The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-06-12 - AGENDA REPORTS - SB 2139 WASTE MGMT SITING (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be present d y: NEW BUSINESS John Medina DATE: June 12, 1990 SUBJECT: SB 2139 (Davis) Update DEPARTMENT: Public Works BACKGROUND The State Senate Local Government Committee recently passed SB '2139 on a 21-13 vote. Presently, existing law requires each county to prepare a countywide siting element for inclusion in the County Waste Management Plan. In addition, existing law prohibits the establishment of new transfer or processing stations: or disposal sites before approval of the countywide plan unless the California Integrated Waste Management Board makes findings at a public meeting that the public health or need necessitates immediate development of a landfill. This bill would require the proposed Elsmere Canyon Landfill meet that requirement. In addition, the bill would require legislative findings and declarations be made, therefore imposing a State -mandated local program. It is anticipated that the bill will be heard again later this month. Our lobbyist will inform us of the exact date and committee location. Attached is a copy of the floor vote. While the bill was passed onward, the number of opponents is of concern. If we are to achieve legislative success, we must continue to focus on the opposition and gain additional support. The continued support of businesses and the community is also invaluable to our success. The City is in the process of increasing public information efforts designed to achieve greater citizen involvement and educate opponents of the bill. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council direct staff to continue efforts and to contact appropriate groups to gain additional support. In addition, to strengthen our legislative efforts, appoint two Council members who will be prepared to lobby this bill in Sacramento.n, h ATTACHMENTS SB 2139 .Floor Vote Nf SB 2139 IVI Agenda Item. 0 0 SB 2139 CHOICE DATE DESCRIPTION -------------- ---------------------------- 1 04/25/90 SENATE POLICY COMMITTEE VOTE 2 05/24/90 SENATE FLOOR VOTE CHOICE? 2 * LEGI—TECH VOTE BY BILL NUMBER REPORT 05/29/90 d SB 2139 SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS: SITING DAVIS 05/24/90 SENATE FLOOR PASSED 21-13 YES AYALA BOATWRIGHT CRAVEN DAVIS DOOLITTLE GARAMENDI GREENE, L KOPP LOCKYER MADDY MARKS MCCORQUODALE MELLO MORGAN NIELSEN PRESLEY ROBBINS ROGERS RUSSELL VUICH CALDERON NO ALQUIST BEVERLY DEDDEH DILLS GREEN, C HART LEONARD ROBERTI ROSENTHAL ROYCE WATSON KILLEA HILL NOT VOTING BERGESON GREENE, B KEENE PETRIS SEYMOUR TORRES 0 GEOGRAPHICAL VOTING RECORD E City of Residence Counties Represented 'Yes• Votes (p) — Partial Ayala Chino Los Angeles(p), San Bernardino(p) Garamendi Walnut Grove Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Mono Marks San Francisco Sacramento(p), San Joaquin, Marin, Watson Los Angeles San Francisco(p) Presley Riverside Riverside(p) Calderon Upland Inyo(p), Los Angeles(p), Boatwright Concord Contra Costa(p) Greens, L. Carmichael Sacramento(p) McCorgodale San Jose Santa Clara(p), Stanislaus(p) Robbins Van Nuys Los Angeles(p) Craven Oceanside San Diego(p) Kopp San Francisco San Francisco(p), San Mateo(p) Mello Watsonville Monterey(p), San Benito, Green, C. Gardena Santa Clara(p), Santa Cruz(p) Rodgers Bakersfield Kern(p), Kings(p), Los Angeles(p) Davis Santa Clarita Los Angeles(p), Santa Barbara(p), Ventura(p) Lockyer Hayward Alameda(p) Morgan Los Altos San-Mateo(p), Santa Clara(p) Russel Glendale Los Angeles(p) Doolittle Rocklen Eldorado, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumes, Sacramento Nielson Rohnert Park Botte, Colusa, Glenn, Lake, Napa, Shasta Uvich Dinube Fresno(p), Tulare °No" Votes Alquist San Jose Santa Clara(p) Hart Santa Barbara Los Angeles(p), Santa Barbara(p) Ventura(p) Watson Los Angeles Los Angeles(p) Beverly Manhattan Beach Los Angeles(p) Leonard Upland Inyo(p), Los Angeles(p), San Bernardino(p) Killea Deddeh Bonita San Diego(p) Roberti Hollywood Los Angeles(p) Hill Dills Gardena Los Angeles(p) Rosenthal Los Angeles Los Angeles(p) Green, C. Gardena Los Angeles(p) Royce Anaheim Orange(p) Not Voting Bergeson Torres Greene, B Keene Petris Seymour 0 0 Page 2 Newport Beach Imperial(p), Orange(p), Riverside(p), San Diego(p) Los Angeles Los Angeles(p) Los Angeles Los Angeles(p) Benicia Del Norte(p), Humbolt(p), Mendocino (p), Solano(p), Sonoma(p) Oakland Alameda(p), Contra Costa(p) Anaheim Orange(p) --- ... ..... . AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 23, 1990 i SENATE BILL No. 2139 Introduced by Senator Davis February 22, 1990 An act to add Seetien 41795 to amend Section 50000 of the Public Resources Code, relating to solid waste. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 2139, as amended, Davis. Solid waste landfills: siting. (1) Existing law requires each county to prepare a countywide siting element for inclusion in the countywide integrated waste management plan of specified components, including, if remaining disposal capacity is less than that needed for a 15 -year period, as specified, an identification of an area or areas for the location of new solid waste transformation or disposal facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. The seleeted areas are required to be .,,,... _ iste with speefftted eetmty aed eit-t genera} plans Existing law prohibits the establishing of new transfer or processing stations or disposal sites before approval of the countywide plan unless the California Integrated Waste Management Board makes specified findings at a public meeting. This bill would 7ander a-�:___ et .L_ -__ speei�ted a eit}° L-"aeted by the prepesed €aeilities to rei4ew, attd by reselutiett, appz=eNe er disappreae the leea6ett e€ the p-epesed new eeM waste landfall faeilky expressly require the proposed Elsmere Canyon Municipal Land811 in Los Angeles County to meet that requirement, and the bill would make legislative findings and declarations relating thereto. The bill would therefore impose a. state -mandated local program. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to 98 so SB 2139 —2- 0 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. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State -mandated local program: yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows. 1 ccr�ON 4- See6en 41705 is added to the Pubhe 2 Rego—rees cede to feftA- 3 4170r if an- e€ the fellewird eenditiens e4d-A 4 regarcdittg the ftrtt-re leeatiee e€ seM waste landfill 5 €aeilities; a eit-,�, direetly meted by the prepesed 6 faeiiities may= review; atttl by reselatien, appreve er 7 disappy-eve the leeatie-t of the new seW waste la l 8 faeility: 9 {-a} 4 there edsts etre e - mere aetive e&M waste 10 landfill faece"t-ies witl-in the sphere of inflkeeaee of the eity 11 er is within a 221/7.:-ti4e Mitis of the betindEtries of the eity- 12 Jb+ f€ the leeation of the selid waste landfill feeility 13 fftay have a sig t impaet etz the eit� , 14 i it g, lt4 :tet limited te-, the grettfidwater r imes; 15 traffie fit; er air pelletie-t of the eit�- 16 SEQ 2- 17 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that 18 the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles 19 have a special need to exercise the powers in this act to 20 conduct an environmental review and possible 21 development of the proposed Elsmere Canyon Municipal 22 Landfill. 23 The Legislature further Ends and declares that this 24 need is not common to all cities, counties, orjoint powers_ 25 authorities under the California Integrated Waste, 26 Management Act of1989. Itis, therefore,herebydeclared 27 that a general law cannot be made applicable within the 28 meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California 29 Constitution and that the enactment of this act as a 30 special law is necessary for the solution of problems 98 so• ........... 0 E —3— SB 2139 1 existing with the proposed Elsmere Canyon Municipal 2 Landfill. 3 SEC. 2. Section 30000 of the Public Resources Code is 4 amended to read: 5 50000. (a) Until a countywide integrated waste 6 management plan of a county has been approved by the 7 California Integrated Waste Management Board 8 pursuant to Division 30 (commencing with Section 9 40000), no new transfer or processing station or disposal 10 sites approved by a city or county after January 1, 1978, 11 shall be established in a city or county without a finding 12 by the board, at a public meeting, that the protection of 13 the public health, or public need and necessity, require 14 the immediate implementation of the sites. 15 (b) Any site is exempt from this requirement if, prior 16 to August 28, 1974, there is an , environmental impact 17 report notice of determination filed with the state or if a 18 use permit or approval has been issued for the site by the 19 city or county. 20 (c) For the purposes of this section, the proposed class 21 111 municipal landfill located in Elsmere Canyon in Los 22 Angeles County shall meet the provisions of subdivision 23 (a). 24 SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act 25 pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California 26 Constitution because the local agency or school district 27 has the . authority to levy service charges, fees, or 28 assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of 29 service mandated by this act. 30 Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government 31 Code, unless otherwise specified in this act, the provisions 32 of this act shall become operative on the same date that 33 the act takes effect pursuant to the California 34 Constitution. 98 130 INTRRUCED: 02/22/90 • LAST AMEND: 04/23/90 LOCATION: ASSEMBLY SUI-1I4ARY: Expressly requires the proposed Elsmere Canyon Municipal Landfill in Los Angeles County to meet specified requirement and makes legislative findings and declarations relating thereto. SB 2139, as amended, Davis. Solid waste landfills: siting (1) Existing last requires each county to prepare a countyu siting element for inclusion in the countywide integrated wa management plan of specified components, including, if remaining disposal capacity is less than that needed for a 15 -year period, as specified, an identification of an area o areas for the location of new solid waste transformation or disposal facilities or the expansion of existing facilities.. Existing law prohibits the establishing of new transfer or processing stations or disposal sites before approval of the countywide plan unless the California Integrated Waste Management Board makes specified findings at a public meetin This bill ivould expressly require the proposed Elsmere Can Municipal Landfill in Los Angeles County to meet that requirement, and the bill would make legislative findings an declarations relating thereto. The bill would therefore impo a state -mandated local program. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain co mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill could provide that no reimbursement is required this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State -mandated local program: yes. STATUS: 02/22/90 INTRODUCED. 02/28/90 To SENATE Committee on -LOCAL GOVERNMENT. 04/23/90 From SENATE Committee on LOCAL GOVERNMENT with author's amendments. Read second time and amende Re-referred to Committee. 04/25/90 From SENATE Committee on LOCAL GOVERNI4ENT: Do pass. Re-referred to Committee on APPROPRIATION 05/14/90 From SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: To sec reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8. 05/15/90. In SENATE. Read second time. To third reading. 05/24/90 In SENATE. Read third.time. Passed SENATE. *****To ASSEMBLY. VOTES: 04/25/90 Senate Local Government Committee P 05/24/90 Senate Floor P 2 ` • tt �. ;. � . ,� �-JS�, � /{yin �°'� F�l�.� u iiia -Til AMA . SENATE RULES COMMITTEE I Bill N0. SB 2139 Office of Senate Floor Analyses 1100 J Street, Suite 120 445.6614 Committee Votes: PLACED ON FILE PURSUANT TO SENATE RULE 28.8 SUBJEcTt Solid waste landfills: SOURCES City of Santa Clarita Author: Davis (R) Amended: 4/23/90 Vote Required: Majority Senate Floor Vote: Assembly Floor Vote: Elemere canyon landfill �3 i DIGEST: This bill would specify that the proposed landfill in Los Angeles County's Elsmere Canyon must comply with the requirement that until the California Integrated Waste Management Board approves a countywide integrated waste management plan, no city or county can approve any new transfer station or landfill unless the waste Management Board finds that public health or public need and necessity require the immediate implementation of the site. ANALYSIS: Last year the Legislature passed the California integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 which reorganized the California Waste Management Board and replaced the existing county solid waste management plan process with major new planning requirements that cities and counties must meet. (AS 939, Sher, Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989). The first countywide integrated waste management plans must be submitted by January 1, 1992, and the remainder follow within the next two years based on a county's remaining landfill capacity. Until the State Board approves the new countywide plan. cities and counties are prohibited from approving any new transfer station or landfill unless the Board finds the public health, or public need and necessity, re- quire the immediate implementation of the site .(AB 2295, Cortese, Chapter 1247, Statutes of 1989). CONTINUED 0 SB 2139 Page 2 According to the Senate Local Government Committee analysis, the siting or expansion of a landfill always generates much local controversy. Increased traffic from dump trucks, noise, odors, air pollution, and water pollution are all legitimate concerns citizens raise when faced with a nearby landfill. This bill responds to the frustration citizens feel in the City of Santa Clarita in getting county officials to take those concerns seriously. Last year's Sher bill reorganized the state's solid waste laws (AS 939, Sher, 1989). Another bill last year by Assemblyman Cortese added a new permit requirement (AS 2295, Cortese, 1989). Some local officials have been confused over how and whether the two bills work together. This bill removes any doubt. The Elemere Canyon landfill must get a state permit if it in to open before the new board approves Los Angeles County's integrated waste management plan. FISCAL EFFECTS Appropriations SUPPORTS (Verified 5/14/90) No Fiscal Committees Yea Locals Yes City of Santa Clarita (source) Association of California Water Agencies OPPOSITIONt (Verified 5/14/90) County of Loa Angeles City of Los Angeles County of Mono County Supervisors Association County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Northern District of California Refuse Removal Council ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Senate Local Government Committee analysis, the city of Santa Clarita (Los. Angeles County) objects to a joint proposal by the County and City of Loa Angeles to site a major new landfill in Elsmere Canyon to receive garbage for the next 50 years. The canyon lies roughly 2 1/2 miles from the City's border and nearby residents worry about the risks the landfill could pose to the Santa Clarita Valley's water supply. In response, the City wants -assurance that the Elemere Canyon landfill is subject to current law. In addition, the Association of California Water Agencies states, "We feel the added review by and authority for a city relative to proposed landfill facilities provides added consideration of protection of groundwater facilities. Need for such protection is becoming increasingly important." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITIONS The City of Los Angeles states, "our Bureau of Sanitation has recommended opposition because this bill would enable Santa Clarita City to veto the City of Los Angeles' and County of Los Angeles' proposed acquisition and development of Elamere Canyon as a landfill. Elamere is outside of Santa Clarita's sphere of influence but within 2.5 miles of its border. That city is alleging that the landfill could affect their groundwater supply and the dump truck traffic would CONTINUED affect traffic in the city, plus add to the air pollution." SB 2139 Page 3 "our city Attorney has cited the chilling effect.this legislation would have on any regional solid waste planning. He has also rained the issue that the bill is premature in light of the newly revised Integrated Waste Management Board." DW:tb 5/15/90 Senate Floor Analyses