TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
Talyn Mirzakhanian, City Manager
FROM:
Erick Lee, Public Works Director
Jeff Page, Utilities Manager
Anna Luke-Jones, Solid Waste Administrator
SUBJECT:Title
Consideration of a Moratorium on Enforcement of the Refuse Enclosure Ordinance (Public Works Director Lee).
(Estimated Time: 1 Hr.)
DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION
Body
_________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss and provide direction on whether to implement a moratorium on enforcement of the refuse enclosure ordinance.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There is no immediate fiscal implication related to this item.
BACKGROUND:
Refuse is a broad term that refers to any disposable material, including both recyclable and non-recyclable materials. Refuse enclosures refer to the storage location where materials are kept between completed use and their disposal. In the City of Manhattan Beach, refuse is sorted into three main categories:
• Landfill trash (material to be buried in a landfill that is not recyclable or hazardous waste)
• Recycling (glass, paper, metal and select plastics)
• Organics (food, wood, soiled paper).
The City’s franchised hauler, Waste Management, provides businesses and residents with containers to place their landfill trash, recycling, and organics for disposal.
An ordinance requiring dedicated enclosure spaces for these containers has been in place for over 50 years. Manhattan Beach Municipal Code (MBMC) Section 5.24.030.C. states:
“All residential and commercial structures constructed after February 2, 1967 shall be required to provide an enclosure for the storage of trash and rubbish receptacles and containers. All residential and commercial structures constructed prior to February 2, 1967, shall have one (1) calendar year from the date of adoption of this chapter to provide refuse container enclosures in accordance with the provisions stated herein. Where such refuse or rubbish container enclosures have been constructed, all containers shall be placed therein.”
Solid Waste Law
Solid waste law has evolved in California over the last 40 years, and especially within the last 10 years. Manhattan Beach’s solid waste collection services have also evolved over time, due in part to the adoption of legislation at the State level. These changes include State mandates regarding:
• Solid waste diversion (1989)
• Commercial recycling (2012)
• Organic waste recycling (2014 and 2016)
• Prohibition on using transformation (waste-to-energy) processing in recycling (2022)
An attachment to this report includes a brief summary of the relevant laws that have and/or will influence the services called for in the City’s franchise agreement.
Public Health and Safety
The main purpose of refuse enclosures is to preserve and protect public health and safety. Material disposed of for collection and not properly stored attracts rodents and other vermin such as raccoons, possums, cockroaches, fleas, pigeons and mosquitoes. In turn, these pests can attract wildlife such as coyotes.
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health performs inspections of food retail locations. The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health and Environmental Health “Reference Guide for the Food Official Inspection Report” explains each part of the inspection. The inspection report includes a “Critical Risk Factor” indicating that the location must have “No insect, rodent, birds or animals present.” A violation is marked if there is an “active infestation at exterior trash area or exterior dining area.” The inspection report states that Critical Risk Factors pose a threat to public health and must be corrected immediately.
“Good Retail Practices” are also inspected for violations. The inspection report states that Good Retail Practices are preventative measures that can reduce food borne illness. One of these includes “Garbage and refuse properly disposed; facilities maintained.” Violations can be noted if the inspector identifies any of the following:
- Exterior refuse container lids propped open or missing.
- Exterior/customer area refuse container encrusted with waste.
- Lack of adequate refuse containers/inadequate refuse pick up resulting in overflowing trash.
- Cardboard box used as a refuse receptacle.
- No waste receptacles are present for use by consumers.
- Storage areas and/or receptacles are not clean and/or in good repair.
- Refuse is overflowing and creating a nuisance.
- Animal byproducts and inedible kitchen grease is not disposed of as required.
- Refuse, recyclables, or returnable are not kept in nonabsorbent, durable, cleanable, leak proof, and rodent proof containers.
- Cast-off/non-functional equipment stored at the exterior of the facility.
- Trash containers in outdoor dining area are not vermin proof or are not emptied at the end of the operating day.
Additional violations can be noted if improper handling/storage of trash at refuse area has resulted in vermin infestation at the exterior refuse area. Inspections can also include notice of violations of California Retail Food Code Sections 114211, 114244, 114245, 114245.1 regarding “Premises; personal/cleaning items; vermin proofing.”
NPDES Regulations
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) addresses water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants to waters of the United States. Created in 1972 by the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) NPDES permit program authorizes state governments to perform many permitting, administrative, and enforcement aspects of the program.
The Regional Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit does not explicitly mention “refuse enclosures” or require specific design criteria for waste storage areas; however, the language in the Permit does require effective source controls or best management practices (BMPs) to be in place for specific activities and facilities that are known to cause trash and non-stormwater discharges to the municipal storm drain system, such as refuse enclosures.
MBMC Section 5.84.060 requires all owners and occupants of property within the City to implement good housekeeping practices to meet these Regional MS4 Permit requirements including the following:
D. …refuse, or other pollutionable materials shall not be stored or deposited by any person in areas where they may be picked up by rainfall and carried off the property and/or discharged to the MS4.
F. Food wastes generated by non-residential food service and food distribution sources, including FOG (fats, oils and grease), shall be properly disposed of an in a manner, so such wastes are not discharged to the MS4 or exposed to precipitation or vectors.
G. BMPs shall be used in areas exposed to storm water for the removal and lawful disposal of…garbage...or other materials which have potential adverse impacts on water quality.
The City contracts with McGowan Consulting to assist with its NPDES program and compliance with applicable regulations. This consultant provided key considerations about the Regional MS4 Permit and the important contribution of refuse enclosures toward overall compliance (attached). The Regional MS4 Permit sections that are related to the practice of proper pollution and materials storage control are as follows and can be viewed in the attachment to this report: Part III.A, V.A, VI.B, VIII.E.1.c, VIII.E.3.c.ii, VIII.E.5, VIII.H.3
Changes in Solid Waste Collection
There are multiple key changes to solid waste collection which took place in the City over the last 20 years. Many are based on changes in solid waste law or service changes in the City’s franchise agreement. In the early 2000s, the citywide addition of green waste recycling and the industry boom of plastics recycling added new service levels. In 2011, there was a citywide semi-automation of collection service which distinctly affected the Downtown with the introduction of wheeled carts. This change forced all businesses to convert from manual service with round Rubbermaid cans to semi-automated service with wheeled carts with attached lids. The greatest effect this conversion had was on storage. Many Downtown businesses (and residents) previously stacked their round Rubbermaid cans in a small enclosure and used them as needed. With semi-automated service, carts could not be stacked, and height levels were different from traditional round Rubbermaid cans. Refuse enclosures that may have worked for decades were no longer suitable.
In 2012, the City began an organics recycling pilot program with several businesses and a segment of residents. This pilot lasted three years and ultimately resulted in the 2015 citywide adoption of organics recycling (businesses and residents). The residents utilized their existing green cart. However, many businesses did not have green carts. Therefore, this new recycling stream added another cart at their locations. The adoption of AB 341 (mandatory recycling) in 2012 and AB 1826 (mandatory organics recycling) in 2014 added more requirements for many of the City’s businesses.
In 2016, the State’s adoption of SB 1383- the most intense and challenging legislation from California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) in decades- mandated organics recycling for all residents and businesses statewide. Under these regulations, the State mandates that every single property have organics containers and service. Furthermore, the State expects these organics containers to be delivered to every business location regardless of the availability of enclosure space. Staff has reported to CalRecycle annually about the City’s refuse enclosure efforts that are being performed in order to correct longstanding infrastructure deficiencies. These deficiencies relate to space constraints at many commercial properties that make taking on another recycling stream difficult for many of the City’s businesses. CalRecycle has performed site visits and seen the spatial constraints that affect the businesses’ abilities to participate in all required recycling programs. These refuse enclosure review efforts have provided CalRecycle the assurance that the City of Manhattan Beach is committed to complying with this aspect of SB 1383, but such compliance will take many years to achieve as businesses improve their properties with the construction of appropriately sized refuse enclosures.
Refuse Enclosure Compliance Efforts
For over 20 years, the City has required refuse enclosure reviews as part of the review of building permit applications. Historically, these refuse enclosures were evaluated for basic components, especially connection to the sanitary sewer and structural integrity. The reviews did not evaluate solid waste service levels or container placement. Although new construction projects were building new refuse enclosures, tenant improvement projects were not formally reviewed for refuse enclosure sizing unless they exceeded 50% square feet of the total property. Most tenant improvements in Manhattan Beach remained under the 50% threshold, meaning that these enclosures went without evaluation for decades.
In 2018, as the City began preparing to implement SB 1383, one of the areas challenging the business community the most was spatial constraints and the problems associated with deploying additional refuse containers in already compact commercial spaces. During this time, the City was also grappling with complaints from neighbors in and around the Downtown and North Manhattan Beach business improvement districts about public health and safety issues related to trash and cleanliness of these areas. As part of those discussions, the issue of commercial containers in public view and located in the public right of way was identified as a problem that needed to be addressed.
In planning for SB 1383 compliance in 2018, Public Works staff studied how to comply with the State mandate to deploy organics containers throughout the business community while addressing the spatial constraints of many of the City’s commercial properties. The City could pursue enclosure enforcement immediately with all commercial properties, or the City could pursue enclosure enforcement incrementally, as permit applications were filed by property owners. Staff determined that when an applicant filed for a building permit to alter its property, that was a demonstration of both their desire for changes to the premises and an indication of their financial ability to complete a construction project. Thus, the incremental approach was pursued, with the filing of an application for a building permit becoming the threshold for triggering a review of the refuse enclosure. This approach was discussed with the business districts and Chamber of Commerce to ensure reasonability, and their support was secured. Since 2019, the Public Works Department has uniformly implemented this approach.
Current Practice for Commercial Refuse Enclosure Reviews
The Public Works Department’s current practice for conducting formal refuse enclosure reviews looks at whether the property complies with MBMC 5.24.030. Most notably these reviews seek to determine:
• Does the enclosure house all of the property’s solid waste containers?
• Does the property have the correct service levels that capture all material generated for disposal (without any accumulating in the public right of way)?
• Is the service level in compliance with State recycling laws?
• Is the enclosure serviceable by the hauler and are the containers accessible to individuals and the hauler?
Similarly, there are applicants with many different scenarios:
• Those who have been compliant and did not need to perform any changes
• Those who have correct service levels (containers and service schedule), but one or two containers cannot fit inside the existing enclosure
• Those who only needed to add organics service
• Those who do not use their enclosure for refuse containers and need to rearrange their storage spaces
• Those who have shared another property’s enclosure
• Those who are in a business complex and the enclosure has not been updated to accommodate all tenants
• Those who have containers stacked in an enclosure space but one or more of the containers must be removed before another can be accessed, etc.
Enclosure reviews take these scenarios into consideration to determine what plan of correction, if any is needed for the enclosure space. These issues are addressed by the applicant as part of the plan check and building permit issuance process.
Outdoor Dining Task Force Feedback
The City’s long-term outdoor dining program development included a series of outreach efforts since last fall. It is important to note that one of the most common concerns raised by the community was that the existing trash issue may be exacerbated with increased outdoor dining opportunities. Feedback received highlighted the need to address the current undesirable conditions before the use is further intensified. Recognizing that an increase in dining occupancy will inevitably result in additional refuse, the outdoor dining task force discussed ways in which the program may be shaped to mitigate those adverse impacts. Based on discussions, issues related to trash are proposed to be addressed by requiring the applicant to comply with the following:
• Demonstrate that the establishment has additional areas within their property to accommodate an adequately sized trash enclosure and service levels prior to permit issuance.
• Correct existing practices that add to the trash issue such as placing refuse containers in the right-of-way.
DISCUSSION:
At its September 3, 2024 meeting, the City Council directed staff to return with a report to discuss a possible moratorium on the enforcement of the refuse enclosure ordinance.
As summarized above-and in order to ensure the City has a clear path to manage waste streams properly and to eventually achieve full compliance with state regulations-staff does not recommend the implementation of a moratorium on the enforcement of this ordinance.
However, staff is aware of the challenges that this ordinance does place on the business community and some concerns that businesses have brought to the Council’s attention. To address some of these concerns, the refuse enclosure ordinance could be updated to provide objective baseline thresholds for enclosure sizing, based on whether the applicant is a food establishment or not and the size of the property. The thresholds would set a minimum square footage metric for each of the required container types (landfill, recycling, and organics) and provide clear standards about refuse enclosures to applicants considering renovations of their properties.
By implementing the concept of objective baseline thresholds into the Municipal Code, businesses and prospective property owners would have a clearer understanding of what compliance with the City’s ordinance entails from a square-footage perspective as they contemplate improvements to their properties. Equipped with this information, they could address refuse enclosure spatial constraint issues at the outset of their design work as they develop concepts and budgets for their construction projects, rather than having to address these issues during the plan check process after other features of their projects have already been designed.
Attached to this report is a draft revision to MBMC Section 5.24.030 that includes these potential changes. If the City Council would like to proceed with consideration of these potential changes, staff could conduct outreach with the business community and then bring an ordinance back to the Council for introduction and ultimate adoption at a later date.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
The Downtown Manhattan Beach Business and Professionals Association (MBBPA), Manhattan Beach Chamber of Commerce and the North Manhattan Beach Business Improvement District (NMBBID) have all been notified of this item. CalRecycle has also been notified of this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The City has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines as long as no action taken at this time. Should the City Council wish to enact a moratorium, additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA would likely be required. At this point, staff does not believe that enacting a moratorium could be exempted from such review and an Initial Study would need to be conducted to determine the level of review required.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney has reviewed this report and determined that no additional legal analysis is necessary.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Solid Waste Law Summary
2. NPDES and Refuse Enclosures
3. Potential Changes to Refuse Enclosure Ordinance - MBMC Section 5.24.030
4. PowerPoint Presentation