HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-01-19; City Council; 6877; Legislative Mattersf
1
AB# 6877
MTG._1,119/82
DEPT._CM __ _
. .wi,,, ,-.
CIT'f OF CARLSBAC -AG':ND" BILL
D!.l&;LEGISLATIVE MATTERS
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DEPT. HD. ___
Qz' CITY ATTY lr" ,
CITY MGR.~<
That Council support or oppose certain bills and authoriz~ the Mayor
and City Manager to take appropriate action to communicate the
Council's policy position.
SB 811 -(Dills) OPPOSE
The Board of Superv.isors is asking cities to oppo~e this bill
because jt dilutes the ~ewer of APCD to cont~ol ewissions
and increases costs to local government for enforcement.
AB 540 -(Frazee) SUPPORT
This bill appropriates $750,000 to California Boating and Water-
way to study Oceanside to Del Mar beach erosion problems. Requires
25% local match which can be met by expenditure for beach access,
etc.
AB 1152 ·(Kapiloff) OPPOSE
Creates a special district of coastal cities to regulate beach
erosion. Takes money from Port District in San Diego and
Oceanside to fund the district.
SB 426 (Boatwright) OPPOSE
Mandates binding arbitration tor police and fire.
SB 314 (DiJ.l•s) OPPOSE
Allows binding arbitration to be placed on local ballot.
SB 999 (Calnpbell') OPPOSE
Repeals Carlsbad City Ordinance prohibiting sale of fireworks.
EXHIBITS
@ Letter from County of San Diego dated 12/31/81 and Legislative
~ Analysis.
0::
0..
0..
c(
z
0
~
..J
0 z :::,
0
CJ
I
PAUL ECKERT
Decenber 31, 1981
Honorable Ronald C. Packard
Mayor, City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor Packard:
BOARD MEMBERS
Tom Hom,lton
f1rst01s1tic.1
Poul W. fordem
Second District
• SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 • 714-236-2293 RogerHedgec«k
third Oisrrict
Jim Botos
fourth 01,trtct
Poul Eckert
Fifth01strict
Recently the Board of Supervisors asked me to enlist your help in defeating a
bill (SB 811) introduced by Senator Dills (copy attached).
This bill w:iuld prevent local elected officals from making progress toward clean
air, or even maintaining the present air quality. Furtherirore, the bill asserts
the industries' right to pollute takes pt·ecedence over the public right to
healthy air. It \IOUld al so change current practices to require procedures that
l'A)Uld decrease the effectiveness of current programs and increase costs at the
same time. To top it off, the b111 proposes to shift alioost all the current and
increased program cost to the public sector. This kind of legislation repre-
sents a direct interference in local control, and shifting fiscal responsibility
to the public sector is in direct contradiction with the spirit of Proposition
13.
Presently, the bill is awaiting action by the Asserrbly Q>11111ittee on Energy and
Natural Resources. It's likely that the bill will be heard in early January.
The County's legislative staff will call your City Manager with the exact hear-
ing date. At that time I w:iuld hope your City W>Uld be able to join us in op-
posing this measure.
Best wishes for the New Year.
Sincerely,
/2 I) i?/-J-
PZ::~airrr:n~
Board of Supervisors
cc: City Managers
Attachment
SENATE BILL No. 811
Introduced by Senator Dills
March 20, 1981
An act to amend Sections 41512 and 42300 of the Health and
Safety Code, relating to air pollution.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL:S DIGESr
SB 811, as introduced, Dills. Air pollution: testing: permits.
(1) Existing law requires the State Air Resources Board,
not later than April 1, 1981, to establish procedures under
which an operator may request testing by an independent
testing service for compliance with permit conditions or with
any state c,r local law, order, rule, or regulation required by
the state board. The state board is authorized to reject, for
good cause, a request for independent testing. ,
This bill would require the state board or a local agency, .
when sampling or testing for compliance with permit
conditions or any state or local law, order, rule, or regulation,
to provide sufficient advance notice to the owner or operator
so he or his designee may be present during the sampling or
testing. In sampling or testing involving petroleum products
where the product manufacturer or reLncr may be held liable
for a violation, sufficient advance notice would have to be
given to the product munufacturer or refiner. The bill would
require the testing or sampling agency to provide duplicate
samples to an owner or operator or product manufacturer Gr
refiner at the request and expense of the persons.
(2) Existing law authorizes an air pollution control or air
quality management district board to establish a permit
system that requires a person to obtain a permit before the
person builds, erects, alters, replaces, operates, or uses any
article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance which may
cause the issuance of air contaminants.
This bill would instead authorize establishment of a permit
SB 811 -2-
system that requires a perscn to obtain a permit before the
person constructs, erects, alters, operates, or uses any article,
machine, equipment, or other contrivance which will cause a
net increase in the issuance of air contaminants that will
prevent or interfere with the attainment or maintenance of
state or federal air quality standards.
(3) Article XIII B of the California Constitution and I"
Sections 2231 and 2234 of the Revenue and Taxation Code
require the state to reimburse local agencies and school
districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Other
-a:.. provisions require the Department of Finance to review
t ···"statutes disclaiming these costs and provide, in certain cases,
for making claims to the State Board of Control for
reimbursement.
However, this bill would provide that no appropriation is
made and no reimbursement is required by this act for a
specified reason.
Vota: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
-3-
';,-
SB 811
1 for the issuance, of any permit. Any sael¼ revocation or
2 suspension shall be in accordance with the procedures set
3 forth in Sections 42304 to 42309, inclusive.
4 (b) Nothing contained in this part shall be construed
5 to include or restrict the use of construction equipment
6 such as portable sandblasting equipment or portable
7 spraying or spray painting equipment, or any similar
8 equipment, used on a temporary basis in connection with
9 new construction, or on maintenance or repairs of
10 existing structures, machinery, or equipmentt pt·e¥-idcd,
11 !rttffl if the equipment is operated in accordance with the
12 requirements of this division and applicable district and
13 state board rules and regulations.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
14 (c) Where testing to demonstrate compliance with
15 permit conditions or with any state or local law, order,
16 rule, or regulation relating to air pollution is required by
17 the state board, the state board, not later than April l,
18 1981, shall estabiish procedures under which the operator
19 may request that sael¼ the testing be performed by an
" 20 independent testing service. The state board may, for
21 good cause, reject sael¼ a request. .
l SECTION I. Section 41512 of the Health and Safety
2 Code is amended to read: r-
3 41512. (a) The state board or a district board may
4 adopt, by regulation, after a public hearing, a schedule of
5 fees not exceeding the estimated cost of planning,
6 preliminary evaluation, sampling, sample analysis,
7 calculations, and report preparation with respect to
8 samples of emissions secured from air pollution emission
9 sources. However, Stteh the fees may be imposed or
10 assessed only when !lt!el} the samples are required to
11 determine compliance with permit conditions or with ('
12 any ~tate or local law, order, rule, or regulation relating
13 to air pollution. 8tteh The fees shall not include charges
14 for the reasonable time exclusively spent by the owner or
15 operator of the source constructing testing facilities or
16 preparing for such testing. The failure to pay any Stteh fee
17 in a timely manner shall constitute grounds for the
18 revocation or suspension, and may be made a condition r-,
22 (d) Where sampling or testing, or both, to
23 demonstrate compliance with permit conditions or with
24 any state or local law, order, rule, or regulab·on relating
~ to air pollution is conducted by either the state board or
26 a local agency, sufficient advance notice shall be provided
27 to the owner or operator so that he or his designee may
28 be present during the sampling or testing, or both.
29 (e) Where the st1mpling or testing, or both, involves ~o TJPfrnlP•1m nrnrl11r,l-t, r;'\.. .,,,,,..,.1, .,.,,,,. <-,-~..1 .. ~,.•-·-._-~-..,-~,,.r.,.,.~ i:--•w---•.J ,....,,,. •••••to.••""""''-'" .J:i•VU'-4'-''J
31 manufacturer or refiner may be held liable for any
32 violation, sufficient notice shall be given to the product
33 manufacturer or refiner so that he or his designee may be
34 present during the sampling or testing, or both. '
35 (f) The testing or sampling agency shall provide, at
36 the request of [l]ld expense of an owner or operator or
31 product manufbcturer or refiner, or his designee,
38 subst:mti'ally identical duplicate samples.
39 SEC. 2. Section 42300 of the Health and Safety Code
40 is amended to read:
0
i
j
1
I
·1
SB 811 -4-
1 42300. Every district board may establish, by t""'i
2 regulation, a permit system that requires, except as
3 otherwise provided in Section 42310, that before any
4 person btttl4, constructs, erects, alters, r-ef?lt~ operates,
5 or uses any article, m"chine, equipment, or other
6 contrivance or combination tl1ereof which may whe11
1 constructed, erected, ultered, operated, or used will ~
8 cause t-he a 11et increase in the issuance of air
9 contaminants tliat will prevent or interfere with the
10 attainment or maintenance of state or federal ,u"r quality
11 sfand;1rds, stteh the person obtain a permit to do so from
12 the air pollution control officer of the district.
13 The regulations may provide that a permit shall be
14 valid only for a specified period. However, a permit shall
15 be renewable upon payment of the fees required
16 pursuant to Section 42311, except where action to
17 suspend or revoke the permit has been initiated pursuant
18 to Section 42304, 42307, or 42390, and 5t¼eft the action has
19 resulted in a final determination to suspend or revoke the
20 permit by the air pollution control officer or the hearing t""\
2i board by whom, or before whom, Stteh the action has
22 been initiated and all appeals, or time for appeals, from
23 5t¼eft the final determination has been exhausted.
24 SEC. 3. No appropriation is made and no
25 reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section ~
26 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution or
27 Section 2231 or 2234 of the Revenue and Taxation Code
28 because the local agency or school district has the
29 authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments
30 sufficient to pay for the program or level of service
31 mandated-by this act.
r.,
0
-
'
,\
. .
'• \ :·.~-,.'~:-· ~,~, ,. ...;,
t,
I
BILL NUMBER:
AUTllOR:
PRES ENT LAW:
PROPOSED LAW:
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS
SB 811 (as introduced) -Air Pollution: Testing: Permits
I
Senator Di 11 s
The State Air Resources Board as well as all Air Pollution
Control Districts and Air Quality Management Districts is
authorized to establish, by regulation, a permit system
that requires any air pollution emission source to obtain
a permit before the source or operation is built, erected,
altered, replaced, operated, or used.
Thes.e agencies are also authorized to take samples and per-
form tests or require the owner or opeNtor of ;rny air pol-
lution emission source to take samples and perform tests as
required to make a determination of the amount of emissions
emanating from the source.
SB 811 would remove._ authortty -of local and'-state air pol1ution
contrp1 _a·gencies · to, require a pe.rmft ·to construct, alter or
operate any machine or equipment which may cause emissions,
unless. these emfasions· cause a net incr'ease in prevtous-ly-
emitted air contaminants and the ne.t increase is shown to
prevent or interfere with the attainment of state or federal
air quality standards.
The bill would also require that, when sampling or testing
for compliance with. permit conditions or any state law, rule
or regulation, local regulatory agencies provide sufficient
advance notice to the owner or operator so that he or his
designee may be present during the sampling or testing. When
sampling or testing involves petroleum products ~here the
product manufacturer or refiner may be held liable for a
violation, sufficient advttnce notice is required to be given
to the product manufacturer or refiner. Furthennore. the
bill requires th&t the testing or sampli!lg agency provide
duplicate samples to an owner, operator, or product manufac-
turer or refiner, at the request and expense of those persons.
RECOMMENDATION: Oppose (APCD)
DISCUSSION: The bill is intended to prevent local elected officials re~
sponsible for protecting public health from making further
progress toward clean air> or even maintaining the present
quality of the air. From the public perspective, this bill
asserts that ittdustry's_ right tO'-j'loHute takes precedence
QVer .the public's right to healthy air'. Thts is done by:
1) Preventing air pollution control laws from addressing
sources of pollution (e.g., service stations) and only
addressing each source, {e.g.~ a service station) and
then exempting each source of pollution from pollutiqn
control regulation unless extremely difficult ( if not
impossible) criteria are met; and,
2) Providing substantial immunity to current (and future)
sources of pollution from enforcement action.
The bi 11 proposes to exem t ever . i ndi vi dua 1 source of o 1-
1 ut ion from requiring .a permit unless: a each soutce in-
creases its current pollution (ex12ting pollution levels can-
not be addressed), and b) the increased emissions will actu-
ally prevent or interfere with. th_e attainment or maintenance
of state or federal air quality standards.
The major impacts of this proposal are enumerated below.
1)
2)
The cost of atr pollution control will substantially in-
crease, and most of the increase wil I be borne by public
funds. Sources of pollution can be expected to construct
without applying ·for a permit., The District will be faced
with a) discovering the jource; b) testing, inspecting,
and evaluating; and, c) determining if a source needs a
permit or not. All this will have to be done at the tax-
payer's expense because revenue recovery is t~rough the
permit sys tern. Furthermore, the who 1 e process wil 1 be
subjected to protracted litigation because of the sub-
jective criteria imposed. Costs will increase as a re-
sult.
The cost to industry for air pollution control equipment
will likely increase. The potential is greatest for
small business. The present permit system is designed
to minimize the cost of air pollution control e~uipment
by identifying applicable regulation~ and the ap~ropriate
control equipment prior to construction. Since all sources
will be basically exempt from the permit system, sources
will be constructed without the benefit of an evaluation.
Once caught, there is a good potential for the necessity
to retrofit control equipment at higher cos.t.
3) New industrial development will be at a distinct dis-
advantage. For existing sources of pollution, only the
net increase (usually comparatively small) can be con-
sidered. As previously discussed, it will be extremely
difficult and resource intensive to make a case for the
criteria required. In the case of new sources, all
emission~ will be considered; thus. it will be compara-
tively easier.
\
i
... ...
FIS.CAL IMPACTi
CK/11-28-.81
-3--
4) Except in extreme cases, there is no way of proving that
any single source of pollution will prevent the attain-
ment of an ambient air quality standard. Similarly, ·
there is no way of proving that a single source of pol-.
lution will interfere with the attainment or maintenance
of an ambient air quality standard. As a result,.fur-
ther progress toward protecting the public health wffl · ·
be substantially mitigated if not pr~ventP.d. In any
case, progress will be a direct function of successful
l it i ga ti on .
Substantial immunity to current and future sources. of pollution
is provided by prohibiting regulatory agencies from conducting
source tests without substantial notice.
Generally, an emission source test is required to determine
compliance with rules establishing emission limitations or
control efficiencies. Under existing law, a
source of pollution operating in noncon.pliance with air pol-
lution control law does so at its own peril, The proposed
requirement for substantial notification prior to a source
test wilJ assure that sources of pollution will routinely
operat,? without regard to air pollution law a11d do so knowing
full we.11 that the violation will almost never be detected.
It is important to note that these observations. enumerated
above are nQt merely assertions but are supported by data.
In San Diego the percentage ratio of violations to scheduled
source tests is 3 percent, while the same ratio for unsche-
duled source tests is 43 percent. Clearly, unscheduled
source tests are an important and effec~ive enforcement tool.
This bill would result in a significant, but undetermined,
increase in net county cost.
Assembl~ Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
rm: E ,J..:m OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SA?l DIEGO
'10'.>I:::> TO l)'PPosn .5..6-~ ON ~ -~ -~ , 7
ASS,l::l\lBLY CO~l:--!llTEE ON-!;,NERGY AND NATURAL HESQJ .. !HCES
T11r1~1As M. HA:--;NJGAN, L,,AlHMAN
January 13, 1982
30519.1. (a) This section shall apply only to those parcels
and areas within the City of Carlsbad for which a local coastal
program has been prepared and certified by the Commission
pursuant to Section 30170(f) or Section 30171.
(bl Any provisions of any such local coastal program with
respect to housing shall have no force or effect after January l,
1982. After that date, housing requirements for. su~h parcels and
areas shall be determined pursuant to Section 65590 of the
Government Code. ·•=·-=-.:,-:::.,
(c) Until such· time as, (il the City-of Carlsbad fidopts or
enacts the implementing actions cont~ined in any such local
coastal program, or (ii) other statutory·provisions provide
alternately for the adoption, certification and implementation of
a local coastal program for such parcels and areas, coastal develop-
ment permits for such parcels and areas shall .be issued by the
Commission as provided in this subdivision. Notwithstanding any
other provision of this division, the Commission shall issue a
coastal development permit if it finds that a proposed development
is in conformity with the certified local cc-astal program, exclusive
of any provisions with respect to housing which have been r!=!ndered
inoperative pursuant to subdivision (bl. ·
~ San Diego Association of Governm~
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DATE: 1/18/82
LEGISJ:ATIVE GPDATE -AB 1152 (KAPILOFF)
SAN DIEOO COtJNTY ~ RESCXJRCE
MAINI'ENANCE DISTRICT
I. ProvISI~ OF AB 1152.
AGENDA REPORT No.: h
AB 1152 (as ameooed April 20, 1981) would create the San Diego Co1.mty Coastal
Resources Maintenance District with the following boundaries, organization,
powers and duties:
Boundaries:
'!he District would incl\Xie those lands within San Diego County which extend
inland fran the mean high tide lfoe to the nearest public road, street, or
highway, and would extend seawara to the State's outer limit of jurisdiction.
Board of Directors:
~rship
'!he Boa.."'tl of Directors of the District would consist of the following
ten narbers:
Cne City Council person, appointed by the City Council, fran each
of t.l;e following eight cities lying in whole or in pare within the
District:
Carlsbad
Coronado
Chula Vista
~l :-0.ar
Imperial Beach
Oceanside
National City
San Diego
cne rnerri:ler of the san Diego County Board of Supervisors, appointed
by the Board.
cne irerooer of the Board of Carmissioners of the San Diego unified Port
District, appointed by the Board.
R:iwers and D.lties:
1. '!he District would be empowered to carry out the following purposes:
A. 'l'o rr.aintain public beaches and coastal resources;
B. To prevent erosion and restore public property which has been eroded;
C. To prevent pollution fran any source and restore property which has
been damaged by pollution £rem any source:
D. 'Io provide for public safety.
2. The District would be authorized to enforce any ordinances, rules, or
regulations of any city within the District, the Coimty of San Diego, or
the San Diego Unified R:>rt District.
3. The District would be authorized to provide or contract for t.l-te provision
of co:nprehensive police, fire, health and safety services.
Annual Assessment:
AB 1152 '\\OOJ.d specify that each of the ten entities within the jurisdiction
of the proposed District ~d be assessed a proportionate amount of revenue
to pay the expenses of the Distr).ct. '.the assessnents would be based oo each
entity's pro):X)rtionate share of the total amount of revenues re.:eived by all
entities fran the management of tide and sul:mei::ged lands.
However, according to the State Lands Carmission, of the ten ~tities, only
the following four currently have grants of tide anrl sul:rner-~ecl lands:
San Diego Unified Port District
City of Imperial Beach
City of Oceanside
City of San Diego
'!'he remaining six entities {the County of San Diego and the Cities of Carlsbad,
Coronado, Chula Vista, National City, and Dal Mar) either have no grants, or
their grants have been revoked or transferred to the Port District. 'lbus,
under AB 1152 as currently drafted, these entities would not be requh-ed to
contribute to the support of the District. '.the San Diego Unified Port District
receives the greatest proportion of revenues fran the management of its
granted lands, while the other three entities receive only a minimal am:>unt
of revenue$.
Arrenclments to be Inclll:led:
AB 1152 passed the Assenbly Local <::overnment Corrrnitt~ on a 5-3 vote earlier
this rronth. At that time, Asserrblyrnan Kapiloff agr~d to two major amendments
to the bill. First, he agreed to provide a different formula for voting oontrol
of the District because as the bill currently provides, those agencies who would
provide trOSt of the revenue would have .less than a majority vote collectively.
Second, r:e :iqreed to provide that the new District ~uld be created only if
~pp;:c'l;'a-:1 :;;y ::.a.'1 ::-i..;go CJunty voters in the next general election.
II. SHORELINE ERCSICN CCM-!l'lTEE REC~TION.
In Noverrber of 1980, the SANDAG Shoreline Erosion Catmittee presented a report
to the Board on alternative arrangements for coastal rranagernent functions
which discussed in detail a new district as one of the alternatives, along
with the alternative of using existing agencies and establishing a new joint
powers agency.
2
,,,......_
After cx::mrents were received on the report fran nearly every coastal C'Ollm'unity
and fran several state agencies, the COnrni.ttee recamended to the Board in
Februar.{ of 1981 that ~ act as the agency to facilitate coordination of
local shoreline erosion. control activities &nd seek and sponsor a federally
funded study of regional shoreline erosion problems. The Board approved this
recxmrerx'lation.
Based on 1.ltls previous action and on the progress achievei on the slx>reline
erosiai stu:!y, it is staff't mtention to reiterate the P.oard's position to
Assetbl:ymm Kapiloff and keep the Board mfomm of any further action on the
bill by the Legislature.
3