HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - June 3, 2003 B-02 SMCITY OF LODI
AGENDA TITLE: Resolution apposing AB 170 regarding an unfunded state mandate that will require
cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to prepare
and adopt air quality General Plan policies or a separate General Plan Element
MEETING DATE: June 3, 2003
PREPARED BY: J.D. Hightower, City Planner
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution opposing AB 170 regarding an unfunded state
mandate that will require cities and counties in the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District to prepare and adopt air
quality General Plan policies or a separate General Plan
Element.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On May 27, 2003, the State Assembly held a second reading of
AB 170 that will require all cities and counties within the San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to prepare and adopt
air quality General Plan policies or a separate General Plan
Element. Cities and Counties would have five years to amend General Plan policies or adopt a separate
air quality element, Although written with good intentions, staff recommends that the Council oppose this
bill for a variety of reasons.
This bili singles out cities and counties in the valley for compliance with a relatively obscure document
that the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District published in 1994 called Air Quality Guidelines
for General Plans. As titled, this document was intended as a guideline for city staff when preparing
general plans and contains several ideas, that if implemented, could help reduce air pollutants created by
General Plan build -out, As such it is a brainstorming of numerous ideas and is not an objective based
document, Because of the lack of solid objectives and benchmarks, this document does not necessarily
make for clear and concise general plan direction. To require cities and counties to conform to a
guideline would be contrary to the intent of this document.
Furthermore, the guidelines emphasized ideas that could lead towards less reliance on the automobile.
So while the district is not complying with federal and state standards for both PM10 (dust) and ozone, the
document only addresses a portion of the overall creation of ozone and does not address the problem of
PM10. Again this document, while noble in its purpose, was not designed to address the overall problem
of non-compliance with state and federal standards, Thus the proposed law would represent an
incomplete planning effort.
As anyone who has lived in the valley will acknowledge, agricultural operations is the primary cause of
dust and thus PM1Q . Furthermore, agriculture contributes to the formation of ozone though the operation
of equipment and normal agricultural practices such as irrigation pumps and burning. To single out cities
and counties and not make all parties accountable towards improving air quality, does not make for
sound planning practice.
Improving air quality is an important issue facing our region. The state should be looking for successful
programs in California. Our situation is not unlike that of the Los Angeles basin in the 1970's and 80's.
APPROVER:
031 oabl7o.dm
-- City Manager
05/28103
Council Communication
Meeting Date: June 3, 2003
Page 2
Through sound proactive planning, involving all parties, their basin is experiencing cleaner air. This
solution was not achieved by the state. needlessly dictating programs to a specific region, but by state,
local, industry, and commerce leaders coming together to solve a mutual problem. This is a reasonable
approach and process that has proven success.
This bill is an example of one of the many unfunded state mandates passed by the Assembly. Although
by law the state must provide funding for mandates, this bill skirts this issue by stating that a city could
impose a fee for the preparation of these newly required General Plan policy or element. No fees are
being collected nor were they anticipated, thus this bill represents an unfunded mandate.
Clean air is an important issue for all state residents. It is also a complex issue with many inter-
relationships. In devising a regulatory framework that balances these two factors it must be remembered
that the most important aspect: to making sound democracy is to treat all parties fairly. This bill singles
out the valley without paying attention to the migration of air pollutants created in the bay area. The way
that our air basin is created, we breathe air that has migrated from the bay area. To ignore the initial
source of pollutants without forcing the bay area cities to prepare policies to minimize migrating
pollutants does not equitably share the responsibility. Thus a meaningful solution will necessarily involve
at least the bay area and not just the residents of the valley.
FUNDING. none required
Konradt Bartlam
Community Development Director
Better Cities — A Better Life
May 7, 2003
Assembly Member Sarah Reyes
State Capitol, Room 5136
Sacramento, CA 95814
1400 K Street
Sacramento CA 95814
916.658.8200
FAX 916.658.8240
www.cacities.org,
RE: AB 170 (Reyes). General.Plans: Saga Joaquin Air Quality District
Notice of Opposition n (Based Upon 4128/03 Version)
Dear Assembly Member Reyes:
I regret to inform you that the League of California Cities OPPOSES your AB 170.
Several days ago this measure was converted from a nursing bill into a legislation that
establishes significant mandates upon the local governments within the jurisdiction of the
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Affected agencies have
been. taken by surprise, and given little time to comment on AB 170. The absence of this
essential perspective thus far in the discussion is likely to unden-nine efforts to improve
air quality in the region, rather than enhance them.
Although the legislation only applies to the San Joaquin Valley region, the League
remains concerned that AB 170 would establish statewide precedents that could be
detrimental to jurisdictions beyond the bill's ostensible influence.
In its current form, AB 170 would require all local governments within the SJVAPCD to
adopt a detailed, separate "air quality" element in their general plans. Local communities
would also be compelled to amend other general plan elements to include comprehensive
goals and strategies for improving air quality over their next general plan update or the
upcoming five years, depending on which time span is shorter. Finally, the bill requires
jurisdictions in the region to prepare a number of reports to be submitted both to the
public and the SYVAPCD.
In addition to opposing the provisions of AB 170 that would force local jurisdictions to
radically revise their general plan documents, we believe the legislation fails to
acknowledge that air pollution and at times its most significant source may not be
confined within city, or even county borders. Adopting a new air quality element as part
of one general plan in the SJVAPCD and implementing it will do little to curb pollution
from neighboring cities or counties that may actually contribute more heavily to the
problem.
AB 1.70 (Reyes)
Page 2 of 2
May f ''003
, i: quality issues should be and are currently addressed on a regional basis. Many of the
additional mandates AB 1.7_0 would impose on local governments are duplicative since
regional air quality districts have many of these same responsibilities already.
In addition, AB 170 compounds the conflicting messages local governments receive from
the state. VAile AB 170 is designed to elevate the importance of air pollution control. in
the general planning process, existing lava simultaneously pressures local governments to
zone for an additional housing units. To comply with this Evill, communities that embrace
air pollution control as paramount and modify their general plans accordingly could
easily be accused of being anti -housing at the same time.
If AB 170 was enacted in a vacuuna, it might stand alone as good policy. However, the
League has strong reservations about how the bill would work in conjunction with every
other state law affecting land use. Moreover, we are highly skeptical that financially
overburdened local governments would be able to follow through and implement the
newly drafted air quality element successfully without any additional resources.
If you have any questions, or I can be of any assistance, please call me at 916.658.8222.
Sincerely,
e'45 , ;�
7
Daniel Carrigg
Legislative Representative
cc: Members, and Consultant, Assembly Local Goverrnaaent Committee
2906jumopfu1 "
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL OPPOSING ASSEMBLY BILL 170
REGARDING AN UNFUNDED STATE MANDATE THAT WOULD REQUIRE CITIES
ANIS COUNTIES IN TIDE IAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL.
DISTRICT TO PREPARE AND ADOPT AIR QUALITY GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
OR A SEPARATE GENERAL PLAN ELEMENT
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2003, the State Assembly held a second reading of AB 170 that would
require all cities and counties within the Saiz Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to prepare and
adopt air quality General Plan policies or a separate General Pian Element. Cities and counties would
have five years to amend general plan policies or adopt a separate air quality element; and
WHEREAS, this Bill singles out cities and counties in the Valley for compliance with a relatively
obscure document that the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District published in 1994 called Air
Quality Guidelines for General Plans; and
WHEREAS, the guidelines emphasized ideas that could lead toward less reliance on the
automobile. While the district is not complying with federal and state standards for both PMr(? (dust) and
ozone, the document only addresses a portion of the overall creation of ozone and does not address the
problem of PMta; and
WHEREAS, agricultural operations are the primary cause of dust and thus PMyo. Agriculture
contributes to the formation of ozone through the operation of equipment and normal agricultural practices
such as irrigation pumps and burning; and
WHEREAS, this Bill is an example of one of the many unfunded state mandates passed by the
Assembly. Although by law the State must provide funding for mandates, this Bill skirts this issue by
stating that a city could impose a fee for the preparation of these newly required general plan policies or
elements. No fees are being collected nor were they anticipated, thus this bill represents an unfunded
mandate; and
WHEREAS, clean air is an important issue for all state residents. This Bill singles out the Valley
without paying attention to the migration of air pollutants created in the Bay Area. The way that our air
basin is created, we breathe air that has migrated from the Bay Area. To ignore the initial source of
pollutants without forcing the Bay Area cities to prepare policies to minimize migrating pollutants does not
equitably share the responsibility.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lodi City Council hereby declares its opposition
to AB 170 regarding the unfunded Mate mandate that would require cities and counties in the San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to prepare and adopt air quality general plan policies or a
separate general plan element.
Dated: June 3, 2003
1 hereby certify that Resolution No. 2003-97 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Lodi in a special meeting hold June 3, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Beckman, Howard, and Land
NOES: COUNCIL, MEMBERS - Mayor Hitchcock
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS Hansen
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
SUSAN J. BLACKSTON
City Clerk
#r •