The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1987-07-14; City Council; 9088; AB 2364 Bradley Oppose,I ' . -::t '° (t') N ~ ~ s:: 't"f Ul 0 A. A. 0 .. O'\ -::t M O'\ . 0 :z; . Ul <II ,:ii:: "d <II .1-,1 A. 0 "d tU M 't"f CJ s:: ::, 0 t,;) ,-... co I -::t M I ,-... z 0 § c( .., 0 z :::, 0 0 c1r:""oF CARLSBAD -AGEND/-~BILL AB# yo/? TITLE: MTG. 7 /14/87 DEPT. CM RECOMMENDED ACTION: AB 2364 (BRADLEY) -OPPOSE DEPT. HD CITYA~ CITYM~~ Adopt Resolution No. 51/j/f opposing AB 2364 (Bradley) and authorize the Mayor to send a copy of the Resoluti,n with the attached cover letter to the appropriate individuals. ITEM EXPLANATION Assembly Member Bradley introduced a bill which would provide that in San Diego county no ordinance shall prohibit garbage, rubbish, or refuse vehicles from using traditionally used routes which provide access to solid waste disposal sites. It is apparent that the city of San Marcos sponsored this bill in response to the recent incident involving the Rancho Santa Fe Road route to the San Marcos County Landfill. This bill sets a dangerous precedent by establishing that no agreement between two l~cal governments is final as long as the alternative exists for the state Legislature to intervene, even when it does not involve a statewide concern. This bill usurps local authority, precludes local governments from negotiating optimal solutions to landfill/truck route issues, and encourages cities to prevent any more streets from becoming "traditionally used routes"; a negative impact on both the cities and the solid waste disposal sites . AB 2364 has been approved by the State Assembly. The bill was set for hearing in the Senate Transportation committee on Tuesday, July 7. At this time we do not know what action was taken on this bill. FISCAL IMPACT None. EXHIBITS l. Assembly Bill 2364 (Bradley). 2. Letter from the City of San Marcos to the Assembly Local Government Committee dated April 23, 1987 supporting AB 2364. 3. Cover letter from Mayo~ Lewis opposing AB 2364. 4. Resolution No. 9d9 opposing AB 2364. C C -----.. -...... ;~ :i ,,. . .~ .,' ••f~ • AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY:MAY 28, 1987 . • -~ AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY .• MAY 11, 1987 /t•:·~ . . . .. ,r; CALIFORNL\. LECISLATURE-1987-88 REGULAR SESSION • : • --~ ASSEMBLY BILL • ·' '':. '~ ......... lj No. 2364 . ~-~~;if An act to a€lti Section 315703.a t:e amend Section 35701 of the V :~~• Code, relating to vehi~l~•;;~ . . LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S.DIGEST ~-·~· ( str~ts.2364, as amended, ~,"~j· Vehicles, r~tricted (1) Existing law authorizes-local authorities, by ordinance, to prohibit the use of streets•: by commercial vehicles exceeding specified weights. -'~~t -:::;.~1•• • · , ( This bill would provide· that in San Diego County no . ordinance shall prohibit garbage, i:u .. bish, or refuse vehicles from using traditionally used .rou~es, as defined, which provide access to solid waste disposaj! sites -: ~ routes would ftl5e oo feqtli:Fed ~ ee and which are designated in the county solid waste management plan. Th~.'f bill would require each county to designate in its solid waste management plan .the traditionally 11sed route, thereby imposing a state-mandated ( local program. : ~-l (2) The California Constitutio°i requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school ::clistricts 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 which do not exceed $500,000 statewide and other ( procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $500,000. This bill would provide that no !reimbursement shall be ..J. ~, 'i j m ~ ' ~ J ~· I .1 I I I I I i , • I •1 ··I ·I EXHIBIT 1 . ·1~./ • ,, . ).--... • AB 2364. ., . ' ;.·, .·-2- made from • the State ~Iandates Claims Fund for costs Ci mandated by the stn;te· pursuant to this act, but would ' recognize that local agencies and school districts may pursue any available remedies to seek reimbursement for these costs . . Vote:. majority .. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: n& yes. State-mandated loc;:al program: yes. ,,. _.,. The people of the State o(Calif_omia do enact as follows:" 1 SECTION -:b Section 3a703.l5 ~ added -te the Vchide 2eetie;-te~ ,,·:.: 3 35703.e. Ne ordinance adopted puFsuant -te Sectioa 4 m sha:Y: prehibit et' effeeti:Yely prc¥ent, directly er 5 indi1cctly, &HY vehicles ti5ee fe.t,. -the collection ftfl9: 6 eanspo:rtation Of gar13age, rub13ish, et' refuse f-fflffi coming 7 ffeffi a • le-eat er regioRal ftrfef-ial -eireula.tion fflttfe 8 eontained within a ~-ef' eormty' s traffic c:i.rc:.iJation 9 clemeHt thM is a traditionaY.y us.;ee ½'et:¼te fe.t,. the puFp_ose 10 . er h:·ttHsporting fhe5e. matedetl-s te ett fi"f>ffi a selia wasre 11 disposal~ !:fhe seltd wa5-te management pla-n pl'ep&l'ed ( •. 12 undei" Section 66+89:-l-er the Government GeEle ey eaeh -1 13 county seall dcsi 5natc ~ eaclitionall;< t::3:5ea routes. • 14 .:'° "Tia.diti:onall)' 1:i5e6: route," fef' purposes ef ~ section, • 15 means any~ esee fef' a period ef efte yeM el' ffiefe 16 as aeeess -te ei-~ a settti W!¥.Jte· disposal 5tte: . : {_,.- 17 -.. ::SEG.-~ · .; .· • '.::.,:. ":·f:;t,; ·: -• ,· . . 18 • • SECTION .l. Section ,35701 of the Vehicle Code-is 19 • amended 'to· read: :::.·z.<:;;: .. ;J:, , , 20 \. 35701: .(a) Anycity;.or.countyforaresidencedistrict, 21 . may, by ordinance, prohibit the use of a street by any 22 commercial vehicle or by any vehicle exceeding a 23 maximum gross weight limit, except with respect to any 24 vehicle which is subject to Sections 1031 to 1036, inclusive, r , 25 of the Public Utilities Code, and except in San Diego \._,,: 26 County when the solid waste management plan prepared 27 under Section 66780.1 .of the Government Code is 28 amended to designate a traditionally used route used for 2f} the purpose of transporting garbage, rubbish, or refuse 30 which intersects with a local or regional arterial 31 circulation route contained within a city or county's (__ fll 70 ( ( ( • •J -. 3 --=:: ~~:j AB 2364 ,, ·. :.; .. 1 tra.ffic circulation element and which provides access to 2 a solid waste disposal site. ,. ·. ·J 3 . (b) The ordinance shall <nbt be effective until 4 appropriate signs are erectecl indicating either the streets 5 affected by the ordinance or. the streets not affected, as 6 the local authority detennines will best serve to give · 7 notice of the ordinance. : •. : .. 8 (c) No ordinance adopted:,pursuant to this section 9 after November 10, 1969, shall apply to any state highway 10 which is included in the National.System of Interstate and 11 Defense Highways, except an ordinance which has been 12 approved by a two-thirds";~ypte of the • California .. i'. 13 Transportation Commission .. ~~J,}j 14 (d) Thesolidwastemanagerrientplanpreparedunder 15 $ection 66780.1 of the Government Code by each county ··-: 16 shall designate the traditionall1used routes. . . 17 (e) "Tradionally used route;'' for purposes of this 18 section, means any street used fqr a period of one year or 19 more as access to or from a soHd waste disposal site. . 20 SEC.,f!. The Legislature her~by finds that due to the , 21 .:geographic siting of soHd wast~ disposal facilities in the 22 County of San Diego in relatf.on to the cities in that 23 county, ce.~tain problems~-relating to transporl"ation of 24 . that waste have developed :~hich are unique to that 25 ·cou11ty. The Legislature· finds1 that at this time these 26 problems are not g..:neral or;stptewide. Thus, a general 21 Jaw for purposes of Section}r].6 of Article IV of the 28 California Constitution cannot!pe made applicable, and . 29 the amendments to Sectiom:~701 of the Vehicle Code 30 made by Section 1 of this ac~'are only, applicable to the 31 County of San Diego. .• • ~~fl . · • -. .' ,.: 32 ,SEC. 3. No reimbursemen~ shall be made from the 33 State Mandates Claims F~d pursuant to Part 7 34 (commencing with Section.175C0) of Division 4 of Title 35 2 of the Government Code fdr costs mandated by the 36 state pursuant to this act. It is ~ecognize·d, however, that 37 a local agency or school distric~may pursue any remedies 38 to obtain reimbursement available to it under Part 7 39 (commencing with Section-11 li500) and any other 40 provisions of law. ,: • ;:f 0 'j 1 1 97 120 J I • ~1~/~.'9'20 April 23, 1987 (See Attached List of Committee Members) . Assembly Local Government Committee State Capitol, Room 6031 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Support for AB 2364 (Bradley) Dear : ,... .. l .,.. ,''-·- • ' ~ APR 2 71981 ro------·-------_ .. ____ - EXHIBIT 2 This letter is to indicate our stro~gest support for A~ 2364 (Bradley); Although in most circumstances~ the City of San Marcos would not be. in favor of having the State Legislature impose certain actions upon local governments, having had first hand experience in bei~· on the receiving end of a unilateral and poorly thought out decision by an adjoining city with no discussion with San Marcos prior to their taking· action to close off a regional circulation roadway to a regional facility (the San Marcos Landfill), I can assure you tnat this piece of state 1 egi sl ati on is extremely important and timely, not only for San Marco~; for San Diego County, but definitely for the entire State of California; The specific scenario that has resulted in our support of this legislat1on is as follows: An adjoining city eliminated certain sized trucks from using a regional circulation element ·due to the roadway bisecting a rather exclusive resi denti a 1 neighborhood: The regi ona 1 roadway was the only southern access to the San Marcos Landfill (a county owned landfill within the City of San t-larcos) that services the entire North San Diego County region. The elimination of truck traffic on this regional circulation route resulted in the trash hauling industry having to re-route trash trucks a mini mum of 12 mil es through the City of San Marcos to the only remaining access route into the San Marcos Landfill. This added an additional 105 trash truck trips on San Marcos streets that normally wou1 d have tr~veled the southerly Rancho Santa Fe Road route through La Costa and Carlsbad and into the entrance of the San Marcos County Landfill. ln order to get the adjoining City to sit down and discuss the problem, the City of San Marcos had to go to the extreme of conducting the first reading of an ordinance that would have imposed an extremely expensive mitigation fee on trucks traveling this re-routed system, which would have at least doubled residential trash rates. Fortunately, the citi_es involved, with the help of the County (who tried to ignore the situation for as long as possible), were able to sit down and resolve the situation to a point where CITY COUNCIL Loi: n. Thibadnau, Mayor Mark Loscher, V'ce Mayor Lionel G. Burton Pia Harris F.H. Smith Page 2 /\B 23u1 Apri 1 23, 1987 the City of San Marcos could at least live with the proposed solution. The solution was for the County to spend s200;000 to construct a southerly by-pass road to put the truck traffic on, so that the trucks could then use the by-pass road to get to the San Marcos Landf il 1 • Hhile this resolution is barely acceptable to the City of San Marcos, n is an ir.1;,:--ove,r:ent from what exists today and certainly is an improvement over doubling everyone's trash rates as a retaliatory measure for the poor decision making on tile part of tile adjoining city. \ihile normally wa \'1ould be in opposition to state legislation that el iminatcs 1 oca 1 contra 1 , having had this first hand experi e.nce, we can nO'.'l· understand \•lhy certain regional facilities and access to those facilities must be protected and not ba permitted to be interfered by parochial interests that may satisfy a very small portion of the community, but totally ignore the 1 onger range ef fccts on tile region; For this reason, we are in support of AB 2364 and would request that your conmittce take affirii:ative action -to support this part·icular piece of lQgislation .. If you have any questions~ please feel free to give me a call at {5"19) 7,it~-,io20. He p"lan on attending your committee hearing on April 2~, 1987 to expres:; our support for this le'.)islation. • Si~re\ly, . ~JJ~~<J. R. ~~itt ngs City Ma~er cc: City Cc;tmci1 • League of California Cities Jeff Ritcnie, Mashburn Sanitation Bud Pot:ter, S_gn Di ego County Oi sposa 1 Assoc. tari Sh!:!ehan, County of'San Diego Assembly Local Government Committee Assemblyman Dominic Cortese Assemblyman Robert Frazee Assemblyman Tom Hannigan Assemblywoman Bev Hansen Assemblyman Dan Hauser Assemblyman Bill Jones Assemblyman David Kelley Assemblyman Bill Lancaster Assemblyman Byron Sher Assemblyman Norman Waters 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1989 Office of the Mayor July 15, 1987 Cit!' of cttarlsbab Assemblyman Bill Bradley 5140 State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 AB 2364 -OPPOSE The City Council of the City of Carlsbad voted unanimously in opposition to AB 2364 at its meeting of July 14, 1987, for the reasons identified in the attached Resolution. CLAUDE A. "BUD" LEWIS Mayor GM:CAL:pgk c: Senate Transportation Committee League of California Cities, Sacramento Assemblyman Robert Frazee, Sacramento Senator William Craven, Sacramento TELEPHONE (619) 438-5599 l 2 3 4 RESOLUTION NO. 9149 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING ASSEMBLY BILL 2364 (BRADLEY) WHEREAS, AB 2364 (Bradley) would provide that in San Diego Cou·,ty no 5 ordinance shall prohibit garbage, rubbish, or refuse vehicles from using trad- 6 itionally used routes which provide access to solid waste disposal sites and which 7 are designated in the county solid waste management plan; and 8 WHEREAS, AB 2364 addresses a problem unique to the County of San Diego, 9 as per Section 2 of said bill, and therefore should be resolved at a local level; 10 and 11 12 WHEREAS, AB 2364 usurps local authority; and WHEREAS, AB 2364 precludes local governments from negotiating optlmat 13 solutions on a case by case basis; and 14 15 WHEREAS, AB 2364 voids existing local agreements; and WHEREAS, AB 2364 defines a "traditionally used route" as any street used 16 for a period of one year or more as access to or from a solid waste disposal 17 site, and thereby encourages local governments to prematurely prohibit the use 18 of streets for said purpose in order to prevent them from being labelled a 19 "traditionally used route, 11 a counterproductive result for ,'>•Jth the cities and 20 the solid waste disposal sites. 21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of 22 Carlsbad, California, as follows: 23 24 26 26 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the City Council of the City of Carlsbad hereby opposes the passage of AB 2364 (Bradley). 3. That the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will encourage 27 the other cities of San Diego County to oppose AB 2364. 28 /// l PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular me.ating of the Carlsbad 2 City Council held on the 14th day of July, 1987, by the following vote, 3 to wit: 4 5 6 7 8 9 A YES: Council Members Lewis, Kukhin, Pettine, Mamaux and Larson 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOES: None ABSENT: None (SEAL) r - CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor