AB 436 tasks the Office of Planning and Research’s Land Use and Climate Innovation unit with developing and publishing a technical advisory that lays out best practices, a sample general plan, and a model ordinance to facilitate the siting of composting facilities. The bill anchors that work in the state’s organics diversion goals and directs OPR to consult with relevant agencies and stakeholders while preparing the advisory.
The bill also changes how local plans come into play: when a city or county undertakes a substantive revision of its general plan’s land use element on or after January 1, 2029, it must consider the advisory’s guidance and may update the land use element to identify areas where composting facilities could be allowed. The measure creates a state-mandated local program and specifies that the state need not reimburse local agencies for related costs.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires OPR’s Land Use and Climate Innovation to develop and post a technical advisory that includes best practices, a sample general plan, and a model ordinance for siting composting facilities, and it mandates that local governments consider that advisory during substantive land-use-element revisions. Key deadlines are June 1, 2027 for the advisory and January 1, 2029 for triggering local consideration.
Who It Affects
City and county planning departments, solid waste and recycling authorities (including CalRecycle), operators and prospective developers of composting facilities, and businesses that generate organic waste. Neighboring residents and local permitting staff will also be implicated when jurisdictions choose to update zoning and allowable uses.
Why It Matters
The advisory aims to reduce zoning and procedural barriers that slow development of composting capacity needed to meet state organic-waste reduction goals, while keeping final land-use decisions at the local level. For planners and operators, it creates a centralized resource designed to standardize siting approaches across jurisdictions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill directs the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), through its Land Use and Climate Innovation unit, to produce a technical advisory for composting facility siting that draws on best practices and provides practical drafting tools — a sample general plan language and a model ordinance — intended for use by local planners and decisionmakers. OPR must prepare the advisory in consultation with the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) and other stakeholders identified in the statute, and must publish the guidance on its website so planners and applicants can access it.
The local obligation in the bill is procedural rather than prescriptive. A city, county, or city and county that undertakes a substantive revision of its general plan’s land use element on or after January 1, 2029 must consider the advisory materials; the statute frames this as a duty to consider and to consider updating the land use element to identify where composting facilities may be appropriate as an allowable use.
The statute does not compel adoption of specific zoning changes or require immediate rezoning; it asks planners to incorporate the advisory into the local decision process when they next perform a covered revision.Operationally, the advisory is meant to reduce common local barriers — unclear siting standards, inconsistent use classifications, and absence of template controls for odor, traffic, or buffer distances — by offering model language and policy options. The guidance could shorten permit review, make environmental review more predictable, and give operators clearer paths to demonstrate compliance with local standards.
However, the bill leaves critical implementation choices to local bodies: whether to designate specific zones, how to set conditions of approval, and how to balance facility operations with community protections.Finally, the bill labels the requirement as a state-mandated local program but states that the measure does not trigger state reimbursement to local governments. That shifts the fiscal reality: jurisdictions will bear the administrative and potential rezoning costs associated with considering and, if chosen, adopting the advisory’s recommendations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
OPR must develop and post the technical advisory on its website by June 1, 2027.
OPR must consult with the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) and other specified stakeholders while preparing the advisory.
On or after January 1, 2029, a substantive revision of a city or county land use element triggers a mandatory consideration of the advisory and a requirement to consider updating the land use element to identify areas where composting facilities may be allowed.
The bill adds Government Code sections 65040.19 and 65302.16 to establish the advisory requirement and the general-plan consideration.
The statute designates the measure as a state-mandated local program and states that no state reimbursement is required for the associated local costs.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
OPR technical advisory for composting siting
This new section requires the Office of Planning and Research, Land Use and Climate Innovation, to develop and post a technical advisory that collects best practices to facilitate composting facility siting. The advisory must include practical drafting tools — such as model ordinance language and a sample general plan — and OPR must prepare it in consultation with the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery and other entities specified in the bill. Practically, this centralizes state-level expertise and creates a single reference local planners can cite when revising land use rules or evaluating permit applications.
General plan land use element: consider composting guidance
This section requires that when a jurisdiction undertakes a substantive revision of its land use element on or after January 1, 2029, it must consider the OPR advisory’s best practices, sample general plan, and model ordinance, and must consider updating the land use element to identify areas where composting facilities may be appropriate as an allowable use. The statutory trigger and the duty to 'consider' mean the law imposes a procedural obligation rather than compelling specific zoning outcomes, but it formalizes a point at which state guidance must inform local planning choices.
State-mandated local program; no state reimbursement
The bill declares the new local-consideration requirement a state-mandated local program and simultaneously states that the state is not required to reimburse local agencies for costs incurred. That combination places administrative and potential ordinance-adoption costs on local governments while leaving the content of regulations to local discretion.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Compost facility developers and operators — The advisory provides model ordinance language and siting best practices that can reduce permitting uncertainty and streamline local approvals.
- Local planning departments — Planners gain a centralized set of templates and technical guidance to help evaluate facility proposals and craft land-use policies without starting from scratch.
- CalRecycle and state waste-management planners — The advisory supports statewide organics-diversion objectives by addressing a major nontechnical barrier: inconsistent local siting rules.
- Businesses and institutions that generate organic waste (food processors, hospitals, universities) — Expanded local composting capacity can lower transportation costs and compliance burdens associated with organics disposal.
Who Bears the Cost
- City and county governments — Jurisdictions must formally consider the advisory during substantive general plan revisions and may face staff time and public-engagement costs to amend land use elements or adopt model ordinance provisions.
- OPR and CalRecycle — The agencies must allocate staff time and resources to develop the advisory and run stakeholder consultations; absent an appropriation, these activities compete with other priorities.
- Nearby residents and community groups — While not a direct fiscal cost, communities may bear localized nuisance risk (odor, traffic) if jurisdictions choose to allow new facilities without robust local controls, prompting engagement and potential litigation costs.
- Project proponents facing new or model-driven conditions — Operators might encounter standardized operational controls or buffer requirements in jurisdictions that adopt the model ordinance, increasing upfront compliance costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between achieving statewide organics-diversion targets — which require more composting capacity and consistent siting rules — and preserving local control over land use and community protections; the bill eases informational and drafting barriers but stops short of overriding local discretion, leaving the balance between statewide goals and local concerns unresolved.
The bill creates a tension between offering statewide, uniform guidance and leaving final land-use authority with local governments. The statutory duty is to 'consider' the advisory during a qualifying general plan revision, not to adopt its recommendations; that limited mandate may produce uneven outcomes across jurisdictions.
Some counties and cities may use the advisory as intended and streamline permitting, while others may effectively ignore it or adopt only narrow components, preserving the patchwork of rules the bill seeks to reduce.
Several implementation details are unresolved in the text. The statute references consultation with 'specified entities' but does not list the full roster or require particular stakeholder representation, which could shape the advisory’s technical content.
The interaction between the advisory and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, nuisance law, and local conditional-use processes is undeveloped: OPR can recommend best practices for odor and vector control, traffic mitigation, and buffers, but it cannot preempt CEQA determinations or local nuisance litigation. Finally, the bill shifts financial burden to local governments by denying state reimbursement, raising the risk that under-resourced jurisdictions will be slow to act on the guidance or will adopt minimal changes that do not materially increase composting capacity.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.