Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waste Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves first reading of construction-and-demolition waste ordinance with bonds, performance deposits and civil-penalty language
Summary
On first reading the council advanced Ordinance 14-97 to formalize waste-management plan fees, require performance security (a refundable deposit equal to the lesser of 3% of project valuation or $10,000) for qualifying C&D projects, and allow civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation per day that may be charged against deposits.
Sierra Madre — The City Council gave first reading approval Tuesday to Ordinance 14‑97, which would amend Sierra Madre Municipal Code chapter 8.13 to formalize waste‑management plan fees, performance security requirements for larger construction and demolition projects, and civil-penalty enforcement mechanisms.
Permit technician Krista Elias (speaker 14) told council the proposal adds a waste-management-plan fee (to be set by council resolution) and a refundable performance-security deposit set as the lesser of 3% of a project’s valuation or $10,000 (with a $10,000 cap for multiple structures). Elias said deposits would be refunded upon verified compliance with performance requirements and that penalties for ongoing violations could be assessed against posted deposits.
On enforcement, staff explained there are two paths: administrative citations (a graduated administrative schedule most often used by staff) and civil fines, which would be subject to court collection. Elias said the ordinance text mirrors state law and Sierra Madre Municipal Code provisions and proposed that civil fines not exceed “$1,000 per violation per day” and that continued daily failures — including failing to submit required documentation — can be treated as separate violations.
During public comment, Caroline Brown (speaker 7) raised concerns about how the ordinance and its claimed CEQA common‑sense exemption account for hazardous materials such as asbestos from older structures. She recounted past homeowner experiences with asbestos shingles being handled at regional landfills and asked whether the exemption appropriately considers hazardous-waste handling and landfill controls.
Public-works staff and a city senior analyst responded that asbestos testing and proof of removal are part of demolition permit requirements; they also said waste-management plans technically apply if a project does not use the city’s contract hauler (Athens) and that many small projects continue to use the city’s contractor to meet diversion obligations.
Why this matters: The ordinance aims to strengthen compliance with statewide diversion requirements for construction and demolition debris and to create a practical enforcement mechanism that lets the city recover costs from a project’s posted security rather than immediately requiring civil litigation.
Next steps: Council approved the ordinance on first reading and will return it for a second reading and final adoption per normal ordinance procedures.
