allowable use, as specified.

Related Legislation:

SB 972 (Min), which is also being heard in this Committee on May 13, would require CalRecycle, CARB, and the California Environmental Protection Agency to hold at least two joint meetings each calendar year to coordinate the implementation of policies that affect organic waste reduction targets.

SB 1175 (Ochoa Bogh), which is currently pending on the Senate Floor, would direct CalRecycle to consider alternatives in addition to census tracts when deciding on the boundaries of low-population and elevation waivers from SB 1383’s organics waste diversion goals.

SB 1383 (Lara), Chap. 395/2016, included provisions that required CalRecycle, in consultation with CARB, to adopt regulations to achieve targets to achieve a 50% reduction in the level of statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020, and a 75% reduction by 2025.

Staff Comments:

According to a 2023 Little Hoover Commission report on the status of SB 1383 implementation, the state currently only has the capacity to process a little over half of the estimated 18 million tons of organic waste that will need to be diverted to organic waste recycling facilities in 2025. According to CalRecycle, the state needs approximately 50-100 new or expanded facilities to process the organic waste diverted from landfills to meet the goals specified in SB 1383.

This bill would require OPR, in consultation with CalRecycle and specified local agency representatives and other interested parties involved in organic waste disposal and processing, to develop a technical advisory that includes a model ordinance and relevant planning tools that may be incorporated into local land use elements of the General Plan. The technical advisory must be posted on OPR’s website by June 1, 2026. These tools are intended to facilitate the siting of additional composting facilities to address the shortfall in capacity to manage organic waste diverted from landfills.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Allen, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

SUBJECT: Composting facilities: zoning: air and water permits

DIGEST: This bill requires local jurisdictions, when substantively revising their land use element after January 1, 2028, to consider updating the land use element to identify areas where composting facilities could be cited, and sets timelines for regional water boards and air districts to respond to and approve or deny permits for composting facilities.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes, under SB 1383 (Lara, Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016), as part of a

broader short-lived climate pollutant reduction strategy, targets to achieve a

50% reduction in the level of statewide disposal of organic waste from the

2014 level by 2020, and a 75% reduction by 2025. (HSC § 39730.6)

• 1. Requires CalRecycle, in consultation with CARB, to adopt regulations to

achieve those targets for reducing organic waste in landfills. (PRC § 42652.5)

1. Establishes the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA), which requires each public agency to provide a development project applicant with a list that specifies the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project (Government Code § 65921). Establishes timelines for agencies responding to permits under the PSA, including:
   1. An agency has 30 days after an application is submitted to let the applicant know whether or not the application is complete. If the agency does not inform the applicant within that 30-day period, the application will be "deemed complete." (Government Code § 65943).
   2. A new 30-day period begins with each re-submission of an application. Government Code § 65943
   3. If a local agency fails to approve or disapprove the permit within the time limits specified below, the permit is subject to being "deemed approved." Government Code § 65956(b).
2. Establishes The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project to prepare a negative declaration (ND), mitigated negative declaration (MND), or environmental impact report (EIR) for the project, unless the project is exempt from CEQA. Establishes various timelines for lead agencies to complete environmental review and certify or deny ND, MNDs, and EIRs (Public Resources Code (PRC) §21000 et seq.; CEQA Guidelines §15000 et seq)

This bill:

1. Requires air districts and regional water boards to review permits for compost facilities within 30 days and determine if they are complete and correct.
   
2. Requires air districts and regional water boards to accept or deny the permit within 60 days of receiving the application.
   1. Authorizes air districts and regional water boards to charge permit applicants a fee to cover the cost of reviewing the permit.
3. Requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in consultation with CalRecycle and a technical advisory, to develop a technical advisory on the best practices for facilitating siting of compost facilities.
4. Requires a city, county, or city and county upon a substantive revision of the land use element on or after January 1, 2028, to consider updating the land use element to reflect best practices identified in the technical advisory, and to identify areas where composting facilities may be appropriate as an allowable use. 
5. Makes related findings and declarations. 

Background

1. SB 1383 Goals and Targets. In 2016, California passed SB 1383 (Lara, Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016) to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCP’s), and specifically to reduce methane emissions by 40% relative to 2014 levels by 2030. SB 1383 targets SLCP emissions from organic material decomposing in landfills.

When food and other organic material is discarded in a landfill, bacteria break down the material aerobically (without oxygen), a process that releases methane and other climate pollutants. While modern landfills have systems in place to capture this methane, significant amounts of SLCP’s continue to escape from landfills into the atmosphere. According to CalRecycle, landfills are the third largest source of methane in California, and organic waste in landfills emits 20% of the state's methane. Approximately 8.5 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent were released by landfills in 2020.

Compost facilities, in contrast to landfills, have significantly fewer emissions from organic waste, as composting primarily breaks material down aerobically (with oxygen), which does not produce methane.

To reduce emissions from landfills, SB 1383 set a target of reducing the landfill disposal of organic waste 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2025 relative to the 2014 disposal level. Under SB 1383, the organic waste diverted from landfills must go to organics recovery facilities to make products like compost, fertilizer, fuel, or energy. In addition to these goals, at least 20 percent of the edible food in the organic waste stream must be recovered to feed people by 2025.

Broadly, SB 1383, as developed in regulations by CalRecycle in consultation with CARB, operates by requiring every jurisdiction to provide organic waste collection services to all residents and businesses and by creating a destination for that stream of organics by setting annual recovered organic waste procurement targets for jurisdictions.

1. Progress towards SB 1383. California has made progress towards the organic-waste diversion goals outlined in SB 1383: however, according to a report by the Little Hoover Commission in 2023, the State failed to reach its 2020 targets and is not on track to reach its 2025 goals. Progress towards the goals has been mixed. For example:
   1. Jurisdictions report they rescued over 200,000 tons of unsold food in 2022, which is 87 percent of the way towards the SB 1383 edible food recovery target;
   2. 464 out of 616 jurisdictions report having residential organic waste collection in place –that’s 25% below SB 1383’s target;
   3. Organics diverted for recycling increased from 9.9 million tons in 2021 to 11.2 million tons in 2022. CalRecycle estimates that approximately 27 million tons of organic material will need to be redirected from landfills in 2025 to meet the SB 1383 reduction goal, meaning that diversion rate in 2022 was just 41% of the way towards the 2025 goal statewide.

Onboarding organic waste processing infrastructure has been and continues to be an essential step in achieving SB 1383’s goals. As of 2024, California has 210 operating organics processing facilities, including 169 composting facilities, 17 anaerobic digestion facilities, and 24 biomass operations. From October 2022 to December 2023, CalRecycle issued permits for seven solid waste facilities that included new compost, in-vessel digestion, and transfer/processing facilities for organic material.

CalRecycle estimates 50 to 100 new or expanded anaerobic digestion facilities must come online to support SB 1383 organics waste reduction targets.

1. The A, B, C’s of CEQA. CEQA is designed to (a) make government agencies and the public aware of the environmental impacts of a proposed project, (b) ensure the public can take part in the review process, and (c) identify and implement measures to mitigate or eliminate any negative impact the project may have on the environment. CEQA is enforced by civil lawsuits that can challenge any project’s environmental review. Nonprofits, private individuals, public agencies, advocacy groups, and other organizations can all file lawsuits under CEQA.

Under CEQA, projects may either qualify for an exemption, or undergo environmental analysis. This process starts with an initial study which determines what level of further environmental review is needed for a given project. If a project has no significant effects on the environment, or if those effects can be fully mitigated, the project can move forward with a negative declaration (ND) or mitigated negative declaration (MND). If the initial study finds that the project has potential significant effects on the environment, then a full EIR is conducted. An EIR provides thorough environmental review of a proposed project, analyzing the significant direct and indirect environmental impacts of a project and proposing mitigation measures for any significant effects that it identifies.

1. Permitting composting facilities. New composting facilities are required to obtain a waste composting permit, a water discharge permit, and an air pollutant emissions permit. The air pollutant emission permit and water discharge permits are approved at the local level by the local air district and regional water board (Regional Board), respectively.
   
   1. Air district permitting. Air districts regulate stationary sources of air pollution. Composting piles emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which can react in the atmosphere to make ozone particulate matter. Air districts may develop their own rules and regulations specifically related to permitting composting facilities. These can include detailed operational criteria such as temperature and pressure requirements for composting aeration systems, and control efficiency rates for VOC and ammonia emissions.
   2. Regional Water Board Permitting. The State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Boards also have a role in permitting composting facilities by issuing waste discharge requirements (WDRs) for composting facilities. In 2015, the Water Board developed and adopted its General Waste Discharge Requirements for Composting Operations (Composting General Order).

The requirements in the Composting General Order are intended to protect against potential threats to water quality from discharges from composting operations, and establishes general criteria that can be applied to composting facilities across the state in order to streamline the permitting process for composting operations that have similar materials and operations.

1. Permit Streamlining Act. The PSA was enacted in 1977 in order to expedite the processing of permits for development projects. The PSA sets time limits for government agencies to approve or deny permits. Under the PSA, an agency has 30 days after an application is submitted to respond to the applicant and tell them whether or not the application is complete. If the agency doesn’t respond to the applicant in that timeframe, the application is deemed complete (even if the application is incomplete).

After an application is determined complete, the PSA sets time limits on development project permit applications. The timeline on which a decision must be made on an application depends on the level of environmental review under CEQA governing the project. If a project is eligible for an exemption from CEQA, the lead agency has 60 days to approve or deny the development permit. If the project requires more environmental review than needed for an exemption, the lead agency has 30 days after the project application is completed to conduct an initial study, which determines whether to require the preparation of an EIR or ND. Following the completion of the initial study, the lead agency must make a decision on a development project permit in 60 days for a ND or 180 days for an EIR. The time limits for approval of applications may be extended up to 90 days by mutual agreement between the applicant and the public agency.

These timelines apply to the lead agency – the PSA also sets timelines for responsible agencies. The responsible agency is any agency other than the lead agency that is responsible for carrying out or approving the project –such as by granting permits. A responsible agency supplements the lead agency in the environmental review process and provides expertise in their bailiwick. Responsible agencies are required to approve or disapprove a development project that has been approved by the lead agency within 180 days from either the date on which the lead agency approved the project or the date on which the application for the project is accepted as complete by the responsible agency.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “The siting and permitting of composting facilities is currently complicated and time-consuming – taking over a decade to finalize, in some cases. We recognize that state and local officials are balancing a complex web of important environmental regulations. However, as responsible policymakers acting on behalf of the state, we must prioritize the development of new organic waste recycling infrastructure to meet our SB 1383 goals. Otherwise, the state risks sending thousands of tons of recyclable food waste to our landfills to decompose and release damaging methane into the atmosphere for years to come.”
2. Conflicts with existing timelines. Organic waste facilities can require two types of permits from air districts and Regional Boards—a development permit and an operational permit. Development permits are under the purview of the PSA, and must meet the timelines in the PSA. The PSA requires agencies to respond to an applicant within 30 days of receiving an application to confirm if the application is complete or not, which matches the timeline for reviewing applications in SB 1045. However, SB 1045 also requires air districts or Regional Boards to accept or deny a permit, including both a development and an operational permit, within 60 days: this 60-day timeline conflicts with the PSA for construction permits.

Air districts or Regional Boards may act as the responsible agency under CEQA for permitting a compost facility project, in which case they have 180 days to approve or deny the permit under the PSA. This 180-day timeline for development projects is three times longer than what would be allowed under SB 1045.

In addition, the water code has established specific timelines and conditions on which any new waste discharge or changes to waste discharge can move forward if a WDR is not issued by a Regional Board. These timelines are longer than the 60-day timeline established in SB 1045, meaning that in some scenarios, SB 1045 would conflict with existing law.

1. Push till it breaks? SB 1045 seeks to speed up the permitting process for organic waste facilities by requiring local air districts and Regional Boards to accept or deny a permit within 60 days of getting a complete application. The permitting process, however, involves many steps. An air district receiving an application for a compost facility, for example, determines compliance with applicable rules and regulations, sets limits for emissions, and establishes monitoring, testing, and reporting requirements as part of the permit conditions. Next, the air district can issue a pre-construct permit, and then follow up after the project has been constructed to ensure there has been compliance with permit conditions. Finally, the air district issues a permit to operate if all the requirements have been met. This last step—ensuring that all requirements have been met—can be especially time consuming and is often iterative as the air district and compost facility work together to ensure that all the requirements are being met and that the data demonstrates that the facility is in compliance with the rules or regulations. This back and forth to bring facilities into compliance is not required by law: if anything in the permit application is not in compliance, the air district could simply choose to deny the permit.

If air districts are put on a shortened timeline to approve or deny permits as established in SB 1045, they may forgo the iterative compliance process and simply deny permits when the project does not meet all the rules and regulations for development or operation. Such an outcome would ultimately increase rather than decrease permitting times.

Given the potential outcome that shortening timelines for approving or disproving permits will result in more permits being denied, the author and committee may wish to remove the requirement that air districts and regional water boards review a permit for completion within 30 days and the provision that they accept or deny a permit within 60 days.

1. Committee amendments: Staff recommends the committee adopt the suggested amendments bolded in (3) above.

DOUBLE REFERRAL:

This measure was heard in Senate Local Government Committee on April 17, 2023, and passed out of committee with a vote of 5-2.

Related/Prior Legislation

A number of bills relating to organic waste management have been introduced this year. As the bills move through the process, the authors should work together and with CalRecycle, stakeholders, and the relevant policy committees to ensure that the bills are complimentary and not duplicative or conflicting. The bills include:

SB 972 (Min) requires CalRecycle, ARB, and the California Environmental Protection Agency to hold at least two joint meetings each calendar year to coordinate the implementation of policies that affect organic waste reduction targets. This bill is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on April 24, 2024.

SB 1046 (Laird) requires CalRecycle to prepare a program environmental impact report that streamlines the California Environmental Quality Act process for small and medium sized compost facilities. This bill passed out of Senate Environmental Quality Committee and has been referred to Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 1232 (Grove) exempts a portion of a county from the prescribed organic waste collection requirements if a county proposed a fee for the collection of organic waste in that portion of the county and, as a result of successful protest vote, did not impose the fee. This bill is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on April 17, 2024.

AB 2311 (Bennett) adds edible food recovery activities to the activities eligible for funding from the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery’s (CalRecycle) grant program that provides financial assistance to promote the development of organic waste infrastructure and waste reduction programs (infrastructure grant program). This bill has been referred to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

AB 2346 (Lee) authorizes local jurisdictions to be credited for the procurement of recovered organic waste products through contracts with direct service providers, and authorizes jurisdictions to receive procurement credit for investments made in projects that increase organic waste recycling capacity. This bill has been referred to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

AB 2514 (Aguiar Curry) exempts small counties with a population under 70,000 from the state’s organic waste reduction requirements. This bill defines pyrolysis as the thermal decomposition of organic material at elevated temperatures in the absence of oxygen. This bill also requires CalRecycle to include hydrogen and pipeline biomethane converted from organic waste as eligible for procurement credit by local jurisdictions and requires CalRecycle to consider “life-cycle carbon intensity” when providing incentives to facilitate progress toward the organic waste reduction targets. Finally, this bill requires CalRecycle, in consultation with ARB, to report to the Legislature on the amount of methane emissions leaked from “different recovered organic waste product procurement target compliance pathways” and measures to reduce methane leakage. This bill has been referred to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

AB 2577 (Irwin) requires the regulations adopted by CalRecycle to meet the state’s edible food recovery goal to include product labeling requirements that reduce food waste. This bill has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 2658 (Bains) exempts food processing establishments that do not “divert organic waste to landfills” from the state’s organic waste diversion targets. This bill has been referred to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

AB 2902 (Wood) indefinitely extends the exemption for small rural counties with a population below 70,000 from the state’s organic waste reduction requirements, as specified. This bill provides additional compliance flexibility for small counties that produce less than 200,000 tons of solid waste annually. This bill also provides a process by which jurisdictions located at higher altitudes may receive an exemption from CalRecycle where food waste collection bins pose a threat to public health or animal safety due to bears. This bill has been referred to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee

SOURCE:

Author

SUPPORT:

California Compost Coalition
California Council for Environmental & Economic Balance (CCEEB)
California State Grange
Californians Against Waste
Little Hoover Commission
Recology
Republic Services INC.
Resource Recovery Coalition of California
Upper Valley Disposal Recycling
Waste Connections, INC.
Wm

OPPOSITION:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

According to the Little Hoover Commission “The Little Hoover Commission supports SB 1045, the measure you authored that would require the Office of Planning and Research, in consultation with CalRecycle, to develop a model zoning ordinance facilitating the siting of compost facilities. The measure would also require local jurisdictions to amend their composting zoning ordinances based on the model ordinance, and impose deadlines on district and regional air and water quality boards on reviewing permit applications. By increasing these duties for cities or counties, SB 1045 would impose the state-mandated local program. In its 2023 report, Reducing California’s Landfill Emissions: SB 1383 Implementation, the Commission found that the state lacked sufficient infrastructure to recycle the amount of organic waste that would be generated by SB 1383. It recommended that the state plan for, including financing, the necessary infrastructure to achieve its environmental goals, facilitate community composting, speed up the permitting process, and make any necessary changes to the relationship between state and local governments to better reflect shared responsibility for waste management. SB 1045 would further these recommendations.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

According to California Air Pollution Control Officers Association “Existing law requires air districts to determine whether to issue a permit within 180 days of deeming an application complete. During this time, air district engineers will use the information and data submitted by the applicant in their application to determine whether the project can be expected to comply with federal, state, and local requirements such as prohibitory rule emissions limits, health risk limits, and Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements. It is also uncommon for permit issuance to exceed this 180-day limit, but existing law also allows extension of this time limit with the agreement of both the permit applicant and the air district. While the vast majority of permits are issued well within 180 days, this limit accommodates more complex permit applications that may require more time to review, such as those that trigger public noticing, school noticing, or federally required noticing if the project is subject to federal review. These noticing requirements include public comment processes, as well as requirements for the permit applicant and the air district to respond to received comments. Additionally, during the course of permit review, applicants will often decide they need to modify their proposals to ensure they can comply with regulatory requirements or out of business needs. All of these scenarios add to the amount of time needed to issue permits. SB 1045’s 60-day limitation may force air districts to deny permit applications for complex composting operations because statutory and regulatory requirements that require more time to meet cannot be met. CAPCOA supports the state’s goals in implementing waste diversion strategies to address the significant climate impacts of Short Lived Climate Pollutants, and we believe that composting operations can play a key role in realizing those goals. Unfortunately, SB 1045 will hinder efforts instead of advancing them.”

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Senator Maria Elena Durazo, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Composting facilities: zoning: air and water permits

Requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop a technical advisory on best practices for facilitating siting of compost facilities; requires cities and counties to consider the technical advisory; and establishes timelines for reviewing permits for compost facilities.

Background

Land use authority. The California Constitution allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public—including land use authority.

Every county and city must adopt a general plan with seven mandatory elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. General plans must also either include an eighth element on environmental justice, or incorporate environmental justice concerns throughout the other elements. Cities’ and counties’ major land use decisions—including zoning ordinances and development permitting—must be consistent with their general plans. In this way, the general plan is a blueprint for future development.

To help local officials interpret these statutory requirements, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) publishes General Plan Guidelines. OPR’s General Plan Guidelines recommend the information that local planners should collect, suggest goals, policies, and objectives that local general plans could adopt, and list a wide range of potential implementation measures to carry out those local goals. State law requires OPR to periodically revise the General Plan Guidelines. OPR’s last comprehensive update of the General Plan Guidelines occurred in 2017. OPR also releases subject-specific updates and technical advisories.

Organic waste. Organic material accounts for more than a third of California’s waste stream: food waste accounts for approximately 18% of landfilled material, and yard waste accounts for another 7% of the total waste stream. According to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), methane emissions from decomposing organic waste in landfills account for approximately 20% of the State’s total methane emissions. Methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a climate pollutant over a 20-year timescale.

SB 1383 regulations. In 2016, the Legislature enacted SB 1383 (Lara, 2016), which established emission reduction targets for short-lived climate pollutants, including hydrofluorocarbon gasses, anthropogenic black carbon, and methane. Among other requirements, SB 1383 directed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to approve and implement a comprehensive short-lived climate pollutant strategy that included a 2030 target of reducing methane emissions by 40% relative to 2014 levels. In order to achieve these reductions in methane emissions, SB 1383 set a goal of reducing landfill disposal of organic waste 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2025 from 2014 levels, and to redirect at least 20% of currently disposed of surplus food for meals by 2025. SB 1383 gave CalRecycle the authority to adopt regulations to meet these organic waste reduction requirements, which were finalized in November 2020 and became effective on January 1, 2022.

City and county responsibilities under SB 1383. Local governments play a key role in achieving the SB 1383 targets. The SB 1383 regulations require cities, counties, and special districts that provide solid waste collection services to take a variety of actions, including to, among other things:

• Establish an organic waste collection program, including mandatory curbside collections for certain waste generators, that require sorting of organic waste into proper containers; and
• Enforce organic waste collection requirements by monitoring and inspecting commercial businesses and reviewing waste routes for compliance, notifying entities in violation, providing a deadline to comply, and if necessary, assessing penalties and fines for continuous violations.

Local governments must also plan for adequate capacity to ensure that there are sufficient facilities for processing the organic waste collected. Specifically, every city, county, special district, and regional agency that provides waste collection services must:

• Estimate the amount of organic waste that will be disposed of within its jurisdiction annually;
• Identify the amount of existing organic waste recycling infrastructure capacity that is verifiably available to the jurisdiction through a contract or other similar means of documentation; and
• Estimate the amount of new capacity needed to process all of the estimated organic waste from the jurisdiction. If there isn’t enough capacity, local governments must also submit an implementation schedule to reach sufficient capacity, including a schedule of actions needed to obtain funding for the necessary organic waste recycling infrastructure and identifying the facilities and activities that could be used to provide additional capacity.

Counties are further responsible for compiling the data above for local governments within their boundaries and filing capacity reports with CalRecycle on a prescribed schedule.

Local governments that don’t comply with the SB 1383 regulations are subject to fines ranging from $500 to $10,000 per day, depending on the severity of the violation. However, CalRecycle must first attempt to work with local governments to bring them into compliance. Additionally, a local government may be eligible for an exemption or temporary waiver from some portions of the SB 1383 regulations if they have small populations, are located in rural areas or at high elevations, or generate small amounts of waste.

Organic waste recycling facilities. SB 1383 requires local governments to divert organic waste from landfills to other facilities to process that waste in accordance with the law. These facilities can include composting, mulching, biomass energy plans, and anerobic digestion facilities that break organic waste down and recycle it into usable products. The state currently does not possess sufficient capacity to process the amount of waste that needs to be diverted from landfills to meet the SB 1383 goals. Specifically, the Little Hoover Commission, in a June 2023 report on the status of SB 1383 implementation, noted that the state currently only has the capacity to process a little over half of the estimated 18 million tons of organic waste that will need to be diverted to organic waste recycling facilities in 2025. According to CalRecycle, the state needs approximately 50-100 new or expanded facilities to process the organic waste diverted from landfills under SB 1383.

Permitting requirements for composting facilities. Various state and local entities permit aspects of organic waste recycling facilities. Any new land use, including organic waste recycling facilities like composting facilities, must be approved by the city or county the project will be located in.

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine regional water quality control boards issue permits for waste discharges to bodies of water and groundwater under the federal Clean Water Act and state Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Producing compost can leach chemicals into nearby water sources in the absence of appropriate mitigation measures. In 2015, SWRCB adopted a Composting General Order setting standard requirements under which composting facilities may be permitted, including design standards for the facilities and ongoing monitoring and maintenance programs to ensure that the facilities function as intended. Of the 132 composting facilities regulated by SWRCB, 100 are permitted under this General Order. Twenty-five composting facilities are permitted individually pursuant to Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) that impose site-specific requirements to mitigate discharges from those facilities, and seven facilities have been notified that they are exempt, according to SWRCB’s 2023 report on implementation of the Composting General Order.

The state’s 35 regional air pollution control districts and air quality management districts (air districts) issue permits for stationary sources of air pollution under the oversight of CARB. Composting facilities and other organic waste recyclers emit air pollutants, including volatile organic compounds and greenhouse gases such as methane, that are regulated by air districts to ensure that these facilities comply with the federal Clean Air Act. Numerous air pollution regulations can apply to composting facilities, such as New Source Review programs that ensure new or expanded sources of air pollution do not impair efforts to reach air quality goals, “Authorization to Construct” permits for facilities, and permits to operate. According to a 2018 discussion paper on air quality issues related to composting facilities that was compiled by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, two air districts have rules specific to composting facilities: the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. The remaining air districts apply other generally applicable regulations to these facilities. Air district permits can require the installation and use of best available control technologies for reducing emissions, as well as monitoring and maintenance programs, among other requirements.

Other permits from different state or local entities may also be required depending on the specific facility, such as from local environmental health agencies or fire departments.

The Permit Streamlining Act. The 1977 Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) requires public agencies (both state and local) to act fairly and promptly on applications for development proposals. Public agencies must develop lists of the information that applicants must provide in order for a development application, including an application for housing, to be complete and explain the criteria they will use to review permit applications. Public agencies have 30 days to determine whether applications for development projects are complete and request additional information; failure to act results in an application being “deemed complete.” If an application is incomplete, the PSA requires public agencies to exhaustively list all information needed to make a development application complete and prohibits public agencies from asking for additional information that wasn’t initially required.

Once a complete application for a development has been submitted, the PSA requires public agencies to act within a specific time period after completing any environmental review documents required under the California Environmental Quality Act, ranging between 60 and 180 days. If the public agency fails to approve or disapprove the application in the applicable time period, the application is deemed approved.

The California Compost Coalition reports that the permitting process for composting facilities can be lengthy. It wants the Legislature to expedite permitting of composting facilities.

Proposed Law

Senate Bill 1045 makes various changes to land use laws and permitting procedures related to composting facilities.

Land use provisions for composting facilities. SB 1045 requires OPR to develop a technical advisory on or before June 1, 2026, reflecting best practices to facilitate the siting of composting facilities to meet the SB 1383 goals for organic waste recycling. The technical advisory must include both of the following in a manner that is suitable for adoption or modification by a city or county:

• Sample general plan goals, policies, and implementation measures; and
• A model ordinance.

When developing the advisory, OPR must consult with CalRecycle, representatives of urban, suburban, and rural counties and cities, operators of composting facilities, and waste services providers.

SB 1045 requires cities and counties, upon the next substantive revision of the land use element of their general plan on or after January 1, 2028, to consider:

• Best practices reflected in the technical advisory; and
• Updating their land use element to identify areas where composting facilities may be appropriate as an allowable use.

This revision requirement only applies to revisions after OPR publicly posts the technical advisory.

Permitting provisions for composting facilities. SB 1045 directs air districts and regional water quality control boards to act on a new or revised permit for a compost facility within certain timeframes. Specifically:

• No later than 30 calendar days after a district or a regional board has received a permit application for a new or revised permit for a compost facility, the district or regional board must determine in writing whether the permit application is complete and correct and immediately transmit the determination to the applicant for the permit; and
• No later than 60 calendar days after the permit is complete, the district or regional board must conduct a review of the permit and accept or deny the permit.

Applicants and the district or regional board can mutually agree to extend the time limit, and districts and regional boards can charge fees for reviewing the applications.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “Organic materials make up half of what Californian’s send to landfills and emit 20% of the state’s methane. CalRecycle estimates that the state still needs approximately 50 to 100 new or expanded organic waste recycling facilities, such as composting facilities, for sufficient capacity to successfully implement SB 1383 (Lara, 2016). The siting and permitting of composting facilities is currently complicated and time-consuming – taking over a decade to finalize, in some cases. We recognize that state and local officials are balancing a complex web of important environmental regulations. However, as responsible policymakers acting on behalf of the state, we must prioritize the development of new organic waste recycling infrastructure to meet our SB 1383 goals. Otherwise, the state risks sending thousands of tons of recyclable food waste to our landfills to decompose and release damaging methane into the atmosphere for years to come. And according to CalRecycle, methane is a climate super pollutant 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide, which will further intensify the climate crisis.”

2. Where’s the beef? Local governments already have strong incentives to plan for and permit organic waste recycling facilities in their jurisdictions. Specifically, the SB 1383 regulations require local governments that don’t have sufficient capacity to recycle their organic waste to conduct capacity planning for organic waste disposal facilities. Those that don’t comply with the law face significant fines. SB 1045 requires local governments to consider locations for compost facilities in their land use element, but it is unclear whether this requirement will provide any greater nudge to local governments to do this planning that the laws on the books. The OPR technical advisory may be of some assistance to cities and counties, but local governments are likely to adopt take steps on their own to ensure they have enough capacity to meet the organic recycling requirements of SB 1383.

3. Not so fast. As noted above, the PSA requires public agencies—including cities and counties—to act promptly on applications for development projects promptly. The Act covers most projects that involve construction or alteration of land or structures, but does not apply to permits to operate. The PSA includes extensive detail on the procedures that public agencies must follow to ensure applicants for development projects are treated fairly. It is clear some of the permits composting facilities require fall under the PSA: local land use permits are unquestionably subject to it. The PSA also specifically lists air districts as state agencies subject to its requirements, and New Source Reviews and Authorizations to Construct may qualify as applications for development projects because they are required in connection with new or expanded sources of pollution. A May 1, 2013, memo to the SWRCB’s executive director from its chief counsel indicates some waste discharge requirements may qualify as applications for development projects as well. On the other hand, the PSA does not apply to permits to operate, which some permits issued by SWRCB, the regional boards, and air districts undoubtedly are. SB 1045 imposes timelines for review and approval on air districts and regional boards regarding permitting composting facilities, but the bill’s requirements are less detailed than the procedures in the PSA and may conflict with the PSA’s requirements to the extent that the permits qualify as applications for development projects. Moreover, air districts have their own statute for expedited permit processing that do not specify timeframes but include other measures for expediting permits. Moving forward, the author may wish to consider addressing the uncertainty and potential conflicts among this bill, air district statutes, and the PSA. Folding the permits required for composting facilities under the PSA instead of in a separate statute as this bill proposes: it could remove some uncertainty about which law governs in the event of a conflict, and it would subject these permits to the myriad of provisions in the PSA, which have been born out of experience with the ways in which regulatory agencies have slowed down development permits in the past.

4. Mandate. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for the costs of new or expanded state mandated local programs. Because SB 1045 imposes new duties on cities, counties, and air districts, Legislative Counsel says that it imposes a new state mandate. SB 1045 disclaims the state's responsibility for providing reimbursement by citing local governments’ authority to charge for the costs of implementing the bill’s provisions.

5. Coming and going. The Senate Rules Committee has ordered a double referral of SB 1045: first to the Committee on Local Government to hear issues pertaining to local government planning and land use, and second to the Committee on Environmental Quality.

6. Related legislation. The Senate Local Government Committee has been referred two additional bills regarding organic waste recycling and SB 1383 compliance, including:

• SB 1232 (Grove, 2024) exempts a portion of a county SB 1383’s requirements if the county proposed a fee for the collection of organic waste in that portion of that county and the county did not impose the fee in that portion of that county because, when submitted to property owners for approval, it was rejected.  This measure is also scheduled for the Committee’s April 17^th meeting. 
• SB 1426 (Blakespear, 2024) prohibits an exclusive franchise, contract, license, or permit to provide services for diversion from exceeding the services performed under the exclusive authorization.  Additionally, it authorizes other persons to collect undiscarded organic material from nonresidential customers if local agencies do not offer collection programs for these materials through a local ordinance or franchise agreement.  This measure is currently pending in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee; should it advance, it will be re-referred to this Committee. 

Additionally, the Legislature is considering several additional measures on the same subject:

• SB 972 (Min, 2024) requires CalRecycle, CARB, and the California Environmental Protection Agency to hold at least two joint meetings each calendar year to coordinate the implementation of policies that affect organic waste reduction targets. This measure is currently pending in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.
• SB 1175 (Ochoa Bogh, 2024) directs CalRecycle to consider alternatives in addition to census tracts when deciding on the boundaries of low-population and elevation waivers from SB 1383’s organics waste diversion goals. This measure is currently pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
• AB 2346 (Lee, 2024) authorizes local jurisdictions to be credited for the procurement of recovered organic waste products through contracts with direct service providers, and authorizes jurisdictions to receive procurement credit for investments made in projects that increase organic waste recycling capacity.  This measure is currently pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
• AB 2514 (Aguiar Curry, 2024) exempts small counties with a population under 70,000 from the state’s organic waste reduction requirements.  This bill also requires CalRecycle to include hydrogen and pipeline biomethane converted from organic waste as eligible for procurement credit by local jurisdictions and requires CalRecycle to consider “life-cycle carbon intensity” when providing incentives to facilitate progress toward the organic waste reduction targets.  This measure is currently pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
• AB 2577 (Bryan, 2024) requires the regulations CalRecycle adopts to meet the state’s edible food recovery goal to include product labeling requirements that reduce food waste.  The measure is currently pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
• AB 2658 (Bains, 2024) exempts food processing establishments that do not “divert organic waste to landfills” from the state’s organic waste diversion targets.  The measure is currently pending in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
• AB 2902 (Wood, 2024) makes permanent the exemption for small rural counties with a population below 70,000 from the state’s organic waste reduction requirements, and provides additional compliance flexibility for small counties that produce less than 200,000 tons of solid waste annually.  The measure is currently pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Support and Opposition

(4/12/24)

Support: California Compost Coalition
California Council for Environmental & Economic Balance (CCEEB)
California State Grange
Californians Against Waste
Little Hoover Commission
Recology
Republic Services INC.
Resource Recovery Coalition of California
Upper Valley Disposal Recycling
Waste Connections, INC.
Wm

Opposition: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association

-- END --