AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

CHUCK MOORE, CHAIR GERRY BEEMILLER LARRY GOSSELIN

CLAYTON KOOPMANN, VICE CHAIR JACK NORTON MILLIE KIMBRO

BRANDON BATTEATE KAREN SWEET

CHUK CAMPOS KARL WENTE EX OFFICIO: CATHY ROACHE, ELKE RANK,

DAVID NAJARIAN KATELYN SILVA LIZ MCELLIGOTT, SHEILA BARRY, ROB BENNATON

DARREL SWEET KATHERINE BOXER STAFF: MARIA PALMERI, JAZMIN SANCHEZ

A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER MAY BE AVAILABLE UPON FIVE WORKING DAYS’ NOTICE. THE AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY

COMMITTEE MEETS QUARTERLY ON THE 4TH

TUESDAY OF JANUARY, APRIL, JULY AND OCTOBER AT 3PM, UNLESS OTHERWISE

NOTICED.

ALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

P L A N N I N G D E P A R T M E N T

CHRIS BAZAR ALBERT LOPEZ

AGENCY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR

224 W. WINTON AVE. ROOM 111, HAYWARD, CA 94544 P. 510-670-5400 F. 510-785-8793

ACGOV.ORG/CDA

****************

DUE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, THIS IS A VIRTUAL MEETING USING THE

“ZOOM WEBINAR” PLATFORM. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WANTING TO

ATTEND THIS MEETING AND SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM CAN FIND OUT

HOW TO DO SO BY REFERENCING THE COUNTY’S TELECONFERENCING

GUIDELINES POSTED ON-LINE AT: http://acgov.org/cda/planning/documents/TeleconferencingGuidelinesforPublicHearings.pdf

AT THE NOTICED DATE AND TIME LISTED ABOVE THE ZOOM WEBINAR IS

ACCESSIBLE AT THIS WEB ADDRESS: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87306671346

BY PHONE ONLY: (669) 900-9128 or (253) 215 8782 WEBINAR ID# 873 0667 1346

****************

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Approval of minutes – June 22, 2021

4. Open Forum – Any member of the public may address the committee on a matter not on the regular

agenda. No discussion or action may be taken on these items (two-minute time limit).

5. Review of Applications for the new Urban Agriculture committee position (continued from June

22, 2021 meeting) – Action Item

6. Update on ballot measure to increase Floor Area Ratio requirements for agricultural buildings

in LPA designation and allow additional square footage for covered equestrian arenas.

7. Update on draft solar policies and mapping project for rural East County

8. Organics Recycling Service Requirement to Implement SB 1383-The Short-Lived Climate

Pollutants Reduction Act – Action Item

Tuesday, August 31, 2021

Special Meeting Agenda – 3:00 pm – 5:30pm

Virtual meeting only – no public attendance

Only items on the agenda may be acted upon. Open Forum is

available for anyone wishing to speak on an item not listed on the

agenda. Each speaker may be limited to three minutes.

Agricultural Advisory Committee August 31, 2021

Agenda Page 2

A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER MAY BE AVAILABLE UPON FIVE WORKING DAYS’ NOTICE. THE AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY

COMMITTEE MEETS QUARTERLY ON THE 4TH

TUESDAY OF JANUARY, APRIL, JULY AND OCTOBER AT 7PM, UNLESS OTHERWISE

NOTICED.

9. Discussion of “Agricultural Infrastructure” subcommittees:

• Winery, Olive Oil, & Microbrewery Industries

• Agri-tourism Industry

• Cannabis Industry

• Equine Industry

• Cattle Industry

• Urban Agriculture

10. Chair, Committee Member, and Staff Announcements and Comments

11. Adjournment

Agenda Items Suggested for Future Meetings:

• Presentation on Agri-tourism by Penny Leff, U.C. Davis

• Discussion of Proposed Ordinance Amendments pertaining to Cargo Containers on Agricultural

Properties

• Presentation on Carbon Farming by Rob Bennaton, UC Cooperative Extension, Bay Area Urban

Agriculture Advisor

• Presentation on Agroforestry by Nick Harvey, Bay Area Redwood

• Written Update on Implementation of Soil Importing Ordinance

• Presentation on County Williamson Act Program by Liz McElligott

Please notify Liz McElligott at (510) 670-5400 or at Elizabeth.mcelligott@acgov.org if you will not be

able to attend the meeting or if you have any questions prior to the meeting.

Next Meeting:

Tuesday, September 28, 2021

2021

1

ALAMEDA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Draft Minutes - Tuesday, June 22, 2021

1:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.

Virtual Meeting

Committee Members Present

Committee Members Excused Ex-Officio Present

Chuck Moore, Chair Katherine Boxer Sheila Barry, UCCE

Karl Wente David Najarian Cathy Roache, CDA

Gerry Beemiller Millie Kimbro Rob Bennaton, UCCE

Karen Sweet Clayton Koopmann Elizabeth McElligott, CDA-PD

Larry Gosselin Jack Norton

Chuk Campos Brandon Batteate

Darrel Sweet

Katelyn Silva Ex-Officio Excused

Elke Rank, Zone 7

Others present: Dick Schneider, Andrea Weddle and Rachel

Sommovilla, County Counsel

Planning Staff: Bruce Jensen, Jazmin Sanchez, Recording Secretary

1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Chuck Moore.

2. Roll Call – Members present: Chuck Moore, Karl Wente, Gerry Beemiller, Karen Sweet, Larry Gosselin,

Chuk Campos, Darrel Sweet and Katelyn Silva. Members absent: Katherine Boxer, David Najarian, Millie

Kimbro, Clayton Koopmann, Jack Norton and Brandon Batteate.

The Chair spoke on the agenda items which are complicated and lengthy. He said there is a need to have the

committee come to a consensus and move forward on the items.

3. Approval of minutes – May 25, 2021. Member Karl Wente moved to approve the minutes as submitted.

Member Beemiller seconded the motion. Liz conducted the roll call. Ayes: Chuck Moore, Karen Sweet, Chuk

Campos, Gerry Beemiller, Larry Gosselin and Karl Wente. Excused: Clayton Koopmann, David Najarian, Jack

Norton, Brandon Batteate, Millie Kimbro and Katherine Boxer. Motion passed.

4. Open Forum – Any member of the public may address the committee on a matter not on the regular agenda.

No discussion or action may be taken on these items (three-minute time limit). Liz McElligott instructed

members of the public on how to participate in the zoom meeting. – There were no speakers

5. Consideration of recommendations regarding amendments to Floor Area Ratio requirements for

agricultural buildings through a ballot measure amending provisions of Measure D or a technical

modification (Action Item) – The Chair introduced the item. He asked Liz to speak to the letter from Friends

of Livermore. Liz read the letter. Friends of Livermore stated that they are in support of a ballot measure to

amend Measure D provided the measure is limited to two items: 1. An increase in permissible square footage

for equestrian covered riding arenas, and 2. An increase in the types of agricultural buildings to which the

0.025 Floor Area Ratio applies in the Large Parcel Agriculture land use designation of the East County Area

Plan (ECAP).

Public comment was open.

Tamara Reus said the amendment as suggested in the letter makes a lot of sense. It comports to what is being

done in South Livermore. It recognizes the environmental significance of Resource and Water Management

lands. It envisions a scope of ag use and the need for land use that is consistent with Measure D as it was

2

written and intended to be applied. To enable equestrian centers to have the covered arenas that will work for

their business will be an asset to this county and protect the values of measure D.

Kelly Abreu said he is generally supportive of the idea and it is more of a technical amendment instead of a

ballot measure. Talking about making extra room for green houses and equestrian riding arenas which are

entertainment facilities and he does not see the impact of Floor Area Ratio for equestrian facilities, it is not a

big impact. Also using for food processing and storage is very agricultural and not too much of it is outside of

the wine industry. The Water and Resource Management designations were carefully placed in certain areas

that are more sensitive. He read the definition of ag buildings according to 2018 version of the California

Building Code, Chapter 2.

Mike Fredrich agrees with the comments from Tamara. Supports the changes to Measure D related to

equestrian facilities. The argument that these are only entertainment facilities is not valid. As long as it is

limited to the provision of the letter from Friends of Livermore, he supports it.

Jean King said she supports the letter from Friends of Livermore. It is not a technical adjustment; it does need

a ballot measure and it has to be specific in order to avoid unintended consequences. The second part of the

letter is important.

Public comment was closed.

The Chair said he agrees with the speakers. He said the proposed changes to Measure D have merit and if it

comes to a ballot measure, it has to be direct and easy for an EIR to be done in order to meet the deadline.

Need to look at what size arena is appropriate. He spoke on the various sizes of arenas.

Member Gosselin said he appreciates the letter. It is important to recognize all the industries within the

equestrian community. The largest accepted size of an arena is 200 by 300 ft, which is typically used for show

jumping, or stadium jumping. These arenas typically serve 50 horses. A horse ranch is typically described as

up to two horses per acre. Regarding significance of the equestrian infrastructure the change to land coverage

can be looked at in two ways. One is considering the increased percentage of the structures themselves on the

property and the other is diminishing the amount of land that can be put in for crop production or foraging.

Even if the FAR is tripled, it is not a significant change. Kelly Abreu’s suggestion to keep this simple and

make it a technical change makes sense. The ballot measure has a chance that it will not pass.

The Chair said he is in agreement with the size. This is a nice size arena. Across the country the average size

is in the 220 to 250 range. Moving forward is important. The ag community has the support now to go with a

ballot. The board needs to make the decision. He asked the commission for comments on moving forward.

Dick Schneider read Section 4 of Measure D which negates the idea that this can be done with a technical

change. It is very explicit. There are ways to do technical amendments but it has to be consistent with the

provisions of the ordinance. Adding 60,000 square feet of floor area is not consistent with the current

limitations. Certainly not in the Resource or Water Management lands. County Counsel, Andrea Weddle, said

the Board of Supervisors will weigh in and make a decision, but this a bad precedent to set. The Chair asked

Dick Schneider if he thinks the various organizations will be in favor of these changes. Dick Schneider said if

this was ballot measure, he would support it. Member Gosselin asked if there could be a road show to the

various organizations. Dick Schneider said yes, but the language needs to be fleshed out. Member Wente

asked why not apply to the whole County, the whole ECAP area, as it was done for the South Livermore area

to enhance and promote agriculture. Member Gosselin asked if the South Livermore readjustment of the FAR

is moving forward as a valid amendment. The Chair said the South Livermore area is outside of Measure D.

County Counsel said it is up to this board if they desire a ballot measure or technical amendment. She asked

for a copy of the letter from Friends of Livermore.

The Chair asked Liz for her opinion. The Chair said he is okay with a ballot measure. Liz said one of the

issues here is the scope. The South Livermore Valley Area Plan was incorporated into ECAP in 1994 when

3

ECAP was first adopted. If amending the South Livermore policies, then ECAP will need to be amended. In

terms of technical modifications, it is a judgment call for the board to make, there is an issue of scale involved

in the difference between amending the South Livermore policies as technical modification as opposed to

making a change for the entire large parcel ag area but again, the Board will have to consider the relative risk

of approving a technical modification.

The Chair spoke on the two options. Legal direction will be given as how to accomplish the change. Liz said

one approach is to propose that the Board of Supervisors consider a technical modification but if the Board

does not feel this is the right approach then let the Board know that this group would support a ballot

measure. County Counsel said she agrees with Liz’s suggestion. If this group wants to suggest a technical

amendment, ultimately the board will make the final decision and counsel will provide guidance, but it is the

Board’s decision.

Member Gosselin asked about the timeline for the item to go to the Board. Liz said there is a Board meeting

on August 5th. The intent is to take the item to the Transportation Planning meeting on July 6th for

recommendation. Member Gosselin spoke on the size of the arena and that it should not be included in the

motion. The Chair said the size is a generous and doable offer for the equestrian businesses.

Member Wente moved to accept the recommendation of the Friends of Livermore for equestrian businesses to

allow additional square footage not to exceed 60,000 for a covered arena and to allow the additional FAR of

.025 on parcels designated Large Parcel Ag for ag buildings as previously defined in the South Livermore

Valley Plan Area. Member Gosselin seconded the motion with the additional recommendation that the Board

adopt the amendments as a technical adjustment. Member Wente agreed to add “in the most expeditious

means possible.” Member Gosselin agreed to the change to the motion. The Chair said if the Board

determines that is a technical adjustment, fine, if not then it will be a vote of the people

Liz conducted the roll call. Ayes: Chuck Moore, Darrel Sweet, Karen Sweet, Chuk Campos, Gerry Beemiller,

Larry Gosselin, Katelyn Silva, and Karl Wente. Excused: Clayton Koopmann, David Najarian, Jack Norton,

Brandon Batteate, Millie Kimbro and Katherine Boxer. Motion passed.

• AAC Measure D Subcommittee recommendation – Member Gosselin gave an update. This is not about

FAR but the definitions used for consideration of FAR. This item does not require a ballot measure. This

issue has caused an inconsistency in the general plan and difficulty in implementing the general plan. The

Board needs to recognize pre-existing definitions for particular words. Measure D restricts the FAR of

non-residential buildings to .01 for parcels designated Large Parcel Ag, Resource Management and Water

Management. Measure D does not restrict the FAR for ag buildings. The Planning Department takes the

position that an ag building is a non-residential building. He has not seen any analysis that was done for

this determination for non-residential building. On the other hand, there has been multiple actions taken to

support the state’s definition for non-residential buildings and the state’s definition is different from

planning’s because it excludes ag buildings from being considered as residential buildings. Support of

that difference can be done in the public resources Code Section 25130 and also the Building Code, Title

24, Part 6, Section 100.1. The Board has adopted the building code definition for non-residential building

that precludes consideration of ag buildings as non-residential buildings. This committee has already

taken the position that ag buildings are exempt from the non-residential classification based on these

resources. The cannabis stakeholders and the Winegrowers Association have taken the same position. It is

reasonable to have consistency amongst all departments and within the general plan to have the same

definition for non-residential building as has been adopted by planning and other departments. It has been

argued that the inclusion of ag buildings as a restricted FAR type of building has always been the case in

Alameda County but during research of East County Area Plan background reports it was found that on

July 11, 1991, the Board adopted site development review requirements for residences and industrial

building in ag areas, and ag buildings are exempt to avoid interfering with ag activities. The exemption

4

was established and considered back then, and there is nothing in Measure D that has changed that

assessment at that time. Since an ag building is not a non-residential building, it is not subject to the FAR

restrictions and it does not mean that what was approved has no bearing on ag buildings. The Supervisors

can still adopt guidelines or guard rails. The guardrails are examples of what this commission just did.

The Board has the authority to make the changes based on the needs of the industry. The advisory

committee is responsible for making recommendations to improve developing policy to enhance ag and

ag lands. The solution for this disconnect is to have this committee adopt the building code definitions so

they can return to planning and nothing prevents it from being done and Measure D does not have a

restriction.

Public comment was open.

David Rounds, Friends of Livermore, said he disagrees with the proposal from the subcommittee on

parsing the definition of non-residential and ag buildings in Measure D land. Measure D was written and

voted on by citizens of Alameda County where two types of uses for the land were discussed, residential

and non-residential. Staff and FOL believe that the non-residential designation in ECAP as amended by

Measure D includes ag buildings. To say that Measure D FAR designations does not apply to ag lands

essentially goes against the intent of the voters. This type of change will drive unintended consequences.

Measure D specifically addresses FAR and non-residential buildings in order to avoid industrialization of

rural ag lands. Excluding ag buildings from FAR, opens the potential for huge indoor cannabis grow

warehouses. Have no problem with cannabis growth, and do not know if cannabis operation could be fit

into the definition of an ag use but assume they could find a way to classify. In California, indoor

cannabis exceeds 220,000 sq ft with the largest warehouse in Palo Verde that exceeds 2.4 million sq. ft.

Do not expect something this large in East County but did not expect a 400-acre solar factory that was

approved in North Livermore either. Understand the need for ag buildings for ag use but this proposal

could open up a huge can of worms.

Tamara Reus said things can be defined differently for different purposes and it is entirely appropriate.

Staff recognized the intent in its application of Measure D. There is a different FAR specified for

greenhouses in some areas vs non-residential buildings. A greenhouse is clearly an ag building, and yet it

has a FAR under Measure D. There is an expectation that ag buildings have FAR and was contemplated

in Measure D. Concerned if this proposal is adopted that there will be push back from the environmental

community and it may be a very bad controversial direction. The wine country needs a beautiful North

Livermore to entice people to be here for what South Livermore has to offer. When you have a potentially

huge ag building operation such as cannabis, it detracts from the ambience of this whole region for

tourism.

Jean King said there is a definition for non-residential and residential, do not need to have a further

definition for the FAR and she encouraged the board not to make these changes. It works just fine.

Kelly Abreu said he generally agrees with staff’s interpretation of residential and non-residential. Just

using common sense, non-residential, in the ordinary use of the word, is a very broad term that

encompasses a lot of things outside of residential and it might even encompass agriculture. The definition

in the building code is very specific. All those things tend to define ag buildings pretty well and try to

separate out a space for ag buildings.

Mike Fredrich said for the past 20 years everyone from Planning assumed that ag buildings are non-

residential buildings. Ag buildings are not a separate class; they are a subclass of non-residential

buildings. Ag buildings are not mentioned in Measure D because it was assumed that they were to be non-

residential. This is a transparent attempt to go around Measure D to allow more development on ag land.

Based on what the Supervisors think about solar farms, one could easily see solar installation being

classified as ag buildings, and then all the restrictions, the few that are left, are going to go out the

window. This is a dumb idea.

5

Dick Schneider read from the 1994 East County Area Plan regarding Measure D and FAR. All buildings

were covered under the FAR including ag buildings. Greenhouses are ag buildings. What Measure D did

was to divide them into two types, residential and non-residential. There was no third type of building that

was going to be exempt. Agree with all the speakers, there is not a third class of buildings within planning

for Alameda County. The Title 24 state energy code has to do with buildings that are heated and cooled.

Different laws, different statutes and parts of the state codes have different definitions for different

purposes and in Alameda County FAR applies, now with Measure D, to non-residential buildings.

Rob Bennaton agrees with the point that there is not a third classification. He spoke on farms on rooftops

and building development. Just something to think about in the future that there may be a need for

regulatory zoning and potential to add this topic into this subject.

Public comment was closed.

The Chair spoke regarding the site development review requirement for residential development on ag

parcels added in July of 1991, the Board adopted a site development review for residential and industrial

building. The purpose of the SDR was to minimize the visual and environmental impact of these

structures. It is important that as a group we have a good conversation about this issue. Not sure why it

happened, but there is a document that was published.

Member Gosselin said he was very involved and there were two facilities built prior to Measure D which

exceeded the FAR in Measure D. He said he consulted with Steve Richards in 1998 about a project that

exceeded the FAR and there was no mention of the FAR at the time. Secondarily, the testimony that was

received today, the words mentioned such as intent, interpretation and assume were used in reference to a

definition. The point is that there is presumption of definitions, these are argued throughout the

discussions of the document and that is the reason Measure D has not allowed ag production. The

Supervisors need to do their job and sort out the definitions of the Measure. It will take twenty years to

reach common ground and what happens in the meantime is a loss of industries, such as the horse

industry. Certainly, the previous item is going to help go in the right direction, it is not an issue of FAR, it

is a matter of definition and coming up with a format to help the Supervisors make a decision to interpret

Measure D.

Liz asked for clarification on using the definition for ag building from the building code. This was

discussed by this committee in relation to the South Livermore changes. The committee recommended

changes to the definition to be incorporated into the zoning code and how is this going to be reconciled

with the previous recommendation to put the modified building code definition into the zoning code.

Member Gosselin said he remembers the discussion well and that should apply to the South Livermore.

Liz said there is not a separate definition that just applies to South Livermore. Member Gosselin said he

agrees it is complicated and recognizes the potential conflict but it was not addressed with the motion, It

should apply to South Livermore only and the rest of the County should have a separate definition.

County Counsel said that is a problem, the zoning ordinance applies across the county and in particular

the ECAP area and South Livermore area in the general plan. Can’t have two different definitions in the

zoning ordinance. Member Gosselin said unfortunately the South Livermore definition that is advancing

is inconsistent with the building code definition. He said there should be a different way to address South

Livermore’s goals. Liz said the Board has not yet approved the changes for South Livermore and they

could be modified. Member Gosselin said the goal is to have the supervisors decide how they want to

address this issue. There are a lot of definitions in the solar ordinance. In the past the supervisors have

considered definitions that were controversial and adopted as amendments. The purpose of the committee

is to have the Supervisors exercise the control that they have to alleviate some of the frustration of the ag

community regarding issues with Measure D. He believes that there can be resolution of these issues to

accomplish what South Livermore needs and what the rest of the County needs. Measure D is a mess and

has created a mess. The crop report reflects that. The County used to be the 4th agricultural county in the

6

state, now it is #47 or 48. He said he wants to empower the Supervisors and the subcommittee to decide

on these issues along with County Counsel.

Member Wente said not totally sure what the problem is, why can’t this move along. Member Gosselin

said this would be the guardrails to address the concerns that has been expressed today. County Counsel

said the problem is the proposed addition of definitions to the zoning ordinance does not require a vote or

an amendment to the general plan. As it was discussed with the Board, the proposal is to amend the

zoning ordinance to add a definition of the ag building. When the Board expressed their intent to consider

this, they had included the definition from the building code as the definition that they would evaluate and

be included, and this committee has voted for the South Livermore area to amend the definition and

change it in a substantial way. This proposal today, suggests that there would be two definitions in the

zoning ordinance, which can’t be done. There can only be one definition in the zoning ordinance and

planning documents so that everything is consistent.

Member Gosselin said the committee should make a motion that the Board of Supervisors adopt the

State’s Building Code Title 24 for non-residential buildings and ag buildings. One of the options is to not

have them adopt the definition for ag building and just ask them to adopt the definition for non-

residential building and what that would do is leave out the definition and that definition would be

recommended by code. The Chair said he is not quite sure on how far off we are for the definition.

Liz said for non-residential currently there is not a definition or non-residential buildings. County Counsel

said it is a discretionary action that this committee can recommend to the board and they will make the

decision to include in the zoning ordinance.

Dick Schneider asked how the different definitions will affect the FAR calculation. Will these become

exempt in the calculation of FAR? What is the advantage of adding a definition? Member Gosselin said

there is not an advantage, it just creates consistency in the general plan. It allows the Supervisors to make

decisions. It helps clarify, i.e. solar arrays and where they stand. There is a remarkable amount of

ambiguity in Measure D. It is reasonable to get this to go to the Supervisors and let them make the

decision. Member Campos seconded the motion.

The Chair asked Liz if there is a definition in the building and zoning code for non-residential or

residential. Liz said she does not know about the building code. In the zoning code there are no

definitions of those terms. The Chair asked if there is any harm in adding them to the zoning code. Liz

said there is a definition in the zoning ordinance for dwelling unit, but there is not a definition for non-

residential. The interpretation is that if it is not a residence then it is non-residential. Member Gosselin

said there was a resolution adopted by the Supervisors for the building department, it is only the planning

department that does not have a definition. This will bring consistency to the process and if it is not

consistent then the Board needs to come up with an alternate.

Rob Bennaton said that if there was a duality created in the FAR as per the definitions ultimately it leads

for a path of criteria, it heavily suggests that there should be criteria connected to the FAR.

Member Gosselin moved to recommend that the Supervisors adopt the definition for the non-residential

building that they adopted with resolution 2019-59 and justified by Public Resources Code Section

25130. Member Campos seconded the motion.

Liz conducted the roll call. Ayes: Chuck Moore, Darrel Sweet, Karen Sweet, Chuk Campos, Gerry

Beemiller, Larry Gosselin, Katelyn Silva, and Karl Wente. Excused: Clayton Koopmann, David Najarian,

Jack Norton, Brandon Batteate, Millie Kimbro and Katherine Boxer. Motion passed.

• Proposal to allow additional FAR for equestrian arenas – Already discussed.

7

6. Consideration of Solar Subcommittee recommendations regarding draft solar policies and mapping

project for rural East County – Karen Sweet thanked everyone on the subcommittee for coming this far.

Looking for direction from the committee. Bruce Jensen presented the draft Solar Policy Matrix from the

subcommittee. He spoke on the specific policies and goals. He spoke on the 12 policies that are designed to

establish upfront, and in certain terms, that the County supports and prioritizes energy conservation, solar and

battery storage development primarily in the developed areas of the County, including both private rooftop

and distributed/microgrid solar development in the urban areas. The County also supports state goals for

renewable energy. He expanded on the six policies that provide basic guidance about where large-scale utility

solar can and cannot be placed. He shared exhibits showing locations of transmission lines and substations in

the East County and agricultural land by land use designation. He spoke on the mapping process and outreach

thru workshops for public input. He expanded on the proposal of having a five-year review for agrivoltaics.

He spoke on proposed limitations and permission of solar facilities on ag land subject to requirements. He

said the subcommittee has not come to an agreement on Williamson Act contracts and agrivoltaics. The

subcommittee came up with three options for contracted lands. Option A is no utility scale solar is allowed.

Option B, up to ten acres or 10% would be allowed in contracted lands and if a large project was desired, a

contract cancellation would be required. Option C would be to allow Agrivoltaics only as a primary use. The

third option was favored by some of the subcommittee. He expanded on the Department of Conservation on

Williamson Act and agrivoltaics. Bruce Jensen asked the Committee for comments on Options B and C.

Public comment was open.

Chris O’Brien said he appreciates the work of the subcommittee. He said he is in the steering committee for

Save Livermore Valley. He said it is inappropriate for the ag committee to make these recommendations on

LPA lands ahead of the independent third-party mapping study, which should include solar in least conflict

land. With all due respect to Alameda County staff, with their recommendation of approval of the Aramis

project, which now finds the County as a defendant in a lawsuit, should not rely on and think their

recommendation is unbiased. It appears that this body is being moved to establish a solar policy in order to

drive the conclusion of the future mapping study. This is the complete opposite of what should happen, the

mapping study should come first, and the policy should come second in support of the mapping study. Aramis

is not an agrivoltaics project. He asked the committee not to make a decision today and maintain the public

trust that you now have.

David Rounds said he appreciates all the work on this issue. This is important, but so is protecting agriculture

and open space. According to Member Gosselin, Measure D is a failure, and has flatlined ag but without

Measure D, this area would be covered with homes. Measure D is not perfect, but it is certainly not the

villain. The solar policy as presented today could replace the open space, rangeland and ranch land including

WA land with utility scale solar under the guise of agrivoltaics. There are too many unknowns, there are no

good examples of successful agrivoltaics operations. The county track record of the approval of Aramis is not

stellar. A lot of words were used in the policy to define what agrivoltaics could mean in East County. The

words do not adequately define and quantify the conditions where agrivoltaics would be allowed. Appreciate

staff efforts to apply constraints on this concept, but it has fallen short. Based on this policy as written, the

Aramis project will become the standard for defining agrivoltaics in East County. Better definitions and

outcome is expected for the ag and agrivoltaics operations are needed for solar policy.

Tamara Reus said she agrees with previous speakers. She said Option B is a good option. It prevents double

dipping and benefits of getting a tax break would be an overwhelming attraction for a landowner. It makes a

lot of sense to continue the basic rule that is in place now. The policy should specify that solar panels will be

counted when counting the ten acres or 10%, because it has created some issues with the SunWalker project.

If there is going to be peer reviews by this committee that the policy clearly states that anyone that has a

conflict of interest has to recuse themselves.

8

Jean King agrees with previous speakers. Has not seen any evidence that agrivoltaics enhances ag. This is

rushing and Option B is a good option. WA is good for the property owner so they can get a tax break and

getting reimbursed for saving their land for ag and should not be double dipping.

Mike Fredrich said this policy has good features and one giant gaping hole and that is the definition of

agrivoltaics. Basically, one can release some chickens and one has agrivoltaics. What is the standard, who

regulates these, and how is it going to be measured? What happens if the income for ag is zero and does that

mean that the slightest increase now makes this agrivoltaics. The five-year review is great but it will never be

enforced. Solar farms producing lots of electricity and not fulfilling their agrivoltaics requirements, will they

be shut down. It will be brushed aside and they will continue to operate without any ag at all. WA defines

solar, go with that, that is the law. That is Option B.

Merlin Newton, Sr. believes solar panels belong on roof tops and parking lots, etc. They do not belong on ag

land or open space or removal of vineyards. If the solar policy is going to have any credibility it needs to be

equitable. Policy 31 states that “the removal of vineyards for solar panels should not be permitted.” Would

like to see that removed. One of the committee members worked on the Aramis project and explained at the

meeting that it is important for all of us to protect the environment. Policy 31 exempts or protects a massive

area of land in South Livermore where he lives. What is the purpose, could it be the aesthetics, property

values, or impact on the wine industry? Is there a concern that the passing of the Aramis project will create a

desire to replace vineyards with solar panels? Is this fair and equitable. If exemptions are going to be handed

out then policy 35 should be replaced with “should not be placed in areas designated as scenic corridors.”

Clearly we can agree that the solar farms are in conflict with the County General Plan that designated the area

a scenic route corridor fifty years ago. And if an exemption is going to be handed out then it should be about

health and safety reasons. There should be an exemption added that reads “solar farms should not be placed

over ground water for drinking” another concern that was dismissed at the last meeting is the fact wells have

galvanized pipes in the ground. There are currently 50 wells, but plan to put thousands of pipes to support

300,000 solar panels. There should be concern with hazardous lubricants at these solar facilities.

Public comment was closed.

Member Darrel Sweet said he thinks the WA contracts should be cancelled.

Member Gosselin said he supports Option C. Agrivoltaics is a component of the ag production. It is defined in

the WA, there is consistency. It focuses on production and commodities and it does not put a limit on value.

Right now, the existing WA allows this to occur. He said he checked the government code and agrivoltaics is

not a use that is mentioned as a cause of cancellation.

The Chair made a motion that the committee accept Option B as the direction for the request. Member Darrel

Sweet seconded the motion. Member Gosselin wanted to emphasize the fact that the production of

commodities is dependent on agrivoltaics. The essence of WA is to enhance ag production or preserve open

space. The definition of agrivoltaics specifically references it as a way to preserve ag lands. He said Bruce

Jensen mentioned policy 21 or 22 regarding Mountain House area and the fact that agrivoltaics preserve the

lands in the Mountain House area. So right now, it already recognizes agrivoltaics as a way to preserve lands.

This is consistent with WA rules.

Dick Schneider said he favors Option B. The WA purpose is to preserve agricultural lands. The method that

WA uses is to expend public funds to do so, that is to forgo taxes that otherwise accrue. Under the proposed

agrivoltaics solar policy, in order to get solar the property owner has to leave the land in agriculture.

Williamson Act is not about enhancing ag, it is about preserving it. In order to get the solar panels on the

land, one has to do what WA says, one does not need the tax benefit. One gets the ag increase returns with the

solar panels. There is no reason at all to get a tax break in addition to the increase in revenues. The

cancellation is the right thing.

9

Member Wente wanted to know if Bruce has an opinion on the options. Bruce Jensen said it depends if you

believe in agrivoltaics or not. If one believes in agrivoltaics, then Option C is the right thing to do. At the

same time, he can see Mr. Schneider’s point. The reason people get into the WA is to get a break, preserve the

land and stay in agriculture even if the income is low. There is a point to be made because it is double

dipping. He said he does not have a clear choice.

Member Campos said he is also on the fence, however he keeps thinking that agrivoltaics will turn into a

great thing. He said he will probably abstain on this one.

The Chair said these are policies that will change as time goes on. He said he does not believe in subsidizing

anyone for anything. If it shows that it works, then there will be an opportunity to change it.

Member Beemiller asked if someone has 100 acres, what is the income opportunity from solar. Member

Darrel Sweet said it is about 100,000 an acre. Member Beemiller said his taxes are $26,000 a year. Darrel

Sweet said the reason to do the WA in the first place, is based on ag income and what the person earns on

agriculture, not the market value of the property. If doing improvements, it does not affect WA. The Chair

said the program is funded 100% by the County. Member Benneton expressed concern with long term

exposure to ground water by piping. Not in support for WA tax breaks. Wish there was more time to research

this issue.

Member Gosselin said it was suggested that we contact the tax assessor’s office. WA yearly property taxes

include income, all income. Taxation is based on the value of improvement and the average use on the

property. It is feasible that taxation could be greater on WA. Not advocating, but we did have a discussion on

having the Tax Assessor’s Office come to the meeting with an explanation.

The Chair said this should be handed to the Board of Supervisors. This committee is advisory, and they will

make a decision based on the recommendation. He asked for a vote. If there is a majority then we go forward.

Yeas: Chuck Moore, Karen Sweet, Darrel Sweet, Katelyn Silva,

Nays: Karl Wente, Larry Gosselin

Abstain: Chuk Campos, Gerry Beemiller

The motion did not pass.

Bruce Jensen said under this circumstance, then both options should be taken to the board. Member Wente

said this is good, let the board make a decision. The Chair said there is an application right now in Planning.

Bruce Jensen said the current application is dormant because the applicant can’t determine what they want to

do. Liz said there is a new application, but it has not been submitted yet. The Chair said we need to have a

policy and get something done.

Bruce Jensen continued his presentation on Natural Resources and Environmental Review. He spoke on three

policies to be applied to solar farms regarding decommissioning and restoration plan, monitoring and

inspection including periodic reviews much like surface mining permits. He asked the committee for

comments.

Public comment was open.

Kelly Abreu said it seems that he is looking in a vacuum. They all looked good but how do they compare with

other counties and states. Have not heard much about bond assurances for solar farms and how it compares to

the capital investment in the solar farm. Are these policies replicated in Monterey or San Bernardino or the

State of Nevada?

10

Tamara Reus said the policy needs to restrict Resource and Water Management lands. Agrivoltaics is an

emerging industry and technology. Why have a policy for something that we do not know enough about? Do

not want to go on a case by case, such as Aramis. It needs to be looked at more carefully.

Mike Fredrich agreed with the previous speaker. Concern with agrivoltaics definition, to create a policy that

no one seems to know it is not the kind of thing we want to do. Needs to be thought out.

Chris O’Brien echoed couple of last speakers. Certainly think that if solar is going to be an ag component, the

agrivoltaics should not be the primary use.

Merlin Newton said he clearly does not understand why vineyards can’t be removed for solar. This policy

needs to be fair. If someone wants to convert vineyards to solar, they should have that right. Agrivoltaics can

allow panels above the vineyards and still have vines. It does not seem that it is equitable and fair. We all

have to do our part. This is green energy. There is a little bit of hypocrisy.

Jean King supports the other speakers. She questioned the voting on the motion. This is just a parliamentary

question.

Liz said need a majority of the people present to vote in favor of a motion. Only four of eight members

present voted for the motion so the motion did not pass. County Counsel agreed. The Chair said the policy

was reviewed and need to make a recommendation to make this go forward. The subcommittee has been

working on this for the last six months. They have done research. This is probably one of the most thought out

projects. the idea that we have difference of opinion, that is great, continue working to make it better. Bruce

Jensen said the next step would be to take it to the Board Transportation and Planning Committee. He said he

will make sure the mapping will have all technical abilities to do the mapping so that can apply values for

sensitivity, biological, cultural and put them in place that is meaningful for everyone to be able to weight in.

Bruce Jensen said the process could take six months and up to a year.

The Chair said need to move forward. Member Karen moved to accept the policies as presented to this

committee and take to the next T&P Committee meeting. Member Wente seconded.

Dick Schneider said he does not agree with the extent to which agrivoltaics should be allowed. Disagree with

idea that it should be allowed in all ag zone lands. Almost by definition it is an intensive ag undertaking. It is

not only cultivated ag; it is an industrial facility on top of it. It is certainly not appropriate in the Resource or

Water Management designation. He does not believe policies 16 and 23 should be written the way they are.

The Chair said living on Resource Management land, finding enough area to put agrivoltaics on an acre is a

challenge. There is not enough flat ground, unless it is in Cull Canyon where there is more flatland.

Discussion ensued amongst committee members on having agrivoltaics located in Resource Management

land.

Member Campos said this community needs to make this work. Member Wente thanked everyone for the

work done by the solar subcommittee.

Liz conducted the roll call:

Yeas: Chuck Moore, Chuk Campos, Darrel Sweet, Gerry Beemiller, Karen Sweet, Karl Wente, Katelyn Silva

and Larry Gosselin.

Motion passed.

Members of the committee thanked Bruce Jensen for his work on this policy. The Chair thanked Dick

Schneider for his work on the subcommittee.

11

7. Review of Applications for the new Urban Agriculture committee position – Liz spoke on the

applications that were received. The Chair asked that the item be continued to the next meeting since the

applicants are not present. Everyone agreed.

8. Chair, Committee Member, and Staff Announcements and Comments – Liz said she agrees with the

sentiments about Bruce Jensen, he has taken on some huge projects thru the years and appreciate his hard

work. The Chair said there is always an opportunity for consulting work. Bruce Jensen thanked everyone and

how everyone brought so much perspective to this process.

9. Adjournment – The Chair said he will work with Liz to schedule another meeting after the T&P meeting, if

needed. The Chair spoke on the Fairgrounds, it is an ag event on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Dick Schneider

said there have been monthly meetings and assumed that once the policy is approved then will the meetings go

back to quarterly meetings. The Chair said there are a couple of other issues, maybe do a meeting in July take

August off and come back in September. Would like to continue the monthly meetings.

Meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.

Agenda Items Suggested for Future Meetings:

• Presentation on Agri-tourism by Penny Leff, U.C. Davis

• Discussion of Proposed Ordinance Amendments pertaining to Cargo Containers on Agricultural

Properties

• Presentation on Carbon Farming by Rob Bennaton, UC Cooperative Extension, Bay Area Urban

Agriculture Advisor

• Presentation on Agroforestry by Nick Harvey, Bay Area Redwood

• Written Update on Implementation of Soil Importing Ordinance

• Presentation on County Williamson Act Program by Liz McElligott

ALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

1

TO: Agricultural Advisory Committee

FROM: Liz McElligott, Assistant Planning Director

MEETING DATE: August 31, 2021

RE: Organics Recycling Service Requirement to Implement SB 1383-The Short-

Lived Climate Pollutants Reduction Act

GENERAL INFORMATION

SB 1383, signed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2016, requires the state to reduce the disposal of organic

waste, including food waste, green waste, and paper products, by 75 percent by 2025. The legislation is

intended to substantially reduce methane emissions resulting from the decomposition of organic waste in

landfills, a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contributing to global climate change.

Organic materials – including waste that can be readily prevented, recycled, or composted – account for a

significant portion of California's overall waste stream. To support the development of end-use markets for

this additional volume of organic material, the legislation requires jurisdictions to procure a target amount

of recovered organic waste materials, such as compost and mulch.

Since food waste alone constitutes approximately 17 to 18 percent of total landfill disposal, SB 1383

established an additional target of recovering at least 20% of currently disposed surplus food by 2025.

Increasing efforts to prevent food waste and encouraging edible food rescue throughout the State will help

reduce methane emissions from organic waste disposed in California's landfills. Food rescue has the added

benefit of assisting Californians who are unable to secure adequate, healthy food by diverting edible food

to food banks and pantries.

SB 1383 granted the State Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) regulatory

authority to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets. The final regulations developed by

CalRecycle were approved in November of 2020. All jurisdictions in the state are required to implement

measures necessary to comply with the regulations. A “jurisdiction” is defined as “… a city, county, a city

and county, or a special district that provides solid waste collection services.” The regulations apply to both

residential and commercial organic waste generators and include both performance targets and the potential

for penalties levied against a jurisdiction for non-compliance. Enforcement and penalties for non-

compliance begin January 1, 2022 for all jurisdictions. County staff has been working closely with

StopWaste and its other member jurisdictions to understand the requirements and impacts of SB 1383, as

well as opportunities for cross-agency or cross-jurisdictional cooperation.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff requests that your Committee hear a presentation by staff on the implementation of SB 1383, take

public testimony, and provide comments regarding the proposed ordinance and other implementation

actions.

STAFF ANALYSIS

Three County departments have responsibility for implementing some portion of SB1383 – CDA –

Planning Department, GSA – Office of Sustainability, and the HCSA – Department of Environmental

Health. The Office of the County Counsel is also assisting with interpretation of the legislation and

regulations, determining the County’s implementation responsibilities, and drafting the required ordinance.

2

• CDA – Planning is responsible for facilitating organics collection services for all residents and

businesses in unincorporated areas outside of the service areas of the Castro Valley Sanitary District

(CVSan) and Oro Loma Sanitary District (OLSD) which serve the urban unincorporated areas. • GSA – Office of Sustainability is responsible for procurement of recyclable and recovered organic

products to fulfill targets based on the unincorporated population, including the populations served

by the sanitary districts. • HCSA – Department of Environmental Health is working with StopWaste and its Member

Agencies to conduct inspections and assist with education on a countywide edible food recovery

program at retail food facilities (restaurants, supermarkets, etc.) that it currently permits. • Each department is responsible for education and outreach. • Each department is responsible for monitoring compliance and conducting enforcement in its own

compliance area.

• StopWaste is researching necessary steps to secure access to recycling and edible food recovery

capacity countywide.

Implementation activities in all six of these areas must begin by January 1, 2022. The State has the authority

to take enforcement actions against local jurisdictions on that date. However, for the first two years,

compliance and monitoring by the County will include education rather than enforcement action against

noncompliant organic waste generators (households and businesses). Jurisdictions will be required to begin

taking enforcement action against generators in 2024.

Ordinance Adoption

Jurisdictions must adopt an enforceable ordinance or similar mechanism to achieve local compliance with

SB 1383 by January 1, 2022, but jurisdictions are not required to enforce the ordinance until 2024. The

regulations allow 2 years for education and compliance, with a goal of ensuring that every generator has an

opportunity to comply before mandatory enforcement comes into effect in 2024.

StopWaste adopted a countywide ordinance to serve as the local ordinance for member agencies who

choose to opt into StopWaste’s ordinance. Planning staff has reviewed Stopwaste’s ordinance with the

Office of the County Counsel and recommends that the County adopt its own ordinance to provide greater

flexibility to revise the ordinance in the future to better address issues that arise that are unique to the

Unincorporated Area. Staff is in the process of drafting an ordinance that is largely based on StopWaste’s

ordinance but adapted to the needs of the Unincorporated Area. As required by state regulations, the

ordinance will contain requirements for:

• Single-family generators

• Commercial business generators including multi-family residential dwellings

• Waivers for commercial business generators

• Commercial edible food generators

• Food recovery organizations and services

• Regulated haulers and facility operators

• Self-haulers

• Inspections and investigations

• Enforcement

In addition to this AAC meeting, staff will present the organics recycling program and draft ordinance at

the September 15, 2021 Sunol Citizens’ Advisory Committee meeting and at a town hall meeting in the

East County as directed by Supervisor Haubert. The date for the townhall meeting has not been determined.

Staff will bring the ordinance, revised as appropriate to address public input, to the full Board of Supervisors

for first and second readings in October and November to meet the January 1, 2022 statutory deadline.

3

Organic Waste Collection Services

Existing Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Services

The core requirement of the SB 1383 regulations is that jurisdictions must facilitate the provision of organic

waste collection service to all residents and businesses. Organic waste includes green waste, wood waste,

food waste, manure, and fibers. The regulations also require all residents and businesses to use an organic

waste recycling service that meets the regulatory requirements. Generators are not permitted to opt out of

receiving the provided service. Jurisdictions must have enforceable requirements for all haulers operating

within their boundaries and for commercial and residential generators and self-haulers in the jurisdiction.

This and other sections of the regulations also require a minimum level of recordkeeping and reporting to

CalRecycle.

CDA – Planning has been given responsibility for facilitating organics collection services to all residents

and businesses in the unincorporated area outside of the service area boundaries of the Castro Valley

Sanitary District (CVSan) and Oro Loma Sanitary District (OLSD). (Please see attached map.) CVSan

provides solid waste and recycling collection service to both the urban area and the rural Canyonlands of

Castro Valley. OLSD provides solid waste and recycling collection service to the remainder of the urban

unincorporated communities. As special districts that provide solid waste collection services, CVSan and

OLSD are considered “jurisdictions” under SB 1383 and are responsible for complying with SB 1383 within

their jurisdictional boundaries.

Unincorporated Livermore Area

A 2012 agreement between the County, the City of Livermore, and Livermore Sanitation, Inc (LSI) granted

LSI exclusive rights to provide solid waste and recycling services within a designated portion of the

Unincorporated Area surrounding the City of Livermore. This designated area consists of two geographic

areas: the Densely-Populated Area adjacent to the city boundary and the Rural Area further away from the

city boundary (see attached map). Single-family residences located in the Densely Populated Area receive

services that are identical to those provided to city residents, which include solid waste, recycling, and

organics collection. For single-family residences that subscribe to collection service in the Rural Area, LSI

provides weekly solid waste and recycling cart collection service, but no organics collection. Commercial

accounts in both the Densely Populated and Rural Areas receive solid waste, recycling, and organics

services comparable to the services provided to commercial accounts within the city. Subscribing to

collection service is currently voluntary and residents and businesses in the designated unincorporated area

may self-haul their waste if they wish to do so.

Remainder of the Unincorporated Area

Outside the service area of the two sanitary districts and the designated LSI service area, Alameda County

does not currently have regulatory or contractual authority to direct or control solid waste, recycling or

compostable material collection services. In these remainder areas, residents and businesses voluntarily

subscribe to the services provided by the local collection companies or self-haul their materials to a landfill

or recycling facility. Recycling and organics collection services are currently not available to all customers

who receive solid waste service. Most waste generators in Sunol and unincorporated areas near Pleasanton

subscribe to solid waste and recycling collection service from Pleasanton Garbage Service (PGS). Waste

generators in the remainder areas fall within the County’s jurisdiction for implementing SB 1383 and the

County will be responsible for compliance in these areas.

Negotiations with Haulers

Since mandatory organics collection service is not currently provided outside of the urban unincorporated

area, it will be necessary of the County to negotiate with haulers serving the rural Unincorporated Area to

4

ensure service is provided in accordance with SB 1383 requirements. Staff will be contacting LSI and the

City of Livermore to discuss amendments to the existing agreement to add provisions to comply with SB

1383. Staff will also be contacting PGS to discuss a similar agreement for the provision of organics

collection service to the areas PGS currently serves. Staff will also assess how to provide service to areas

that are not currently served by a hauler.

Waivers

A few exceptions to the mandatory service requirement are allowed. The regulations permit the County to

grant “de minimis” waivers to commercial generators that produce negligible amounts of organic waste,

allowing them to opt out of subscribing to the service the County provides. A process will be established

to accept and review waiver requests. To qualify for a “de minimis” waiver, a commercial business must

demonstrate that:

1. The commercial business’ total solid waste collection service is two cubic yards or more per week

and organic waste subject to collection comprises less than 20 gallons per week of the business’

total waste.

2. The commercial business’ total solid waste collection service is less than two cubic yards per week

and organic waste subject to collection comprises less than 10 gallons per week of the business’

total waste.

SB 1383 also allows low population waivers for census tracts with a population density of less than 75

people per square mile. Preliminary calculations using 2010 census data indicate that a large census tract

east of the City of Livermore is likely to meet this density threshold. CalRecycle will confirm the census

tracts that are eligible for the waiver when 2020 census data is available.

Several counties, including Alameda County, are in discussions with CalRecycle regarding potential

exceptions to the mandatory service requirement for properties that do not qualify for de minimis or low

population waivers but are impractical to serve for other reasons, such as lack of access. Unincorporated

lands managed by “non-local entities” such as East Bay Regional Park District, San Francisco Public

Utilities Commission, East Bay Municipal Utilities District, CalTrans, and public school districts are under

State jurisdiction and are not subject to County oversight.

Self-Hauling

A jurisdiction may allow generators subject to its authority to self-haul their own organic waste if they

qualify for a waiver or other exception. Allowing self-hauling is not an alternative to the jurisdiction

providing organic waste collection services; instead, it permits jurisdictions to allow self-haulers to opt out

of the provided service. To allow self-hauling, a jurisdiction must comply with the following requirements

in the regulations:

• The jurisdiction’s SB 1383 ordinance must include enforceable language regulating self-haulers,

and information regarding self-hauling requirements must be included in education and outreach

materials.

• Self-haul generators are required to either 1) source separate all organic waste generated on site

and haul it to a solid waste facility that processes or recovers source-separated organic waste OR

2) haul organic waste to a high diversion organic waste processing facility.

• Self-haul generators must keep a record of the amount of organic waste delivered to each solid

waste facility; this record shall be subject to inspection by the jurisdiction.

o Residential self-haulers are exempt from this recording/reporting requirement.

o Food waste self-haulers are required to report to CalRecycle the tons of food waste diverted.

5

Education and Outreach to Community

Upon implementation of the organic waste collection program, each jurisdiction must provide education

annually (can be electronic, print, or direct contact) to all organic waste generators, haulers, and other

impacted parties to inform them of the requirement to recycle organic waste.

Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement

By January 1, 2022, jurisdictions must have an enforcement mechanism, recordkeeping scheme, and

inspection program that includes:

• Annual compliance review of commercial businesses (including multi-family dwellings of five

units or more) that generate two or more cubic yards of solid waste per week, as likewise required

for commercial recycling by AB 1826.

• Annual route reviews for commercial and residential areas.

Jurisdictions are required to provide education for non-compliance at the household level or for businesses

if cross-contamination of the waste materials has occurred; jurisdictions may choose to conduct

enforcement action and assess penalties or charge contamination processing fees to generators, but this is

not required in the regulations. SB 1383 prescribes the following penalty levels:

• For a first violation, $50 to $100 per violation.

• For a second violation, $100 to $200 per violation.

• For a third or subsequent violation, $250 to $500 per violation.

Jurisdictions are also required to provide CalRecycle with compliance reporting for all sections of SB 1383

reporting requirements include an Implementation Record, an Initial Compliance Report, and Ongoing

Reporting.

Potential Penalties if the County Does Not Comply

Penalties for non-compliant jurisdictions depend on the severity of a violation. Violations are categorized

as “minor,” “moderate,” or “major” and have associated fees ranging from $500 to $10,000 per violation

per day. CalRecycle will focus on compliance assistance first and has discretion to not enforce.

Potential Impacts to Unincorporated Residents and Businesses

Since solid waste and recycling collection service is currently not mandatory in the unincorporated area

outside of CVSan’s and OLSD’s service areas, it is likely that some unincorporated residents and businesses

who currently self-haul their waste will be required to subscribe to collection services and incur the cost of

those services. Unincorporated residents and businesses who do currently have solid waste and recycling

service that does not include organics collection will be required to pay higher fees for the additional

service. Residents and businesses who do not comply with the new requirements may be subject to fines.

CONCLUSION

County staff will continue to work toward implementing the actions necessary to fulfill the County’s

obligations under SB 1383 to meet the January 1, 2022 statutory deadline. Staff will bring the ordinance,

revised as appropriate to address public input, to the full Board of Supervisors for first and second readings

in October and November.

6