POLICY: ENCROACHMENTS AND USES WITHIN CITY EASEMENTS
Number: Issue Number:
Page: Date Adopted:
Replaces:
4 October 17, 2023
June 2, 2020
C I T Y C O U N C I L P O L I C I E S
GENERAL FENCE RELOCATION GUIDELINES
1. Each homeowner will be responsible for their own fencing costs and any other costs associated with fence relocation, including any damage to plants or sprinklers resulting from the fence relocation, and all costs incurred in the easement vacation process.
2. The homeowner may need to obtain a permit for the fence from the City of Yorba Linda Building Department.
3. All fence irrigation and landscape plans are subject to Planning Commission review and approval.
4. The fence shall be painted Hunter Green and remain maintained in good condition with minimal fading, rust, or corrosion visible from the street below at any time.
5. The irrigation system within the easement vacation area shall be installed and maintained by the property owner with a water source connected to the property owner’s water meter.
6. Trees, shrubs, and ground cover planting shall match the adjacent city-maintained trees, shrubs, and ground cover plant pallet.
7. Subject area shall remain at the existing grades prior to the easement vacation and shall not be modified in any way.
8. No new tree(s), shrub(s) or ground cover shall be planted within the subject area unless replacing existing naturally damaged or diseased tree(s) or shrub(s) or ground cover in kind and number.
9. Area shall not be used as an animal kennel or holding area.
10. Maintenance of fences, irrigation systems, trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall match, at a minimum, the standard of care provided by the City for the landscaped area adjacent to the easement vacation area.
11. Fence location shall be parallel to the top of slope at the limit of the easement vacation.
Number:
Page:
E-5
7
2616/009410-1001
7013531.2 a08/12/24 -1-
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
When recorded, return to:
City of Yorba Linda
Engineering Division
4845 Casa Loma Avenue
Yorba Linda, CA 92885
EXEMPT (FREE) RECORDING REQUESTED
UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE 27383
THIS AREA FOR RECORDER’S USE ONLY
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
(ENCROACHMENT ON CITY PROPERTY)
THIS DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ("Declaration") is made this _______________________, 2024, by and between CITY OF YORBA LINDA ("CITY"), a public agency, and YORBA LINDA MASONIC TEMPLE ASSN ("DECLARANT"), with reference to the following:
RECITALS
A. The DECLARANT owns real property located at 4845 MAIN STREET, Yorba Linda, California 92886 (APN 323-304-20) ("Subject Property"), as shown in Exhibit “A”, which is more particularly described as follows:
LOTS 54 AND 55 OF THE NEWMARK TRACT, IN THE
CITY OF YORBA LINDA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK NO. 7,
PAGE(S) 45 AND 46, MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF
ORANGE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
B. The CITY owns real property located at 4852 OLINDA STREET, Yorba Linda, California 92886 (APN 323-304-05) (“CITY Property”), as shown in Exhibit “A”, which is more particularly described as follows:
LOTS 30 AND 31 OF THE NEWMARK TRACT, IN THE
CITY OF YORBA LINDA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK NO. 7,
PAGE(S) 45 AND 46, MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF
ORANGE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
C. The DECLARANT desires to construct approximately 43 linear feet of 6 feet high white vinyl fence (collectively herein referred to as "Improvements") within and along CITY Property (hereinafter referred to as an “Encroachment"), as illustrated in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
2616/009410-1001
7013531.2 a08/12/24 -2-
D. CITY conditionally consents to the Encroachment within and along the CITY property as stipulated in this Declaration. DECLARANT is aware that the Improvements will be their responsibility to maintain. DECLARANT will be liable for any costs arising out of or related to the Encroachment. DECLARANT shall not install any other permanent structures within the Encroachment without prior written approval by the CITY.
NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the above recitals, CITY and DECLARANT hereby declare as follows:
1. Covenant Running with Land. This Declaration constitutes a covenant running with the land, as provided by California Civil Code Section 1468, and shall benefit, burden, and bind the DECLARANT and the CITY. The term “DECLARANT” shall include not only the present DECLARANT, but also the DECLARANT’S heirs, successors, executors, administrators, and assigns.
2. Damages to City Facilities. DECLARANT assumes full responsibility and liability and shall pay for any cost(s) or damage(s) to the City Facilities and appurtenant structures, arising from or related to the construction, existence, removal, and/or use of the Improvements. CITY shall not be responsible for any cost(s) or damage(s) to the City Facilities and appurtenant structures that arise from the Encroachment.
3. Damages to Third Parties. DECLARANT agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY and its officers, directors, employees, agents, consultants, and other authorized representatives from any and all liability, claims, demands, damages (whether contract or tort, including personal injury, death, or property damage), costs, and financial loss, including all costs and expenses of litigation or arbitration, which result or are claimed to have resulted directly or indirectly from the Encroachment, including but not limited to the construction, existence and/or use of the Improvements.
4. Notice of Intent to Remove Improvements. DECLARANT shall notify City of its intent to remove any or all Improvement(s) in the Encroachment area at least fourteen days prior to removal.
5. Damages to Improvements. DECLARANT acknowledges that the CITY, its officers, directors, employees, agents, consultants, and other authorized representatives shall not be responsible for any damage(s) to or because of the Improvements which result from CITY's exercise of its rights under the Improvements. DECLARANT waives all known, unknown, and future claims, liabilities, causes of action, and expenses against CITY, its officers, directors, employees, agents, consultants, and other authorized representatives for losses and damages to the Improvements and from any obligation to protect, preserve, repair, or replace the Improvements. The construction, use, protection, repair and replacement of the Improvements shall be entirely the risk and obligation of DECLARANT, even if damage is caused by CITY.
6. Improvements subject to removal or reconfiguration. DECLARANT acknowledges that upon future development of the property located at 4852 OLINDA STREET, removal or reconfiguration of the improvements may be necessary subject to approval of both CITY and YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT. All costs associated with removal or
2616/009410-1001
7013531.2 a08/12/24 -3-
replacement shall be responsibility of DECLARANT. Upon written notice from CITY, DECLARANT shall remove or reconfigure improvements within 60 calendar days.
7. Recording of Agreement. This Declaration shall be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Orange, California, and shall constitute notice to all successors and assigns of the title to the Subject Property of the rights and obligations set forth herein.
8. Severability. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this Declaration shall in no way affect the validity or enforceability of any provision hereof.
9. Governing Law. This Declaration shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of California.
10. Attorneys’ Fees. In the event any action shall be instituted between the DECLARANT and the CITY in connection with this Declaration, the party prevailing in such action shall be entitled to recover from the other party all of its costs of action, including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees and costs as fixed by the court therein. (INTENTIONALLY BLANK)
2616/009410-1001
7013531.2 a08/12/24 -4-
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
(ENCROACHMENT ON CITY PROPERTY)
4845 MAIN STREET
CITY OF YORBA LINDA DECLARANT
By: By: __________________________
Tara Campbell Yorba Linda Masonic Temple Assn.
Mayor
Attest:
By:
Marcia Brown
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Rutan & Tucker LLP
By:
Todd Litfin
City Attorney
2616/009410-1001
7013531.2 a08/12/24 -5-
EXHIBIT A
2616/009410-1001
7013531.2 a08/12/24 -6-
EXHIBIT B
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: AUGUST 20, 2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JAMIE LAI, P.E., DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER PREPARED BY: AUSTIN POSTOVOIT, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A THREE-MONTH TERM EXTENSION AMENDMENT TO
THE MAINTENANCE SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH WEST COAST
ARBORISTS, INC., FOR CITYWIDE TREE SERVICES AND ASSOCIATED
MAINTENANCE
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Approve an amendment to the Citywide tree maintenance services agreement with West Coast Arborists (WCA), Inc, to allow for an additional three-month term extension in an amount not to exceed $525,000.00; and
2. Upon receipt of appropriate documents, authorize the City Manager to execute the contract amendment.
BACKGROUND
The City’s current contract for Citywide tree maintenance was awarded on June 7, 2016, to West Coast Arborists, Inc. (WCA), for Citywide services rendered for the local Landscape Maintenance Assessment District, Public Works and Parks and Recreation departments.
This contract encompasses all maintenance trimming as well as incidental tree management services such as inventory maintenance and emergency response duties for the City’s tree inventory, which exceeds 25,000 trees.
The City has since exercised all term renewals with the last renewal term expiring on June 30, 2024. The City entered into a one-month term extension with WCA to allow for continued service while options for service moving forward were evaluated, in an amount not to exceed $75,000.00 which is the established maximum amount noted within the City’s purchasing policy. A second one-month extension in the same amount was also executed for the period to include the month of August 2024.
DISCUSSION
The City is in the process of preparing solicitation documents to procure contractual services
A P P R O V A L O F A T H R E E - M O N T H T E R M E X T E N S I O N A M E N D M E N T
T O T H E M A I N T E N A N C E S E R V I C E A G R E E M E N T W I T H W E S T C O A S T A R B O R I S T S , I N C . , F O R C I T Y W I D E T R E E S E R V I C E S A N D
A S S O C I A T E D M A I N T E N A N CE
P a g e | 2
for City-wide tree trimming services. These will be tentatively released in the next few weeks.
In order to sufficiently provide interim tree maintenance and associated services while the new procurement is undertaken, an extension to the current agreement with WCA is recommended. Staff estimates that an additional three-month period ending on November 30, 2024, should be enough time to accommodate necessary procurement processes. The recommended extension amendment amount for the three-month period is $525,000.00, which is approximately equal to the actual expenditures incurred by the City for tree trimming services over the same period of time during the preceding fiscal year.
FISCAL IMPACT
The combined annual budget allocation for tree maintenance services within the LMAD, Parks and Recreation, Capital Improvement and Public Works budgets for Fiscal Year 2024- 2025 is sufficient to cover the costs of the proposed amendment. The total expenditure for the preceding month-to-month amendments (July and August 2024) is projected to be less than $50,000.00. The total proposed Amendment No. 11 amount of $525,000.00 will be exclusively limited to expenditures during the three-month extension period (September – November 2024) while a procurement process is being conducted. As noted in the previous section, the recommended amount for Amendment No.11 is based upon the prior year actual expenditures and is the amount deemed necessary to adequately perform necessary services during the extended procurement period. The agreement funding is generally apportioned across the three comprising departments/divisions as noted below, as well as capital landscaping accounts:
LMAD (Account No. 2010350-432300)
Public Works Maintenance (Account No. 1010330-432300) P&R Parks Maintenance (Account No. 1010460-432300)
The proportions of planned contract budget expenditures will be determined during the term based upon actual utilization by each division and project needs.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may choose not to approve the recommended additional term renewal amendment with West Coast Arborists. This option is not recommended as it would result in a lapse in critical citywide tree trimming and maintenance services.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1- West Coast Arborists, Inc. (Eleventh Amendment)
Amendment
No. 11
AMENDMENT NO. 11
Project Name/No.: LMAD/ PARKS/ PW OPS. Contract No.: 21220068 (A11) Tree Services and Maintenance
Dept./Contract Rep: PW-LMAD / J. Gutierrez Approved: 08/20/2024 AMENDMENT NO. 11 TO
TREE SERVICES AND MAINTENANCE WITHIN LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT / PARKS / STREETS
WITHIN THE CITY OF YORBA LINDA
This is Amendment No. 11 (“Amendment No.11”) to that certain Tree Services and Maintenance Within Landscape Maintenance assessment District/ Parks/ Streets (“Agreement”) made on June 29, 2016 between the City of Yorba Linda (“City”) and West Coast Arborists, Inc., 2200 E. Via Burton St., Anaheim, CA 92806 (“Contractor”), which this Amendment No. 11 is made and entered into on August 20th, 2024 to allow for continued citywide tree trimming services for an additional three month term in an amount not-to-exceed $525,000.00:
1. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment No. 11 shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.
2. 3.1.2, “Term” is amended to read as follows, The City agrees to renew this agreement for an additional one-month term, from September 1, 2024, to November 30, 2024:
SECTION 3.1. TERM
The term of this agreement shall be from June 1, 2016, to November 30, 2024, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. The contractor shall complete the services within the term of this agreement and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines.
Contractor shall complete the services within the term of this Agreement and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines.
3. 3.3.1, “Compensation” is amended to read as follows, increasing the compensation by a notto-exceed amount of Five Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($525,000.00) for the three-month term extension period between September 1, 2024, and November 30, 2024, during Fiscal Year 2024-2025.
SECTION 3.3.1 COMPENSATION.
Contractor shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth herein. The total compensation shall not exceed Ten Million Sixty-Five Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty-Nine and 05/100 Dollars ($10,065,959.05) without written approval of the City Representative. Extra Work may be authorized as described in the contract documents, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.
4. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.
5. This Amendment No. 11 may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement.
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
DATE: AUGUST 20, 2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DAVID CHRISTIAN, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: FUNDING OF THE NORTH ORANGE COUNTY SERVICE PLANNING AREA (NORTH SPA) NAVIGATION CENTERS FOR FY 23-24
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda:
1. Appropriate $243,122 from the General Fund for the purpose of paying the City’s share of costs for the North SPA Navigation Centers for FY 23-24; and
2. Authorize a reimbursement of $243,122 of SB 2 funds to the General Fund upon receipt from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
BACKGROUND
In March 2019, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the North SPA comprised of the cities of Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Cypress, Fullerton, La Habra, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Orange, Placentia, Villa Park, Stanton, and Yorba Linda as well as the County. Amongst other things, the MOU committed the City to assist in funding both the construction and operation of two emergency homeless shelters (“Navigation Centers”) in the cities of Buena Park and Placentia for a minimum period of ten years.
DISCUSSION
Part of the City’s funding for both construction and ongoing operation of the Navigation Centers, was the inclusion of SB 2 (Building Homes and Job Act) funds which are generated from a $75 document recording fee on certain real estate transactions for the purpose of providing funding for the development of affordable and homeless housing. Under SB 2, cities are to receive an annual allocation from HCD based on their size. However, HCD is lagging behind in its distribution of SB 2 funds and has just recently opened the application process for FY 22-23 funding.
As you may recall, in April Council approved a similar advance/reimbursement from the General Fund for $49,175 to cover the City’s obligation to the North SPA for FY 22-23. At that time all SB 2 funds the City had were depleted, hence the need for an additional advance from the General Fund to meet the City’s obligation for FY 23-24.
FUNDING OF THE NORTH ORANGE COUNTY SERVICE PLANNING AREA (NORTH SPA) NAVIGATION CENTERS FOR FY 23-24
P a g e | 2
As an additional note, because SB 2 funds are derived from real estate transactions, the recent slow-down in that market is having an impact on the amount of funds the City is receiving. However, staff is optimistic that once real estate transactions return to their normal state, the SB 2 funds received should be adequate to reimburse the General Fund.
We will continue to keep the Council updated as we budget for this item going forward.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City’s share of on-going North SPA operational cost for FY 23-24 is $243,122. Because both our receipt of SB 2 funds and the invoicing from the North SPA have been somewhat delayed, this amount was not known in time to include in the FY 23-24 budget.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not approve the appropriation or the advance and delay payment until sufficient SB 2 funds have been received.
2. Do not approve the advance/reimbursement arrangement and pay the obligation directly with General Fund dollars.
ATTACHMENTS
None.
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
DATE: AUGUST 20, 2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DAVID CHRISTIAN, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO FY 23-24 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT, “EBIKES FRIEND OR FOE”
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review the draft response to the Orange County Grand Jury report and authorize the Mayor’s signature for submittal to the Presiding Judge of the Orange County Superior Court by the statutory deadline of September 19, 2024.
BACKGROUND
On June 20, 2024, the Orange County Grand Jury released their report entitled “E-bikes Friend or Foe.” The City of Yorba Linda is required by California Penal Code Section 933 to respond to all assigned findings and recommendations in the report.
DISCUSSION
The Grand Jury report states the main purpose of their study was to bring public awareness to the safe use of E-bikes and the importance of having city-relevant “rules of the road” and to press Orange County cities to actively seek common-sense rules for E-bikes to ensure their safe operation among conventional bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles.
Of the three findings and three recommendations in the report, all were applicable to the City and require a written response. Staff has prepared a draft response to each of the findings and recommendations based on the instructions provided within the report for Council’s consideration.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ALTERNATIVES
Provide revisions to the proposed response letter.
RESPONSE TO FY 23-24 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT, “E-BIKES FRIEND OR FOE”
P a g e | 2
ATTACHMENTS
1. Orange County Grand Jury Report, “E-bikes Friend or Foe”
2. Proposed City of Yorba Linda Draft Response
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page ii
Table of Contents
SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................. 1 REASON FOR THE STUDY........................................................................................... 3 METHOD OF STUDY...................................................................................................... 3 INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS................................................................................. 4 Orange County Transportation Authority................................................................ 4 Orange County Sheriff’s Department....................................................................... 4 Cities Survey .............................................................................................................. 4 COMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................... 12 FINDINGS..................................................................................................................... 12 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................. 13 RESPONSES................................................................................................................ 13 REQUIRED RESPONSES......................................................................................... 14 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 18 GLOSSARY.................................................................................................................. 20 APPENDICES............................................................................................................... 21 APPENDIX 1.............................................................................................................. 21 Current County of Orange E-Bike Laws - Unincorporated Areas .................... 21 APPENDIX 2.............................................................................................................. 22 California Vehicle Code Section 312.5 as of December 23, 2023 ..................... 22 APPENDIX 3.............................................................................................................. 23 California Assembly Bills..................................................................................... 23 APPENDIX 4.............................................................................................................. 24 County of Orange Ordinance No. 18-002............................................................ 24
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 1
SUMMARY
The use of electric bicycles (E-bikes) has increased as our communities look to new and novel ways to commute and to reduce our reliance on automobiles. E-bikes are a cost-effective alternative. However, they bring higher risks of accidents and injuries when compared to conventional bicycles. The public deserves education and safety regulations to mitigate this concern.
The 2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury (OCGJ) investigation into E-bike regulation, education, and safety focused on what, if any, pertinent regulations have been adopted by Orange County cities. The OCGJ investigation revealed that outside of the California Vehicle Code, the 34 cities, 13 of which are contract cities with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD), vary significantly in their regulation, safety (accidents, fatalities, etc.), enforcement, and education on E-bikes. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) oversees E-bike safety, education, and public outreach for all unincorporated areas. OCTA holds quarterly meetings with all 34 cities in the county to discuss transportation issues including E-bike regulation, safety, education, and enforcement.
There is an urgent need to have consistent ordinances for the regulation and enforcement of safe E-bike use in all cities, school districts, parks, and unincorporated areas. Currently, there are significant differences in policy across cities. The recent surge in E-bike usage calls for immediate action to strengthen city oversight of this issue. This report will highlight the differences between cities’ approaches and make recommendations to attain realistic and practical policies for their respective jurisdictions.
BACKGROUND
The modern E-bike was introduced in the 1990s as a pedal assist bike with a batterypowered motor. The OCGJ focused on the 3 classes of E-bikes (see table below).
In most cases, it is hard to tell the difference between a Class 1, 2, or 3 E-bike, as there may be no apparent distinction to the naked eye. It is important that Orange County residents understand the different classes of E-bikes, how fast they can go, and any applicable restrictions or regulations that govern their use. This is particularly pertinent as automobile and bus commuters must now share the road with E-bike riders.
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 2
The ease of use, relatively low price, and convenience of E-bikes have led to their proliferation throughout Orange County. It is estimated that the sales of E-bikes rose by 145% during 2020-to-2021 (World Economic Forum March 12, 2021).
However, along with the proliferation of E-bikes have come inevitable issues regarding their use, including:
• riding on sidewalks
• riding against traffic
• speeding
• bike vs pedestrian collisions
• bike vs motorized vehicle conflicts
• the ability to make unauthorized modifications to the electric motors which allows the E-bikes to exceed their maximum intended speed
There are also issues regarding E-bike rider injuries in accidents, which can be more serious than injuries of riders in bicycle accidents (US Consumer Product Safety Commission October 17, 2023). According to the OCGJ survey sent to city mayors, many do not track or have awareness of the incidence and prevalence of E-bike injuries and fatalities in their respective cities.
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 3
The OCGJ sent a survey to all Orange County cities to learn each city’s policies, availability of safety education, and enforcement of E-bikes. The responses from the cities that answered indicate a wide variety of differences - with some cities having robust training, enforcement measures, and methods of socializing E-bike use in their communities.
The OCGJ recognizes that there cannot be a “one size fits all” approach to the regulation of E-bikes, as all cities in Orange County are unique and have different needs. For example, a large beachside city will have its own unique policies as compared to smaller inland cities. The rapidly expanding use of E-bikes compels cities to ensure a safe environment for riders of E-bikes and all citizens of Orange County.
REASON FOR THE STUDY
As E-bike sales have increased by almost 145% worldwide (World Economic Forum Mar. 12, 2021) over the past 2 years, the regulation of their use does not seem to have kept up. Accidents and incidents with E-bikes are on the rise, as are complaints from citizens of Orange County about E-bike riders (Voice of OC Sept. 2023). Accordingly, the OCGJ determined that an investigation into E-bikes was needed to bring public awareness to the safe use of E-bikes and the importance of having city-relevant “rules of the road” in place.
This report seeks to press Orange County cities to actively seek common-sense rules for E-bikes to ensure their safe operation among conventional bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles.
METHOD OF STUDY
Information from this investigation was collected and verified through multiple sources and statements made during interviews and includes extensive research of current online and print articles regarding E-bikes in Orange County. The OCGJ conducted the following activities:
• In-person interviews of representatives from:
o A major retail bike shop that sells both E-bikes and standard bicycles o The Orange County Transportation Authority
o The Orange County Sheriff’s Department
o The Central Newport Beach Community Association
• In-person attendance and online viewing of several city council meetings • In-person attendance at a training session hosted by a local city • Review of proposed State legislation that failed, passed, or is in committee
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 4
• Direct observance of E-bike riders, where they are riding, use of protective gear, passengers, dangerous maneuvers, etc.
• An online survey was distributed to the mayors of 34 cities in Orange County.
Unincorporated areas/divisions were not included in this survey. Mayors and/or representatives from 22 cities responded to this survey
INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS
Through interviews and surveys, the OCGJ determined that there is wide variation of rules on E-bikes and limited information regarding the reporting of E-bike incidents, accidents, injuries, and basic rules of the road for E-bikes.
Several news outlets (newspapers, magazines, television, online forums) have published stories about E-bikes. While many acknowledge the benefits of E-bikes, they also detail significant issues for cities to address.
Speeding, unsafe, or reckless operation, riders under 18 years of age not wearing helmets and toddlers riding on the back or front without proper child safety seats present common E-bike regulation and enforcement challenges for law enforcement.
Orange County Transportation Authority
OCTA has published on their website a comprehensive list of regulations listed by city regarding bicycles and E-bikes. As with the OCGJ survey, there are several different rules for E-bike riders dependent on what city they are riding in due to the differences in cities such as availability of bike lanes and the speed at which E-bikes are permitted to travel.
Orange County Sheriff’s Department
OCSD enforces the California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 312.5 regarding electric bicycles. In addition, the Sheriff’s Department works closely with OCTA to provide E-bike outreach and education to the residents of Orange County. The OCSD Training Bulletin 23-01, issued January 4, 2023, provides the current E-bike enforcement criteria for Sheriff’s Deputies.
Cities Survey
OCGJ sent a list of survey questions to all city mayors in Orange County regarding policies in their cities with respect to E-bikes. Of the 34 surveys sent, 22 were completed and returned to the Grand Jury. A sampling of the survey results follows:
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 5
• Do you track injuries/deaths from E-bike accidents, injuries, fatalities? Tracking of E-bike injuries, deaths, property damage and battery fires, 11 of the 22 cities answered that they tracked these items on E-bikes.
The entity responsible for tracking these items varied within each city among law enforcement organizations, city government offices, and local hospitals. There is no standard way to compile and publish accident/incident information on E-bikes.
To properly track trends in E-bike operation, a robust incident and accident tracking mechanism must be in place. Items that need to be tracked include but are not limited to class of E-bike involved, estimated speed of the E-bike, direction of travel, age of the rider, whether helmets were used, and any injuries sustained. In the process of accident reporting, most police agencies do not distinguish whether the bicycle involved was a conventional bike or an E-bike.
• In your city, who, if anyone, is authorized to enforce infractions? Please select all that apply:
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 6
Of the 22 cities that completed the survey, 100% indicated that some form of law enforcement was the agency authorized to enforce/cite infractions for E-bike riders.
Police Departments, OCSD, or Park Rangers were the organizations authorized for E-bike enforcement.
• In your city, are E-bikes allowed:
10 cities indicated that E-bikes were authorized on sidewalks, 4 cities answered unknown, and the remaining cities answered that E-bikes were prohibited from sidewalks.
21 cities indicated that E-bikes were authorized in bike lanes with one city responding as unknown.
13 cities indicated that E-bikes are allowed on park trails, 5 cities indicated that E-bikes were prohibited from using park trails, and 4 cities indicated that park trail policy for E-bikes was unknown.
16 cities indicated that E-bikes were authorized in vehicle lanes and 6 cities answered unknown.
5 cities answered no, 8 cities answered unknown, and 9 cities indicated that E-bikes were allowed on highways.
Riding on sidewalks was found to be a contentious issue. One city cited California Assembly Bill 825 (which would have barred local agencies from prohibiting bike use on sidewalks but has since been vetoed) as a reason not to prohibit E-bikes on sidewalks.
When there is no defined bike lane, E-bike riders will ride on sidewalks as a matter of safety. E-bikes, depending on the class, can go up to 28 miles per hour, which is typically faster than a conventional bicycle and much faster than a walking pedestrian.
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 7
Although most current laws give the bicyclist and pedestrians the right of way, the reaction time for an E-bike rider going over 10 miles per hour on the sidewalk generally does not give the rider adequate opportunity to avoid pedestrians walking on the sidewalk or cars coming out of driveways.
• Does your city have posted speed limits for E-bikes?
100% of the cities that answered the OCGJ survey indicated that they do not post speed limits for E-bikes. No reasons were cited as to why they are not posted for E-bikes even though their top speed can be as high as 28 miles per hour or faster if the rider disables speed restrictive devices thus allowing the E-bike to almost double its speed.
There are obvious issues involving where to place speed limit signs for E-bikes. They are allowed to travel in bike lanes, on sidewalks, and in some jurisdictions even allowed to ride in opposition to traffic.
• In your city, are E-bikes expected to travel in the same direction or opposite direction from street traffic?
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 8
Some cities have authorized E-bikes to ride against the flow of traffic. As stated in the OCTA website (in a section entitled “Wrong Way Riding”), riding against traffic is inherently dangerous due to:
➢ Oncoming cars approach at a much higher speed
➢ Drivers cannot see E-bike riders when turning left
➢ E-bike rider is unable to make right turns
➢ Traffic signals cannot be seen
• Is safety training offered by the city for E-bike riders? Safety education and/or training for E-bike riders is available only sporadically and is, in most cases, optional. As noted in the survey, only 8 cities indicated that safety training was offered. The Orange County Register published a story (OC Register Jan 3, 2024) about a San Juan Capistrano resident who has taken on educating new E-bike riders as a result of her son being injured on an E-bike. An OCGJ visit to a local retailer of E-bikes found there was no formal training for E-bike purchasers or riders, and the only information to purchasers of E-bikes was a pamphlet. The Huntington Beach Police Department has a safety class every other month which focuses on E-bike safety.
OCTA holds safety “bike rodeos” for E-bike riders. These are a few examples of the education available for E-bike riders, but none is mandatory prior to purchasing or riding an E-bike. Therefore, grass-roots efforts are another important step in promoting education and safety.
The OCGJ interviewed a member of the Central Newport Beach Community Association as to their concerns about education, safety, and enforcement regarding E-bikes. The Association has been active in monitoring E-bike use, specifically on the Balboa peninsula. Its focus has been on a perceived lack of enforcement of existing ordinances and the CVC on streets and the beach boardwalk. Along with education and safety training, the Association prefers active enforcement using radar guns, tickets, and increased law enforcement presence.
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 9
• Do the schools/school districts in your city offer safety information and/or certification for student E-bike users on campus?
There are 28 school districts spread across the 34 cities of Orange County. Cities were asked whether schools in their jurisdictions offer safety information to student E-bike riders. Of the 22 cities that responded to the survey, 7 answered yes and 2 answered no. The concerning number that leaps to the eye is that 13 survey respondents stated that they were unaware of their school district’s participation in E-bike regulation. At the time of this report, the 5 districts (per district website) that currently require safety training and registration are:
➢ Capistrano Unified
➢ Los Alamitos Unified
➢ Huntington Beach Union
➢ Irvine Unified
➢ Ocean View
• Are there any other persons/groups that might be able to provide meaningful or relevant information regarding E-bikes to the Grand Jury? At least 6 cities referred this question to the OCSD. 6 others referred this question to their own police department. Interestingly, at least 6 suggested that their jurisdictional park rangers (if these are in place in their city) would be able to answer the question.
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 10
• Is there outreach by the city being conducted to inform your community of any regulations and safety training?
Of the 34 cities in Orange County, 22 responded to this question: 10 cities said “yes,” 10 cities said “no,” and 2 cities indicated “unknown.”
An example of outreach is the City of Irvine’s Police Department. The outreach has several elements which includes High Visibility Enforcement (HVE) operations to issue administrative citations to juveniles violating vehicle codes on E-bikes. It also hosts E-bike safety courses, E-bike rodeos, and community presentations on E-bike safety.
There are also plans for Public Safety in collaboration with the Irvine Unified School District to implement a parking permit program which will require students riding E-bikes to school to attend workshops on E-bike safety before being issued a parking permit to park their E-bike on campus.
• Does your city regulate the use of E-bikes?
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 11
There were 15 cities who responded that they do not regulate E-bikes or their usage.
The OCGJ felt that this statistic, on its own, warranted further investigation and, possibly, further action by such cities.
GENERAL COMMENTS FROM SURVEY RESPONDENTS
“I personally promote safe e-bike texts on local Facebook groups... about 16,000 members. I promote e-bike safety every council meeting.” “State and local legislation is lagging far behind e-bike technology and there is a lot of confusion amongst e-bike users and police regarding what is lawful and what is unlawful when it comes to e-bikes.”
“Thank you for looking into this. I am a relatively new mayor and although I consider eBikes an issue, we have so many other issues that are taking priority. I would like to see e-Bikes banned from all trails that were previously used for bicycles and pedestrians only. They function more like scooters than bicycles.”
“E-bikes and bike safety, in general, are very big topics in the community right now and our Police Department is currently doing A LOT to address these items. Besides conducting weekly High Visibility Enforcement (HVE) operations, IPD’s traffic staff oftentimes issue administrative citations to juveniles who commit vehicle code violations on their bicycles, including E-bikes and E-scooters. In fact, approximately 50% of our administrative citations are issued to E-bike and E-scooter operators. Rather than paying a fine similar to conventional traffic citations, our administrative citations require the juvenile to attend a 2-hour long bike safety course with a parent or guardian on the weekend at City Hall.”
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 12
“Our city will soon be meeting with reps from OCSD in reference to providing additional educational tools for e-bike riders. I have made contact with our local elected officials in reference to securing funds for e-bike enforcement and education.” “The issue with E-bike safety is an active project in our traffic safety unit. Currently we are looking at any municipal codes which will assist with safety for e-bike riders and motorists.”
COMMENDATIONS
The following agencies contributed to the OCGJ’s investigation into the use of E-bikes in Orange County:
• Orange County Transportation Authority has taken a leadership role in outreach and education to all 34 Orange County cities
• Orange County Sheriff’s Department has been very proactive in keeping up with the everchanging rules of the road for E-bikes
• Central Newport Beach Community Association provided important data and various studies on E-bike usage in Newport Beach
FINDINGS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2023-2024 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “E-bikes- Friend or Foe,” the 2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at three principal findings, as follows:
F1. The majority of Orange County’s 34 cities do not have ordinances or policies in place, which makes it difficult to address the safe operation and regulation of E-bikes leading to confusion.
F2. Due to the increasing incidence of E-bike injuries and deaths, there is a need for consistent and accurate tracking by law enforcement and first responders, which does not exist now.
F3. Training and education on E-bike use and safety varies from city to city causing confusion amongst bike riders.
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 13
RECOMMENDATIONS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2023-2024 Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
Based on its investigation described herein, the 2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
R1. Each Orange County city should have specific policies that define the rules of the road for use of E-bikes in their communities by December 1, 2024.
R2. Each Orange County city should have a mechanism in place to report accidents, injuries and deaths involving E-bikes by December 1, 2024.
R3. Each Orange County city should research and develop outreach and education programs regarding the safe operation of E-bikes for their residents by December 1, 2024.
RESPONSES
California Penal Code Section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors.
Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05 specifies the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made as follows:
(a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore.
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 14
(b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) 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 timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation, therefore.
(c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.
REQUIRED RESPONSES
Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code Section 933.05 are required from:
Findings – 90 Day Response Required
City Councils of:
Aliso Viejo F1, F2, F3
Anaheim F1, F2, F3
Brea F1, F2, F3
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 15
Buena Park F1, F2, F3
Costa Mesa F1, F2, F3
Cypress F1, F2, F3
Dana Point F1, F2, F3
Fountain Valley F1, F2, F3
Fullerton F1, F2, F3
Garden Grove F1, F2, F3
Huntington Beach F1, F2, F3
Irvine F1, F2, F3
La Habra F1, F2, F3
La Palma F1, F2, F3
Laguna Beach F1, F2, F3
Laguna Hills F1, F2, F3
Laguna Niguel F1, F2, F3
Laguna Woods F1, F2, F3
Lake Forest F1, F2, F3
Los Alamitos F1, F2, F3
Mission Viejo F1, F2, F3
Newport Beach F1, F2, F3
Orange F1, F2, F3
Placentia F1, F2, F3
Rancho Santa Margarita F1, F2, F3
San Clemente F1, F2, F3
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 16
San Juan Capistrano F1, F2, F3
Santa Ana F1, F2, F3
Seal Beach F1, F2, F3
Stanton F1, F2, F3
Tustin F1, F2, F3
Villa Park F1, F2, F3
Westminster F1, F2, F3
Yorba Linda F1, F2, F3
Recommendations – 90 Day Response Required
City Councils of:
Aliso Viejo R1, R2, R3
Anaheim R1, R2, R3
Brea R1, R2, R3
Buena Park R1, R2, R3
Costa Mesa R1, R2, R3
Cypress R1, R2, R3
Dana Point R1, R2, R3
Fountain Valley R1, R2, R3
Fullerton R1, R2, R3
Garden Grove R1, R2, R3
Huntington Beach R1, R2, R3
Irvine R1, R2, R3
La Habra R1, R2, R3
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 17
La Palma R1, R2, R3
Laguna Beach R1, R2, R3
Laguna Hills R1, R2, R3
Laguna Niguel R1, R2, R3
Laguna Woods R1, R2, R3
Lake Forest R1, R2, R3
Los Alamitos R1, R2, R3
Mission Viejo R1, R2, R3
Newport Beach R1, R2, R3
Orange R1, R2, R3
Placentia R1, R2, R3
Rancho Santa Margarita R1, R2, R3
San Clemente R1, R2, R3
San Juan Capistrano R1, R2, R3
Santa Ana R1, R2, R3
Seal Beach R1, R2, R3
Stanton R1, R2, R3
Tustin R1, R2, R3
Villa Park R1, R2, R3
Westminster R1, R2, R3
Yorba Linda R1, R2, R3
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 18
REFERENCES
2 On Your Side: “Orange County Sees Spike in E-bike Accidents” KCAL NEWS, Nov 3, 2021
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ebike+injurys+in+orange+county+CA&docid=60 3525694912734209&mid=D1537F514A8F881DE2A9D1537F514A8F881DE2A9&view= detail&FORM=VIRE
Biesiada, Noah , “Orange County Cities Struggle to Handle Electronic Bike Regulations” Voice of OC , Dec 20, 2022 https://voiceofoc.org/2022/12/orange-county-cities-struggleto-handle-electric-bike-regulations/ Biesiada, Noah, “Orange County Cities Crack Down on E-bikes with Stricter Regulations” Voice of OC, Sep 28, 2023 https//Orange County Cities Crack Down on EBikes With Stricter Regulations (voiceofoc.org) Connelly, Laylan, “E-bike Lady educates new riders before hitting streets on electric bikes” Orange County Register, Jan 3, 2024, https//E-bike lady’ educates new riders before hitting streets on electric bikes – Orange County Register (ocregister.com) DMV Motorcycle Handbook, Two Wheel Vehicle Operation, Electric Bicycles https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handbook/motorcycle-handbook/two-wheel-vehicleoperation/ “E-Scooter and E-bike-Injuries Soar-2022 Injuries Increased nearly 21%” Consumer Product Safety Commission, Oct 17, 2023
E-Scooter and E-Bike Injuries Soar: 2022 Injuries Increased Nearly 21% | CPSC.gov Fleming, Shawn “Electric Bike Sales grew by 145% in the US Last Year” World Economic Forum, Mar 12, 2021
Sales of electric bicycles are up all over the world | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)
Fry, Hannah, “On Orange County Beaches, proliferation of e-bikes brings battle to the boardwalk” Los Angeles Times, Jan 16, 2023
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-01-16/mayhem-on-the-boardwalk-orangecounty-cities-tackle-e-bikes-with-varying-results Irvine Watchdog, ”Irvine Transportation Commission to propose E-bike safety ordinance” May 14,2023 https://irvinewatchdog.org/city-hall/transportationcommission/irvine-transportation-commission-to-propose-e-bike-safety-ordinance/ Kelly, Charles M., “Council approves introduction of e-bike ordinance City of Seal Beach” Sun News, May 10, 2023, https://www.sunnews.org/council-approvesintroduction-of-e-bike-ordinance/
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 19
OC Bike, E-Bikes
https://octa.net/getting-around/active/oc-bike/e-bikes/ Orange County Public Works, E-Bike Safety in the County of Orange https://ocip.ocpublicworks.com/e-bike
Orange County Sheriff’s Department, E-bike Safety The focus for National Bike Safety Month https://www.ocsheriff.gov/news/e-bike-safety-focus-national-bike-safety-month Orange County Sheriff’s Office Training Bulletin, Jan 4, 2023 https://www.ocsheriff.gov/sites/ocsd/files/2023-01/Bulletin%2023- 01%20Enforcement%20and%20Handling%20of%20Electric%20Bicycles%2C%20Motor cycles%20and%20Motorized%20Scooters_Redacted.pdf
Pimental, Joseph, “In Los Alamitos students will need a permit to ride e-bikes to and from school”, Spectrum News Jan 23,2023 https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/lawest/public-safety/2023/01/20/in-los-alamitos—students-will-need-a-permit-to-ride-ebikes-to—from-school
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 20
GLOSSARY
CNBCA Central Newport Beach Community Association
CVC California Vehicle Code
E-bike Electric bicycle
HVE High Visibility Enforcement
OCGJ Orange County Grand Jury
OCSD Orange County Sheriff’s Department
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 21
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1
Current County of Orange E-Bike Laws - Unincorporated Areas 1 • All E-bikes are required to have a label that describes classification, top assisted speed, and motor wattage.
• Helmets are recommended for all E-bike users. If you are under 18, it’s required! • It is illegal to carry passengers on your E-bike unless your bike has an extra permanent seat or when using a child safety seat.
• E-bikes shall not be operated in excess of their designed speed or the speed limit, whichever is lower, on the road, and in no event in excess of 10 miles per hour on paved trails.
• E-bike shall not be operated in excess of 5 miles per hour on sidewalk. • Riding on the road against the flow of traffic is prohibited. 1 Orange County Public Works. 2024. "E-bike Safety in the County of Orange." Accessed May
22. 2024. https://www.ocgov.com .
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 22
APPENDIX 2
California Vehicle Code Section 312.5 as of December 23, 2023 An electric bicycle is a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts. Three classes of electric bicycles have been established:
• Class 1: A low speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle equipped with a motor which provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance when a speed of 20 mph is reached.
• Class 2: A low speed throttle-assisted electric bicycle equipped with a motor used exclusively to propel the bicycle and NOT capable of providing assistance when a speed of 20 mph is reached.
• Class 3: A low speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle equipped with a speedometer, and a motor which provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance when a speed of 28 mph is reached.
The operator of a Class 3 electric bicycle:
• Must be 16 years old or older.
• Must wear a bicycle safety helmet.
• Must not transport passengers.
• May ride an electric bicycle in a bicycle lane if authorized by local authority or ordinance.
All electric bicycle classes are exempt from the motor vehicle financial responsibility, driver’s license, and license plate requirements (CVC § 24016).
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 23
APPENDIX 3
California Assembly Bills
Listed below are some of the bills introduced into the State legislature, as published by LegiScan, that have a variety of proposed regulations regarding E-bikes. This is by no means a comprehensive list, and in the interest of brevity we do not include the text of each bill.
AB 458 10/08/2023 Chaptered-Regulation of insurance requirements for businesses renting micro mobility vehicles, a category which includes E-bikes.
AB 1773 04/01/2024 In committee-Where E-bikes are permitted to operate.
AB 1774 04/09/2024. This bill would prohibit a person from selling a product or device that can modify the speed capability of an electric bicycle such that it no longer meets the definition of an electric bicycle.
AB 2234 04/01/2024 In committee: The bill will require anyone over the age of 12 without a valid driver’s license to take an online e-bike safety training course and pass a written test to prove they understand traffic safety rules. Those without a valid driver’s license must have a state-issued ID to operate an E-bike.
SB 295 06/16/2023 In committee. Allows Public Agency authority to regulate E-bikes, et. al. on public property.
SB 381 10/13/2023 Chaptered-Comprehensive study of E-bikes.
SB 1271 04/11/2024. This bill would clarify that an electric bicycle is a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor with continuous rated mechanical power of not more than 750 watts. The bill would, if an electric bicycle is capable of operating in multiple modes, require a manufacturer and distributor to include on the label the classification number of the highest classes of which it is capable of operating. Also requires lab accreditation of micro mobility batteries.
E-bikes Friend or Foe
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 24
APPENDIX 4
County of Orange Ordinance No. 18-002
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTION 2-5-29(n) OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, REGARDING PROHIBITED MOTORIZED WHEELED CONVEYANCES.
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange ordains as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 2-5-29(n) of the Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2-5-29.- Vehicle regulation.
(n) Motorized Wheeled Conveyance prohibited. No person shall operate or drive any electric or combustible motorized skateboard, scooter, dirt bike, mini bike, mini motor bike, mini motorcycle, go-kart, go-ped, all-terrain vehicle, quad runner, dune buggy or any similar electric or combustible motorized conveyance in any park, beach or recreational area, with the exception of Class 1 and Class 2 electric bicycles, as defined by the California Vehicle Code, on those regional paved, off-road bikeways designated for such use by the Director of OC Parks, with the approval of the Board of Supervisors.
August 20, 2024
Maria Hernandez
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: City of Yorba Linda’s response to findings and recommendations in the FY 2023-24 Orange County Grand Jury report E-bikes Friend or Foe.
Dear Judge Hernandez:
The City of Yorba Linda has reviewed the findings and recommendations made in the Orange County Grand Jury’s report regarding E-bikes, and thus is submitting to you the required responses outlined in the report.
Findings
Finding 1
“The Majority of Orange County’s 34 cities do not have ordinances or policies in place, which makes it difficult to address the safe operation and regulation of E-bikes leading to confusion.” The City disagrees partially with this finding. While the City of Yorba Linda does not have its own ordinance or policy, it relies on its law enforcement contractor, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department who enforces the California Vehicle Code, to regulate the operation of E-bikes.
Finding 2
“Due to the increasing incidence of E-bike injuries and deaths, there is a need for consistent and accurate tracking by law enforcement and first responders, which does not exist now.” The City disagrees partially with this finding. The Orange County Sheriff’s Department provides data collection on all traffic related injuries and deaths that are reported.
Finding 3
“Training and education on E-bike use and safety varies from city to city causing confusion amongst bike riders.”
The City is unaware of the training and education provided by other cities but support the dissemination of education materials by all Orange County cities.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1
“Each Orange County city should have specific policies that define the rules of the road for use of E-bikes in their communities by December 1, 2024.”
The recommendation will not be implemented in full because it is not warranted. The City defers to and relies upon the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and the California Vehicle Code to define the rules of the road.
Recommendation 2
“Each Orange County city should have a mechanism in place to report accidents, injuries and deaths involving E-bikes by December 1, 2024.”
This recommendation has been implemented in the City of Yorba Linda via the Orange County Sheriff’s Department.
Recommendation 3
“Each Orange County city should research and develop outreach and education programs regarding the safe operation of E-bikes for their residents by December 1, 2024.” This recommendation requires further analysis in conjunction with the Orange County Transportation Authority and the Orange County Sheriff’s Department.
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
DATE: AUGUST 20, 2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MARK PULONE, CITY MANAGER
PREPARED BY: GEOFF SPENCER, PRINCIPAL MANAGEMENT
ANALYST
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO FY 23-24 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT, “TALKING TRASH: RECYCLABLES AND ORGANIC WASTE”
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review the draft response to the Orange County Grand Jury report and authorize the Mayor’s signature for submittal to the Presiding Judge of the Orange County Superior Court by the statutory deadline of September 10, 2024.
BACKGROUND
On June 11, 2024, the Orange County Grand Jury released their report entitled “Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste.” The City of Yorba Linda is required by California Penal Code Section 933 to respond to all assigned findings and recommendations in the report.
DISCUSSION
The Grand Jury report states the main purpose of their investigation was to study how Orange County jurisdictions are implementing the requirements and goals of SB 1383, specifically for single-family residential units. Among other things, SB 1383 requires jurisdictions responsible for waste collection to divert organic waste, including food scraps, from the landfill waste disposal stream. The ultimate goal of the legislation is to reduce the amount of organic waste sent to landfills by 75% of the 2014 baseline by January 1, 2025, in order to reduce short-lived climate pollutants. Additionally, the Grand Jury also sought to determine the success of related educational materials provided by jurisdictions and the challenges jurisdictions face in meeting the recycled organic waste product procurement requirements.
In the report, the Grand Jury made ten findings and seven recommendations, all of which are applicable to the City and require a written response. Staff has prepared a draft response to each of the findings and recommendations based on the instructions provided within the report for Council’s consideration.
RESPONSE TO FY 23-24 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT, “TALKING TRASH:
RECYCLABLES AND ORGANIC WASTE”
P a g e | 2
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ALTERNATIVES
Provide revisions to the proposed response letter.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Orange County Grand Jury Report, “Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste”
2. Proposed City of Yorba Linda Draft Response
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... 3 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................. 3 REASON FOR THE STUDY........................................................................................... 4 METHOD OF STUDY...................................................................................................... 5 INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS................................................................................. 6 Overview of SB 1383.................................................................................................. 6 How Are Jurisdictions Impacted by SB 1383? ........................................................ 7 Orange County Jurisdictions’ SB 1383 Implementation Status............................. 8 How do jurisdictions assess their own progress? ..................................................... 8 Main Implementation Issues ..................................................................................... 8 COMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................... 18 FINDINGS..................................................................................................................... 18 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................. 19 RESPONSES................................................................................................................ 21 Responses Required ............................................................................................... 22 Findings – 90 Day Response Required .................................................................. 22 Recommendations – 90 Day Response Required.................................................. 24 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 25 GLOSSARY.................................................................................................................. 26 APPENDICES............................................................................................................... 28 APPENDIX A – SURVEY RESULTS......................................................................... 28 APPENDIX B – CIRCULAR ECONOMY STARTS IN YOUR KITCHEN................... 33
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 3
SUMMARY
In 2016, the State of California enacted Senate Bill (SB) 1383, requiring counties, cities, and other organizations responsible for waste collection to coordinate with their residents to divert organic waste, including food scraps, from the landfill waste disposal stream. Another provision makes jurisdictions responsible for procuring a quantity of the recovered organic waste products resulting from the diversion. The 2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury (OCGJ) investigated how Orange County jurisdictions are complying with the requirements and goals of SB 1383 that impact single-family residential units.
The investigation revealed that the approaches to meeting SB 1383’s requirements vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The majority of Orange County jurisdictions have not yet distributed residential waste containers that meet the SB 1383 standardization requirements, leaving outdated labeling/embossing in place. Education and outreach have not yet taken place at all in some jurisdictions. Even when information has been disseminated in other jurisdictions, the methods disproportionately favor intermittent paper mailings. Also, the State’s unrealistic targets for the procurement of recycled organic waste products do not account for a jurisdiction’s population density or geographic size, which frequently makes them extremely difficult to meet.
The local enforcement stage of SB 1383 started on January 1, 2024. However, the majority of Orange County jurisdictions are unlikely to meet the SB 1383 targeted seventy-five percent reduction in the amount of organic waste sent to landfills by January 2025.
The OCGJ concludes there is a clear need to improve education and outreach efforts, develop enforcement mechanisms and processes, and to coordinate and collaborate among all jurisdictions to collectively address the challenges and to achieve the goals and targets of SB 1383.
BACKGROUND
Organic waste comprises more than a third of the waste stream in California and includes green waste, wood, food waste, and fibers such as paper and cardboard.
When left to decompose in landfills, organic waste releases large amounts of methane gas which is harmful to the environment (CalRecycle, 2024). In September 2016, SB 1383 set reduction targets in a statewide effort to reduce emissions of Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCP) including methane. Simply put, this required all statewide jurisdictions to implement mandatory organic waste collection and recycling to divert organic waste from landfills. Another key benefit of the diversion of organic and other recyclable material from landfills is the preservation of overall landfill capacity.
In 2014, the State conducted random sampling of twenty-six landfills, Material Recovery Facilities (MRF), and Transfer Stations located in twenty-one of California’s fifty-eight counties (none in Orange County). The results were used to establish the baseline for
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 4
the required reduction in organic waste destined for landfills. SB 1383 then set goals to reduce organic waste sent to landfills below the 2014 baseline by fifty percent no later than January 1, 2020, and seventy-five percent by January 1, 2025. However, despite the law’s requirements, the amount of organic waste sent to landfills statewide actually increased by twenty-three percent above the 2014 baseline (Little Hoover Commission, 2023).
SB 1383 requires all jurisdictions to memorialize the bill’s requirements in their municipal codes and ordinances no later than January 1, 2022. One of the results of these changes is that each jurisdiction had to amend or renegotiate their waste haulers’ franchise agreements to incorporate the new requirements.
In accordance with SB 1383, as of January 1, 2024, all jurisdictions (and therefore all waste producers) will be subject to enforcement, including monetary fines. While SB 1383 has a myriad of requirements for commercial as well as residential waste producers, the OCGJ narrowed its investigation to the impacts associated with local jurisdiction compliance with SB 1383 on Orange County residents. This report focuses on the specific requirements associated with SB 1383, the local actions taken so far to meet those requirements, the success of those actions and how they are measured, local agency outreach and education efforts, and the challenges that remain for the County of Orange and the county’s thirty-four cities.
REASON FOR THE STUDY
The organics diversion mandate under SB 1383 began to take effect in California on January 1, 2022. This means that jurisdictions in California were required to implement programs for the separation and diversion of organic waste, including food scraps, from landfill disposal. The actual enforcement of this requirement started on January 1, 2024.
The OCGJ’s intent was to take a closer look at how Orange County jurisdictions are responding to this mandate, their successes and challenges, and the impact of this new requirement on the Orange County residents.
The OCGJ initially focused on two questions:
• What actions have Orange County jurisdictions taken to implement organics collection for their residential customers, and how do they measure the success of these actions?
• Given that one key to the success of SB 1383 is public participation, have local jurisdictions conducted sufficient outreach and education? While investigating the answers to these questions, the OCGJ discovered additional information about Orange County recycling and waste management that is notably relevant to this topic and is included in this report.
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 5
METHOD OF STUDY
The OCGJ toured several local waste facilities, including:
• The Frank R. Bowerman landfill in Irvine, owned by the County of Orange and managed and operated by OC Waste & Recycling (OCW&R). This enabled the OCGJ to gain a better understanding of the refuse collection and disposal process.
• The MRF operated by Rainbow Environmental Services, located at 17121 Nichols Lane in the city of Huntington Beach. This facility was previously decommissioned then reopened on short notice when the newer Anaheim MRF was destroyed by fire in February 2022.
• The MRF operated by Waste Management, located at 2050 North Glassell Street in the city of Orange. This tour allowed the OCGJ to gain information on the operation of a newer, larger MRF.
The OCGJ reviewed SB 1383 and related documents, training videos, public meeting recordings, and presentations available on the CalRecycle website.
The OCGJ reviewed online publications from various organizational and media sources related to trash hauling and general operations of the waste and recycling industry and conducted fourteen interviews with representatives from the waste industry, local jurisdictions, and the State’s enforcement agency.
The OCGJ also disseminated a nine-question survey to each of the thirty-four Orange County cities and the County to obtain their perspectives on local implementation of SB 1383. Follow-up interviews were conducted with representatives of the same ten cities included in the 2019-2020 OCGJ report “OC Recycling: Doing it the Right Way” and the County for additional insight into each jurisdiction’s implementation of, and compliance with, SB 1383’s requirements.
The OCGJ utilized the same sampling of ten cities as well as the County of Orange (for its unincorporated areas) because they represent different geographical areas of the county (from Brea in the north to Dana Point in the south) and reflect a variety of larger cities by population and/or land area (e.g., Santa Ana, Irvine) and some that are smaller (e.g., Buena Park, Mission Viejo).
Individual members of the OCGJ also observed the types and colors of carts, their labeling, and their contents at various locations throughout the county. These observations were documented via photographs to illustrate dissimilar details and nuances among jurisdictions and haulers.
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 6
INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS
Overview of SB 1383
SB 1383 set ambitious targets for reducing organic waste disposal in landfills from the 2014 baseline: fifty percent by January 2020 (which was not met), and seventy-five percent by January 2025. Organic waste comprises more than half the waste stream in California and includes green waste, wood, food waste, and fibers such as paper and cardboard. When left to decompose in landfills, organic waste releases large amounts of methane gas. The overall goal of the bill is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least four million metric tons per year by 2030 by requiring that “organics” going to the landfill be reduced to 5.7 million metric tons by 2025.
This groundbreaking legislation is a statewide effort to reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCPs). SLCPs such as methane, black carbon, tropospheric (ground level) ozone, and hydrofluorocarbons remain in the atmosphere for a shorter time than carbon dioxide but have a much stronger warming effect. Therefore, reducing SLCPs has the potential to significantly slow global climate change in the near term (California Air Resources Board, 2024). The State’s efforts and policies are intended to substantially increase the rate of organic material diversion away from landfills. This diversion goal is meant to move the State towards the desired “circular economy” where organic waste is collected, converted into new materials or products, and reused for other purposes.
Figure 1 Source: CalRecycle
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 7
How Are Jurisdictions Impacted by SB 1383?
In this context, a jurisdiction may be a city, county, city and county, or special district that collects solid waste.
The jurisdictions’ responsibilities specified by SB 1383 relating to residential units include (CalRecycle, 2024):
• Providing organics collection services to all residents • Conducting education and outreach to community
• Procuring recyclable and recovered organic products
• Securing access to recycling capacity
• Monitoring compliance and conducting enforcement
SB 1383 contains a significant amount of detail regarding the types of allowable collection programs. Critical requirements are listed below:
• Each resident must subscribe to an organic waste collection service that either “source-separates” the waste by using separate bins or transports all unsegregated waste to a facility that recovers seventy-five percent of the organic content collected.
• SB 1383 requires one of the following collection options:
A one-can system – all contents are transported to a facility that recovers seventy-five percent of the organic content.
A two-can system – at least one of the containers (whichever includes organic waste and garbage) must be transported to a facility that recovers seventyfive percent of the organic content.
A three-can system – organic waste is required to be source separated (recyclables in blue, food and yard waste in green).
Jurisdictions must also conduct education and outreach to all residents regarding collection service requirements, contamination standards, self-haul requirements, and overall compliance with SB 1383. Educational material must be linguistically accessible to non-English speaking residents.
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 8
Figure 2 Source: CalRecycle
Orange County Jurisdictions’ SB 1383 Implementation Status How do jurisdictions assess their own progress?
The OCGJ sent a ten-question survey to thirty-four cities and OC Waste & Recycling (OCW&R) and received thirty-one responses. The purpose of the survey was to verify how these agencies measure their progress on the implementation of various aspects of SB 1383. Survey participants were asked to mark their progress on the scale from 1 (significant challenges) to 5 (excellent) for each of the questions. The survey questions as well as more detailed information on responses and follow-up comments and explanations is included in Appendix A.
Main Implementation Issues
To follow-up on the survey, the OCGJ conducted a series of interviews with jurisdictions to learn more about their specific challenges in implementing SB 1383, successes, concerns, and solutions to common issues. The eleven jurisdictions interviewed were the same included in the 2019-2020 OCGJ report “OC Recycling: Doing it the Right Way” representing different geographical areas of the county and a variety of populations and/or land areas. Several themes emerged from the interviews:
• Container Standardization
SB 1383 requires standardized colors for residential and business curbside containers (green for organics, blue for recyclables, and grey for trash). It also requires container
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 9
labels on new containers. The color scheme for collection containers must meet either of these requirements:
o The lid of the container is the correct designated color o The body of the container is the correct designated color, and the lid is also the same specified color or may be gray or black
Out of the eleven jurisdictions interviewed, only two have distributed containers that meet the State requirements. However, jurisdictions are not required to replace containers prior to January 1, 2036. Most are replacing their containers gradually over time. The variety of colors used by various jurisdictions contributes to the confusion and potentially increases contamination rates. In many cases, existing containers include embossed information that is no longer accurate or labels with outdated information (see examples below).
Figure 3. The embossed information wrongly directs residents to put plastic grocery bags in the recycling container. Photo: OCGJ
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 10
Figure 4. The old sticker incorrectly directs residents to put shoes, clothes, and other textiles in the recycling container. Photo: OCGJ Figure 5. Outside label on the ‘green waste’ container contains no information regarding food scraps. Photo: OCGJ
The following two images of the “Food Scrap” container (outside and inside) were taken by an OCGJ member in a public park. The contents of the container, which contains unallowable items, such as plastic packaging, further underscores the need for clear signage and more public education.
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 11
Figure 6. Lid of the “Food Scraps” container in a public park from November 2023 showing correct information. Photo: OCGJ
Figure 7. Contents of the same “Food Scraps” container in the public park from November 2023. Photo: OCGJ
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 12
Another standardization issue is that what is accepted for recycling varies among the jurisdictions and haulers.
For example, some allow palm fronds into organics bins while others do not, and some allow food scraps to be deposited in compostable bags while others do not, further adding to the confusion.
• Funding and Enforcement
While conducting interviews with the Orange County jurisdictions, the OCGJ learned that there are two approaches to funding their solid waste management programs (including SB 1383 implementation activities): (1) using an enterprise fund; and (2) using the general fund. Using an enterprise fund ensures that all revenues generated by the solid waste management program are reinvested in that program rather than being diverted into other needs of the jurisdiction.
Even though enforcement activities were effective starting January 1, 2024, jurisdictions only conduct inspections and spot-checks of residential customers’ organic and trash containers using either “lid flipping” or smart trucks that record the contents of the containers as they are being emptied. Haulers (via contracts) have been designated to perform these functions. If residents are found to be in violation, the first step is to provide them with additional educational materials and information. If the violation persists, warning notices are issued. The final step is issuing fines. The penalties imposed by a jurisdiction are based on Government Code Sections 53069.4, 25132, and 36900, and are as follows:
• First violation: $50-$100 per violation;
• Second violation: $100-$200 per violation;
• Third or subsequent violation: $250-$500 per violation Penalties increase when an entity violates the same requirement within a one-year period (CalRecycle, 2024).
While jurisdictions have yet to collect fines, some have not even established the collection protocol or the account where collected fines will be deposited. • Education and Outreach
Clearly, there is a need for more education and outreach. The success of SB 1383 implementation and the ability to reach the CalRecycle goal of a seventy-five percent diversion rate depend largely on residents’ compliance and behavior change. Education and outreach is the first and most critical component of that change. “The accuracy of consumer disposal decisions directly influences the performance of the recycling system.” (Christian Blanco C. S., 2023)
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 13
Most interviewed jurisdictions collaborate with haulers to create and distribute educational materials. Others also use consulting services for that purpose. Outreach strategies, the number of outreach events and communications, as well as participation rates vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but most rely heavily on paper mailings, which may not be the most effective way of reaching the public. If combined with junk mail, the educational material may go unread into a recycling bin, if not the trash. Frequently, the information flyers are mailed together with hard-copy utility bills, which may overlook those who subscribe to electronic billing.
As part of their outreach/education campaigns, some of the interviewed jurisdictions purchased kitchen pails for recycling food scraps to distribute to some or all households.
These purchases were funded through SB 1383 assistance grants from CalRecycle, which most of the Orange County jurisdictions applied for and received.
The OCGJ reviewed a sampling of educational materials being distributed by several cities and concluded that the quality of these materials can range from highly informative publications with accessible and attractive designs to flimsy “newsletters” issued by haulers for their respective jurisdictions with graphics and instructions that are barely legible.
Paper mailings have their role but represent only one of many possible outreach methods. The recycling industry itself is embracing technological advancements, including the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), in waste sorting, predicting trends, the use of smart hauler trucks and smart bins, as well as in outreach and education (Recycling Inside, 2023).
According to Recycling Inside, “AI can play a pivotal role in educating the public about recycling practices. Chatbots and virtual assistants powered by AI can provide real-time guidance on waste disposal, recycling guidelines, and collection schedules. By engaging with individuals through personalized interactions, AI-driven platforms can raise awareness, promote recycling behavior, and facilitate proper waste management at the consumer level.”
According to research by the Recycling Partnership, “People have a misconception that what is recyclable doesn’t change. They are recycling incorrectly in some cases because they are basing decisions on past guidelines and recycling knowledge such as believing milk cartons are wax coated and should not be recycled, or envelopes with windows should not be recycled. They think they know what they need to know about recycling because that’s what they’ve always known.” (Center for Sustainable Behavior & Impact, 2022)
More than seventy percent of people surveyed wish there was an easier way to get information on what can and can’t be recycled in their community. (Center for Sustainable Behavior & Impact, 2022)
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 14
Determining the success of their outreach efforts is another challenge that Orange County jurisdictions are facing in the near future. Most jurisdictions need to determine how to measure outreach efforts, as the enforcement started January 1, 2024. Having common standards and methods to measure the success of public education and compliance, and regularly posting this information on the jurisdiction’s website related to SB 1383 goals, will give the public an incentive to comply with SB 1383. However, in the interim, there is a significant amount of visual evidence regarding the level of residents’ confusion as evidenced by the photo below. The photo is the amount of waste in the first five hours of a workday that was improperly included in residential recyclable containers and delivered to a MRF, where it had to be hand sorted out.
Figure 8: Waste improperly included in recyclable containers Photo: OCGJ • Procurement of Recovered Organic Waste Products
Representatives from most of the jurisdictions the OCGJ interviewed indicated that meeting the procurement requirements of SB 1383 is challenging. This is due to their jurisdictions’ State-calculated procurement targets far exceeding the quantity of recovered organic waste products that they can utilize.
To comply with SB 1383, jurisdictions must procure recovered organic waste products to meet an annual procurement target. Recovered organic waste products include:
o Compost
o Mulch
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 15
o Renewable energy (transportation fuel, electricity, and gas for heating) from anaerobic digestion
o Electricity from biomass conversion
Each jurisdiction’s procurement target is calculated by multiplying its population, as reported by the California Department of Finance, by the per capita procurement target (0.08 tons of organic waste per California resident per year).
The resulting procurement target can then be multiplied by product conversion factors (as established by the regulations) to determine the annual procurement requirements for recovered organic waste products.
Source: CalRecycle
As one of the survey respondents stated:
“Meeting the annual procurement target presents a significant challenge. In addition, the formula used to calculate a jurisdiction’s procurement target does not account for density or square miles. Denser areas equal less space to distribute mulch or compost.
More people equals higher procurement target.”
As a result, a number of jurisdictions with high procurement targets had to use grant funding to purchase the required amounts of compost/mulch. Because the required target procurement amounts exceeded what they can utilize in their communities, they had to distribute the compost/mulch (via hauler) to agricultural communities outside Orange County. They also admitted that without grant funding, meeting the targets will be even more difficult and will require diverting resources from their own communities or raising rates.
The regulations limit procurement to “use or giveaway, and do not include the sale of products [14CCR Section 18993.1(e)(1)] so jurisdictions cannot sell the procured recovered organic waste products, such as compost, via a third party.” (CalRecycle, 2022)
Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) is one of the products that can be counted towards meeting a jurisdiction’s procurement goal. Haulers operating in Orange County, including Republic, CR&R, and Waste Management, utilize trucks powered by RNG.
However, in most cases the RNG they use is not purchased from an approved facility so it cannot be counted towards the required procurement goal. CalRecycle maintains a list of anaerobic digestion facilities in California to help jurisdictions find renewable gas that may be eligible towards their SB 1383 procurement obligations.
Currently, this list contains only six facilities that produce Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), which in this case is presumably compressed RNG. None of these facilities is located in Orange County. The closest are located in Riverside County (Perris), San Bernardino County (Victorville and Rialto), and San Diego County (Escondido).
The issue of RNG is further complicated by the fact that some sewage treatment plants also produce RNG, which (according to CalRecycle) is mostly ineligible. Below is the
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 16
information included in “Frequently Asked Questions” on RNG on the CalRecycle website (CalRecycle, 2022):
Renewable gas derived solely from sewage is ineligible for meeting the procurement target because a Publicly Owned Treatment Work (POTW) is not a solid waste facility and therefore not in the scope of the legislative intent of SB 1383. Sewage is also not typically destined for a landfill, so its use does not help achieve the landfill diversion goals.
However, Title 14 explicitly authorizes POTWs to accept food waste without a solid waste facility permit, making it functionally similar to incentivizing biomethane from a solid waste facility. Therefore, it is justifiable to allow the portion of renewable gas resulting from the digestion of food waste at POTWs to count toward the procurement targets, provided the POTW accepts food waste from specified facilities or operations [see 14 CCR Section 18993.1(h)(1)] and meets all other applicable regulatory requirements. For more information, please see the Final Statement of Purpose and Necessity (pages 178-180).
The issue of procurement difficulties encountered by California jurisdictions is mentioned in the Little Hoover Commission 2023 report on the implementation of SB 1383. The Commission recommended that “the state should expand the list of compliance pathways and products eligible to count toward a jurisdiction’s procurement requirements.” (Little Hoover Commission, 2023)
• Coordination and Vision for the Future
In a county with thirty-four cities and several other jurisdictions, coordination, collaboration, and sharing resources and best practices can be a challenge. The OCGJ learned that county-wide groups meet on a regular basis, including a waste management coordinators’ group, a haulers’ group, and a market development group.
Additionally, the OCGJ learned that OCW&R has assumed a leadership role in positioning Orange County for a greener, more sustainable future.
OCW&R has a clear vision for a regional, county-wide approach to the implementation of SB 1383, which includes not only organics and edible food strategies, but also market creation and development, procurement and compliance, and regional standardization and collaboration.
The details of their vision are outlined in the 2024 presentation to the legislative group, which is available on the OCW&R website (OC Waste & Recycling, 2024).
The following slide has been taken from this presentation.
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 17
Figure 9. Circular economy concept for Orange County Source: OCW&R • Other Issues
Multi-family housing units: While not within the scope of this report, it should be noted that services to multi-family units still pose a significant challenge. Jurisdictions are required to provide organic waste collection to multi-family units. Many find it difficult to provide a three-bin source-separated service to these units due to limited space.
Creative solutions, such as providing smaller organics containers or containers that are placed in a common area to serve multiple units, have been utilized by Orange County cities, but full compliance is difficult to achieve.
The cost of SB 1383 implementation: The Little Hoover Commission Report states that the gross cost of implementation was determined to be $40 billion between 2019 and 2030. (CalRecycle, 2019) “About 5 percent of this figure represents soft costs (i.e. the work local jurisdictions must do to create organic waste programs, educate the public, and ensure health, safety, and quality control measures are met). The other 95 percent represents the cost of disposing of organic waste, including constructing infrastructure” (Little Hoover Commission, 2023). Most Orange County jurisdictions interviewed by the OCGJ indicated that they had to increase their residential and/or business waste collection rates to cover the cost of expanded services mandated by SB 1383.
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 18
COMMENDATIONS
• County of Orange, OC Waste & Recycling is commended for having successfully met SB 1383 mandates, developing new composting infrastructure, a model education and outreach program, moving towards robust and repurposing recycling programs, and developing gas-to-energy facilities to produce renewable energy.
• City of Mission Viejo, Solid Waste Program is commended for their proactive implementation of SB 1383 mandates, distributing compliant waste containers to all residents, and producing a robust outreach and education program using numerous delivery methods.
• City of Santa Ana Public Works, Trash and Recycling Program is commended for proactively revising their hauler contract to meet SB 1383 requirements, producing a notable and ongoing outreach and education program, distributing compliant waste containers to all residents, and fostering a highly collaborative relationship with their hauler.
FINDINGS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2023-2024 Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
Based on its investigation titled “Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste,” the 2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following principal findings:
Container Standardization
F1. The majority of Orange County jurisdictions have not yet required their haulers to distribute residential containers that meet the CalRecycle standardized colors, leaving legacy and often incorrect or illegible labeling and embossing in place.
Funding and Enforcement
F2. While a jurisdiction may not delegate its overall responsibility for compliance with State requirements to a hauler, some jurisdictions have designated the task of imposing and collecting fines from residents to the hauler in accordance with State law. However, not all jurisdictions are clear on who ultimately receives and retains the collected fines.
F3. All jurisdictions will eventually start collecting fines from residents for noncompliance, but some have not yet determined whether the revenues will go into a waste and recycling enterprise fund or into the jurisdiction’s general fund.
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 19
Education and Outreach
F4. In most jurisdictions, education and outreach is a joint effort between jurisdiction, hauler, and sometimes consultants, with the jurisdiction reviewing the materials before publication. The methods of dissemination vary by jurisdiction and hauler but frequently rely on a resident actively seeking the information, which requires the resident to have some awareness of the new mandates in the first place.
Most efforts primarily revolve around intermittent hard-copy paper mailings.
F5. Most jurisdictions currently have no way to accurately determine the effectiveness of their respective education and outreach efforts other than the eventual inspections or audits that will take place.
Procurement of Recovered Organic Waste Products
F6. There is some concern that there are not enough composting facilities in Orange County to process all organic waste, forcing some jurisdictions/haulers to transport it long distances for processing.
F7. There is currently no infrastructure in the county that is a State-approved source of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and energy from organic waste. Jurisdictions that use vehicles running on RNG procured from non-approved sources cannot count that RNG towards fulfillment of their procurement requirement.
F8. The formula used by the State to calculate a jurisdiction's procurement target does not account for a jurisdiction’s population density or geographic size (square miles). As such, meeting the annual procurement target presents a significant challenge for most jurisdictions.
F9. Many Orange County jurisdictions were unable to meet the requirement in SB 1383 to reduce organic waste sent to landfills by the 2020 deadline. It is unlikely the required seventy-five percent reduction will be achieved by the 2025 deadline.
F10. The current procurement requirements mandated by SB 1383 are unrealistic and likely unachievable by most jurisdictions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2023-2024 Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 20
Based on its investigation titled “Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste,” the 2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Container Standardization
R1. All jurisdictions should expedite the acquisition and distribution of residential containers that meet the CalRecycle standardized colors. Additionally, until the compliant containers can be distributed, all jurisdictions should ensure the distribution of labeling for non-compliant containers that explain the current SB 1383 requirements applicable to their jurisdiction by June 30, 2025.
Funding and Enforcement
R2. By December 31, 2024, all jurisdictions should ensure their waste hauling agreements are in compliance with State statute so that haulers may be designated to perform certain required tasks but are not improperly delegated overall responsibility for compliance. Additionally, all jurisdictions should ensure that any fines collected by a hauler are forwarded to the jurisdiction.
R3. The OCGJ recommends that all jurisdictions utilize a dedicated waste and recycling enterprise fund for collection of fines for non-compliance with SB 1383 by December 31, 2024.
Education and Outreach
R4. By December 31, 2024, all jurisdictions should diversify the methods and media used for education and outreach to include, among others, various social media platforms, emails to residents, newspaper, television, flyer mailings, community events, and appearances at other public gatherings.
R5. By December 31, 2024, and in order to gauge the effectiveness of their education and outreach efforts, all jurisdictions should develop new methods to engage residents directly to help determine their awareness of the requirements associated with SB 1383, such as surveys, online quizzes, and door-to-door polling.
Procurement of Recovered Organic Waste Products
R6. By June 30, 2025, the OCGJ recommends that all jurisdictions participate in the OCW&R-led efforts to develop a coordinated county-wide approach to the organics recycling infrastructure and programs as well as procurement requirements associated with SB 1383, working towards creating circular economy as a long-term goal.
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 21
R7. By December 31, 2024, the Orange County Board of Supervisors and all Orange County cities should lobby appropriate members of the State Legislature and/or CalRecycle to revise the organic waste diversion targets to better reflect Orange County’s waste amounts, revise the jurisdictions’ procurement requirements to better represent the limited options currently available for procurement, the jurisdictions’ varying populations, population densities, and geographic size, and to delay associated enforcement actions by the State.
RESPONSES
The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report:
Section 933
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years.
Section 933.05.
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons thereof.
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 22
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) 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 timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation, thereof.
Responses Required
Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code Section 933.05 are required from:
Findings – 90 Day Response Required
OC Board of Supervisors: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 City Councils of:
Aliso Viejo F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Anaheim F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Brea F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Buena Park F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Costa Mesa F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Cypress F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Dana Point F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Fountain Valley F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 Fullerton F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 23
Garden Grove F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Huntington Beach F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 Irvine F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
La Habra F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
La Palma F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Laguna Beach F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Laguna Hills F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Laguna Niguel F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Laguna Woods F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Lake Forest F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Los Alamitos F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Mission Viejo F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Newport Beach F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Orange F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Placentia F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Rancho Santa Margarita F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 San Clemente F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
San Juan Capistrano F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 Seal Beach F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Stanton F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Tustin F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Villa Park F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Westminster F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 24
Yorba Linda F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Recommendations – 90 Day Response Required
OC Board of Supervisors: R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
City Councils of:
Aliso Viejo R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Anaheim R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Brea R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Buena Park R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Costa Mesa R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Cypress R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Dana Point R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Fountain Valley R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Fullerton R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Garden Grove R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Huntington Beach R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Irvine R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
La Habra R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
La Palma R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Laguna Beach R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Laguna Hills R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Laguna Niguel R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Laguna Woods R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Lake Forest R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Los Alamitos R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Mission Viejo R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Newport Beach R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Orange R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 25
Placentia R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Rancho Santa Margarita R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
San Clemente R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
San Juan Capistrano R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Seal Beach R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Stanton R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Tustin R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Villa Park R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Westminster R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
Yorba Linda R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board. (2024). Short-Lived Climate Pollutants. Retrieved from https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/slcp/about
CalRecycle. (2019, October 2). Initial Statement of Reasons Appendix A: Cost Update.
Retrieved from CalRecycle: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Docs/Web/115980 CalRecycle. (2022, December 5). Procurement Questions and Answers. Retrieved from CalRecycle: https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/faq/recycledproducts / CalRecycle. (2023). SB1383 Education and Outreach Resources. Retrieved from CalRecicle: https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/education/ CalRecycle. (2024). 2022 State of Disposal and Recycling Report. Sacramento:
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Retrieved from https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Details/1732 CalRecycle. (2024). Enforcement Questions and Answers. Retrieved from https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/faq/enforcement/ CalRecycle. (2024). SB 1383 Education and Outreach Resources. Retrieved from https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/education/
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 26
Center for Sustainable Behavior & Impact. (2022). Consumer Insights on Packaging, Labels, and Claims for Recycling. The Recycling Partnership. Retrieved from https://recyclingpartnership.org/wpcontent/uploads/dlm_uploads/2023/06/Consumer_Labeling_Research_Final.pdf Christian Blanco, C. S. (2023, May 30). America's Broken Recycling System. Retrieved from California Management Review : https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2023/05/americas-broken-recycling-system/ Christian Blanco, C. S. (2023, May 30). Is it Time to Consider a National Recycling Standard? California Management Review. Retrieved from
https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2023/05/is-it-time-to-consider-a-national-recyclingstandard / Little Hoover Commission. (2023). Reducing California's Landfill Methane Emissions:
SB1383 Implementation. Sacramento: Little Hoover Commission.
Mouchard, A. (2024, May 4). Tech meets trash in Orange County’s landfill future.
Orange County Register. Retrieved from
https://www.ocregister.com/2024/05/04/tech-meets-trash-in-orange-countyslandfill-future/ OC Waste & Recycling. (2024). OCW&R. Retrieved from OCW&R:
https://oclandfills.com/sites/ocwr/files/2024-
03/1383%20IMAGINE%20WHAT%20CAN%20BE%20Presentaiton.pdf
Recycling Inside. (2023, June 2). Revolutionizing Recycling: The Relevance of Artificial Intelligence in the Recycling Industry. Retrieved from
https://recyclinginside.com/the-relevance-of-artificial-intelligence-in-the-recyclingindustry/ Savage, S. (2023, February 16). Forbes. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2023/02/16/the-golden-statescircular-economy-goals-is-that-just-california-dreamin-or-thefuture/?sh=95c357338e58
GLOSSARY
AB Assembly Bill
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 27
Circular Economy Current economic models consist of acquiring materials, making them into products, and then those products become waste. A circular economy reduces material use, redesigns materials and products to be less resource intensive, and recaptures “waste” as a resource to manufacture new materials and products.
Compost Compost is made from a variety of organic materials and is used to add nutrients and improve soil structure by mixing it into the soil.
Mulch Mulch is typically made from a single material like straw, grass clippings, or wood chips and is spread on top of the soil to suppress weeds, retain moisture, regulate soil temperature, and protect plant roots.
MRF Material Recovery Facility
OCGJ Orange County Grand Jury
OCW&R OC Waste & Recycling, a department of the County of Orange Organic Waste Solid wastes originated from living organisms and their metabolic waste products, and from petroleum, which contain naturally produced organic compounds, and which are biologically
decomposable by microbial and fungal action into the constituent compounds of water, carbon dioxide, and other simpler organic compounds. Sometimes called biodegradable waste.
ORNGE Organics to Natural Gas and Energy
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Work
Recycling Using waste as material to manufacture a new product. Recycling involves altering the physical form of an object or material and making a new object from the altered material.
RNG Renewable Natural Gas
SB Senate Bill
SLCP Short-Lived Climate Pollutants
Solid Waste Discarded or abandoned materials. Solid wastes can be solid, liquid, semi-solid or containerized gaseous material.
Waste Objects or materials for which no use or reuse is intended.
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 28
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – SURVEY RESULTS
Survey participants were asked to mark their progress on a scale from 1 (significant challenges) to 5 (excellent progress) for each of the nine questions. On the following bar graphs, the ‘x’ axis (horizontal) depicts the rating scale from 1 to 5. The ‘y’ axis (vertical) represents the number of respondents that gave themselves a particular rating.
Was your city successful in meeting the goal of reducing organic waste disposal 50% by 2020?
Are you confident that your city will meet the goal of reducing organic waste 75% by 2025?
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 29
How would you rate your city's success in providing organic waste collection services to all residents?
How successful is your city in recycling these organic materials? How would you rate your confidence that city residents have been educated to have sufficient knowledge of the composting requirements (and associated restrictions) with the proper disposal of yard trimmings and food scraps?
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 30
How successful was your city in procuring a quantity of recovered organic waste products annually?
How would you rate your city's success in meeting the record-keeping requirements associated with SB1383, including but not limited to, inspection and enforcement, compliance reviews, investigation of complaints, and alleged violations? How satisfied are you that your current agreements(s) with the hauler(s) that service your city are adequate to comply with all provisions of residential services required by SB1383?
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 31
Are your city's current staffing levels that are, or will become, responsible for all aspects of full SB1383 compliance adequate to meet the tasks at hand? The following examples of additional comments or explanations for their answers to the questions above were provided by survey respondents:
“Comprehensive implementation and effective management of SB 1383 would require additional resources and financial support. Despite our [jurisdiction’s] proactive approach, including securing a new hauler/franchise agreement . . . that aligns with SB 1383's requirements and achieving near-complete adoption of these guidelines, there remains a widespread reluctance towards organic recycling. Ongoing educational efforts are in place and will continue; however, achieving significant behavioral change and compliance will require additional resources.”
“[Our jurisdiction has] been working on compliance regarding SB 1383 with new franchise agreements, building out local infrastructure, meeting the SB 619 procurement targets, providing education and outreach, programs are being implemented to incrementally improve participation and increase diversion. We are increasing staffing levels to help with continued support for compliance as it requires increased effort for more inspections, waste characterizations, more education and outreach, further program development, market creation and development for compost and mulch, inspections, education, and enforcement support. Although meeting the 75% goal requires more heavy lifting, I anticipate we will see incremental improvements from our efforts.”
“SB 1383 has proven to challenge the recycling habits of many throughout the [jurisdiction]. Through updated franchise agreements . . . and CalRecycle grant funding, we have been able to educate and encourage change in disposal habits as required via SB 1383. Additional outreach outlining the requirements and benefits of recycling organic material will be key in successfully transitioning residents and business owners to recycle organic material.”
“[We] started a new franchise agreement after an RFP process . . . . This allowed us to incorporate all hauler-related SB 1383 compliance activities and select an innovative
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 32
organic waste collection program. We are facing procurement challenges as energy related products are not readily available (particularly) RNG for collection vehicles.
Staffing may prove to be a challenge, depending upon the amount of complaints, inspections, and enforcement actions we are required to address.” “Procurement [is our] biggest challenge.”
“Our agreement with [the hauler] required that they implement 1383 compliant programming immediately for residential. It also includes education/outreach, contamination monitoring, purchase or compost/mulch on our behalf. Residential 3-cart was implemented on day one of the agreement. However, even with education, residents are hesitant to participate with food in the organics container due to not being allowed to use compostable bags and therefore attracting bugs and vermin.” “Meeting the annual procurement target presents a significant challenge. [The hauler’s] collection trucks are fueled with RNG. The RNG purchased is California produced, though not SB 1383 qualified. In addition, the formula used to calculate a jurisdiction’s procurement target does not count for density or square miles. Denser areas equal less space to distribute mulch or compost. More people equals higher procurement target.” “As with any new program where you need to change habits and behavior, it is going to a long-term project to get adults in the habit of separating their food scraps. State of CA should implement a statewide outreach campaign, and not just rely on local jurisdictions to provide all the outreach.”
Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste
2023-2024 Orange County Grand Jury Page 33
APPENDIX B – CIRCULAR ECONOMY STARTS IN YOUR KITCHEN
Circular conomy at or
August 20, 2024
Maria Hernandez
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: City of Yorba Linda’s response to recommendations of the 2023-24 Orange County Grand Jury report, Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste.
Dear Judge Hernandez:
The City of Yorba Linda has reviewed the findings and recommendations made in the Orange County Grand Jury’s report regarding the implementation of SB 1383, and thus is submitting to you the required responses outlined in the report.
Findings
As a preface, the Grand Jury makes reference to “most jurisdictions” in several of the findings.
As the City of Yorba Linda does not know about the efforts of other Orange County jurisdictions or their challenges implementing SB 1383, the City can only agree with the findings insofar as they may be true for the City of Yorba Linda. We do not comment on other jurisdictions.
Finding 1
“The Majority of Orange County jurisdictions have not yet required their haulers to distribute residential containers that meet the CalRecycle standardized colors, leaving legacy and often incorrect or illegible labeling and embossing in place.” The City disagrees partially with this finding. SB 1383 does not require the replacement of functional containers that were purchased prior to January 1, 2022 until to the end of their useful life, or until January 1, 2036, whichever comes first. The City of Yorba Linda and its hauler, Republic Services, mailed new labels with updated pictures identifying what materials can be disposed of in each container. Republic is also now distributing carts that meet state-mandated colors whenever carts are replaced.
Finding 2
“While a jurisdiction may not delegate its overall responsibility for compliance with State requirements to a hauler, some jurisdictions have designated the task of imposing and collecting fines from residents to the hauler in accordance with State law. However, not all jurisdictions are clear who ultimately receives and retains the collected fines.”
The City disagrees partially with this finding. In Yorba Linda, Republic Services is entitled to assess and collect fines for contamination. However, the City of Yorba Linda is entitled to keep civil penalties that are assessed on violations of the municipal code.
Finding 3
“All jurisdictions will eventually start collecting fines from residents for noncompliance, but some have not yet determined whether the revenues will go into a waste and recycling enterprise fund or into the jurisdiction’s general fund.”
The City disagrees wholly with this finding. The City of Yorba Linda will account for this revenue in the general fund.
Finding 4
“In most jurisdictions, education and outreach is a joint effort between jurisdiction, hauler, and sometimes consultants, with the jurisdiction reviewing the materials before publication. The methods of dissemination vary by jurisdiction and hauler but frequently rely on a resident actively seeking the information, which requires the resident to have some awareness of the new mandates in the first place. Most efforts primarily revolve around intermittent hard-copy paper mailings.”
The City disagrees wholly with this finding. In addition to maintaining the City’s website and Republic Services municipal website for Yorba Linda residents, the City and Republic Services have made several proactive outreach efforts. These efforts have included social media posts, a PSA video, quarterly print newsletters mailed to every customer in the City, updates in the City’s e-newsletter, and direct contact with residents at City events.
Finding 5
“Most jurisdictions currently have no way to accurately determine the effectiveness of their respective education and outreach efforts other than the eventual inspections or audits that will take place.”
The City agrees with this finding.
Finding 6
“There is some concern that there are not enough composting facilities in Orange County to process all organic waste, forcing some jurisdictions/haulers to transport it long distances for processing.”
The City agrees with this finding.
Finding 7
“There is currently no infrastructure in the county that is a State-approved source of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and energy from organic waste. Jurisdictions that use vehicles running on RNG procured from non-approved sources cannot count that RNG towards fulfillment of their procurement requirement.”
The City agrees with this finding. The City of Yorba Linda does not use any vehicles that use RNG.
Finding 8
“The formula used by the State to calculate a jurisdiction's procurement target does not account for a jurisdiction’s population density or geographic size (square miles). As such, meeting the annual procurement target presents a significant challenge for most jurisdictions.” The City agrees with this finding.
Finding 9
“Many Orange County jurisdictions were unable to meet the requirement in SB 1383 to reduce organic waste sent to landfills by the 2020 deadline. It is unlikely the required seventy-five percent reduction will be achieved by the 2025 deadline.” The City agrees with this finding.
Finding 10
“The current procurement requirements mandated by SB 1383 are unrealistic and likely unachievable by most jurisdictions.”
The City agrees with this finding.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1
“All jurisdictions should expedite the acquisition and distribution of residential containers that meet the CalRecycle standardized colors. Additionally, until the compliant containers can be distributed, all jurisdictions should ensure the distribution of labeling for non-compliant containers that explain the current SB 1383 requirements applicable to their jurisdiction by June 30, 2025.”
The recommendation will not be implemented in full because it is not reasonable. Jurisdictions and waste haulers across California have been given until 2036 to fully implement the required cart color configuration. For cities like Yorba Linda with a three-container system that utilized brown carts for yard waste prior to 2022 that were reassigned as organic collections carts, replacing carts with the new colors will do little on its own to educate generators. The City has already mailed new cart labels to all generators in the City in addition to an extensive public education program.
Recommendation 2
“By December 31, 2024, all jurisdictions should ensure their waste hauling agreements are in compliance with State statute so that haulers may be designated to perform certain required tasks but are not improperly delegated overall responsibility for compliance. Additionally, all jurisdictions should ensure that any fines collected by a hauler are forwarded to the jurisdiction.”
Portions of this recommendation are already implemented in the City of Yorba Linda. However, the full recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Per the City’s franchise agreement with Republic Services and the third amendment to the agreement, Republic Services must conduct contamination monitoring and collect fines. These fines are kept by Republic and help pay for the sustainability advisor and route auditor positions serving our jurisdiction. However, the City collects its own fees for violations of municipal code.
Recommendation 3
“The OCGJ recommends that all jurisdictions utilize a dedicated waste and recycling enterprise fund for collection of fines for non-compliance with SB 1383 by December 31, 2024.” This recommendation will not be implemented as it is not warranted. The City does not expect to collect an appreciable amount of fees for violation of municipal code. The City plans to work with and educate generators, using citations as a last resort for compliance. Any fines collected can be adequately accounted for in the general fund.
Recommendation 4
“By December 31, 2024, all jurisdictions should diversify the methods and media used for education and outreach to include, among others, various social media platforms, emails to residents, newspaper, television, flyer mailings, community events, and appearances at other public gatherings.”
This recommendation has already been implemented in the City of Yorba Linda. The City has used every media at our disposal to regularly communicate the requirements of SB 1383 since before July 1, 2022.
Recommendation 5
“By December 31, 2024, and in order to gauge the effectiveness of their education and outreach efforts, all jurisdictions should develop new methods to engage residents directly to help determine their awareness of the requirements associated with SB 1383, such as surveys, online quizzes, and door-to-door polling.”
This recommendation will be implemented by December 31, 2024. The City will conduct an online poll to assess awareness.
Recommendation 6
“By June 30, 2025, the OCGJ recommends that all jurisdictions participate in the OCW&R-led efforts to develop a coordinated county-wide approach to the organics recycling infrastructure and programs as well as procurement requirements associated with SB 1383, working towards creating circular economy as a long-term goal.”
This recommendation has already been implemented. Yorba Linda is working closely with OCW&R and has already taken over 1,000 tons of compost and mulch from OCW&R. The materials have been given away for free at our self-serve compost site which has been extremely popular.
Recommendation 7
“By December 31, 2024, the Orange County Board of Supervisors and all Orange County cities should lobby appropriate members of the State Legislature and/or CalRecycle to revise the organic waste diversion targets to better reflect Orange County’s waste amounts, revise the jurisdictions’ procurement requirements to better represent the limited options currently available for procurement, the jurisdictions’ varying populations, population densities, and geographic size, and to delay associated enforcement actions by the State.” This recommendation will be implemented by December 31, 2024.
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
DATE: AUGUST 20, 2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MARK A. PULONE, CITY MANAGER
PREPARED BY: ARLENE QUINTERO, PRINCIPAL RISK AND SAFETY
ANALYST
SUBJECT: DENIAL OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES - HADDAD, ARZAGA AND LEHMAN
CONSTRUCTION
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda deny the claims for damages filed by Rita Haddad, Rudy Arzaga and Lehman Construction.
BACKGROUND
Claims for damages filed against the City are reviewed and investigated by City staff and a third-party claims administrator with George Hills Company, Inc. George Hills Company specializes in claims management and risk management services. These services are provided through the City’s contract membership in the California Insurance Pool Authority.
City staff makes recommendations to the Council for settlement or denial based on the investigatory findings. A claimant’s failure to provide evidence of and/or supporting documents to substantiate the claim for damages will also result in a recommendation for denial of the claim.
DISCUSSION
The following claims for damages have been recommended for denial based on the investigations by City staff and the third-party claims administrator. Further details for each claim are available upon request.
Rita Haddad
The claimant alleges that a pothole on Plumosa Drive, shortly after turning right from Bastanchury Road, damaged her vehicle's control arms and alignment. Our investigation revealed that the City of Yorba Linda has no record of unaddressed complaints regarding the condition of the roadway at Plumosa Drive and Bastanchury Road before June 20, 2024.
Under Government Code 835, a public entity is liable for damages caused by a dangerous condition of the public property only if the condition was either created by an employee of the public entity or if the public entity had prior notice of the condition and failed to take
DENIAL OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES - HADDAD, ARZAGA AND LEHMAN CONSTRUCTION P a g e | 2
corrective action. Staff has determined that the condition was neither created by a City employee nor was the City aware of the condition before the incident. Therefore, the City is not liable for the claimed damages.
The third-party claims administrator and City staff recommend denying the claim.
Rudy Arzaga
The claimant alleges that a baseball from Veterans Sports Park damaged his vehicle’s windshield. The claimant was parked along the block wall facing the baseball fields at 4848 Valley View Avenue. Staff confirmed that this incident arose from actions or inactions by an entity other than the City of Yorba Linda. The City has no responsibility or legal liability for any claims for damages arising from this incident, and the claim is misdirected.
Staff has determined that the Yorba Linda Little League was hosting its annual District 56 League Tournament on the day of the incident. The claim should be tendered to them. The third-party claims administrator and City staff recommend denying the claim and mailing the claimant a follow-up letter with instructions to contact West Yorba Linda Little League.
Lehman Construction
The claimant alleges that manufacturing defects, inadequate installation instructions, and delays resulted in extended performance costs, increased labor costs, lost equipment, overhead, profit, and productivity related to the refurbishment of Adventure Playground. Our records indicate that the claim for damages is invalid, as the issues cited are either part of the original scope of work or are items that should not be claimed under the project documents and agreement.
This item is currently subject to Construction Claim Mediation under the California Public Contracts Code. City staff recommends denying the claim.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ALTERNATIVES
As an alternative to staff’s recommendations for the claims, the City Council has the following options:
1. Accept liability for the claims and pay the amount specified in the claim forms.
2. Grant settlement authority up to a certain amount and direct the claims adjuster to enter into settlement negotiations with the claimants.
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
DATE: AUGUST 20, 2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MARCIA BROWN, CMC, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND AGENCY REPORTS
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report.
DISCUSSION
City Council members serve on a number of outside committees and agencies. Attached are updates received recently from these agencies.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Reports from City Council Organizations, Agencies and Committees
MONTHLY REPORT:
July
Monthly Year to Date (YTD) County Monthly County YTD
CONTROL
Service Requests Completed: 13 53 429 1,606
Mosquitoes: 7 36 356 1,260
Rats: 4 9 52 230
RIFA: 2 8 13 89
Number of Swimming Pools Inspected/Treated: 15 207 683 5,421 Hours Spent Treating/Inspecting Gutters 38.58 45.75 1095.83 2,095.3 Acres of Flood Channels Treated: 0.0015 0.2015 72.1634 177.7972 Acres Treated for RIFA: 139 440 2,340 11,129
IT (inspection/treatment) Sites Serviced: 25 299 1,445 9,211
SURVEILLANCE
Adult Mosquitoes Collected: 84 1153 37,600 96,092
Mosquito Pools (Samples) Tested: 5 13 741 1,914
WNV Positive Samples: 0 0 12 12
Other Positive Samples 0 0 0 0
WNV Positive Birds: 0 0 1 1
COMMUNICATIONS / OUTREACH
Outreach Events Attended: 0 0 2 33
General Presentations: 0 0 1 26
Educational Program Presentations: 0 0 1 1
Service Requests & Miscellaneous Calls Received 16 85 770 3,145 Fleas, Ticks, and Others Tested: - - - 1,160
Number of Disease Investigations: 0 0 2 20
WNV Investigations: 0 0 0 1
Dengue Investigations: 0 0 1 16
Typhus Investigations: 0 0 1 3
Other Investigations: 0 0 0 0
Undergrounds Storm Systems Treated: 72 150 5,639 15,117 Public Insect ID Completed: - - 94 441
COUNTY WIDE PROJECTS / INFORMATIONAL UPDATE
Yorba Linda
ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT
Transportation Corridor Agencies
For the August 8, 2024, Meeting
BOARD MEETING HIGHLIGHTS
F/ETCA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
John Taylor, Chair,
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
Patricia Kelley, Vice Chair,
MISSION VIEJO
Natalie Meeks,
ANAHEIM
Mike Frost,
DANA POINT
Farrah Khan,
IRVINE
Scott Voigts,
LAKE FOREST
Denis Bilodeau,
ORANGE
Anthony Beall,
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA
David Penaloza,
SANTA ANA
Ray Schnell,
TUSTIN
Beth Haney,
YORBA LINDA
Donald P. Wagner,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 3RD DIST.
Doug Chaffee,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 4TH DIST.
Katrina Foley,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 5TH DIST.
Lan Zhou, Ex Officio Member,
CALTRANS DIST. 12
SJHTCA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Janine Heft, Chair,
LAGUNA HILLS
David Penaloza, Vice Chair,
SANTA ANA
Richard Hurt,
ALISO VIEJO
John Stephens,
COSTA MESA
Jamey Federico,
DANA POINT
Farrah Khan,
IRVINE
Stephanie Oddo,
LAGUNA NIGUEL
Cynthia Conners,
LAGUNA WOODS
Patricia Kelley,
MISSION VIEJO
Robyn Grant,
NEWPORT BEACH
John Taylor,
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
Donald P. Wagner,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 3RD DIST.
Katrina Foley,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 5TH DIST.
Lan Zhou, Ex Officio Member,
CALTRANS DIST. 12
73/133/241/261 TOLL ROADS
241/91 EXPRESS CONNECTOR TRAFFIC MODELING SUPPORT
The Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (F/ETCA) Board of Directors approved a task order with Stantec Consulting, Inc., to provide additional traffic analysis services for the 241/91 Express Connector Project. To support the development and completion of various interagency partner agreements, additional traffic modeling will be conducted to assess progressive demand management tools to meet performance measures along the 241 and 91 corridors.
TCA continues to work in partnership with Caltrans, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and the efforts expended has led to many valuable project refinements and clarity of operating conditions.
The results of the additional traffic analysis will show expected toll rates and projected volumes on the Express Connector and 91 Express Lanes using the progressive demand management approach. The analyses will support the completion of the project’s interagency agreements and the development of ongoing operation procedures to be used when the project is open to motorists, as early as 2028.
The 241/91 Express Connector Project will provide a direct, median-to-median connection between the 241 Toll Road and the 91 Express Lanes. The project will improve traffic flow on the 241 Toll Road and in the general-purpose lanes on SR-91.
SADDLE CLUB PRESERVATION PROPERTY PROJECT
The F/ETCA Board of Directors approved a contract with Unlimited Environmental Inc., for demolition work with authority to add salvage of material for the Saddle Club Preservation Property Project (SCPP). The project, located in Trabuco Canyon, was acquired in December 2017 by the F/ETCA as mitigation for future Capital Improvement Programs, such as the 241/91 Express Connector and 241 Loma Improvements Projects. The site is home to oak woodlands, coastal sage scrub and riparian habitat and strengthens regional wildlife movement among the corridors.
Orange County Public Works recently approved the Site Use Plan and Site Development Permit for the SCPP as submitted by the F/ETCA, allowing for on-site demolition, salvage, and preservation of historic features, as well as implementation of conservation and recreational features. The site will be one of TCA’ s first open spaces to allow a pilot program for public recreation use, including hiking, biking and horseback riding.
The demolition activities on the project will begin in fall 2024. This first phase is necessary to remove existing structures so conservation activities and construction of a multi-use trail can be implemented on the property.
Preserved elements on the property include a water tank, an equestrian shade structure and horse ties. Demolition and salvage activities will be completed by the end of 2024.
ENVIRONMENTAL VIDEO
TCA Chief Executive Officer Ryan Chamberlain shared the Agencies’ new environmental video, highlighting TCA’s focus on conservation stewardship and efforts. For over 30 years, TCA has been committed to balancing construction and operations of its system with the preservation of its 2,100 acres of open space and wildlife habitat which spans across 17 mitigation sites.
TCA’s dedication to innovation goes beyond operating The Toll Roads. The Agencies’ environmental programs and initiatives have established TCA as an industry leader by protecting Orange County’s fragile habitats and the wildlife within them for generations to come.
To view the video, please click here. To learn more about the Agencies’ commitment to environmental preservation, visit TheTollRoads.com.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: AUGUST 20, 2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: NATE FARNSWORTH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
PREPARED BY: MARY LEWIS, SENIOR COMMUNITY PRESERVATION
OFFICER
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM AND
ORDERING ABATEMENT
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2024-5912 declaring that weeds growing upon or in front of, and rubbish, refuse, and dirt upon or in front of certain property in the City constitute a public nuisance and ordering abatement thereof.
BACKGROUND
Every year the City Council implements a Weed Abatement Program to minimize hazardous fire conditions within the City. This involves a multi-step process of informing property owners that have large areas of undeveloped property that are prone to wildfire hazards, due to natural vegetation overgrowth, to perform weed abatement/vegetation reduction within certain time frames prior to the heightened portion of the fire season. Although the City does obtain a high degree of compliance response from property owners as a result of the initial outreach efforts, there are some number of properties that for various reasons fail to comply in a timely manner or do not comply at all. In the interest of health and safety, state law provides for local governments to abate hazardous vegetation conditions on private properties that fail to comply.
Article 2, Section 39560 et seq. of the California State Government Code authorizes cities to perform weed abatement on private properties that fail to comply through declaring such properties as a public nuisance. Therefore, on July 16, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-5900 declaring that weeds growing upon or in front of certain property (i.e., weed abatement properties) in the City of Yorba Linda constitute a public nuisance and further declaring the intention of the City of Yorba Linda to provide for the abatement thereof and setting a related public hearing for August 20, 2024.
The adoption of Resolution No. 2024-5900 was required to declare the City’s intention to set a Public Nuisance Hearing to provide for the Weed Abatement Program and receive any protest relating to the potential abatement of non-compliant, private properties. Also pursuant to the provisions of these sections of the Government Code, upon the second and
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM AND ORDERING
ABATEMENT
P a g e | 2
any subsequent occurrence of such nuisance on the same parcel or parcels within the same calendar year, no further Hearings need to be held, and it shall be sufficient, prior to abatement, to mail a postcard notice to the owners of the property as they and their addresses appear upon the current assessment roll, in accordance with the provisions for such notice contained in Section 39562.1 of the Government Code of the State of California.
DISCUSSION
On March 11, 2024, annual weed abatement notices were mailed out to 1,193 properties requesting abatement by May 20, 2024, of any nuisance conditions that may be on their property and that may contribute to a fire hazard. After a property was inspected, a notice of pass/fail was mailed to the property owner. Properties that remained non-compliant and whose property continued to contain vegetation or litter which created a hazardous fire condition were advised to remove such vegetation or litter from their property within two weeks of the failed inspection. This year it was necessary to mail additional letters to a small number of property owners who failed to comply with the requirements in the requested amount of time. As of this writing, of the total 1,193 weed abatement properties, only six (6) properties remain out of compliance as reflected on attached Exhibit “A” to Resolution No. 2024-5912. Should additional properties come into compliance by the upcoming August 20th public hearing date, staff will provide City Council with an updated Exhibit “A”, containing only those properties that remain out of compliance.
Pursuant to State Government Code Section 39572, if the property owner does not remove the nuisance condition from their property after receiving this notice, a City contractor may abate the hazardous condition and the cost of abatement will be assessed against the property. The abatement charges will be reviewed by the City Council at a future meeting.
Weed Abatement is an on-going concern within the City of Yorba Linda. In the last several years, California has experienced devasting wildland fires, including the most recent Blue Ridge Fire in Yorba Linda in 2020. These events have increased resident awareness of this hazard and they have stepped up their involvement in taking preventive action. In addition to the City’s weed abatement enforcement role, the Orange County Fire Authority also assumes responsibility for Fuel Modification parcels in the City, and for performing Wildland Task Force inspections. The Orange County Fire Authority’s enforcement activities within these areas are separate and apart from the City enforced weed abatement properties.
FISCAL IMPACT
The program has been budgeted for Fiscal Year 24/25 under the Public Nuisance section of the Community Preservation budget in the amount of $15,000.00, which is anticipated to cover the actual final cost of abatement action by the City based on prior years’ costs.
However, the cost of abatement will be assessed upon the affected parcels requiring abatement through placement of a lien through the County Assessor’s Office. Therefore, City costs associated with weed abatement would be offset.
ALTERNATIVES
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM AND ORDERING
ABATEMENT
P a g e | 3
Continue to provide annual notices to properties that meet the Weed Abatement criteria, with no formal procedure or proactive follow-up, other than through standard code enforcement protocol.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 2024-5912
2. Exhibit “A” – 2024 Annual Weed Abatement List Non-Compliant Properties
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-5912
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
YORBA LINDA, CALIFORNIA DECLARING THAT WEEDS
GROWING UPON OR IN FRONT OF, AND RUBBISH,
REFUSE UPON OR IN FRONT OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN
THE CITY OF YORBA LINDA CONSTITUTES A PUBLIC
NUISANCE; AND ORDERING THE ABATEMENT
THEREOF
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2024-5900 was adopted on July 16, 2024, declaring that seasonal and recurring weeds growing upon or in front of, and rubbish, and refuse, upon or in front of certain property in the City of Yorba Linda constitutes a public nuisance and further declaring the intention of the City of Yorba Linda to provide for the abatement thereof, and setting a public hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS, Notice to Destroy Weeds and Remove Rubbish and Refuse was mailed to all affected property owners and given in the amount and form prescribed by law; and WHEREAS, at such Public Hearing the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda heard and considered all objections to such abatement; and
WHEREAS, such weeds were not destroyed or removed and such rubbish, and refuse was not removed, and the nuisance thereby abated, pursuant to such Notice.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YORBA LINDA DOES FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. That all objections to the proposed destruction and/or removal of weeds, as defined in Sec. 39560, et seq of the Government Code, and removal of weeds, rubbish and refuse upon or in front of those parcels of land described in Exhibit “A”, on file in the office of the City Clerk and incorporated herein by this reference, are overruled.
2. That the Senior Community Preservation Officer is ordered to abate such nuisance, by having such weeds destroyed and/or removed, and rubbish and refuse removed from those parcels of land described in such Exhibit, “A”.
3. That it is the intention of this Council to assess the cost of such abatement as a special assessment against each such parcel in front of or upon which such nuisance is maintained and declare such cost to be a lien upon each such parcel.
4. That the weeds on the parcels of land described in Exhibit “A” are seasonal and recurring nuisances.
5. That the Senior Community Preservation Officer is further ordered to abate such seasonal and recurring nuisance in accordance with the provisions of Article 2,
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-5912
PAGE NO. 2
Title 4, Division 3, Part 2, Chapter 13, compromised of Sections 39560-39588, inclusive, of the Government Code of the State of California, provided that upon the second and any subsequent occurrence of such nuisance on the same parcel or parcels within the same calendar year, no further Hearings need to be held, and it shall be sufficient to mail a postcard notice to the owners of the property as they and their addresses appear upon the current assessment roll, in accordance with the provisions for such notice contained in Section 39562.1 of the Government Code of the State of California.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda on this 20th day of August 2024. __________________________
TARA CAMPBELL, MAYOR
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
ATTEST:
______________________________
MARCIA BROWN, CITY CLERK
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
__________________________
CITY ATTORNEY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, MARCIA BROWN, City Clerk of the City of Yorba Linda, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda held on the 20th day of August 2024, and was carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_________________________________
MARCIA BROWN, CITY CLERK
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
EXHIBIT “A”
2024 WEED ABATEMENT
NON-COMPLIANT PROPERTIES
APN 343-641-01 SITUS NA
APN 329-141-01 27835 ELK MOUNTAIN DRIVE
APN 348-191-37 SITUS NA
APN 348-271-20 SITUS NA
APN 349-301-01 4691 ORLANDO DRIVE
APN 349-351-10 6022 AMBERDALE DRIVE
AUGUST 20, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 12 – PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING WEED
ABATEMENT PROGRAM AND ORDERING ABATEMENT
REVISIONS TO EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION RECEIVED AFTER POSTING OF THE AGENDA
EXHIBIT “A”
2024 WEED ABATEMENT
NON-COMPLIANT PROPERTIES
APN 343-641-01 SITUS NA
APN 329-141-01 27835 ELK MOUNTAIN DRIVE
APN 348-191-37 SITUS NA
APN 348-271-20 SITUS NA