HomeMy WebLinkAbout0206.095TO:
FROM:
AGENDA VA TE:
SUB.JECI':
RF.QIJF,Sf
.... ' . ;,..~
-_, ~ 0" .~. _.
>',,-"'_.
@
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
HONORABLE CITY COL'NCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBUC WORKS
April 17 • 1995 CMR:206:95
R.equest for City Council Opposition to Senate Bm 176
(Alquist) and Assembly Bill 1947 (Battin,
StalT requests that Council take positions on two bills currelllly in the California
Legislatun:: Senale Bill (SB) 176 and Assembly Bill (AD) 1947.
RECOMMENDATION
Sta1f recommends !hal Cooncil state its opposition 10 SB 176 and AD 1947 and authorize
staff 10 take action in its bebalf. Both bills will be heard in their boose of origin poIky
committee OIl Aprill!. 1995.
POUCV IMPUCATIQNS
Passage'" S8 176 would interfere with existing City policy 10 pursue comp&nce ",ith
wastewater and stormwater discharge pemtits Ihrough pollution prevention.
ImplementatiOO of AD 1941 would initiate a state-maoda""' program of recordkeeping and
eJUemal revie.., of all regulations adopted. ameod<:d. or repealed.
EXECIITJYE SL'MMARY
SB 176 would restrict t.'Je City's ability 10 alstribute information about household
hazardous substances or sater substitutes for any hazardous substance. Scientific stu<f"",
(ofUIlSpeci .. 'ied nature) would be required before an agency c<JU!<l make recommend.:ltior:s
as simple as "use a mecfumical means 10 remove rOOlS. rather t1lan oopper-based rOOl
killer.' Staff suggests opposition of the bill because:
• it is an unf.mded mandate lila! wool<! increase local bureaucracy with no increase
in local services or t.urrJan or envirornntntal protection;
• it represents need'.ess restrictions 00 local actions;
• it wnul<! add significant cost 10 required local environmental programs;
• it woold create a significan! new risT< of litigation for the City and the RWQCP.
, --':.'
.--,". -
o
For Palo A-ltn. the po!eD!iaI for additiooal cost and legal risk is espe<:iaIly important
because oor bay discharge permit ~ ires us to edue&te residents about use of and
managemeol of polluting products sucb as copper-based rOO( killer and sil<er-coruaining
pboto j>."'l'CeSSing solution>_
hss2ge of AB 1947 would crear.: a srate-mandar.:d IocaJ process for adoption, amendmelll.
or repeal of local regulations relating 10 bazardoos materia1s. hazardous waste. or
wastewater {an .:flSCharges 10 5eW0llI and storm drains}. A!. drafted, it COI<id be interpreted
10 opp/) Jo ali Ciry-<Jdopled regu1a.tiom (without limitatlon)_ The process WOIlld involve
the following:
• application ol the paperwork-inlensiv: Administrative Procedures ACI 10 IocaJ
ordinance revisioos; and
• ability for anyone 10 cIIalIenge IocaJ ordinance adopOOo through appeal 10 o.n
arbitrator and 10 coon wiIJwut a!IJ appeal rig.lrJs foc the local agency_
For Palo All<>. the risks 0{ !his appeal 5IruCture are Sigllifiant. Our RWQCP Bay
discha.rge permit requires ordinance adoption 0{ various measures. Rejection 0{ our
ordinance 1» an arbilr.oto< rould place C5 in violation of our Bay QISCha.rge permit and our
legal agr<ement with CLEAN South Bay. putting us in a 'Catch-22' situation., as we
wOllId have 00 appeal.
Dsc.n IMPACT
Passage of SB 176 and AS 1947 would involve significant costs 10 the City _ Srudies
mandUed by sa 176 would odd tens, if OO! hundreds, of tbousands of dollars annually 10
costs for implementing activities required by RWQCP permits. Program effectiveness
would be reduced because eJdsting programs would be suspended and exNing DIl<r.:r.als
could 00( be 1fJStJibut<d_ Reduction of program effectivene.s would subject the R WQCP
10 grealer risks 0{ fines and lawsuits for oon-compliance with permil requiremeru.s. Costs
10 other City progra.'1lS. such as storm water protection. hazardo<Js Was\<:. recycling. and
Fire Department Hazardous Materials programs are tmlnown.
Paperworl< required by AS 1941 would add a significant, but unknown. cost 0{ regulatory
changes like the recent Sewer Use Ordinance Amendments and an.,mal Fire Code
amendments. If adopted in its current form., the bill would require significant add"Jtional
pope.""""= lOr an City regulation adoption. ameOOmelll. 0< repeal. For the receO! Sewer
Use Ordir.ance Amendments. staff estimates thaI the added cost wOIlId have been several
bundr..:J boim 0{ staff lime (prim:;ri1y legal staft). hundreds of doiIars in pbotocopyir41 and
SlOr.Ige costs. and about six 10 nine months lOr extra processing requirements due 10 public
notice and star.: Office of Administrative Law review.
, .
Bod! bills subotantially increase risk 0( legal challenges 10 City actions, creating risk 0(
significan:. but unknown, expenditures in response 10 litigation.
ElMRONMFNfAJ. ASSF.5SMENT
Neitber SIBle legislation nor a local agency expressing its position on SIBle legislation is a
"project" under the California Envircmnental Quality A<-t; therefore. 00 environmental
review is required.
PREPARED BY: Kelly D. Moran. Manager. Environmental eompr"""" Programs
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVLEW; .4?!M-d· 4 .. ~
;> GLENN S. ROBERTS
Di.l'tc!Or 0( Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~ 1\\.~
BERNARD M. STRO
..... sislant City Manager
. f