By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
State law requires builders to recycle construction and demolition waste
Builders at Tuscany
Builders in California will have to prove they sent their construction waste to a recycler. This photo is of the now-stalled Tuscany Village project in Ceres. - photo by JEFF BENZIGER/Courier file photo

A state law is adding more bureaucratic burdens to cities and builders by adding a chapter to municipal code that sets forth procedures to recycle waste from construction or demolition projects.

Specifically the law has required the city to add a new chapter to the Ceres Municipal Code, titled, “Construction and Demolition Waste of Title 6, Health and Sanitation.” That Chapter 9 establishes administrative procedures for documenting compliance with Senate Bill 1374 and the California green building code standards for the diversion of at least 65 percent of debris away from landfills as part of the building permit application. Project required to recycle include all new residential and commercial construction, residential remodels that increase overall volume or size of the home, and commercial renovations that add 1,000 square feet of new building space with a permit valuation of $200,000 or more. At least 65 percent of the waste from the project must now be diverted or salvaged for reuse.

Also, all asphalt, concrete and land clearing debris must be recycled and all demolition projects having a total footage of more than 1,000 square feet are also subject to the state’s requirements.

Builders will be required to document how they disposed of the waste and report showing how the wood, sheetrock and other items was recycled, with weight slips and disposal receipts as proof. Such documentation will need to be verified before a final occupancy permit is issued by the local building official.

As is typical in state mandates, the city could be fined by the state at a rate of $10,000 per day for non-compliance.

City Engineer Samir Royal said there is no fiscal impact to the city with adoption of the ordinance, “however, there will be minimal additional staff time necessary to review recycling plans and determine compliance.”

He also said that there will be no fiscal impact to the building permit holder “unless he or she does not comply with the ordinance and a civil penalty is assessed and collected by the city.”

At a public hearing on the matter held June 10, Councilman James Casey voted “no,” saying he doesn’t feel the city “makes an honest effort to notify the public about hearings that are going on.”

He suggested holding another hearing and “trying to get the public involved.”