Daly City City Council
September 23, 2024

AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC RECORDS:

All public record to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body will be available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office, City Hall located at 333 90 th Street, Daly City, CA during normal business
hours, at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the legislative body.

CITY OF DALY CITY

Regular Meeting - CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA

Monday, September 23, 2024 - 7:00 PM

City Hall Council Chambers – 2nd Floor
City Hall 333 – 90th Street
Daly City, CA 94015

To watch the live telecast:
https://www.youtube.com/@DalyCityGov/streams, https://www.dalycity.org/agendas, or Comcast Ch. 27

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
There are three ways to submit public comments: (1) submit written comments by meeting day, (2) submit written comments during the meeting, and (3) attend the meeting in person.

1. To submit written comments by meeting day, please email [email protected] and include “Public Comment” in the subject line. All written comments received by 4:00 pm on meeting day will be provided to the City Council prior to the meeting.

Please note: Any emailed comments received after 4:00 p.m. on the meeting date are not guaranteed to be received by the City Council prior to the meeting. Comments are not read aloud into the record.

2. During the meeting, you may visit www.dalycity.org/agendas to submit comments using the
Public Comment form to address the City Council on a specific item, or during the public comment period, and such comments are delivered to the City Council and City Staff during the meeting, and may be read into the record at the time they are received.

3. To speak at the meeting in person, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber and submit it to a Staff Member as early in the meeting as possible.

Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in attending or participating in this meeting should call the office of the City Clerk at (650) 991-8078 as soon as possible.

CALL TO ORDER:

PLEDGE TO THE FLAG:

ROLL CALL:

Agenda – City Council
Monday, September 23, 2024

PRESENTATIONS:

1. Peninsula Clean Energy, Shawn Marshall, CEO

2. National Fire Prevention Week, Battalion Chief Craig Wittner

3. Prostate Cancer Awareness Month, Barry Chauser and Aris Deloreyes

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

4. Regular Meeting of September 9, 2024

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

PUBLIC APPEARANCES/ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:

NOTE: Speakers are limited to two minutes, unless modified by the Mayor.

The Council cannot take action on any matter raised under this item.

CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and may be approved by one roll call vote of the City Council. There shall be no separate discussion of the matters on the Consent Agenda unless requested by a member of the City Council. If discussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately at the end of the Agenda.

Check Registers:

5. Check Registers for the Month of Aug 2024

END OF CONSENT AGENDA

COMMUNICATIONS:

6. Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Additional Services Agreement with Dorman Associates for Design of Early Learning and Event Center and Appropriate $318,460.50 From General Fund- Fund Balance

STAFF: Tatum Mothershead

RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution A & B

7. Approve Written Response to 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County

STAFF: Leilani Ramos

RECOMMENDATION: Motion to Approve

Agenda – City Council
Monday, September 23, 2024

APPOINTMENTS: Board/Commission Membership Committee Appointments

REPORTS:

8. Council Committee

9. City Council

10. Staff

ADJOURNMENT:

Proclamation
National Fire Prevention Week October 6-12, 2024
WHEREAS, the City of Daly City and the North County Fire Authority are committed to ensuring the safety and security of all those living in and visiting Daly City; and WHEREAS, fire is a serious public safety concern both locally and nationally, and homes are the locations where people are at greatest risk from fire; and WHEREAS, according to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), at home, the place people feel safest from fire, is where they are at the greatest risk; and WHEREAS, NFPA data shows that the majority of U.S. home fire deaths continue to occur in homes with no smoke alarms or no working smoke alarms; and WHEREAS, having working smoke alarms in the home reduces the risk of dying in a home fire by more than half, (54 percent), and more than one-third, (38 percent), of home fire deaths result from fires in which no smoke alarms are present; and
WHEREAS, smoke alarms should be in every bedroom, outside each separate sleeping area, on each level, including basements and attics of the home, and meet the needs of all family members, including those with sensory or physical disabilities; and WHEREAS, testing smoke alarms should be conducted once a month by pushing the test button, and replacing smoke alarms when they are 10 years old or don’t respond when tested; and WHEREAS, North County Fire Authority first responders are dedicated to reducing the occurrence of home fires and home fire injuries through prevention and protection education; and WHEREAS, Daly City residents are responsive to public education measures and can take action to increase their safety from fire, especially in their homes; and WHEREAS, the 2024 Fire Prevention Week theme, “Smoke Alarms: make them work for you!” reinforces the importance of keeping working smoke alarms within the home.

THEREFORE, I, Juslyn C. Manalo, Mayor of the City of Daly City and members of the City Council, proclaim October 6th – 12th, 2024, as Fire Prevention Week throughout the City and urge the people of Daly City to be aware of their surroundings, look for available ways out in the event of a fire or other emergency, respond when the smoke alarm sounds by exiting the building immediately, and support the many public safety activities and efforts of North County Fire Authority and emergency services during Fire Prevention Week 2024.

Signed and sealed by the Mayor and City Council of the
City of Daly City this 23rd day of September 2024.

Juslyn C. Manalo, Mayor
Dr. Roderick Daus-Magbual, Vice Mayor
Pamela DiGiovanni, Councilmember
Teresa Proaño, Councilmember
Glenn R. Sylvester, Councilmember

Proclamation
Prostate Cancer Awareness Month
WHEREAS, prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among American men and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in men; and WHEREAS,it is projected that approximately 299,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in the United States this year, with around 35,250 succumbing to the disease; and
WHEREAS, in California, it is estimated that 26,350 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed, resulting in approximately 4,200 deaths in 2024; and WHEREAS, African American men, men with a family history of prostate cancer, and men exposed to Agent Orange are at the highest risk for developing this disease; and
WHEREAS,the impact of prostate cancer extends beyond health, imposing significant economic and social burdens on patients and their families; and WHEREAS,prostate cancer has a 5-year survival rate of nearly 100% when diagnosed early, but this rate decreases to 31% once the cancer has metastasized; and WHEREAS,the American Cancer Society emphasizes the importance of early detection and encourages men to discuss prostate cancer screening with their healthcare providers; and
WHEREAS,increasing public awareness about prostate cancer can lead to earlier diagnoses, improved treatment outcomes, and ultimately save lives; and WHEREAS, our community stands in solidarity with those affected by prostate cancer, advocating for research, education, and support services.

NOW THEREFORE, I, Juslyn C. Manalo, Mayor, and members of the City Council of the City of Daly City, hereby proclaim September 2024 as “Prostate Cancer Awareness Month” and encourage all Daly City residents to engage in conversations about prostate health, seek necessary screenings, and support initiatives that promote awareness and research.

Signed and sealed by the Mayor and City Council
of the City of Daly City this 23rd day of September
2024.

Juslyn C. Manalo, Mayor
Dr. Roderick Daus-Magbual, Vice Mayor
Teresa Proaño, Councilmember
Pamela DiGiovanni, Councilmember
Glenn R. Sylvester, Councilmember

CITY OF DALY CITY
MINUTES – REGULAR MEETING – CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 9, 2024
--------------------------------
Note on Public Comments:

To provide public comments, members of the public have the option to- 1) attend in person, 2) email the City Clerk, or 3) submit comments through the public comment portal on the City’s website. Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in attending or participating in this meeting are instructed to call the office of the City Clerk at 991-8078 prior to the meeting.

Visit https://www.youtube.com/@DalyCityGov/streams to view the City Council meeting

The regular meeting was called to order by Mayor Manalo at 7:00 P.M.

ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Present:

Juslyn C. Manalo, Mayor
Roderick Daus-Magbual, Vice Mayor
Pamela DiGiovanni
Teresa G. Proaño
Glenn R. Sylvester

Staff Present:

Thomas J. Piccolotti, City Manager
Rose L. Zimmerman, City Attorney
K. Annette Hipona, City Clerk

PRESENTATIONS:

National Preparedness Month
(Nick Gracia, Battalion Chief)

Suicide Prevention Month
(Allen Bustos, Filipino Mental Health Initiative and Behavioral Health Commission)

Patriot Day - September 11th
(Nick Gracia, Battalion Chief and Cameron Christensen, Acting Chief of Police)

Mayor Manalo wished City Manager Piccolotti and Director Mothershead a happy birthday and called for a recess at 7:54 PM. The meeting reconvened at 8:07 PM.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Regular Meeting August 12, 2024

It was moved by Councilmember DiGiovanni, seconded by Councilmember Proaño and carried to approve the minutes of August 12, 2024.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

It was moved by Councilmember Proaño, seconded by Councilmember DiGiovanni and carried to approve the agenda.

CITY OF DALY CITY
MINUTES – REGULAR MEETING – CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 9, 2024
2 PUBLIC APPEARANCES/COMMUNICATIONS:

Dr. Augusto B. Valera Jr., Lions International, thanked the 9/11 first responders for their service and noted the Lions Club International will be holding their annual event to honor first responders. Valera commended the City and Council for leading the way in recognizing loneliness as an important mental health and wellness issue.

Dr. Vennie Acebedo, HealthWays representative and one of the first members of the Filipino Mental Health Initiative, was pleased to hear about the initiative’s progress. Acebedo referred to the Bepler project, and encouraged support for nonprofit HealthWays which serves as a “social GPS” that helps navigate community members.

CONSENT AGENDA:

It was moved by Councilmember Proaño, seconded by Councilmember DiGiovanni and carried to approve the consent agenda with the exception of item #7, which was pulled for discussion.

Resolutions:

Accept Lifeline Transportation Program and Execute Memorandum of Understanding for the Daly City Bayshore Shuttle Service

Resolution 24- 140, Accepting And Appropriating New Measure A Funds And Authorizing Execution Of Memorandum Of Understanding With San Mateo County Transit District For The Daly City Bayshore Shuttle Service

Accept and Appropriate Grant from County of San Mateo Aging and Adult Services for FY 2024-25 Congregate Nutrition Program

Resolution 24-141, Accepting A Grant From The San Mateo County Aging And Adult Services Department And Authorizing Appropriation Of Grant Funds (Congregate Nutrition Program)

Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023- 24 One-Year Action Plan

Acting Housing & Community Development Manager Lenelle Suliguin provided the staff report for the CAPER outlining the use of CDBG and HOME funds in the past fiscal year. Suliguin addressed questions on the amounts of funding received each year, whether the City can receive more funding, how organizations can apply through the City for the CDBG and HOME fun ds, and which projects and /or organizations are being funded by the proposed action plan.

It was moved by Mayor Manalo, seconded by Council member DiGiovanni and carried by voice vote to adopt the resolution:

Resolution 24-142, Approving Submission To The Federal Department Of Housing And Urban Development (HUD) For Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report For The Community Development Block Grant And Home Programs

CITY OF DALY CITY
MINUTES – REGULAR MEETING – CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 9, 2024
3 Setting Time and Place for a Public Hearing to Consider General Plan Amendment GPA-8-24-16606 and Zone Change ZC -8-24-16607 – Revised Draft Housing Element Adoption and Initial Implementation Measures (Set Hearing: 10/14/24)

Resolution 24- 143, Setting Time And Place Of Public Hearing Regarding General Plan Amendment GPA-8-24-16606 And Zone Change ZC-8-24-16607

Check Registers:

Check Registers for the Month of July 2024

END OF CONSENT OF AGENDA

AWARD OF BIDS/CONTRACTS:

Award Construction Contract for the Northern Cities Smart Corridor Expansion Project

City Engineer Shirley Chan provided the staff report requesting to award the construction contract to Tennyson Electric of Livermore in the amount of $5,464,692.50. Chan addressed questions on whether there was consideration for the project to utilize the local labor workforce. City Engineer Chan and Audrey Chan from C/CAG addressed questions on the benefits of the smart corridor expansion.

It was moved by Mayor Manalo, seconded by Vice Mayor Daus -Magbual and carried by unanimous roll call vote to adopt the resolution:

Resolution 24- 144, Authorizing Execution Of Construction Contract For The Northern Cities Smart Corridor Expansion Project

REPORTS:

City Council

Mayor Manalo attended the following events : the Hinabi Project ’s celebration of Magdalena Gamayo’s 100th birthday who is a master of indigenous weaving of Ilocos; the Legacy Filipino Martial Arts event honoring Doug Mercaida at Westlake Center; the Unite Here Local 2 event on Labor Day to push for workers to have a contract; the Positively Filipino event to pay tribute to twelve elder pioneers who are now in their 90’s including singer Joe Bataan; the Eastmoor Clinic Health Fair with NEMS to showcase health resources for the community; and the 11th anniversary of the Bride of Christ Church in Daly City. Manalo highlighted upcoming City events: ¡Pachanga Daly City at Gellert Park on September 14 featuring live entertainment, crafts and vendors; the Love Not Hate multicultural event on September 21 (10AM -2PM) featuring a Dog Show-off Contest at City Hall; the 10th annual Kasayahan Sa Daly City event at Marchbank Park on October 5 featuring live entertainment, crafts and vendors; the 2 nd annual Senior Artworks Reception on September 10 th (6PM-8PM) in the Octagon Gallery at City Hall; a free drop-off event of household hazardous wastes on September 14 at City Hall (residents can call 650-372-6200 to make a drop- off); the inaugural Top of the Hill Festival on October 19 (11AM-5PM) featuring resource tables, local businesses, live performances and a car show ; and the Firefighter’s Car Show on September 15 at Serramonte Mall. Manalo reported traveling to participate in the DNC in Chicago and visiting the Field

CITY OF DALY CITY
MINUTES – REGULAR MEETING – CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 9, 2024
4 Museum which contains approximately 13,000 artifacts from the Philippines. Manalo acknowledged City Manager Piccolotti and Director Mothershead for their work and for their attendance at tonight’s meeting.

Vice Mayor Daus-Magbual reported attendance at the JUHSD’s ribbon-cutting event to celebrate their new office building and acknowledged the school board and staff; Councilmember DiGiovanni was in attendance. Daus-Magbual honored poet Oscar Peñaranda with a commendation whose accomplishments include being a living legend in Filipino American Studies, a poet laureate, and a founding member of the Filipino American National Historical Society.

Councilmember Proaño reported attendance at ribbon-cutting events for the JUHSD and the Daly City History Guild , along with Council member DiGiovanni, and considered it an honor to be able to represent the City.

Councilmember DiGiovanni reported attendance at JUHSD’s ribbon- cutting event at Serramonte Del Rey, along with Councilmembers Proaño and Daus-Magbual, and the Unite Local 2 event to support hotel workers’ issues . DiGiovanni noted the upcoming Firefighter’s Car Show on September 15 at Serramonte Mall (11AM).

ADJOURNMENT:

Mayor Manalo adjourned the meeting at 8:57 PM in memory of Steven Chin, Ninida “Nida” Saad Daus Parayno, Mason Schermerhorn, Christian Angulo, Richard Aspinwall, Christina Irimie, Guillermo Pintor, and Viola Beverly.

Approved as submitted, this 23rd
City Clerk
day of September , 2024.

Juslyn C. Manalo
Mayor

City Council Meeting Agenda ReportItem # _____
Meeting Date: September 23, 2024
Subject Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Additional Services Agreement with Dorman Associates for Design of Early Learning and Event Center and Appropriate $318,460.50 From General Fund- Fund Balance Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an Additional Services Agreement (“ASA”) with Dorman Associates of Mill Valley, California and appropriate $318,460.50 of general fund – fund balance. The ASA will increase the budget of an existing contract to a maximum of $1,022,105.50 and expand the scope of work for design of an early learning center at 1401 Sullivan to include an event center on the second floor.

Background
In November of 2021 the City allocated $1,000,000 in America Rescue Plan Act funds for the purpose of developing new childcare and early learning facility that would serve low-income Daly City families. Subsequently, the City submitted an application to Jackie Speier’s office for additional funding for this project, and at the end of last year we learned that another $800,000 in CDBG funds will be made available for this project.

In March of 2022 staff retained the firm of Dorman Associates, a recognized expert in childcare design, to carry out preliminary feasibility analysis including evaluation of potential sites and preparation of preliminary design concepts for the proposed childcare facility. The architect prepared preliminary site plans and reviewed the results of their investigation with City staff, including staff from the Departments of Public Works, Economic and Community Development and Water/Wastewater. Attachment 1 shows the results of Dorman Associates’ preliminary feasibility work.

In January of 2023 Council authorized the use of City-owned property located at 1401 Sullivan Avenue for the purpose of developing a 4,000 square foot early learning center and recognized the project as a capital project under the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. In addition, the Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding with Peninsula Family Services to operate the proposed center. As envisioned, the facility will be developed and owned by the City and leased to Peninsula Family Service whose experience in the operation of early learning programs utilizing General Child Care and Development (CCTR) funds from the State will enable them to serve households with incomes at or below 65 percent of the area median.

On November 13, 2023 and following staff consideration of nine architectural firms with childcare experience, Council authorized execution of a contract with Dorman Associates in an amount not to exceed $703,645 to provide architectural services associated with design of the new childcare center.

City Council Agenda Report
Subject: Additional Services Agreement for September 23, 2024 Child Care/Event Center Page 2 of 3
Dorman Associates is a recognized expert in childcare design with over 35 childcare facilities in the greater Bay Area since 2008.

During the winter and spring of 2024, Dorman Associates worked with City staff to develop and evaluate several one and two-story alternatives for the new childcare center. The goal of this process was to identify the design alternative that offered the maximum number of childcare spaces, the best utilization of the site and maximum utility with respect to City operations and community services.

Discussion
Based on the extensive evaluation of alternatives, staff is recommending that the City proceed with design and development of a two-story, approximately 12,100 square foot development. The ground floor of 5,900 square foot would house an early learning center serving up to 42 infants and toddlers in 6 classrooms with up to 3,100 square feet of outdoor play space. The second floor would include a 6,200 square foot event center. The second floor space would include meeting and event space large enough to accommodate up to 400 people. The event center space could be utilized for trainings, workshops, and official Daly City community events.

In response to the staff recommendation, Dorman Associates has prepared an Additional Services Agreement (ASA) that includes design of a 2 nd floor event center. The total cost for this ASA is $318,460.50, which in addition to the original Council authorization of $703,645 for a childcare-only design contract and brings the total soft cost for the project (including the event center) to $1,022,105.50.

Dorman Associates has designed community event centers in Bay Area communities as well as communities abroad, including a new 2,200 SF mixed-use community and event space building in Novato, CA for Habitat for Humanity, which is currently awaiting construction, and the complete renovation of the YMCA Bayview Hunters Point center into a mixed-use community center, youth center, childcare center, and administrative spaces. Dorman Associates has also designed the North Bay Children’s Center which is a mixed-use childcare center that includes community learning and gathering spaces. The design consists of training areas and a community kitchen which serve the garden program as well as the childcare center.

The team assembled for the Daly City event center includes Ava Rahimi Farab, LEED AP B+C, WELL AP, studio design lead specializing in childcare and community architecture, Decker Flynn, project architect with over 25 years of experience, and Chris Dorman AIA, principal architect and firm founder.

The costs for the childcare/event center contract with Dorman would be split between Federal sources that are restricted to CDBG-eligible activities and General Fund. The original Council authorization of $703,645 in soft cost to build the childcare center was entirely allocated to CDBG funds. The staff recommends that the total cost of this ASA or $318,460.50, which is to add the event and community center to the program be entirely allocated to the General Fund.

The original Council authorization of the design consultants’ contract for the childcare center-only program was for an anticipated construction cost of $6,870,000. The new two-story childcare center and event center project will have an anticipated construction cost estimated at $13,537,000.

City Council Agenda Report
Subject: Additional Services Agreement for September 23, 2024 Child Care/Event Center Page 3 of 3
Staff is exploring scenarios with HUD that could make the event center be partially or fully eligible for CDBG funding. One possible scenario is making the event center space available for the childcare center during normal business hours as an indoor play space. However, due to grant expenditure deadlines, staff is requesting the general fund appropriation for this proposed ASA so that design work can begin immediately.

Fiscal Impact
The previously authorized $703,645 would be allocated to non-General Fund sources, primarily the CDBG program. Staff recommends the additional appropriation of $318,460.50 from the general fund - fund balance needed for the proposed ASA with Dorman Associates.

Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council appropriate $318,460.50 of general fund - fund balance and authorize execution of Additional Services Agreement with Dorman Associates to design a two-story building with an infant/toddler early learning center on the first floor and a community event center on the second floor with a total budget not to exceed $1,022,105.50.

Staff is available to provide any additional information desired by the Mayor or Councilmembers.

Respectfully submitted,
Tatum Mothershead
Director of Economic and Community Development
Attachment: Draft ASA

Dorman Associates, Inc. 229 Flamingo Road Mill Valley, CA 94941 415.380.7914 Page 1 ADDITIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO PROJECT WORK ORDER Additional Services Agreement (ASA) to Purchase Order # 1 ASA NO. 1 DATE: 09/06/24 PROJECT: City of Daly City Child Development Center, 1401 Sullivan Ave., Daly City, CA 94015 This Change Order modifies and amends the provisions of that certain Project Work Order dated December 15, 2023 (the “Project Work Order”) regarding the provisions of architectural services by Dorman Associates, Inc. (“Architect”) to City of Daly City (“Owner”) for the Project. Architect is hereby directed to make the following change(s) in the performance of the Project Work Order work: SEE PAGE 2 As a result of the change(s) noted above, the time permitted for performance of the Project Work Order is hereby modified as follows: N/A EXCEPT AS SET FORTH ABOVE, ALL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THE PROJECT WORK ORDER AND ALL PRIOR CHANGE ORDERS REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. Execution of this Additional Services Agreement by both parties constitutes a binding agreement with regard to all direct and indirect costs arising from or related to the work which is the subject of this ASA, including, without limitation, any costs due to delay, disruption, acceleration, and cumulative impact of multiple changes, for which this ASA constitutes full compensation. ACCEPTED AND AGREED: Architect Owner By: By: ___________________________________________ Name: Chris Dorman Name: Title: Principal, Dorman Associates Title: Date: Date:

Dorman Associates, Inc. 229 Flamingo Road Mill Valley, CA 94941 415.380.7914 Page 2 ESTIMATED FEES
See Addendum A for Description of Services Approved
Contract: ASA #1Combined Fees:

Phase IExisting Conditions / Schematic Design:

1.1Project Set-up & Background Research $2,500.00

1.2Feasibility & Site Analysis $8,500.00
Feasibility of 2nd Story Option $8,000.00

1.3Conceptual Design $17,500.00 $6,000.00 $23,500.00

1.4Schematic Design $23,000.00 $12,000.00 $35,000.00

1.5Planning Submittal $22,500.00 N/A
Subtotal Phase I:$82,000.00$18,000.00$100,000.00
Phase IIDesign Development:

2.1Design Development $30,000.00 $18,000.00 $48,000.00

2.2Interior Finishes & Elevations $32,500.00 $22,000.00 $54,500.00

2.3Landscape, MEP & IT Coordination $5,500.00
Subtotal Phase II:$68,000.00$40,000.00$108,000.00
Phase IIIConstruction Documents:

3.1Permit Set $37,000.00 $22,000.00 $59,000.00

3.2Construction Set $40,000.00 $25,000.00 $65,000.00

3.3Plan Check Response $12,000.00

3.4Bid Award $12,000.00
Subtotal Phase III:$101,000.00$47,000.00$148,000.00
Phase IVConstruction Administration (Hourly)

4.1Construction Administration (Hourly Rate) $80,000.00 $22,000.00$102,000.00 Subtotal Phase IV:$80,000.00$22,000.00$102,000.00
Additional Costs:

Dorman Associates: Reimbursable Expenses $2,000.00
Dorman Associates Administrative Fee $4,000.00
Dorman Associates: Signage Review Package $3,500.00
Specifications Writer $20,000.00
Furniture Selection & Consultation $0.00
Subtotal Additional Costs:$29,500.00
ARCHITECTURAL FEE TOTAL:$360,500.00$127,000.00$487,500.00 Approved
Contract: ASA #1Combined Fees:

Consultants:

MEP: MHC - SD, DD, CD ($47,400) + 10% DA markup $52,140.00 $15,510.00 $67,650.00 Structural: ZFA - SD, DD, CD, Plan Check, Bidding, CA ($39,500) $43,450.00 $48,950.00 $92,400.00 Civil: Lea & Braze - SD, DD, CD, Utility Coord. ($69,040) + 10% DA markup$75,944.00 $8,481.00 $84,425.00 Landscape: BASE - Proj. Initiation, SD, DD, CD, Plan Check, Const. Observation ($70,920) + 10% DA markup $78,012.00 $27,500.00$105,512.00 Geotech: Romig ($8,500) + 10% DA markup $9,350.00 $0.00 $9,350.00 Technology: SFMI - Security, AV, Low Voltage ($35,340) + 10% DA markup$38,874.00 $36,916.00 $75,790.00 Cost Estimating: Cummings ($41,250) + 10% DA markup $45,375.00 $20,570.00 $65,945.00 Consultants Added for ASA #1:

Lighting: Lumenworks ($30,485) + 10% DA markup $33,533.50 $33,533.50 Subtotal Consultants:$343,145.00$191,460.50$534,605.50
ONE-STORY OPTION: FEE MAX TOTAL:$703,645.00
TWO-STORY OPTION: FEE MAX TOTAL: $318,460.50$1,022,105.50

City Council Meeting Agenda ReportItem # _____
Meeting Date: September 23, 2024
Subject: Approval of Written Response to 2023/2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report, “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County” Recommended Action
Review and approve the attached draft written response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report, “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County” and authorize the City Manager to transmit the approved correspondence to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court as requested.

Background/Discussion
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury issued a report, “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County” that included an analysis of how effective San Mateo County has been at meeting composting goals pursuant to Senate Bill 1383 (2016) which mandates separating compostable materials like food waste from garbage to reduce methane emissions. From December 2023 to April 2024, officials were interviewed and data was collected from the County, cities, the RethinkWaste Joint Powers Authority (JPA), and haulers to assess current compliance and what can be done to improve.

Discussion
The Grand Jury makes six findings and three recommendations for the City of Daly City, and the City is required to provide a response to the Grand Jury no later than October 9, 2024.

The six findings are as follows:

Finding #1
High green cart enrollment costs and insufficient bin space are the dominant contributors to low participation rates among multi-family dwellings and businesses.

The City agrees with this finding.

Finding #2
Green bin contamination among compliant multi-family dwellings and businesses prevents them from diverting more organic waste.

The City agrees with this finding.

Finding #3
City, County, and RethinkWaste compliance outreach efforts for multi-family dwellings and businesses could improve because a significant portion of these properties remain non-compliant.

The City partially agrees with this finding. The City, in partnership with its Waste Hauler, Republic Services, has been diligently working to 1) enroll multi-family dwellings and businesses, and 2) exempt multi-family dwellings and businesses due to de minimis waivers or physical space waivers since 2022 and plans to reach compliance by 2024.

City Council Agenda Report
Subject: Approval of Written Response to 2023/2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report, “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County”
Meeting Date: September 23, 2024

Finding #4
Multi-family dwellings and businesses produce a significant amount of the County’s organic waste.

The City partially agrees with this finding. As a bedroom community, single-family dwellings (SFDs) exceed the number of multi-family dwellings and businesses in Daly City, resulting in SFDs producing a larger amount of organic waste in total.

Finding #5
Citizens cannot conveniently access reliable diversion and participation rates because JPAs and cities do not make the information available on their government websites.

The City partially agrees with this finding. While the diversion and participation rates are not currently available on the City’s website, this information is available by request under the California Public Records Act. The City Attorney’s Office responds to all requests for information in with the California Public Records Act and responses are consistent with state law.

Finding #7
An alternate and reliable method to separating waste tons by property type would be analyzing contamination statistics from route audits and waste evaluations.

The City agrees with this finding.

The three recommendations are as follows:

Recommendation #1
Beginning March 1, 2025, cities, the County, and RethinkWaste should host regular in-person green cart enrollment summits for non-compliant businesses and multi-family dwellings, and identify other new compliance strategies.

The City agrees with this finding.

Recommendation #4
Beginning November 30, 2024, cities should publish quarterly or annual waste reports with diversion and participation rates on their government websites.

The City agrees with this finding.

Recommendation #8
By February 1, 2025, jurisdictions should develop and implement new ways to make green bins usable in multi-family dwellings’ and businesses’ narrow or small waste enclosures.

The City partially agrees with this finding. New developments and remodeled developments are required to construct 3-stream waste systems to include landfill, recyclables, and compost through

City Council Agenda Report
Subject: Approval of Written Response to 2023/2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report, “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County”
Meeting Date: September 23, 2024

the City’s permitting process. Existing developments eligible for de minimis waivers or physical space waivers will remain exempt.

Summary/Conclusion
Staff recommends that the City Council review and approve the attached draft written response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report, “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County” and authorize the City Manager to transmit the approved correspondence to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court as requested.

Staff is available to provide any additional information desired by the Mayor or Councilmembers.

Respectfully submitted,
Leilani Ramos
Assistant to the City Manager
Attachments: Draft Written Response
Grand Jury Final Report

oFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER

CITY OF DALY CITY
333 – 90TH STREET
DALY CITY, CA 94015-1895
(650) 991-8127
September 23, 2024
Hon. Amarra A. Lee
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Bianca Fasuescu
Hall of Justice
400 County Center; 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655
RE: Civil Grand Jury Report “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County” Dear Judge Lee:

On September 23, 2024, the City Council of Daly City, approved and authorized the City Manager to submit for the City the following responses to the Civil Grand Jury findings and recommendations pertaining to the above referenced report: “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County.”

FINDINGS
The Grand Jury requests responses for Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7.

Finding #1
High green cart enrollment costs and insufficient bin space are the dominant contributors to low participation rates among multi-family dwellings and businesses.

Response
The City agrees with this finding.

Finding #2
Green bin contamination among compliant multi-family dwellings and businesses prevents them from diverting more organic waste.

Response
The City agrees with this finding.

Finding #3
City, County, and RethinkWaste compliance outreach efforts for multi-family dwellings and businesses could improve because a significant portion of these properties remain non-compliant.

Response
The City partially agrees with this finding. The City, in partnership with its Waste Hauler, Republic Services, has been diligently working to 1) enroll multi-family dwellings and businesses, and 2) exempt multi-family dwellings and businesses due to de minimis waivers or physical space waivers since 2022 and plans to reach compliance by 2024.

Finding #4
Multi-family dwellings and businesses produce a significant amount of the County’s organic waste.

Response
The City partially agrees with this finding. As a bedroom community, single-family dwellings (SFDs) exceed the number of multi-family dwellings and businesses in Daly City, resulting in SFDs producing a larger amount of organic waste in total.

Finding #5
Citizens cannot conveniently access reliable diversion and participation rates because JPAs and cities do not make the information available on their government websites.

Response
The City partially agrees with this finding. While the diversion and participation rates are not currently available on the City’s website, this information is available by request under the California Public Records Act. The City Attorney’s Office responds to all requests for information in with the California Public Records Act and responses are consistent with state law.

Finding #7
An alternate and reliable method to separating waste tons by property type would be analyzing contamination statistics from route audits and waste evaluations.

Response
The City agrees with this finding.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The Grand Jury requests responses for Recommendations 1, 4, and 8.

Recommendation #1
Beginning March 1, 2025, cities, the County, and RethinkWaste should host regular in-person green cart enrollment summits for non-compliant businesses and multi-family dwellings, and identify other new compliance strategies.

Response
The City agrees with this finding.

Recommendation #4
Beginning November 30, 2024, cities should publish quarterly or annual waste reports with diversion and participation rates on their government websites.

Response
The City agrees with this finding.

Recommendation #8
By February 1, 2025, jurisdictions should develop and implement new ways to make green bins usable in multi-family dwellings’ and businesses’ narrow or small waste enclosures.

Response
The City partially agrees with this finding. New developments and remodeled developments are required to construct 3-stream waste systems to include landfill, recyclables, and compost through the City’s permitting process. Existing developments eligible for de minimis waivers or physical space waivers will remain exempt.

The City of Daly City appreciates the opportunity to provide written responses to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County.” The City Council of Daly City approved the responses contained herein on September 23, 2024.

Should you or the Grand Jury require additional information, please contact me directly at (650) 991- 8127.

Sincerely,
Thomas J. Piccolotti
City Manager
cc: [email protected]
City Clerk – City of Daly City

2023-2024 SAN MATEO COUNTY

CIVIL GRAND JURY

THE STATE OF COMPOST COMPLIANCE IN

SAN MATEO COUNTY

1 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Issue | Summary | Background | Methodology | Discussion | Findings | Recommendations | Requests for Responses | Glossary | Bibliography | Appendixes

THE STATE OF COMPOST COMPLIANCE IN

SAN MATEO COUNTY

ISSUE

California regulations adopted pursuant Senate Bill 1383 (2016) mandate separating compostable materials like food waste from garbage to reduce methane emissions. How effective has San Mateo County been at meeting composting goals, and what can be done to improve?

SUMMARY

Starting January 1, 2022, regulations adopted pursuant Senate Bill 1383 (2016) required California businesses and residents to participate in organic waste collection. According to a 2022 San Mateo Daily Journal article, 70% of Burlingame’s businesses and multi-family dwellings did not have organic waste collection services. San Bruno had 86% of businesses and 45% of multi-family dwellings without organic waste collection (Browning 2022). From December 2023 to April 2024, officials were interviewed and data was collected from the County, cities, the RethinkWaste Joint Powers Authority (JPA), and haulers to assess current compliance.

A statewide goal is to reduce 75% of organic waste disposal from 2014 levels by 2025. Disposal means sending all waste, organic, recyclable, or trash, to the landfill. Diversion means sending organic waste or recyclables to conversion centers, where they become compost, mulch, or consumer recycled content, as opposed to sending them to landfills. Any stand-alone references to diversion in this report refers to converted organic waste and recycling combined. “Organic waste diversion” only refers to only converted organic waste. This report’s goal is to identify where consumers and producers are failing to fully contribute to organic waste diversion consistent with their abilities.

The report’s recommendations are that the responsible local public entities implement solutions to increase organic waste participation and diversion rates. Notably, jurisdictions should have begun penalizing generators for non-compliance beginning January 1, 2024 (California Public Resources Code § 42652.5 (2022)). Most multi-family dwellings and businesses in San Mateo County have lower organics collection enrollment compared to single-family homes. High enrollment rates for all three property types, however, do not necessarily result in high diversion

2 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

rates and more organic waste in the waste stream. For example, in 2023, Foster City’s multi- family dwellings had a 98.81% participation rate; but, organics made up only 5.49% of total waste (Recology San Mateo County 2024, 2023).

There are several reasons behind multi-family dwellings and businesses having low participation and diversion rates. Green cart enrollment costs, and insufficient space for the three-cart system are the largest factors. Contamination brought about by improperly sorting organics into bins also plays a role. In some multi-family dwellings, trash chutes do not offer an opportunity to sort and appropriate bins are not conveniently located. Further, local governments cannot reliably assess their progress on Senate Bill (SB) 1383 compliance because JPAs, haulers, and cities have different data reporting formats. And residents and the press must retrieve waste statistics from haulers because most cities do not have or post them.

To address these problems, the Grand Jury recommends that:

1. Cities, the County, and RethinkWaste should host monthly in-person green cart enrollment summits for non-compliant businesses and landlords and develop and implement other compliance strategies.

2. Jurisdictions should develop and implement new ways to make green bins usable in multi-family dwellings’ and businesses’ narrow or small waste enclosures.

3. To increase transparency and accountability, cities and the County should regularly publish waste reports with diversion and participation rates on their government websites.

BACKGROUND

On September 19, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 1383 to reduce California’s methane emissions. This law classifies any person or entity responsible for creating organic waste as an “organic waste generator” (Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 18982 (2020)). Generators must comply with the law by subscribing to their jurisdiction’s organic waste collection service or self-hauling organic waste (§ 18984.9 (2020)). If residents or businesses do not subscribe or self-haul, “a jurisdiction shall impose penalties for violations” ranging from $50-$500 depending on one or more infractions (§ 18997.2 (2020)). SB 1383 defines jurisdictions as “a city, county, a city and county, or a special district that provides solid waste collection services.” (§ 18982 (2020)).

The new law builds on previous solid waste management legislation. Assembly Bill 939 was the first law of its kind to provide a solid waste diversion goal for cities and counties. Each

3 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

jurisdiction had to divert 50% or more of solid waste from the landfill starting January 1, 2000 through source reduction, recycling, and composting (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 41780 (1989)). SB 1016 later replaced Assembly Bill (AB) 939 with a per capita disposal rate equivalent to the 50% annual diversion rate (§ 41780.05 (2008)). In 2011, lawmakers directed businesses that generate four or more cubic yards of commercial solid waste weekly and multifamily dwellings of five units or more to recycle (§ 41780.05).

Equation 1. Diversion Rate
[(R+O)/(R+O+S)] * 100 = Diversion Rate %
R: Recycling tons, O: Organic tons, S: Solid Waste tons (Sources: Republic Services 2024a and 2024b, Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report, GreenWaste 2023)

California passed SB 1383 to tackle the pervasiveness of organic and recyclable waste in landfills. In 2021, CalRecycle estimated landfill composition to be 28.4% organic waste (11,305,710 tons), 15.5% paper (6,193,825 tons), and 13.7% plastic (5,445,299 tons) (2022a).

Failing to divert the majority of reusable materials has polluted the environment Californians share. From August 2016 to October 2018, landfills were the largest source of methane, contributing 41% of point source emissions (California Air Resources Board 2019). California’s track record on recycling and waste emissions has not improved over the years either, as emissions have increased by 24.4% since 2000 (CARB 2023). If mandatory organic waste collection successfully diminishes landfill emissions, it will support the struggle against climate change.

SB 1383 aims to reduce 75% of organic waste disposal from 2014 levels by 2025 (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 39730.6 (2016)). Signing up for a green composting bin is a key to achieving this goal. Jurisdictions that do not have the standard three-cart system of garbage (usually gray, brown, or black cart), recyclables (blue cart), and organics (green cart) can still participate under certain conditions. For example, a two-cart system with only blue and gray carts can have the latter contain organics and garbage. Haulers must deliver the mixed waste gray carts “to a facility that meets or exceeds the organic waste content recovery requirements…” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 18984.2 (2020)).

Of the 20 cities in San Mateo County, the state orders 18 to comply with SB 1383. CalRecycle issued a low-population waiver to Colma and Portola Valley on January 1, 2022 (n.d1.). They are exempt from enforcing both laws, and were not interviewed for this report.

An earlier investigation on the conditions of landfill capacity inspired this report. In the 2018- 2019 Grand Jury year, jurors released the report “Planning for the County’s Waste Management Challenges.” They used data from a 2014 CalRecycle analysis to note that organic waste

4 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

comprised 71% of all waste sent to the landfill in the County (SMC Civil Grand Jury 2019).

Additionally, Republic Services, which operates Ox Mountain Landfill, projected that the landfill would close by 2034 based on disposal rates (2019). Although the report highlighted the connection between SB 1383 and landfill capacity, jurors geared their recommendations predominantly on revising the County Integrated Waste Management Plan. This 2023-2024 report: “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County” is different. It examines how increasing composting participation in multi-family dwellings and businesses can contribute to solving the landfill problem.

Economic Factors Impacting SB 1383 Progress

On September 8, 2022, Shereen D’Souza, former CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency) Deputy Secretary, told the Milton Marks Commission that the state missed its 2020 recycling goal. Ms. D’Souza referred to the 50% reduction in organic waste disposal from 2014 levels by 2020 under Health & Safety Code § 39730.6 (2016). This goal was the precursor to the current 75% organic waste disposal reduction from 2014 levels by 2025 described above. The Deputy Secretary remarked, “Until this year, CalRecycle’s regulations to meet the organic waste reduction targets were not enforceable” (D’Souza 2022). She adds, “So, it makes sense that the 2020 diversion rate required in 1383 was not met” (2022).

In the same interview, former CalRecycle Director, Rachel Machi Wagoner, described how far California missed the mark. Ms. Wagoner said, “As a matter of fact, in 2020, we were roughly a million tons over our 2014 baseline” (2022). Businesses and residents sent more organics to landfills in 2020 than six years prior. It might be assumed that the COVID-19 pandemic pushed Californians to consume more than usual at home given the lockdowns. Yet, 2020 was also a recessionary year, which decreased some workers’ incomes.

Industrial production and civilian consumption rates are the most consequential causes of landfill pollution. CalRecycle observed that “a strong correlation between disposal and economic growth” prevails (2020). In 1989, California’s GDP “was $0.72 trillion” and “statewide traditional landfill disposal was 44 million tons” (CalRecycle 2020). In 2018, California’s GDP “rose to $3 trillion” (CalRecycle 2020), while landfill and “disposal-related activities” (see Glossary) climbed to 46,255,505 tons (CalRecycle 2024).

5 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Source: Real Gross Domestic Product: All Industry Total in California (CARGSP) | FRED | St.

Louis Fed

During the Great Recession (2007-2009), landfill disposal plummeted by 20.7% in California (CalRecycle 2020). In 2020, the state’s overall disposal (landfill added to disposal-related activities) tonnage fell by 7.46% when compared to the 2019 peak (CalRecycle 2024). Per capita disposal rates, and by extension overall disposal, have risen in the state since 2014 (2024). As the chart and table below illustrates, the timing of SB 1383 enforcement appears to not have a significant impact on California reaching its 2020 objective. Curiously, the 2020 surge of organic waste in landfills occurred while overall disposal fell.

6 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Sources: 2018 State of Disposal and Recycling in California, State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2021, State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2022; note, values are found in Appendix 1, Figure 2 or 3 on each report

Table 1. State Compost Tonnages and Percentage of Overall Waste 2018-2022

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
% of total
waste
12% 12.28% 12.3% 12.41% 14.73%*
Compost
Tons
≈9,312,000 9,522,164 9,522,164 9,522,164 ≈11,200,00
0*
Sources: 2018 State of Disposal and Recycling in California, 2019 State of Disposal and Recycling and Exports in California, State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2020, State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2021
*Jurors could only find evidence of this number through an Associated Press (California is forging ahead with food waste recycling. But is it too much, too fast?) article, which cited Rachel Wagoner. The State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2022 offers a combined amount for “Source Reduction, Recycling, and Composting,” but not for its individual components.

7 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Overall disposal tonnages throughout the 2006-2022 period have not increased alongside the population. Again, waste deposited at landfills fell 20.7% during the Great Recession in spite of the population growing by 1.56% (CalRecycle 2020; California Department of Finance 2012).

Even more peculiar is that overall disposal hit rock bottom in 2012, shedding 2.58% of its 2009 volume (2020). Nonetheless, the state’s 2012 population rose by 2.59%, an inverse of landfill trends, from its 2009 value (California Department of Finance 2022, 2012). Since population growth and SB 1383 implementation inadequately explain waste patterns, macroeconomic events are the significant factor governing waste generation. A former CalRecycle executive has expressed concern over this fact and opined which economic actors spawn the most waste.

Sources: 2018 State of Disposal and Recycling in California, State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2021, State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2022, E-4 Population Estimates for the State, 2001–2010, E-4 Population Estimates for the State, 2011–2020, E-4 Population Estimates for the State, 2021–2024
Note: Population figures are for January 1 of each year according to the California Department of Finance

Former CalRecycle Director Rachel Machi Wagoner issued an urgent warning in the agency’s “State of Disposal and Recycling in California for Calendar Year 2020” report. Ms. Wagoner blamed “an economy driven by resource extraction and single-use disposable products” for California being on track to miss its 75% recycling goal by 2025 (CalRecycle 2021). She

8 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

claimed, “Consumers placing items in the right bin alone will not solve systemic problems like unrecyclable product designs and a lack of end markets for complex materials” (2021). A solution the Director proposes is getting “local and private partners” to efficiently collect and remanufacture the goods “California produces and uses” into new commodities (2021).

Wagoner’s call for reaching the 2025 target focuses on getting manufacturers to sell goods with recyclable content. Annual reports from CalRecycle partially support this statement because manufacturers generate the highest proportions of refuse.

Businesses and multi-family dwellings with five or more units produce more landfill waste than residential properties statewide. For the last three and a half years, 47% to 50% of all refuse in the state originated from the commercial sector (CalRecycle 2024). Self-haulers contributed 20% of garbage. Residential properties contributed 30% to 33% (2024). An important distinction is that the California Code of Regulations labels multi-family dwellings of less than five units as residential areas (§ 18982 (2020)). Multi-family dwellings with five or more units, then, fall under the commercial category.

Source: State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2022; * = Data from Q3 and Q4 2019 only

9 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

METHODOLOGY

Interviews

The Civil Grand Jury interviewed officials from nine cities: Atherton, Brisbane, Daly City, Half Moon Bay, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno, South San Francisco, and Woodside.

Instead of interviewing the nine remaining cities directly, the Grand Jury spoke with an official from the RethinkWaste JPA. Each city has one council member on the Board of Directors (RethinkWaste n.d. (no date)). Jurors interviewed San Mateo County twice to gather information on unincorporated areas outside and inside the RethinkWaste service area. Lastly, three haulers were interviewed (Republic Services, Recology of the Coast, and Recology San Bruno) because their cities had incomplete data.

Online Public Documents

The CalRecycle and California Air Resources Board websites provided the state’s most recent recycling rates and landfill composition. RethinkWaste was the only public entity that disseminated diversion rates for cities and a few unincorporated areas on their agency website.

This jurisdiction provided calendar year quarterly records and diversion rates separated by the three property types (single-family, multi-family dwellings, and businesses). This makes comparing performance across cities straightforward.

Private Electronic Documents

During the investigation, various documents unavailable online were collected. These resources included diversion rate tables, participation rate tables, sample citations, waivers, and non- compliance notices from 2022 to 2023. The Grand Jury asked haulers, city governments, and the County government permission to use this data. Some differences were noted in the ways cities ask haulers to collect data, which made it difficult to compare jurisdictions. A few haulers combine multi-family dwellings’ participation rates with either single-family homes or commercial properties. Other haulers furnish quarterly reports over fiscal years instead of calendar years.

DISCUSSION

The County’s political, legal, and economic organization largely account for the contrast in diversion and participation rates among the three property types. Based on the 2022 1-Year American Community Survey, 729,181 people live in San Mateo County, down 4.61% from 2020 (U.S. Census Bureau 2022a). Yet, U.S. Census Bureau population estimates for Woodside

10 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

and several unincorporated areas were unavailable in 2021 and 2022. California’s Department of Finance includes these jurisdictions for its January 1, 2024 estimates, putting the total County population at 741,565 people. 61,538 of these residents live in unincorporated communities, and they could be the County’s fifth largest city (2024). This large number of unincorporated residents poses a challenge to County waste management.

Source: E-1 Cities, Counties, and the State Population and Housing Estimates with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2023 and 2024

Two special districts and one JPA unite geographically adjacent public agencies to coordinate and plan for waste management. The South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA), known as RethinkWaste, has 11 member agencies spanning from Burlingame to East Palo Alto.

Each city and grouping of unincorporated areas share a single hauler and transfer facility despite having separate franchise agreements. On the coast, the Granada Community Services District (GCSD) and the Montara Water and Sanitary District (MWSD) follow a similar pattern for unincorporated areas exclusively. Jurors will cover these institutions in the next subsection.

Multi-family dwellings and single-family homes have unequal responsibilities for organics collection enrollment and proper waste disposal. Residents of single-family homes and multifamily complexes of less than five units individually subscribe to their jurisdiction’s organic waste collection service. In contrast, multi-family dwellings owners or managers are

11 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

responsible for enrolling in organic waste collection services on behalf of tenants and employees.

Multi-family dwelling and business owners “must supply and allow access to an adequate number, size, and location of containers” with the correct labels or colors (CalRecycle n.d3.).

Furthermore, they must annually educate tenants and employees on proper organic waste sorting.

Lastly, owners or managers must distribute information to new tenants within 14 days of occupying the premises (n.d4.).

Cities have pursued a policy of maximizing single-family homes’ participation rates.

Homeowners in every San Mateo County city benefit from having blue and green carts included in the price of garbage collection (Table 2 links). Unfortunately, tenants countywide do not have green carts included in the price of garbage collection, except in San Bruno (Table 2 links).

Hence, rental property owners or managers must add a green cart for the same or discounted price as their gray cart. This barrier to participation poses another threat to the county’s waste diversion efforts.

San Mateo County’s tenants play a decisive role in diverting as much waste as possible. In 2022, renters in San Mateo County made up 38.77% (278,126 out of 717,387) of the total population in occupied housing units (U.S. Census Bureau 2022b). Five cities have an owner-occupied population proportion less than the current state baseline of 58.27%. Another seven cities have an owner-occupied population proportion less than the national average of 68.37% (U.S. Census Bureau 2022b). The County’s substantial renter population indicates their waste disposal practices and green cart participation can either enhance or counteract homeowners’ or businesses’ diversion endeavors. Although cities can be commended for expediting green cart enrollment for homeowners, they could have worked with haulers to make tenant organic waste collection easier.

12 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Sources: 2022 1-Year ACS Data: U.S. Occupied Housing Unit Populations, 2022 1-Year ACS Data: California Occupied Housing Unit Populations, 2022 5-Year ACS Data: City Occupied Housing Unit Populations
* = ACS 1-Year Estimate; all other values are from vintage year 2022 from the ACS 2018-2022 5-Year Estimate. See the link for explanation: When to Use 1-year or 5-year Estimates Note: Again, Woodside does not appear on either the 1-Year or 5-Year ACS

San Mateo County’s Waste Management Landscape

Most haulers currently have franchise agreements with JPAs, cities, and the County to collect, transport, and dispose of waste. Franchise areas consist of municipalities or special districts that use their bulk purchasing power to negotiate waste collection rates with a hauler (SMC Sustainability Department n.d. (no date)). Each of the franchised haulers also operate in unincorporated areas as part of or apart from existing agreements. Kunz Valley Trash has a non- exclusive franchise agreement with San Mateo County (n.d2.), and alongside Peninsula Sanitary Service, Inc., operates solely in unincorporated communities. The following table lists the six haulers operating in San Mateo County, along with their properties. All haulers offer the full range of waste collection; Kunz Valley Trash clients do not have bins and instead must place their waste in bags (n.d1.).

13 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Table 2. Haulers Serving San Mateo County Cities
Legend: * = Unincorporated areas or Special Districts; Bold = Haulers’ local affiliates Haulers Areas Served* Properties Franchise Agreements

(Sources: SMC
Sustainability
Department:

Curbside Collection,
GreenWaste Service
Areas)
Atherton
Portola Valley
Woodside
Los Trancos Woods*
Sky Londa*
Our Facilities -
GreenWaste
Atherton 2020
Woodside 2019
Kunz Valley Trash

(Sources: Kunz
Valley Trash:

Services, Kunz
Valley Trash
Service Guide)
La Honda*
Loma Mar*
Pescadero*
San Gregorio*

Each place is exempt
from SB 1383 because
of a low-population
waiver for census tract
6138 (San Mateo
County 2021)
Non-Exclusive with San Mateo
County (Pending Publication)

(Sources: SMC
Sustainability
Department:

Curbside Collection,
PSSI: What Belongs
in Each Container)
Stanford Lands*
(includes the SLAC
National Accelerator
Lab)

14 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

(Sources: SMC
Sustainability
Department:

Curbside Collection,
About The Program
– RethinkWaste)
Coast:

Granada Community
Services District*
Montara Water &
Sanitary District*
Pacifica

San Bruno:

San Bruno

San Mateo:

Ladera*
RethinkWaste JPA*
San Bruno
Transfer
Station
Granada Community Services
District 2018
San Bruno 2023
Montara Water and Sanitary
District 2013
RethinkWaste Agreements

(Sources: SMC
Sustainability
Department:

Curbside Collection,
Republic Services
Daly City:

Recycling and
Trash)
Daly City:

Broadmoor*
Colma
Daly City
Olympic Country Club*
San Bruno Mountain
Park*
Unincorporated Colma*

Half Moon Bay:

Half Moon Bay
Corinda Los
Trancos
Landfill

Newby Island
Daly City 2015
Half Moon Bay 2017

(Sources: SMC
Sustainability
Department:

Curbside Collection,
South SF Scavenger
Residential)
Brisbane
Brisbane Quarry*
California Golf Club*
Country Club Park*
Millbrae
South San Francisco
SFO*

SFO - Census tract
9843 - is exempt from
SB 1383 (San Mateo
County 2021)
Blue Line
Transfer
Station
Brisbane 2019
South SF 2013

RethinkWaste covers the most area and population out of all County entities dedicated to waste management. The organizational chart below names the 11 member agencies. The West Bay

15 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Sanitary District provides waste collection to a handful of accounts in Atherton, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Woodside, and Portola Valley (n.d.). RethinkWaste and San Mateo County are the only public entities that own transfer stations - Shoreway Environmental Center and Pescadero Transfer Station, respectively (RethinkWaste n.d., SMC Sustainability Department n.d.).

Chart 1. RethinkWaste Member Agencies and Contractors

Sources: About – RethinkWaste, Curbside Collection - SMC Sustainability Department

Cities and their Properties’ Organic Waste Streams

Historically, businesses have generated more refuse than homeowners in the County, even though the latter produces more waste overall. During and after the COVID-19 pandemic, however, single-family homes made more refuse and overall waste than businesses. From 2011- 2019, homeowners in the RethinkWaste JPA diverted more organic waste tons than garbage tons sent to the landfill (Recology San Mateo County 2024, 2023, 2021). The bar chart below also demonstrates that homeowners have continuously recycled more than businesses. In 2020 and subsequent years, though, residences still diverted more waste in spite of overtaking businesses

Member Agencies
Contractors
County Franchised Area
Baywood Park (Crystal Springs area),
Burlingame Hills, Devonshire Canyon, San
Mateo Highlands, Sequoia Tract, Trailer
Rancho, Emerald Lake Hills, Harbor
Industrial, Kensington Square, Oak Knoll,
Peninsula Golf Club, and Palomar Park
County Service Area 8 (North Fair
Oaks)

16 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

in trash sent to landfill. Employees from Republic Services and RethinkWaste were interviewed to explain why this area of the County has this trend and how it differs from other regions.

Sources: Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report, Recology San Mateo County Annual Report 2022, Recology San Mateo County Annual Report 2020 Note: Atherton was a member of RethinkWaste until January 1, 2021; years before 2021 include their tonnages.

RethinkWaste homeowners have higher diversion rates and refuse tons compared to businesses because of takeout and yard waste tonnages. A RethinkWaste representative explained, “We still have a lot of people working from home. We have a lot of businesses that continue to be remote and… are not fully staffed in the way that they were pre-pandemic” (2023). This comment partly reflects two phenomena shown on the chart above. First, it aligns with businesses diverting increased amounts of organic waste throughout the 2010s, only for tonnages to fall in 2020.

Second, it accounts for the record organic waste diversion homeowners contributed in 2020.

Expanding on the RethinkWaste view, businesses constantly diverted more organic waste throughout the 2010s because people ate at restaurants more often. Similarly, falling unemployment rates during the period (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2024) meant more workers ate lunch at their jobs. Once more, the chart displays both factors at work because businesses have been steadily increasing their tons of diverted organic waste post-pandemic. As for the homeowners, the unprecedented organic waste diverted in 2020 probably came from

17 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

increased takeout from eateries and bulk purchases from grocery stores. It is obvious these activities existed before the pandemic, but food consumption alone does not explain why single- family homes eclipse businesses in regard to organic waste.

Yard trimmings inflate the weight of organic waste for single-family homes in the RethinkWaste JPA and other cities on the bay compared to coastal communities. This was noted by an official from Republic Services - a hauler covering Daly City, Colma, and Half Moon Bay. The official noted, “Even though more residents are participating in recycling, ... [Daly City does] not have the yards that, let’s say, a San Mateo or a Redwood City house [does]” (2024). The interviewee resumed, “Because diversion is calculated based on weights, they don’t have that yard waste, the grass clippings and stuff that add a lot of weight to the material” (2024). Daly City’s 2023 waste statistics support this claim, as recycling, rather than organics, is the majority of diverted material. Half Moon Bay’s single-family homes probably have greater lawn space than Daly City since the opposite is true.

Sources: Republic Services Half Moon Bay Q4 2023 Report, Republic Services Daly City Q2 FY 2023-2024 Report
*Daly City’s data is from Q1 and Q2 of fiscal year 2023-2024 (July 1, 2023 to January 30, 2024) Note: Data for both cities are not publicly available. Jurors received the information from Republic Services.

18 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

A lack of lawns, gardens, or yards among certain single-family homes does not mean they are stuck with low diversion rates. The Republic Services official made an observation that can apply to all property types, regardless of green space dimensions. Our interviewee stressed that cities “can throw [green] carts out at everybody,” but residents may not use them or contaminate the cart “so much that it becomes trash” (2024). Single-family homes can improve their current organic waste diversion practices just like their counterparts in multi-family dwellings.

Nevertheless, Atherton, Portola Valley, and Woodside have an easier job hitting higher diversion rates because of their huge green spaces. Moreover, they are the only cities with a high diversion organic waste processing facility thanks to their hauler’s two-cart system (GreenWaste n.d.).

The table below, however, shows that neither green spaces nor a two-cart system recover all organics. Each city has 100% participation in commercial and residential accounts due to the two-cart system, which allows food and refuse in gray carts. An employee from the town of Woodside acknowledged that people “... could be putting food waste into the yard trimmings,” but if they follow the process, “there shouldn’t be contamination” (2024). Likewise, the composting facility may have “residuals that don’t compost and those go to the landfill” (2024).

A similar scenario would be waste at the materials recovery facility (MRF) that is not recyclable or compostable, which also gets sent to the landfill.

Table 3. Diverted Organic Waste and Trash: Atherton, Portola Valley, and Woodside 2023 Atherton Portola Valley Woodside
Trash 1,232.14 tons 1,996.72 tons 2,112.81 tons
Food Waste
Composted
1,581.16 tons 2,649.88 tons 2,799.38 tons
Trash 94.77 tons 1.24 tons 20.35 tons
Yard Waste
Composted
9,381.98 tons 123.4 tons 2,014.71 tons
Source: GreenWaste Annual Summary 2023
Legend: Green = Green Cart Contents, Gray = Gray Cart Contents

The exact percentage of yard trimmings or food waste that became trash due to contamination is unknown. But, improper waste sorting is a possibility even in communities with predominantly single-family housing. Atherton, Portola Valley, and Woodside only have 20, 36, and 51 commercial accounts within their boundaries respectively (GreenWaste 2023). Still, these minute figures, compared to the thousands of residential accounts, drastically affected diversion rates.

Atherton’s total diversion rate stood at 87.39%, while Portola Valley and Woodside had 60.37% and 69.69%, respectively (GreenWaste 2023). After looking at these statistics, it could be

19 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

deduced that contamination exists in single-family homes and businesses, though one setting may encourage this behavior more than the other.

Yard waste may not be the sole determinant of the differences between cities' organic waste diversion. Cities in the northern part of the county have participation rates and waste streams not entirely influenced by yard waste. Daly City and the five cities in the chart below have owner- occupied housing populations above the state average (U.S. Census Bureau 2022a, 2022b). As a result, they have more single-family waste management accounts than commercial and multi- family dwellings combined (South SF Scavenger 2024, San Bruno 2024, Pacifica n.d.). Still, four out of five cities have diversion rates below 45% even though their single-family participation rates are above 90% (South SF Scavenger 2024, San Bruno 2024, Pacifica n.d.).

If homeowners truly separate waste better than renters or restaurant clientele, then their efforts should have raised overall diversion rates closer to 50% at least. These cities do not separate waste streams by property type to identify if their single-family homes generate more waste than businesses or multi-family dwellings.

Sources: San Bruno - Data on Waste and Recycling Categories 2023, South SF Scavenger 2023 Participation and Diversion Rates, and Pacifica FY 2022-2023 Diversion and Participation Rates * = Pacifica published data based on their fiscal year, which ran from May 2022 to April 2023

20 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Indeed, giving everyone a green cart or adopting a two-cart model does not mean more organic waste will escape the landfill. Supplying homeowners, renters, and businesses with equal green cart access, and appropriate waste separation, is still important. These fixes are in our Findings and Recommendations sections. The broader point is that SB 1383 compliance works well if cities and counties modify their outreach and recordkeeping practices to bolster organic waste diversion. If San Mateo County and its cities consistently track businesses’ and multi-family dwellings’ waste trends, and base their outreach around this data, then organic waste diversion should be straightforward.

Data Discrepancies

While not a primary focus of the investigation, the Grand Jury learned of a major discrepancy in the way South San Francisco Scavenger and its client cities compile tonnage data. Brisbane’s 2022 Electronic Annual Report (EAR) to CalRecycle, which measures several compliance activities, puts the diversion rate at 64% (Edgar and Associates 2023a). The hauler contracted a consulting firm, Edgar and Associates, to prepare the report (Interview with Brisbane 2022).

When the hauler gave the Grand Jury its diversion rate report for 2023, the metric stood at

39.11% (South SF Scavenger). South San Francisco’s 2022 EAR had dual diversion rates of 74% and 66% (Edgar and Associates 2023b), while the hauler’s 2023 document recorded 42.91% (South SF Scavenger 2024). This report based each cities’ tons and diversion rates, shown in the chart above, on the hauler’s data.

Inconsistent diversion rate reporting continued in other cities and communication channels.

Brisbane’s “Waste and Recycling” page on its official website asserts that the city diverts “76% of the waste generated by residents and businesses” (n.d.). South San Francisco Scavenger also provided conflicting data with Millbrae’s 2023 diversion rates. The fourth quarter report the hauler sent the city listed a 37.65% diversion rate, but the version they gave to jurors read

54.14% (South SF Scavenger 2023). Cities in the South San Francisco Scavenger area exemplify the risks of relying on haulers too much for data collection. Having conflicting figures for waste diversion does not help cities accurately assess the progress they have made for SB 1383 compliance.

Brisbane, Millbrae, and South San Francisco should reconcile tonnage reports with their haulers to verify which figures are correct. Assuming the cities did experience a massive decline in waste diversion in a year, this occurrence would still be unusual. An investigation into diversion rates does not adversely affect the per capita disposal rates these cities send to the state. Fixing these errors is important so city governments know what proportion of all waste is organics, recycling, or garbage over time. It is highly likely these mistakes come from the sophisticated way Edgar and Associates converts the per capita disposal rates to regular diversion rates. They present their equation below.

21 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Equation 2. Edgar and Associates Diversion Rate Conversion from Per Capita Disposal Rates

(Source: Edgar and Associates 2023a)

Republic Services, Recology of San Mateo County, and GreenWaste have a much simpler equation that does not involve converting the per capita disposal rate. These haulers merely add the total tons of recycling, organics, and rubbish they collect to get a diversion rate.

[(R+O)/(R+O+S)] * 100 = Diversion Rate %
R: Recycling tons, O: Organic tons, S: Solid Waste tons (Sources: Republic Services 2024a and 2024b, Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report, GreenWaste 2023)

If the difference in calculations explains the unequal diversion rates, the simpler diversion rate formula would be preferable. Cities should negotiate with their haulers to have them compute these percentages in quarterly or annual reports separate from the EAR. Such a change reduces Edgar and Associates’ EAR workload and leaves cities with one reliable waste diversion

22 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

measure. Brisbane, Millbrae, and South San Francisco will also have the opportunity to compare their metrics with fellow governments that use the same methods. The simpler method, using Scavenger’s tons, should yield the same diversion rates jurors obtained in the last chart.

If diversion rates are unequal because of varying tonnage measurements from the hauler, cities should investigate Scavenger’s transfer station scales. Scavenger’s 2023 fourth quarter report to Millbrae had 1,116.78 tons more in its total tonnage than in the annual report it gave to jurors.

Another scenario would be that the hauler gave the Grand Jury and Millbrae different data.

Either way, Millbrae (and its sister cities, if applicable) should scrutinize weights measured at the transfer station to pinpoint if Scavenger furnishes contradictory data.

In the previous graph, five cities were included as not dividing their waste streams by property type. Atherton, Portola Valley, and Woodside are similar in this regard because they only divide recyclables by single-family homes and businesses (GreenWaste 2023). We recommend cities of the GreenWaste, South San Francisco Scavenger, Recology of the Coast, and Recology San Bruno areas begin dividing their data by the three property types. The County cannot continue having contradictory forms of waste generation reporting. Aggregate waste reports prevent local governments from seeing how severely economic turmoil causes businesses’ diversion rates to tumble. On the same note, South San Francisco, Recology of the Coast, and Recology San Bruno cities do not know how serious renter turnover might affect multi-family diversion rates.

Cities in these hauler areas should have a comfortable transition into segregating organics, recycling, and solid waste streams by three property types. Pacifica, Atherton, Portola Valley, Woodside, and Brisbane have owner-occupied housing populations larger than the national average. Meanwhile, South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae have owner-occupied housing populations larger than the state average. In other words, these cities are mostly residential, and their haulers can discern where refuse and organic tons originate. If haulers have the technical and infrastructural capabilities to portray a waste management story, cities should not be in the dark. Jurors and cities had to ask haulers for either participation rates or diversion rates throughout the investigation.

If haulers and cities do not have the resources necessary to split waste into three property types, they can come up with a long-term plan to do so. Currently, jurisdictions must conduct “annual visual inspections” called “route reviews,” in which they randomly inspect “containers for contamination on all collection routes” (CalRecycle n.d2.). Following these inspections, jurisdictions must “notify all generators on the sampled hauler routes and provide education on proper material separation” (n.d2.). In San Mateo County, Republic Services, Recology of the Coast, and South San Francisco Scavenger “lid flip” bins to check for contamination (Interviews 2024). Republic Services leaves tags on contaminated residential bins and calls businesses and multi-family dwellings about it (Interviews 2024).

23 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Waste evaluations are conducted at least in two distinct seasons of the year [per 14 CCR section 18984.5(c)]” (CalRecycle n.d2.). If jurisdictions find more than 25% contamination in any container type, they can perform “a targeted route review of containers… to determine sources of contamination (n.d3.). Later, they notify and provide education to those generating contamination” (n.d3.). Local governments should increase the frequency of waste evaluations, specifically on routes with high levels of contamination. Jurisdictions will use their outreach capabilities more efficiently this way.

All documentation of route reviews must be stored in the state’s Implementation Record (CalRecycle n.d2.). Some of the information included are Notices of Violation and penalty order copies. These documents must be accompanied by a list of dates acknowledging entities have complied with warnings or sanctions (CalRecycle n.d2.). Jurisdictions must include “a description of the hauler route and addresses covered by a route review” (n.d2.).

Instead of simply preserving time sensitive data, the Grand Jury suggests jurisdictions analyze past and current contamination trends in problem routes. Cities that struggle splitting diversion rates and waste tons by property type can use this method to track their progress at minimizing organic waste contamination. Perhaps cities will improve their organic waste diversion results if they implement these changes.

Local governments cannot leave their residents in the dark as well. If citizens pay for waste collection service, they have the right to know how well each property type separates waste.

None of the entities interviewed, except RethinkWaste, had copies of annual or quarterly waste reports on their government websites. Brisbane, Woodside, and Pacifica are some examples of cities that had no idea why their haulers do not separate waste by three property types (2024).

Jurors propose cities publish any past, present, and future waste statistics on their government websites following this report’s release.

The Civil Grand Jury recommends setting a waste reporting standard across the County. Without a common measurement, cities might not reduce 75% of organic waste disposal from 2014 levels by 2025. Jurors understand the state imposed this goal on itself and not on individual jurisdictions. Nonetheless, if the County adopts a mentality of consistently increasing diversion rates, citizens will reap the social savings. If cities keep increasing the price of garbage collection (DiNapoli 2024, Mata 2024) for the same amount of landfill tons, then methane emissions will not abate.

Barriers Exclusive to Businesses and Multi-Family Dwellings

Multi-family dwellings and businesses cannot match the participation and diversion rates of single-family homes due to socioeconomic and infrastructural problems. One Sustainability

24 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Department official said since “tenants sometimes cycle in and out every year… the resources involved to do… outreach [for] a multi-family building” is very “intensive” (2024). Another important component is that residents who live in apartments with trash chutes “have to find different ways to compost or set up bins in separate areas” (2024). Meanwhile, businesses may welcome irregular clients who “don’t know what the rules are” (2024). In spite of these disadvantages, multi-family dwellings in the RethinkWaste area have steadily increased their compost and recycling tons over the last decade (Recology San Mateo County 2024, 2023, 2021). Some city governments have even worked around these problems altogether.

Sources: Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report, Recology San Mateo County Annual Report 2022, Recology San Mateo County Annual Report 2020

Rising recycling and organic tons for multi-family dwellings over the years indicate that tenants strive to segregate waste properly. Unlike businesses, waste generation in multi-family dwellings does not rise and fall based on economic booms or busts. Crucially, renter turnover has not created drastic ebb and flow patterns for tonnage. Aside from landlord willingness, building age is very likely to be multi-family dwellings’ greatest barrier to increasing green bin participation.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 65.36% of existing renter-occupied housing units are from before 1980 (2022c). Cities must consider the difficulty of setting up green bins among older apartment buildings using trash chutes.

25 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

San Bruno pursues a novel strategy for multi-family dwellings’ organic waste collection compared to other cities. A Recology of San Bruno official finds that larger apartment complexes have a harder time complying. The hauler works with landlords to find the best location for green carts “to make it very simple for the residents” (2024). Better yet, the local government treats “multi-family as residential, and there is no cost for the multi-families in San Bruno to participate” (2024). Including green bin service in the price of standard refuse collection has brought 73% of multi-family dwellings in compliance with SB 1383 (San Bruno 2024). As of March 13, 2024, 109 multi-family dwellings remain non-compliant (Recology of San Bruno).

Interviews with several cities confirm that they require new property developments to provide enough space for the three-cart system. Pacifica, Daly City, Millbrae, and all RethinkWaste cities have their planning departments partner with haulers to review building plans (2024). A South San Francisco city employee stated that the city and hauler reviews waste enclosure spaces for new businesses but not multi-family dwellings (2024). Given that Woodside does not have multi- family dwellings, the city scrutinizes building plans for new commercial properties only (2024).

City officials from Brisbane and Half Moon Bay were uncertain about how municipal departments handle new development reviews (2024).

If cities can prepare future infrastructure with the waste enclosures they need, it should be possible for them to start doing the same for existing, non-compliant multi-family dwellings.

RethinkWaste is already ahead of the curve on this front and hopes to build on the San Bruno model. On March 14, 2024, RethinkWaste’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) announced that Recology of San Mateo “was open to a town hall format” to increase participation. At the next TAC meeting, the agency declared it will send invitational emails to businesses and multi- family dwellings for “virtual or in-person” SB 1383 compliance presentations held in June (2024). It is unknown at this point if any landlords or business owners have accepted such invitations or if the agency has begun holding these meetings.

RethinkWaste presently makes phone calls and letters to non-compliant property types (2024).

City employees from Brisbane, South San Francisco, and Daly City have disclosed that outreach activities include releasing newsletters, emails, and social media posts (2024). A Half Moon Bay staff member reported that the city received a grant from CalRecycle to give non-compliant businesses green bins across downtown (2024). A Recology of the Coast official says they distribute flyers and mailers and work with a compliance officer in Pacifica (2024).

The Civil Grand Jury appreciates the massive resource and labor mobilization from haulers and cities to perform these activities. Yet, these actions have consumed significant time in relation to meaningful effects. The scatter plots and tables below for jurisdictions inside and outside the RethinkWaste area describe the unfinished participation progress for multi-family dwellings and

26 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

businesses. Even if the visual data included properties with waivers, hauler data reveals that many properties are still without organics collection. Daly City, Half Moon Bay, and their hauler, Republic Services, did not give the Grand Jury reliable participation rate data.

Sources: Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report, Recology San Mateo County February 2024 Participation Rate Tables (see Appendix)

27 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Sources: Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report, Recology San Mateo County February 2024 Participation Rate Tables (see Appendix)

Both scatter plots affirm the assumption that high participation rates to organic waste collection does not increase the share of organic waste in total tonnages. The weak coefficients of determination (R2) tell us that green bin enrollment explains less than 50% of changes in organic waste proportions for businesses and multi-family dwellings. Multi-family dwellings in the RethinkWaste area have the most alarming statistic: less than 10% of their total waste tons are organic waste. It would appear that cities may have consciously or unconsciously prioritized one property type over another. For instance, San Mateo County enrolled twice as many multi-family dwellings for green cart service in the County Franchised Area (CFA) than its businesses.

The scatter plots also reveal that San Mateo County has stranded North Fair Oaks in the SB 1383 compliance process. Businesses and multi-family dwellings in the community have the lowest participation rates and organic waste proportions in the entire RethinkWaste JPA. It is unacceptable for a County tract with a compact area to have less resources than its neighbors. At the Discussion’s onset, the hurdles unincorporated regions pose for compliance were described.

North Fair Oaks has similar participation statistics like its coastal counterparts in the Granada Community Services District (GCSD) and Montara Water and Sanitary District (MWSD).

RethinkWaste and San Mateo County can combine their resources to level the playing field within the JPA.

28 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Table 4. Recology San Bruno Participation Rates 2023

Source: Recology of San Bruno Interview

Table 5. Brisbane, Millbrae, and South San Francisco Participation Rates

Source: Source: South SF Scavenger 2023 Participation and Diversion Rates

29 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Table 6. Recology of the Coast Participation Rates FY 2022-2023

Source: Recology of the Coast Interview

One recommendation is that RethinkWaste and non-JPA cities have a mass enrollment summit for multi-family dwellings and businesses. Solving the problem means holding these meetings at regular intervals until there is 100% green cart participation rate for both property types. On-site enrollment, rather than virtual presentations, holds property managers and business owners accountable. Public agencies need to receive input from the parties to address the troubles keeping them from enrolling. Cities, the County, and RethinkWaste can advise these individuals on cost-effective green cart adoption. Jurisdictions should explicitly state that monetary penalties are inevitable unless they attend these green bin enrollment summits.

If renters perfectly segregated their waste, a high percentage of the stream would be organic material, much like that of homeowners. Daly City’s multi-family dwellings, surprisingly, were the only ones in the County to have higher diversion rates than single-family homes thanks to thousands of diverted tons of organic waste. Multi-family dwellings diverted 57% of their waste while single-family homes diverted 48% (Republic Services 2024a). When interviewed, a representative from Republic Services said that an arduous program explained the phenomenon.

Presently, the hauler pulls “organics out of the trash,” which is “not a very good” and “costly system” (2024). The representative predicted the “program is likely going… away, so we’ll be doing something different with our multifamily” (2024).

30 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Sources: Republic Services Half Moon Bay Q4 2023 Report, Republic Services Daly City Q2 FY 2023-2024 Report
*Daly City’s data is from Q1 and Q2 of fiscal year 2023-2024 (July 1, 2023 to January 30, 2024) Note: Data for both cities are not publicly available. Jurors retrieved the information by requesting it from Republic Services.

Despite this inefficient system causing high diversion rates for multi-family dwellings, it proves that tenants generate more organic waste than rubbish. Jurisdictions should not consider getting renters to sort waste properly a lost cause, for this data proves that contamination is responsible for low diversion rates. High subscription rates for green cart service and apartment buildings with distant waste enclosures contribute to low participation rates. The Sustainability Department interviewee remarked, “Sometimes these landlords…vary in how easy they are to implement things like [organic waste collection]” (2024). The official added, “especially if it hits their bottom line about increased costs for adding compost to recycling service” (2024). It is highly recommended that haulers put signage on green carts if they do not have this practice already.

31 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Sources: Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report

Sources: Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report

32 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

FINDINGS

F1. High green cart enrollment costs and insufficient bin space are the dominant contributors to low participation rates among multi-family dwellings and businesses.

F2. Green bin contamination among compliant multi-family dwellings and businesses prevents them from diverting more organic waste.

F3. City, County, and RethinkWaste compliance outreach efforts for multi-family dwellings and businesses could improve because a significant portion of these properties remain non-compliant.

F4. Multi-family dwellings and businesses produce a significant amount of the County’s organic waste.

F5. Citizens cannot conveniently access reliable diversion and participation rates because JPAs and cities do not make the information available on their government websites.

F6. Assessing progress on organic waste diversion in Atherton, Brisbane, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno, South San Francisco, and Woodside is difficult because they and their haulers do not separate waste tons by property type on their annual or quarterly reports.

F7. An alternate and reliable method to separating waste tons by property type would be analyzing contamination statistics from route audits and waste evaluations.

F8. Brisbane, South San Francisco, and Millbrae cannot properly track their waste trends since their hauler and contractor have contradictory diversion rate formulas and tonnage measurements.

RECOMMENDATIONS

R1. Beginning March 1, 2025, cities, the County, and RethinkWaste should host regular in- person green cart enrollment summits for non-compliant businesses and multi-family dwellings, and identify other new compliance strategies.

R2. Beginning January 1, 2025, Brisbane, South San Francisco, and Millbrae should investigate their Electronic Annual Report contractor’s diversion rate conversion formulas and their hauler’s waste scales.

33 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

R3. By July 1, 2025, Brisbane, South San Francisco, and Millbrae should begin using the simpler diversion rate calculation the report mentioned or develop a contingency plan if their hauler’s scales are inaccurate.

R4. Beginning November 30, 2024, cities should publish quarterly or annual waste reports with diversion and participation rates on their government websites.

R5. Beginning December 31, 2024, cities should separate waste tons and diversion rates into the three (or two) property types (business, residential, multi-family) in their annual or quarterly reports.

R6. Starting April 1, 2025, cities that cannot separate waste tons and diversion rates by property type should conduct waste evaluations on highly contaminated routes more often.

R7. Starting May 1, 2025, cities that cannot separate waste tons and diversion rates by property type should analyze problematic routes’ past and present contamination trends to track their progress.

R8. By February 1, 2025, jurisdictions should develop and implement new ways to make green bins usable in multi-family dwellings’ and businesses’ narrow or small waste enclosures.

REQUESTS FOR RESPONSES

Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05 the Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing bodies.

Jurisdiction Findings Recommendations
Town of Atherton 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 4, 5, 6, 7
City of Brisbane 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 City of Daly City 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 1, 4, 8
City of Half Moon Bay 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 1, 4, 8
City of Millbrae 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 City of Pacifica 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
RethinkWaste JPA 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 1, 4, 8

34 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

City of San Bruno 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
San Mateo County 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 1, 4, 8
City of South San Francisco 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Town of Woodside 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 4, 5, 6, 7

The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the governing body must be subject to the notice, agenda, and open meeting requirement of the Brown Act.

RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS

California Penal Code Section 933.05 provides the following regulations (emphasis added).

1.) For purposes of subdivision of Section 933, as to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following:
a.) The respondent agrees with the finding.
b.) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the disputed finding and shall include an explanation of the reasons.

2.) For purposes of subdivision of Section 933, as to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
a.) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
b.) The recommendation has yet to be implemented but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
c.) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall be at most six months from the Grand Jury report's publication date.
d.) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.

35 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

GLOSSARY

CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery) State department formed in 2010 that manages recycling and waste management programs to reduce waste and reuse all materials. Enforces the Integrated Waste Management Act and Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act so Californians can use less, recycle more, and take resource conservation to higher and higher levels. (Source: About Us CalRecycle)

County Service Area
County Service Areas (CSAs) are entities that provide government services by counties within unincorporated areas. It allows communities to fund a service by charging a direct assessment or property-related fee for services such as water and/or sewer service, road and/or drainage maintenance, street lighting, fire protection and/or landscaping. The County Board of Supervisors acts as the governing body for the County Service Areas. (Source: Special Districts in San Mateo County)

Disposal-Related Activities
Alternative daily cover
(ADC) and Alternative
intermediate cover (AIC)

The use of materials to cover
disposed waste in a landfill
cell at the end of the landfill
operating day (daily cover) or
at some other interval
(intermediate cover) to
control odors, fire, vectors,
litter, and scavenging. Green
and non-green ADC exist.

Engineered Municipal Solid
Waste (EMSW), waste-tire
derived fuel, and other
beneficial reuse (construction
or landscaping) at landfills
(such as construction
activities, landscaping, and
erosion control).

Transformation

The use of incineration,
pyrolysis, distillation, or
biological conversion to
combust unprocessed or
minimally processed solid
waste to produce electricity.

Transformation does not
include gasification,
composting, or biomass
conversion.
(Source: State of Disposal and Recycling in California for Calendar Year 2022)

Franchise Area
Franchised areas are communities where municipalities or special districts have used their bulk purchasing power to negotiate rates with a hauler to provide waste collection services. (Source:

Curbside Collection - SMC Sustainability Department)

36 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

High Diversion Organic Waste Processing Facilities (HDPFs) “High diversion organic waste processing facility” means a facility that is in compliance with the reporting requirements of Section 18815.5(d) and meets or exceeds an annual average mixed waste organic content recovery rate of 50 percent between January 1, 2022 and December 31, 2024, and 75 percent after January 1, 2025 as calculated pursuant to Section 18815.5(e) for organic waste received from the “Mixed Waste Organic Collection Stream” as defined in Section 17402(a)(11.5). (Source: Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, California Code of Regulations (West) title 14, § 18982)

Joint Powers Authority (JPA)
A joint powers agency (JPA) consists of two or more public agencies that jointly exercise any power common to both through a joint powers agreement or contract. The agreement may set up a governing board composed of representatives of the contracting agencies and defines the JPA's governance and functions. (Source: Joint Powers Agencies Providing Municipal Services in San Mateo County)

Milton Marks “Little Hoover” Commission
The Little Hoover Commission, formally known as the Milton Marks “Little Hoover” Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy, is an independent state oversight agency created in 1962. The Commission’s mission is to investigate state government operations and policy, and – through reports and legislative proposals – make recommendations to the Governor and Legislature to promote economy, efficiency and improved service in state operations. In addition, the Commission has a statutory obligation to review and make recommendations on all proposed government reorganization plans. (Source: About the Commission)

Organic Waste
“Organic waste” means solid wastes containing material originated from living organisms and their metabolic waste products including, but not limited to, food, green material, landscape and pruning waste, organic textiles and carpets, lumber, wood, paper products, printing and writing paper, manure, biosolids, digestate, and sludges. (Source: Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, Cal.

Code Regs. tit. 14 § 18982 (2020))

RethinkWaste (South Bayside Waste Management Authority) In 1982, eleven local governments (Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo, San Mateo County and the West Bay Sanitary District) in San Mateo County formed RethinkWaste, AKA the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA). It is a joint powers authority that owns and manages the Shoreway Environmental Center in San Carlos, California. The site receives all the

37 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

recyclables, green waste and garbage collected from the Member Agencies. Other responsibilities include supporting and managing service providers that collect, process, recycle and dispose of materials on behalf of the JPA. (Source: About RethinkWaste)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brisbane, Cal., n.d. “Waste and Recycling.” Accessed June 10, 2024. https://www.brisbaneca.org/publicworks/page/waste-and-recycling.

Browning, Corey. 2022. “New Compost Requirements in San Mateo County.” San Mateo Daily Journal, August 11, 2022. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/new-compost- requirements-in-san-mateo-county/article_8baa7ce6-45f6-11ec-9be7-8325579e56c6.html.

California Air Resources Board. 2023. “California Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 2000 to 2021: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators.” Released December 14, 2023. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/2000_2021_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf.

California Air Resources Board. 2019. “Aerial methane survey finds a fraction of point sources responsible for more than a third of California’s methane emissions.” Released November 6, 2019. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/aerial-methane-survey-finds-fraction- point-sources-responsible-more-third-californias-
methane#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20survey%2C%20just,of%20California's%2 0total%20methane%20emissions.

California Department of Finance. 2024. “E-1 Cities, Counties, and the State Population and Housing Estimates with Annual Percent Change - January 1, 2023 and 2024.” Released May 1, 2024. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-e1/.

California Department of Finance. 2022. “E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011–2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark.” Last Revised May 2022. https://dof.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/352/Forecasting/Demographics/Documents/E- 4_2010-2020-Internet-Version.xlsx.

California Department of Finance. 2012. “E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001–2010, with 2000 & 2010 Census Counts.” Last Revised November 9, 2012. https://dof.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/sites/352/Forecasting/Demographics/Documents/E4_2000- 2010_Report_Final_EOC_000.xlsx.

38 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

California Health and Safety Code § 39711 (2014).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&divisio n=26.&title=&part=2.&chapter=4.1.&article=.

California Health and Safety Code § 39730.6 (2016).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&secti onNum=39730.6.

California Public Resources Code § 41780 (1989).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum =41780.

California Public Resources Code § 42652.5 (2022).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum =42652.5.

CalRecycle. 2024. “State of Disposal and Recycling in California for Calendar Year 2022.” Released February 8, 2024. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Download/1907.

CalRecycle. 2022a. “2021 Disposal Facility-Based Waste Characterization Data Tables.” Released November 2022. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Docs/Web/122544.

CalRecycle. 2022b. “Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Progress Report.” Accessed May 9, 2024.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DiversionDisposal.

CalRecycle. 2021. “State of Disposal and Recycling in California for Calendar Year 2020.” Released December 28, 2021. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Download/1754.

CalRecycle. 2020. “State of Disposal and Recycling in California for Calendar Year 2018.” Released April 6, 2020. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Download/1453.

CalRecycle. n.d1. “Department-Approved Waivers for Reporting Entities.” Accessed May 5, 2024. https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/waivers/approved/#LPWcities.

CalRecycle. n.d2. “Jurisdiction Enforcement.” Accessed June 21, 2024. https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/enforcement/jurisdiction/.

CalRecycle. n.d3. “New Statewide Mandatory Organic Waste Collection.” Accessed May 19, 2024. https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/collection/.

39 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

DiNapoli, Alyse. 2024. “Garbage rates are set to jump in San Mateo.” San Mateo Daily Journal, April 18, 2024. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/garbage-rates-are-set-to- jump-in-san-mateo/article_87aa257e-eb21-11ee-a6a5-2f28cac97939.html.

D’Souza, Shereen. “Hearing on Organic Waste Recycling (Part 3), September 8, 2022.” Milton Marks Commission interview, 28:31-28:44. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJbMlCaI9lc.

Edgar and Associates, Inc. 2023a. “City of Brisbane Annual Report 2022.” Published August 1, 2023.

Edgar and Associates, Inc. 2023b. “City of South San Francisco Annual Report 2022.” Published August 1, 2023.

Granada Community Services District. n.d. “Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside.” Accessed June 11, 2024. https://granada.ca.gov/sewer-authority-mid-coastside.

GreenWaste. 2023. “2023 Annual Summary.” Accessed March 19, 2024.

GreenWaste. n.d. “Base Services and Example Service Scenarios.” Accessed April 5, 2024.

Kunz Valley Trash. n.d1. “Pricing Increase/Franchise Addition.” Accessed June 11, 2024. https://www.kunzvalleytrash.com/flyer.pdf.

Kunz Valley Trash. n.d2. “Services.” Accessed June 11, 2024. https://www.kunzvalleytrash.com/services.asp.

Mata, Ana. 2024. “Redwood City set to hike garbage rates.” San Mateo Daily Journal, March 7, 2024. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/redwood-city-set-to-hike-garbage- rates/article_2926b68c-d6b5-11ee-9986-9f933c36af5a.html.

Pacifica. n.d. “Below are the tonnages collected by Recology from May, 2022 through April 2023.” Released April 30, 2024.

Recology San Mateo County. 2024. “Quarterly Report to the SBWMA for 4th Quarter 2023.” Released December 30, 2024.

Recology San Mateo County. 2023. “Annual Report to the SBWMA for Year 2022.” Released February 14, 2023. https://rethinkwaste.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/RSMC-Annual-Report- 2022.pdf.

40 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Recology San Mateo County. 2021. “Annual Report to the SBWMA for Year 2020.” Released February 14, 2021. https://rethinkwaste.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Recology-Annual- Report-2020.pdf

Republic Services. 2024a. “Quarterly Report for the City of Daly City Second Quarter Fiscal Year 2023/24.” Released January 30, 2024.

Republic Services. 2024b. “Quarterly Report for the City of Half Moon Bay Fourth Quarter Calendar Year 2023.” Accessed April 2, 2024.

RethinkWaste. 2024. “SBWMA Technical Advisory Committee Meeting.” May 9, 2024. https://rethinkwaste.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/RethinkWaste-TAC-Packet- 05092024.pdf.

RethinkWaste. 2024. “SBWMA Technical Advisory Committee Meeting.” March 14, 2024. https://rethinkwaste.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/RethinkWaste-TAC-Packet- 03142024.pdf.

RethinkWaste. n.d. “About.” Accessed May 5, 2024.
https://rethinkwaste.org/about/rethinkwaste/about/.

San Bruno. 2024. “City of San Bruno Data on Waste and Recycling Categories.” Released March 13, 2024.

San Mateo County. 2021. “Low Population Waiver Application for Unincorporated Portions of Counties (Special Districts Providing Solid Waste Collection Services): 9843 and 6138.” Signed December 21, 2021.

San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury. 2019. “Planning for the County’s Waste Management Challenges.” Released July 30, 2019.
https://www.sanmateo.courts.ca.gov/system/files/waste_management.pdf.

San Mateo County Sustainability Department. 2024. “Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance.” Updated April 2024. https://www.smcsustainability.org/waste- reduction/foodware#start-dates.

San Mateo County Sustainability Department. 2022. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Updated July 2022. https://www.smcsustainability.org/waste-reduction/foodware/facilities/faq/.

41 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

San Mateo County Sustainability Department. n.d. “Curbside Collection.” Accessed May 14, 2024. https://www.smcsustainability.org/waste-reduction/curbside-collection/.

San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). n.d. “Joint Powers Agencies Providing Municipal Services in San Mateo County.” Accessed May 18, 2024. https://www.smcgov.org/lafco/joint-powers-agencies-providing-municipal-services-san-mateo- county.

Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, California Code of Regulations (West) title 14, §§ 18982, 18984.2, 18984.9, 18984.11, 18984.12, 18993.1, 18993.3, 18997.2 (2020). https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCodeofRegulations ?guid=IB9B3A3D35B4D11EC976B000D3A7C4BC3&originationContext=documenttoc &transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&bhcp=1.

South San Francisco Scavenger. 2024. “2023 Participation and Diversion Rates.” Compiled March 16, 2024.

South San Francisco Scavenger. 2023. “Quarterly Report: Period Ending December 31, 2023.” Accessed April 2, 2024.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2024. “Unemployment Rate [UNRATE], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.” Last Updated May 3, 2024. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2022a. “ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: San Mateo County, California.” Accessed May 16, 2024.
https://data.census.gov/table?g=050XX00US06081&y=2022.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2022b. “Total Population in Occupied Housing Units by Tenure by Year Householder Moved Into Unit: San Mateo County, California.” Accessed May 22, 2024. https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT1Y2022.B25026?q=san%20mateo%20county%202022&t= Year%20Householder%20Moved%20Into%20Unit.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2022c. “Physical Housing Characteristics for Occupied Housing Units.” Accessed June 9, 2024.
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2022.S2504?q=san%20mateo%20county&t=Year%20Str ucture%20Built&y=2022.

West Bay Sanitary District. n.d. “Areas of Coverage.” Accessed June 11, 2024. https://westbaysanitary.org/about-us/areas-of-coverage/.

42 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Wagoner, Rachel Machi. “Hearing on Organic Waste Recycling (Part 3), September 8, 2022.” Milton Marks Commission interview, 57:00-57:11.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJbMlCaI9lc.

APPENDIXES

A. GreenWaste Annual Summary 2023

B. Republic Services Daly City Q2 FY 2023-2024 Report

C. Republic Services Half Moon Bay Q4 2023 Report

D. San Bruno - Data on Waste and Recycling Categories 2023

E. South SF Scavenger 2023 Diversion Rates

F. Pacifica FY 2022-2023 Diversion Rates

G. Recology San Mateo County February 2024 Participation Rate Tables

43 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Appendix A
GreenWaste Annual Summary 2023

44 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

45 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

46 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Appendix B
Republic Services Daly City Q2 FY 2023-2024 Report

47 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Appendix C
Republic Services Half Moon Bay Q4 2023 Report

48 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Appendix D
San Bruno - Data on Waste and Recycling Categories 2023

49 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Appendix E
South SF Scavenger 2023 Diversion Rates

50 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Appendix F
Pacifica FY 2022-2023 Diversion Rates

51 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Appendix G
Recology San Mateo County February 2024 Participation Rate Tables

52 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

53 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Release Date: July 11, 2024
2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury