September 8, 1995

South Coast Air Quality

Management District Board

The Legislative Committee held its regular meeting on Friday, August 18, 1995. An attendance record is included for your information (Attachment 1).

Summary of Recommendations

SB 456 (Kelley) -- Best Available Control Technology: Change District position from OPPOSE to NEUTRAL.

Create three member "Action" subcommittee, representing the breadth of Governing Board views, to provide more timely direction to the Legislative Director.

Report

Legislative Status Report

Staff provided a comprehensive status report on pending legislation, a shorter list of 16 bills that most directly affect District programs, and final language for eight bills signed into law by Governor Wilson (Attachments 2, 3 and 4, respectively). In addition, the Committee specifically discussed the following bills:

• AB 531 (Morrissey) would establish a voluntary, statewide registration for portable equipment. Staff has been working with the bill's sponsors and the Air Resources Board to smooth SB 531's implementation. No change to the District's Support position is recommended.
  
• SB 456 (Kelley) concerns Best Available Control Technology determinations and retrofit control measures. The District originally had an Oppose position on the bill since it duplicated work being done by the District's 19-member Scientific Review Committee on BACT guidelines and was unnecessary. Since then, staff has worked with the bill's sponsor, the California Council for Environment and Economic Balance, to bring SB 456 more in line with local deliberations. In light of those developments, staff recommended and the Legislative Committee agreed that the District's position should be changed from Oppose to Neutral.
  
• SB 501 (Calderon) would create a state-administered vehicle scrappage program. Board Member Nell Soto expressed concern about the District's Support position since the passage of SB 501 may ultimately threaten money local governments receive to implement air quality programs (AB 2766 funds). Consequently, she asked staff for a written update on SB 501's current language. Board Member Soto also stated her intent to continue working with local cities and counties to ensure they are aware of SB 501 and its consequences, which the Committee encouraged. Barbara Garrett, Assistant to Board Member Braude, informed the Committee that the City of Los Angeles had taken a Neutral position on SB 501, but is still very concerned about the funding source and believes that AB 2766 funds are still vulnerable.
  
• SB 772 (Hurtt) would prohibit mandatory trip reduction plans. Staff indicated that although this bill failed passage on the Assembly Floor, reconsideration has been granted and it is expected to become law. The District's position on this bill is Support with Amendments.
  
• SB 811 (Monteith) would have dissolved the South Coast, Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley and Mojave Desert AQMDs. Chairman Jon Mikels inquired about the origins and status of this bill. Staff explained that it was introduced to address San Joaquin Valley concerns and died in the first policy committee. The District had an Oppose position on SB 811.
  
• SB 962 (Russell) would modify the District's fee setting authority. At the last Committee meeting, staff reported that a reasonable compromise had been worked out with the bill's industrial proponents. The final language is awaiting sign-off from both sides. Meanwhile, SB 962 is being held in the "inactive file" on the Assembly Floor. It is expected to pass once everyone is comfortable. The District has a Support position on this bill.
  

Regarding signed legislation (Attachment 4), Committee Chairman, Dr. William Burke, inquired whether the District had supported the eight enacted bills. Staff replied that the District officially supported four of them: SB 1522 (Brewer) concerning city membership on the District Governing Board; SB 383 (Lewis) concerning parking restrictions; SJR 2 (Russell) concerning federal ridesharing requirements; and SJR 5 (Kopp) concerning overly prescriptive federal mandates. The District also supported the principles in AB 533 (Morrissey), exempting portable emergency equipment. The District had a Watch position on the remaining three bills: AB 110 (Hannigan) concerning electric golf carts; AB 421 (Olberg) modifying the Mojave Desert air basin boundaries; and SB 1083 (Beverly) concerning oil spill remediation.

Continued Discussion of District's Legislative Advocacy Program

At the Legislative Committee's July 21, 1995, meeting, Arthur Bauer and Associates, Inc., presented that firm's final report and recommendations on the District's legislative advocacy program. The presentation prompted several questions from Board Member Hugh Hewitt about government agencies' legal authority to operate legislative programs, the underlying philosophy of legislative advocacy, the District's past and present budget for legislative activities, accountability of the District's legislative staff, the process and schedule for engaging a new federal representative, and the consistency (or lack thereof) between positions taken by the District, the Air Resources Board, Cal-EPA and Governor Wilson. The Committee discussed these issues briefly then, since time was short, postponed fuller discussion until its August meeting.

Staff provided several reports in response to Board Member Hewitt's questions. First, District Counsel analyzed state and federal statutes and concluded that the District is authorized to engage in legislative advocacy (Attachment 5). Second, a detailed budget for the District's Legislative unit was provided, with historical data on staffing and contracts since Fiscal Year 1988-89, and a comparison to other air quality agencies (Attachment 6). Third, staff researched prior legislative sessions to determine the dissonance/consistency between District positions and those of other agencies. This research indicated that the District's positions align closely with ARB's and match most of the Governor's final sign/veto decisions. However, the District has and continues to oppose some of Cal-EPA's reorganization proposals, preferring other forms of permit streamlining, cost reductions or institutional composition. There has also been some partisan tension in the past since the District relied heavily on the legislative leadership (then solely Democrat) instead of the Administration (then and still Republican). Regarding federal representation, staff reported at a prior meeting that the District's current contract with Leon Billings, Inc., expires on December 31, 1995. No decision has been made about federal representation after that date.

Following staff's oral and written reports, Board Chairman Mikels asked for clarification about Board Member Hewitt's (who was absent due to a scheduling conflict) philosophical concerns. Board Member James Silva ventured that the concern related more to how the District carries out its legislative program versus actual positions. Board Member Silva also mentioned the need for staff judgment when evolving bills moved beyond the Legislative Committee's specific directions. Dr. Burke agreed that the extent of policy direction could be improved. Dr. Burke then suggested the formation of a three-member "Action" subcommittee, representing the breadth of views on the Governing Board, to provide more timely input to the Legislative Director. District Counsel advised that such a subcommittee would be legally permissible if it was delegated authority by the full Governing Board.

Regarding legislative policy positions, Ken Bruner, Assistant to Board Member Hewitt, explained that the concern was to lessen dissonance between Cal-EPA and the District. Board Members Mikels, Burke and Wilson responded that the Governing Board needed to place the District's interests first, and that those interests may not match Cal-EPA's in every instance. However, unnecessary conflict is undesirable and should be avoided.

Regarding staff accountability, Dr. Burke expressed his view that micromanagement is inappropriate. Instead, the Legislative Director should be trusted to carry out the Board's policies. If Board Members are concerned about that, Dr. Burke continued, the Legislative Director could be dismissed. Mr. Bruner emphasized that the latter was definitely not Board Member Hewitt's intent, that he's satisfied with staff's performance, and that his primary interest is the Board's involvement. At that point, other Committee members indicated their approval of the Legislative Director's performance thus far. Finally, Barbara Garrett expressed the City of Los Angeles' appreciation for the timely and thorough legislative information provided by District staff (whom she calls regularly for assistance).

Next Legislative Committee Meeting

The next Legislative Committee meeting is Friday, September 22, at 8:30 a.m. in Conference Room CC8.

THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD

--Approve the recommended position on the above bill;

--Approve the formation of a three-member "Action" subcommittee; and

--Receive and file this report.

Sincerely,

Dr. William Burke, Chairman

Legislative Committee

TE:CW:DAR

Attachments (6)

(9-95bdlt.doc)