Today's Topics:
FW: Enviro-Newsbrief 04/16/97
GreenYes Digest V97 #81 -Reply
Looking for recyclers in Hanford, CA Area
Production Statistics vs Waste Composition Studies
sign me up
URGENT--Extremely Bad CA Bill Aimed at Local Land Use Initiatives
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <greenyes@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <greenyes-Digest-Request@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to postmaster@ucsd.edu.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 16:09:50 -0500
From: RecycleWorlds <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com>
Subject: FW: Enviro-Newsbrief 04/16/97
----------
From: GROUP LIBRARY-HQ 202-260-0748[SMTP:LIBRARY-HQ@epamail.epa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 1997 11:52 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Enviro-Newsbrief 04/16/97
** EARTH DAY **
Earth Day Tour Guide. The Washington Post, April 16, 1997, pA15.
=0C
The House Commerce Committee released an "Earth Day=20
Reminder" which reminded readers that "Earth Day is Monday, April=20
21", when it is actually on Tuesday, April 22.
In the memo, the committee said it's "time to claim credit=20
for the environmental achievements of the 104th Congress." The=20
letter urged readers to take "local reporters on a...tour of your=20
local water filtration plants," to show how much money "your=20
state will get because you helped write the Safe Drinking Water=20
Act Amendments." Another option was to take school kids to a=20
"Superfund or brownfield site. If the site has been on the=20
National Priorities List for 12 years, invite 11-year-old=20
children to show the kids...how long it takes for cleanups...and=20
why we need to speed up the process."
"Cheer our progress," states the memo, "and show the danger=20
of environmental extremism. If you're speaking to a local=20
elementary school, Rotary Club or Chamber of Commerce on Earth=20
Day, talk about the progress we've make since the first Earth=20
Day, in 1971...(actually 1970).=20
"But if your town is one of the 200 or more that will become=20
'Non-Attainment Zones' under the proposed new standards for ozone=20
and particulate matter, talk about what kinds of things happen in=20
Non-Attainment Zones." The note warns that there will be=20
restrictions on lawnmowers, home fireplaces and automobiles.=20
=20
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 09:44:11 -0500
From: Bill Carter <WCARTER@tnrcc.state.tx.us>
Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #81 -Reply
Hop writes:
I've just joined the list. I'm from Sydney, Australia, where we have a very
active and successful "Waste Crisis Network", but I'm currently living in
Tokyo, Japan.
In response to the discussion on 'production statistics vs waste
composition studies' ... I agree that there is a great need to measure
product and material flows from the point of production rather than 'us'
having to try to sort out the waste stream for industry.
* The former is in-keeping with the aim of greater industry responsibility
and accountability and (with take-back provisions) is more likely to result
in product and packaging redesign, reuse, and closed-loop recycling.
* The later (ie. relying on waste composition studies) will frustrate
efforts to achieve greater industry responsibility and, as a result,
reprocessing / open-loop recycling activities (happily promoted, to a
limited extent, by industry as 'best practice') will be the best we
achieve. Waste-conscious citizens will remain frustrated.
Could someone provide more detail of the Franklin Associates 'production
->
waste' analysis (eg. is it accessible via the net) mentionaed at the end of
GreenYes Digest V97 #80? It would be helpful in our moves in this
direction
in Australia.
Regards,
Hop.
........................
The question of "production statistics vs. waste composition studies" is
not necessarily a question of either/or. It would certainly be desirable to
have accurate statistics on the actual use of materials in products and
packaging and on the distribution and use of those products & packaging
around the world. However, that is only part of the picture. To take a
micro example -- food service establishments that have experimented
with sorting their discards for recycling and composting have often
found that a surprising amount of reuseable items like silverware had
been going out with the trash. Recovering those items saved the
restaurants more money than recycling and composting the materials
originally targeted. If they had focused entirely on purchasing
information they would not necessarily have known what was becoming
of their silverware -- was it going home with employees, diners, etc.? At
the macro level as well, it is important to know something about what is
going into disposal facilities. Data about products manufactured to date
and where they have gone will never be better than they are now,
which is not very good, and those products will continue to filter into
landfills for many years.
Hop, you mention that you are living in Japan. I read some years ago
that Japan has a system for tracking the retention of manufactured
materials within the production/use cycle. This strikes me as a
particularly wise way to look at the issue -- determining the percentage
of materials needed for production that are coming from recycling vs. the
percentage of raw material inputs, and setting goals for minimizing the
raw material requirements through recovery. That strikes at the heart of
the problem and focuses attention on the front-end solutions of designing
for recycling. If you find out anything about that tracking system please
share it here.
A fascinating idea for how a manufacturer-responsibility system might
work was presented by Trish Ferrand at an National Recycling Congress
session a few years ago -- a system to link data about all packaging to
the bar codes on products, so that a redemption center at a supermarket,
for instance, could scan-in returned packaging of various sorts and
automatically calculate deposit refunds or redemption credits toward
purchases. No weighing materials, no adding, no hassle. Just remember
not to tear across the bar code.
All the best,
------------------------------
Date: 17 Apr 97 11:17:44 EDT
From: Myra Nissen <76275.1032@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Looking for recyclers in Hanford, CA Area
I am working with a customer in Hanford, CA and I am looking for folk in the
area who deal with woodwaste, glass, tin cans, etc. Any suggestions?
E-mail back or call (510) 873-8777
Thanks
My
------------------------------
Date: 17 Apr 97 11:10:44 EDT
From: Myra Nissen <76275.1032@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Production Statistics vs Waste Composition Studies
While I do believe study of manufacturing would give one set of information, I
do not believe that the production records would give all the information
necessary for officials grappling with local waste generation. For example,
toilet paper is produced at the mill and is sent on large rolls to other
companies who cut and reroll on the size cores we are familiar with. At this
point, it may be wrapped and packaged for retail, or it may be sent somewhere
elese for retail packaging. Where are you going to measure the production?
Each step of the way creates waste. The recycling company I work for gets this
waste at most all of the stages, inlcuding obsolete product in retail packaging
[as will as the actual packaging from the printers]. Obsolete product may come
from the packager or the store chain, or perhaps a distribution wearhouse along
the way. When I was in archaeology digging others garbage gave all sorts of
information about the use of a product, how many individuals were in the group,
seasonal use of a product, etc.
A point about serveys I would like to share. There have been many studies
comparing the effectiveness of sociologist taking surveys at peoples homes about
compsumption practices. Meanwhile, the aracheologist was out back in the
garbage can. The statistics from the can never match the surveys (Anthropology
103).
(Pardon any spelling or grammatical errors, I am beating this out inbetween
several other pressing tasks.)
My
--------------- Forwarded Message ---------------
From: Hop, INTERNET:oldxeye@crisscross.com
To: Myra Nissen, 76275,1032
INTERNET:GreenYes@UCSD.EDU
Date: Wed, Apr 16, 1997, 11:35 PM
RE: Production Statistics vs Waste Composition Studies
Sender: list-relay@mailbox2.ucsd.edu
Received: from mailbox2.ucsd.edu (mailbox2.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.54]) by
dub-img-7.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
id CAA21153; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 02:36:00 -0400
Received: from noc.ucsd.edu (mail.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.1]) by mailbox2.ucsd.edu
(8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id XAA28136 for <greenyes@mailbox.ucsd.edu>; Wed, 16
Apr 1997 23:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scotty.crisscross.com by noc.ucsd.edu; id XAA28816
sendmail 8.8.5/UCSD8.3 via SMTP
Wed, 16 Apr 1997 23:34:05 -0700 (PDT) for <GreenYes@ucsd.edu>
Received: from user4.crisscross.com (user4.crisscross.com [202.217.215.55]) by
scotty.crisscross.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ta139483 for
<GreenYes@ucsd.edu>; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 15:32:13 +0800
X-Sender: oldxeye@mail.crisscross.com
Message-Id: <v01530502af7b66b2f469@[202.217.215.61]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 15:33:37 +0900
To: GreenYes@UCSD.EDU
From: oldxeye@crisscross.com (Hop)
Subject: Production Statistics vs Waste Composition Studies
Hi all,
I've just joined the list. I'm from Sydney, Australia, where we have a very
active and successful "Waste Crisis Network", but I'm currently living in
Tokyo, Japan.
In response to the discussion on 'production statistics vs waste
composition studies' ... I agree that there is a great need to measure
product and material flows from the point of production rather than 'us'
having to try to sort out the waste stream for industry.
* The former is in-keeping with the aim of greater industry responsibility
and accountability and (with take-back provisions) is more likely to result
in product and packaging redesign, reuse, and closed-loop recycling.
* The later (ie. relying on waste composition studies) will frustrate
efforts to achieve greater industry responsibility and, as a result,
reprocessing / open-loop recycling activities (happily promoted, to a
limited extent, by industry as 'best practice') will be the best we
achieve. Waste-conscious citizens will remain frustrated.
Could someone provide more detail of the Franklin Associates 'production ->
waste' analysis (eg. is it accessible via the net) mentionaed at the end of
GreenYes Digest V97 #80? It would be helpful in our moves in this direction
in Australia.
Regards,
Hop.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 13:25:51 -0500
From: wilsonl@MAIL.TTEMI.COM (Wilson Lisa)
Subject: sign me up
please add me to the list. Thank you!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 07:07:15 -0700
From: cdchase@qualcomm.com (Carolyn Chase)
Subject: URGENT--Extremely Bad CA Bill Aimed at Local Land Use Initiatives
THIS IS AN URGENT ACTION ALERT.
End run around citizen initiatives. Please respond.
SB 637, by Senator Charles Calderon, has just been amended (on April 14) to
give every city council and board of supervisors in the state the right to
amend or repeal any voter adopted local initiative measure affecting the
general plan or land use, even if the initiative provides that it can only be
amended by a vote of the people. A copy of the bill is included in this
email as attachment #1.
SB 637 is a declaration of war on California's citizen based growth
management, ag land preservation, and good land use laws adopted in many
communities throughout the state.
THIS BILL IS SET FOR HEARING BEFORE THE SENATE HOUSING AND LAND USE COMMITTEE
ON MONDAY, APRIL 21. The meeting will be held in Room 3191 of the State
Capitol, at 1:30 pm.
IT IS URGENTLY NECESSARY THAT YOU DO ALL OF THE FOLLOWING, IMMEDIATELY:
1. Get the word out to others, as widely as you can.
2. Contact your local Assembly Member and State Senator (even though they're
not on the committee) to tell them of your outrage, and demand that they do
everything possible to stop this bill. Write a letter/fax them/call them on
the phone.
3. Write or fax Barbara Lee, the Chair of the committee, to state your
opposition. A list of committee members is attached to this email. If you
are represented by one of the members of the committee write, fax, or call
your representative, too.
4. Fax me a copy of your letter in opposition, so I can make sure the
committee knows of your opposition.
5. Send a representative to the hearing, if you can (but check with me
before traveling too far, on Friday afternoon or Monday, to make sure that
the bill has not been taken off calendar.
Thanks for your help!
Gary Patton, General Counsel
Planning and Conservation League
926 J Street #612
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-444-8726, Ext. 3
FAX: 916-448-1789
========================================================
Attachment #1--Text of Bill
BILL NUMBER: SB 637 AMENDED
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 14, 1997
INTRODUCED BY Senator Calderon
FEBRUARY 25, 1997
An act to amend Section 65583 65588 of the Government Code, relating to land
use.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 637, as amended, Calderon. Land use: housing elements.
Existing law
The existing Planning and Zoning Law requires each city, county, or city and
county to prepare and adopt a general plan for its jurisdiction that includes
certain mandatory elements, including a housing element. Existing law
requires the housing element to include, among other things, an assessment of
housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the
meeting of these needs. Under existing law, the assessment and inventory is
required to include, among other things, an analysis of potential and actual
governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of
housing for all income levels, including land use controls, building codes
and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required
of developers, and local processing and permit procedures.
This bill additionally would require the assessment and inventory to
distinguish between constraints of the community and constraints of other
governmental entities in its analysis. By adding a new requirement that a
local government must analyze in its housing element, this bill would impose
a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies
and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory
provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement, including the
creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates that do
not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for claims whose
statewide costs exceed $1,000,000.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines
that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those
costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions. Additionally
under the Planning and Zoning Law, the Legislature has declared that the
availability of housing is a matter of vital statewide importance and the
early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for
every California family is a priority of the highest order. Further, under
existing law, no ordinance adopted by an initiative petition may be amended
or repealed without voter approval unless the original ordinance authorizes
amendment or repeal without voter approval.
This bill would authorize a city council or board of supervisors to amend its
general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, or other land use measure, or
any portion thereof, including any measure adopted by initiative, if it
adopts findings that the amendment is reasonably necessary to implement the
goals, policies, objectives, resources, or programs of the housing element of
the city or county, or city and county. The bill would include findings and
declarations of the Legislature that, for purposes of effectuating state
housing goals and policies, the local planning and zoning process must retain
sufficient flexibility and that local officials must have authority to amend
planning and zoning measures adopted by initiative and which do not permit
amendment except with voter approval. The bill would include a legislative
finding that the provisions of this bill are of statewide concern and
significance and that the provisions would therefore apply to charter cities.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes no . State-mandated
local program: yes no .
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 65583 of the Government Code
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The provisions contained in the Planning and Zoning Law (Title 7
(commencing with Section 56000) of the Government Code) are the primary
mechanisms through which state housing goals and policies are achieved.
(b) In order to effectuate state housing goals and policies, the local
planning and zoning process must retain sufficient flexibility.
Therefore, it is a matter of statewide concern to ensure that local elected
officials have authority to amend planning and zoning measures to effectuate
state housing goals and policies.
(c) Local measures that unduly interfere with the ability of elected
officials to amend planning and zoning regulations to accommodate housing
needs frustrate state housing goals and policies.
(d) In light of the length, complexity, and expense of local initiative
elections, local planning and zoning measures that do not permit subsequent
amendments without approval of the local electorate unduly interfere with the
ability of local elected officials to effectuate state housing goals and
policies.
(e) It is the Legislature's intent to enact a narrowly tailored measure to
ensure that the local planning and zoning process contains sufficient
flexibility to achieve state housing goals and policies, while preserving the
local electorate's initiative authority.
(f) Because of the statewide significance of these housing needs, the
provisions of Section 2 shall be applicable to charter cities.
SEC. 2. Section 65588 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65588. (a) Each local government shall review its housing element as
frequently as appropriate to evaluate all of the following:
(1) The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in
contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal.
(2) The effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the community's
housing goals and objectives.
(3) The progress of the city, county, or city and county in implementation of
the housing element.
(b) (1) Notwithstanding Sections 9125 and 9217 of the Elections Code, any
local charter or local initiative provision, or any other provision of state
or local law, a city council or board of supervisors may amend its general
plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, or other land use measure, or any
portion thereof, including any measure adopted by initiative, if it adopts
findings that the amendment is reasonably necessary to implement the goals,
policies, objectives, resources, or programs of the housing element of the
city or county, or city and county.
(2) The housing element shall be revised as appropriate, but not less than
every five years, to reflect the results of this periodic review.
In order to facilitate effective review by the department of housing
elements, the following local governments shall prepare and adopt the first
two revisions of their housing elements no later than the dates specified in
the following schedule, notwithstanding the date of adoption of the housing
elements in existence on the effective date of the act which amended this
section during the 1983-84 Session of the Legislature.
(1)
(A) Local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the Southern
California Association of Governments: July 1, 1984, for the first revision
and July 1, 1989, for the second revision.
(2)
(B) Local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the Association of
Bay Area Governments: January 1, 1985, for the first revision, and July 1,
1990, for the second revision.
(3)
(C) Local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the San Diego
Association of Governments, the Council of Fresno County Governments, the
Kern County Council of Governments, the Sacramento Council of Governments,
and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments: July 1, 1985, for the
first revision, and July 1, 1991, for the second revision.
(4)
(D) All other local governments: January 1, 1986, for the first revision, and
July 1, 1992, for the second revision.
(5)
(E) Subsequent revisions shall be completed not less often than at five-year
intervals following the second revision.
(c) The review and revision of housing elements required by this section
shall take into account any low- or moderate-income housing provided or
required pursuant to Section 65590.
(d) The review pursuant to subdivision (c) shall include, but need not be
limited to, the following:
(1) The number of new housing units approved for construction within the
coastal zone after January 1, 1982.
(2) The number of housing units for persons and families of low or moderate
income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, required
to be provided in new housing developments either within the coastal zone or
within three miles of the coastal zone pursuant to Section 65590.
(3) The number of existing residential dwelling units occupied by persons and
families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health
and Safety Code, that have been authorized to be demolished or converted
since January 1, 1982, in the coastal zone.
(4) The number of residential dwelling units for persons and families of low
or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety
Code, that have been required for replacement or authorized to be converted
or demolished as identified in paragraph (3). The location of the replacement
units, either onsite, elsewhere within the locality's jurisdiction within the
coastal zone, or within three miles of the coastal zone within the locality's
jurisdiction, shall be designated in the review.
(e) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (5) of subdivision (b), the
dates of revisions for the housing element shall be modified upon the
effective date of this provision as follows:
(1) Local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the Southern
California Association of Governments: June 30, 1998, for the third revision,
and June 30, 2003, for the fourth revision.
(2) Local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the Association of
Bay Area Governments, and the San Diego Association of Governments: June 30,
1999, for the third revision, and June 30, 2004, for the fourth revision.
(3) Local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the Council of
Fresno County Governments, the Kern County Council of Governments, the
Sacramento Council of Governments, and the Association of Monterey Bay Area
Governments: June 30, 2000, for the third revision, and June 30, 2005, for
the fourth revision.
(4) All other local governments: June 30, 2001, for the third revision, and
June 30, 2006, for the fourth revision.
(5) Subsequent revisions shall be completed not less often than at five-year
intervals following the fourth revision.
(f) The amendments made to this section by Senate Bill 1073 of the 1995-96
Regular Session shall not be construed to reinstate any state-mandated local
program suspended by the Budget Act of 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, or 1995-96,
nor to limit any existing responsibility, pursuant to subdivision (b), of any
jurisdiction to adopt a housing element in accordance with this article.
_____________________________________ All matter omitted in this version of
the bill appears in the bill as introduced in the Senate February 25, 1997
(JR 11)
========================================================
Attachment #2--Members of Senate Housing and Land Use Committee
Barbara Lee
Chair, Senate Housing and Land Use Committee
California State Senate
State Capitol Room #5064
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-6577
Fax:
Email (If any):
Jim Costa
Member, Senate Housing and Land Use Committee
California State Senate
State Capitol, Room #5100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-4641
Fax: 916-327-5989
Email (If any):
Quentin L. Kopp
Member, Senate Housing and Land Use Committee
California State Senate
State Capitol, Room #2057
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-0503
Fax: 916-327-2186
Email (If any):
Dick Monteith
Member, Senate Housing and Land Use Committee
California State Senate
State Capitol Room #2048
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-1392
Fax: 916-445-0773
Email (If any):
John Vasconcellos
Member, Senate Housing and Land Use Committee
California State Senate
State Capitol, Room #4061
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-9740
Fax: 916-323-8386
Email (If any):
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #82
******************************