sacramento Report

by Monica Williamson

Recycling in multifamily housing is one of the final frontiers in ongoing efforts to divert solid waste from landfills. To date, multifamily recycling efforts consist of programs developed and administered by local jurisdictions; some programs require mandatory participation and others remain voluntary. Consistent with recent years, the 2007 legislative session has seen additional legislative efforts to expand recycling in multifamily housing despite infrastructure and other practical considerations.

According to the California Integrated Waste Management Board, Californians recycle 35.8 million tons of used paper, plastic, metal, glass, food scraps, yard trimmings, construction and demolition debris, and other materials each year. Californians generate an additional 39.9 million tons of waste each year that is not recycled. Rental housing accounts for nearly 45% of California’s total housing stock, yet lags behind single-family homes in recycling efforts. Therefore, lawmakers and advocates see multifamily complexes as players in solving California’s waste problems.

In general, waste diversion rates (the amount of waste not sent to landfills) in multifamily housing are lower than in single-family homes. A recent study from the U.S. Conference of Mayors reported that the average program diverted only 15% of a multifamily resident’s waste through recycling. A variety of factors may contribute to this phenomenon, including lack of space for recycling container placement in apartment communities, lack of economically feasible hauling options and lack of tenant participation.

How Did We Get Here?
California, as well as the nation, has historically relied on landfills for easy and inexpensive waste disposal. With increasing difficulties associated with bringing new landfills online, however, there has been a decline in new landfill development. Several new laws have been enacted to address this problem.

CA Integrated Waste
Management Act (1989) - AB 939
This law created the California Integrated Waste Management Board and established diversion mandates for local jurisdictions. Under the legislation, local jurisdictions were required to meet solid waste diversion goals of 25% by 1995 and 50% by 2000. AB 939 also established a framework for solid waste planning, as well as solid waste facility and landfill compliance.

California Solid Waste Reuse
and Recycling Access Act (1991)
This law required local agencies to adopt ordinances relating to collecting and loading recyclable materials at development projects.

Electronic Waste
Recycling Act (2003)
The intent of this law is to provide cost-free recycling of electronic waste in order to reduce/prevent illegal dumping and to decrease the amount of hazardous materials entering the solid waste stream.

Household
Hazardous Waste (2006)
This law made it unlawful to place “universal wastes” in the trash. Universal waste includes common alkaline batteries, fluorescent light bulbs, mercury thermostats, electronic devices (TVs, cell phones, VCRs), electrical switches and relays, pilot light sensors, mercury gauges and thermometers. Tenants are responsible for disposing of their hazardous waste; owners and management companies are responsible for disposing of hazardous waste generated in the course of maintaining the property.

Recent Attempts to Expand
Recycling in Multifamily Housing
The State Legislature continues to eye multifamily housing as fertile ground for expanded recycling efforts. Two recent bills, AB 399 of 2005 and AB 2206 of 2006 (both sponsored by former Assemblymember Cindy Montanez, D-San Fernando), attempted to address multifamily recycling (development of a multifamily model ordinance for local agencies; development of model multifamily owner tenant-notification documents on how tenants can reduce, reuse, and recycle solid waste materials; and a multifamily dwelling owner notice to new tenants about recycling services). Both bills were vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who expressed support for recycling efforts but believed the bills were overly prescriptive and created significant compliance costs.

Pending bill AB 548 (Levine, D-Sherman Oaks) would be a significant departure from current law; according to the author, it would mandate recycling in multifamily housing across the state. Although the language of AB 548 is very vague and unclear, the author, the author’s staff and the bill’s sponsor have stated publicly that they intend the bill to be an industry-wide mandate. The language requires that “an owner of a multifamily dwelling shall arrange for recycling services that are appropriate for the multifamily dwelling, consistent with state or local law or requirements.”

Current law places the burden on local governments to implement residential recycling programs. As a result, local agencies have been instrumental in determining what type of programs work best for their local jurisdictions. By contrast, under AB 548, in local jurisdictions where a recycling program for multifamily housing is not in place, property owners would arguably be forced to negotiate directly with haulers without the benefit of economies of scale that result when a city or county negotiates a franchise agreement with a hauler for the entire community.

In other related legislation, SB 1020 (Padilla, D-Los Angeles) would require the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop a plan by July 1, 2009, to achieve a diversion rate of 75% on or before January 1, 2020. This bill picks up where AB 939 left off in 1989 by increasing the diversion mandates that were initially required.

Local Challenges
Recycling programs for multifamily housing pose challenges for many property owners. While multifamily residents may generate a large percentage of a community’s total residential waste, residents at multifamily properties frequently do not have access to curbside recycling programs.

Other challenges that interfere with recycling in multifamily housing include space constraints and costs. Older properties were not designed with recycling in mind and, as such, have little space available in individual units and common areas for recyclables. In addition, costs for multifamily recycling programs vary according to whether the community provides services directly or through a contract or franchise agreement. Typical costs for multifamily recycling can include equipment, labor, contracts, advertising and administration. Communities that use contractors can gain savings by negotiating reduced contract costs. In contrast, property owners who negotiate for hauling services independently do not have the strength of mass purchasing power to drive down rates.

California has come a long way in a relatively short time to minimize landfill reliance. If property owners are not already required to do so, they will soon be expected to assist in the development of an effective recycling campaign within their respective communities.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the SFAA or SF Apartment Magazine. Monica Williamson is CAA’s vice president of public affairs. Copyright © 2007 by SF Apartment Magazine. All rights reserved.