BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1102
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Jerry Hill, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 1102
AUTHOR: Allen, Quirk-Silva
AMENDED: January 17, 2014
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: June 4, 2014
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Rebecca Newhouse
SUBJECT : BEACH FIRE RINGS
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1) Provides that air pollution control districts (APCDs) and air
quality management districts (AQMDs) have primary
responsibility for controlling air pollution from all
sources, other than emissions from mobile sources, and
establishes certain powers, duties, and requirements for
those districts. (Health and Safety Code �40000 et seq.).
2) Under the California Coastal Act (Coastal Act) (Public
Resources Code �30000 et seq.):
a) Requires a person, as specified, wishing to perform or
undertake any development, as defined, in the coastal zone
to obtain a coastal development permit from the Coastal
Commission (Commission) or a local government with a
Commission-certified local coastal program.
b) In carrying out the California Constitution's
protection of coastal access, requires maximum access and
recreational opportunities to be provided for all the
people consistent with public safety needs and the need to
protect public rights, rights of private property owners,
and natural resource areas from over use.
c) Requires lower cost visitor and recreational facilities
to be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible,
provided. Declares a preference for developments
providing public recreational opportunities.
AB 1102
Page 2
d) Requires, wherever appropriate and feasible, public
facilities, including parking areas or facilities, to be
distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against
the impacts, social and otherwise, of overcrowding or
overuse by the public of any single area.
e) Specifies that no provision of the Coastal Act is a
limitation on the power of any city or county or city and
county to declare, prohibit, and abate nuisances.
f) States that none of the provisions of the Coastal Act
authorize the commission or any local government to
establish any ambient air quality standard or emission
standard, air pollution control program or facility, or to
modify any ambient air quality standard, emission
standard, or air pollution control program or facility
which has been established by the state board or by an air
pollution control district.
This bill :
1) Prevents any rule adopted by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) that restricts the use or
location of a beach fire ring from going into effect until
the public agency with jurisdiction over the area obtains and
implements an approved coastal development permit.
2) Requires the public agency with jurisdiction to take all
necessary steps to ensure that an approved coastal
development permit is obtained and implemented in accordance
with the Coastal Act.
3) Notwithstanding any other regulation or law, subjects
removing or restricting the use of a beach fire ring to the
requirements of the Coastal Act.
4) Requires an application for a coastal development permit to
remove or restrict the use of beach fire rings to include an
analysis or alternatives and mitigation measures that would
avoid or minimize the need to remove or restrict the use of a
beach fire ring.
AB 1102
Page 3
5) Finds that the Legislature declares that the avoidance of any
net loss of beach fire rings within a city's jurisdiction is
the state's preference.
6) Finds that the Legislature declares that the use of fire
rings at public coastal areas is a matter of statewide
concern and not a municipal affair.
7) Finds that the Legislature declares that a special law is
necessary and a general law cannot be made applicable.
8) Defines "beach fire ring" as a device in which recreational
or ceremonial burning occurs that is located on a beach in
the coastal zone.
9) Requires the above provisions to be applied retroactively
beginning on March 1, 2014.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, "AB 1102 will
safeguard necessary coastal access protections, environmental
considerations, and any legitimate health concerns without
bypassing the appropriate agencies with jurisdiction over
each of these issues." The author also notes that a removal
of fire rings will hurt local cities by stripping "them of
millions of dollars in revenue that provide for essential
services to our communities. Further, the beach bonfires are
a vital attraction to our coasts in Southern California,
regardless of socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or cultural
background. This legislation will continue to provide an
affordable attraction for tourists, families, and residents
alike. Also to be noted, beach fire rings are low-cost
recreational facilities that are protected by the Coastal
Act. Currently, the SCAQMD is asking stakeholders to "pick
sides between clean air and public access, while cities can
comply with both Rule 444 and the Coastal Act. Legislation
is needed that would satisfy both agencies to improve air
quality for beachfront residents without restricting coastal
access and recreational facilities for low-income families
and communities of color."
AB 1102
Page 4
2) Background .
SCAQMD . Local AQMDs are required to adopt and enforce rules
to achieve and maintain the state and federal ambient air
quality standards in all areas affected by emissions sources
under their jurisdiction. These standards exist for criteria
air pollutants such as particulate matter (PM) 10 and 2.5,
ozone, NOx, SOx, and others. The South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) is a non-attainment region for
ozone and PM.
SCAQMD is the air pollution control agency for all of Orange
County and the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and
San Bernardino counties.
Local air districts, including the South Coast, have primary
responsibility for the control of pollution from all sources
except motor vehicles.
Existing law provides that that the SCAQMD shall be the sole
and exclusive local agency within the South Coast Air Basin
with the responsibility for comprehensive air pollution
control, and it shall have the duty to represent the citizens
of the basin in influencing the decisions of other public and
private agencies whose actions might have an adverse impact
on air quality in the basin.
California Coastal Commission . The California Coastal
Commission (Coastal Commission or Commission) was established
by voter initiative in 1972 (Proposition 20) and later made
permanent by the Legislature through adoption of the Coastal
Act of 1976. The Coastal Commission, in partnership with
coastal cities and counties, plans and regulates the use of
land and water in the coastal zone. Development activities,
which are defined by the Coastal Act to include (among
others) construction of buildings, divisions of land, and
activities that change the intensity of use of land or public
access to coastal waters, generally require a coastal permit
from either the Coastal Commission or the local government.
The Coastal Act includes specific policies that address
AB 1102
Page 5
issues such as shoreline public access and recreation, lower
cost visitor accommodations, terrestrial and marine habitat
protection, visual resources, landform alteration,
agricultural lands, commercial fisheries, industrial uses,
water quality, offshore oil and gas development,
transportation, development design, power plants, ports, and
public works.
Beach fires rings in Southern California . There are
approximately 765 beach fire rings in Los Angeles and Orange
counties with the overwhelming majority (approximately 90
percent) along the Orange County coastline.
In the City of Newport Beach (City), there are 60 fire rings
at the Big Corona and the Balboa Pier areas that, according
to the Coastal Commission, have been used for recreational
purposes since the 1940s and 1950s.
3) Sequence of events .
On March 13, 2012, the Newport Beach City Council voted to
direct City staff to take the necessary steps to remove beach
fire rings at Big Corona and Balboa Pier beach areas.
On October 12, 2012, Newport Beach filed a coastal
development permit application in order to remove the fire
rings. The application cited health impacts from wood smoke
as one of the reasons for seeking permission to remove the
fire rings.
On March 1, 2013, the SCAQMD board directed staff to study
the issue and develop rules for beach burning.
On March 6, 2013, the Coastal Commission considered the
City's application and no formal action was taken in order to
allow time for the SCAQMD to examine Rule 444 related to open
wood burning, which at the time exempted beach fires from
regulation. The staff analysis for the hearing recommended
denial of the permit because they assessed that the denial of
the low cost public recreation of beach fire rings was not
consistent with the Coastal Act. The staff analysis also
AB 1102
Page 6
concluded that the City did not demonstrate that the wood
smoke from the City's beach fire rings was directly
responsible for public health problems.
On March 28, 2013, based on the science of wood smoke health
effects, the number of existing beach fire rings, proximity
of those fire rings to residences, and the extent of fire
ring usage, SCAQMD staff developed a proposal that would have
removed the beach fire exemption in Rule 444 and prohibited
beach burning after January 1, 2015.
On June 6, 2013, SCAQMD, in response to public comment on the
first draft, released a revised Rule 444 that allowed
wood-burning fire rings outside of a 700 foot buffer from
residences, and within 700 feet requires fire rings to be
spaced either 100 or 50 feet depending on the total number of
fire rings. The revised Rule 444 also specified that if a
city or county declares the fire rings a nuisance due to wood
smoke, then fire rings may not be made available by a state
or local authority. The provisions in Rule 444 related to
beach fire rings do not apply to the use of charcoal, gaseous
or liquid fuel, which do not create the same quantities of
air pollutants.
On June 28, 2013, the Coastal Commission staff report
recommending disapproval of the City's CDP application was
released based on their determination that the City's
application was inconsistent with the Coastal Act
requirements. The report questions why the SCAQMD staff
recommended a 700 feet buffer zone and a fire ring spacing of
100 feet in most instances that reduces air pollution about
98%, instead of a distance and spacing that reduces air
pollution up to 80 or 90%.
On July 11, 2013, the City withdrew their CDP application.
On July 12, 2013, the SCAQMD board adopted Rule 444
amendments released on June 6th, effective March 1, 2014.
On November 26, 2013, the City approved a proposal, in
response to the SCAQMD's revised Rule 444, to space the
existing wood-fueled rings at a minimum of 50 feet from each
other while retaining the same overall footprint within which
AB 1102
Page 7
the existing 60 fire rings are located. Implementation of
this proposal would mean that only 27 fire rings would be
retained and 33 would be removed. To replace some or most of
the visitor-serving value of the removed 33 fire rings, the
City would participate in the SCAQMD's low-emission fire
rings demonstration project. This proposal was approved, but
not pursued further, and no coastal development permit
application was filed, as details regarding prototype
alternative fire ring devices were not forthcoming.
On January 31, 2014, an Orange County Superior Court judge
rejected a motion by the group, Friends of the Fire Rings,
for a preliminary injunction to stop implementation of the
SCAQMD's measure governing beach fire rings. In rejecting the
preliminary injunction, the judge found that, "The AQMD has
presented enough evidence to show that wood burning can be
harmful to the health and that it had a rational basis to
pass the Beach Burn Ban Amendments. When that threat to the
health of the public is balanced against some slight
inconvenience of not being able to burn wood at certain
locations or at certain times, for a few months while this
Action proceeds, the balance tips in favor of the AQMD."
On February 11, 2014, the City passed an ordinance, effective
March 12, 2014, to only allow charcoal-fuels to be burned in
the 60 fire pits in the City in order to comply with SCAQMD
Rule 444 by the March deadline without spacing the rings,
which would have required a coastal development permit from
the Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission sent the City
a letter dated February 28 that states that they believe that
the new fuel requirement of charcoal constitutes
"development" and still requires a coastal development
permit.
4) Coastal Commission position . At its hearing on March 12,
2014, the Coastal Commission heard and took a formal position
on AB 1102. The Commission adopted a support position with
the caveat that several points of concern raised in the
hearing be raised as suggested amendments. Those points of
concern were:
a) The short time frame in which, if the bill goes into
effect January 1, 2015, the local agency and Coastal
AB 1102
Page 8
Commission have to obtain a coastal development permit.
b) The removal of "notwithstanding any other law"
language, and a specification of precisely which
provisions of law would be overridden by AB 1102's
provision that subjects removal or restriction of use to
the Coastal Act and coastal development permit
requirements.
c) Specification of the date from which any net loss of
fire rings is compared, as part of AB 1102's declaration
that it is the state's preference that there shall be no
net loss of fire rings.
d) Inclusion of language that specifies that both the
Coastal Act and the SCAQMD rule are to be complied with so
to prevent a situation where an action by one agency
overrides the other.
5) Public health impacts from wood smoke . According to the
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), smoke is
made up of a complex mixture of gases and particles produced
when wood and other organic matter burn. A major health
threat from smoke comes from fine particles (also called
particle pollution, particulate matter, or PM). In addition
to particle pollution, wood smoke contains several toxic
harmful air pollutants including: benzene, formaldehyde,
acrolein and methane.
According to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (US EPA), particle pollution exposure can lead to a
variety of health effects.
Short-term exposures to PM 2.5 can lead to burning eyes and
runny noses, due to penetration of the particles into the
eyes and respiratory system. Short-term exposures to
particles (hours or days) can also aggravate lung disease,
causing asthma attacks and acute bronchitis, and may also
increase susceptibility to respiratory infections.
Long-term exposures have been associated with reduced lung
function and the development of chronic bronchitis, increased
hospital admissions and emergency room visits -and even
AB 1102
Page 9
premature death.
Some studies also suggest that long-term PM 2.5 exposures may
be linked to cancer and to harmful developmental and
reproductive effects, such as infant mortality and low birth
weight.
On October 17, 2013, the specialized cancer agency of the
World Health Organization, the International Agency for
Research on Cancer, classified outdoor air pollution, and
particulate matter as a major component of outdoor air
pollution, as carcinogenic to humans.
The SCAQMD has estimated that one fire pit in an evening
emits as much PM 2.5 as one heavy-duty diesel truck driving
564 miles.
The PM 2.5 emission rate from one fire ring has also been
estimated by SCAQMD to be equivalent to the PM 2.5 emission
rate from the second hand smoke of 800 cigarettes.
Regulation of PM 2.5 .
Certain air pollutants, such as PM 2.5, ozone, NOx, SOx, and
volatile organic compounds (all termed criteria air
pollutants) pose a risk to human health at elevated levels
and have associated ambient air quality standards. These
standards define clean air and are established to protect the
most sensitive individuals in our communities.
An air quality standard defines the maximum amount of a
criteria air pollutant that can be present in outdoor air
without harm to the public's health. Both the Air Resources
Board (ARB) and the US EPA are authorized to set ambient air
quality standards. For PM 2.5, the state's 24-hour limit
matches the federal standard.
Recently, the US EPA significantly strengthened the PM 2.5
standard due to scientific and epidemiological studies
documenting air pollution's substantial deleterious effects
on public health. In California, local air districts are
tasked with comprehensive air quality pollution control over
stationary sources to achieve and maintain these ambient air
AB 1102
Page 10
quality standards.
Residents of the South Coast Air Basin are exposed to some of
the highest ambient concentrations of PM 2.5 in the nation.
As a nonattainment area, the SCAQMD is required to adopt an
air quality management plan to come into attainment with
federal and state air quality standards.
Rules 445 (governing wood burning devices) and 444
(restricting open burning) are designed to help achieve the
24-hour PM 2.5 standard and protect public health by reducing
exposure to potentially high concentrations of wood smoke.
Specifically, Rule 445 prohibits the permanent installation
of a wood burning device, unless it meets certain emission
specifications, in any new development. Rule 444 restricts
open burning throughout the basin, establishes criteria for
restricting burning region-wide ("no-burn days"), establishes
requirements for agricultural burning, and restricts other
types of open burning, including beach wood fires. The
SCAQMD notes that, although smoke from biomass burning
(firewood and open burning) is not the largest source of the
region's fine particulate pollution, it is one of the last
largely uncontrolled sources of particulates. Models indicate
that air quality can be significantly improved by reducing
these emissions on an episodic basis.
As noted in the previous section, studies continue to show
the importance to public health of reducing exposure to PM
(including biomass smoke). This is especially true for
vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, those with
chronic lung conditions, children, and pregnant women.
The research has clearly shown that both short-term and
long-term exposure to elevated levels of PM 2.5 is harmful to
public health. The delay of rules to limit the exposure of
PM 2.5, as AB 1102 would do with Rule 444, and any future
rule by the SCAQMD to restrict the use of beach fire rings,
is contrary to the state goal of protecting against the
harmful health effects of particulate matter, and puts public
health at risk.
6) Access . The Coastal Commission staff has asserted that it is
AB 1102
Page 11
the belief of the Commission that removal, spacing or
changing the use of a fire ring is specifically viewed as
denying access to low-cost recreational activities on the
beach, which is the charge of the Coastal Commission to
protect.
However, the use of 60 fire rings in close proximity on a
beach itself limits or denies access to vulnerable
populations.
According to the US EPA, wood smoke can affect everyone, but
children, teenagers, pregnant women, older adults, people
with lung disease, including asthma and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (COPD) or people with heart diseases are
the most vulnerable.
The US EPA website states that it is important to limit
exposure to wood smoke-especially for the following
susceptible populations:
Persons with heart or lung disease, such as
congestive heart failure, angina, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, emphysema or asthma may experience
health effects earlier and at lower smoke levels than
healthy people.
Older adults are more likely to be affected by
smoke, possibly because they are more likely to have
chronic heart or lung diseases than younger people.
Children are more susceptible to smoke for several
reasons: their respiratory systems are still developing;
they breathe more air (and air pollution) per pound of
body weight than adults; and they're more likely to be
active outdoors.
Vulnerable populations like those persons that suffer from
chronic respiratory illnesses like asthma, COPD, emphysema
would have extreme difficulty breathing while on the beach
with fire rings burning wood, putting off large plumes of
smoke. Those suffering from chronic illness would be at
higher risk to an acute episode requiring immediate medical
attention if they were to be on the beach while the fire
AB 1102
Page 12
rings are burning.
Additionally children, because of their smaller lung
capacity, take in more breaths and therefore more air
contaminants. It is not recommended to subject children to
smoke from a single cigarette because of exposure to harmful
contaminants, much less the equivalent of 800 from one fire
ring or 60 times that level, as is the case during peak
season at Newport Beach when all 60 fire rings are in use.
It would not be advisable to have children on the beach when
the fire rings are in use and producing wood smoke,
particularly any child that has a preexisting chronic illness
like asthma.
In actuality, if local governments decide to comply with Rule
444 through the use of charcoal or liquid or gaseous fuels,
the rule may increase access to the beaches. Those
susceptible to the adverse health impacts of wood smoke, who
were unable to go to the beach for health reasons previously,
would now be able to enjoy the beach access and fire rings as
well.
1) Findings and declarations . The bill makes several
questionable findings and declarations:
The Legislature finds and declares:
a) "That it is the state's preference to avoid the net
loss of beach fire rings within a city's jurisdiction.
If a city has jurisdiction over a beach and determines
that fewer fire rings are safer for fire protection or
public health reasons, is it really the state's preference
that ALL of the fire rings are kept? Why should the state
have any preference over a city's jurisdiction to do what
is best for its community?
b) "That the use of fire rings at public coastal areas is
a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal affair."
How is the use of fire rings as opposed to any other
activity on a beach, like volleyball nets or litter
control or water quality monitoring a statewide concern
and not a municipal affair? This implies that a city who
AB 1102
Page 13
is the responsible agency for the beach is not the
responsible agency for the fire rings at all - since "fire
rings area are a matter of statewide concern and not a
municipal affair."
Is it the intent of the Legislature that the state takes
over the responsibility for the maintenance of the fire
rings? If a city is the responsible agency for
maintaining the beach, including the fire rings as a
recreational activity of the beach, then the fire rings
are the city's affair.
c) "That a special law is necessary and a general law
cannot be made applicable."
Why would the Legislature develop statewide policy for the
impacts of fire rings on public health protection and
coastal access that only applies in one air district? If
the concern is harmonizing air quality law and coastal
access, then shouldn't it apply statewide?
An amendment is needed to strike these findings.
8) Retroactive enactment . The bill calls for retroactive
application of part of the bill. The Legislature, as a rule,
does not enact legislation retroactively because it cannot be
reasonably expected for those parties required to follow the
new law to have been in compliance in the past.
Should this bill be enacted SCAQMD, who was enforcing air
quality laws by passing Rule 444, would have violated the
law, according to this bill, which was not enacted at the
time Rule 444 was enacted.
An amendment is needed to strike the retroactive enactment
language.
9) Does this bill harmonize ? AB 1102 would prevent an air
quality rule that restricts the use or location of a beach
fire ring from going into effect in an area until a coastal
development permit is obtained by a public agency with
jurisdiction over the area, for up to two years from the date
the air quality rule is enacted.
AB 1102
Page 14
The mission of the Coastal Commission in implementing the
Coastal Act is the preservation of coastal resources and
public access to those coastal resources, not public health.
To this point, the Coastal Act explicitly states that nothing
in the Act authorizes the commission or any local government
to establish ambient air quality standards, emission
standards, or air quality programs or to modify any ambient
air quality standard, emission standard, or air quality
programs established by the state board or by an air
pollution control district.
Is it appropriate to override an air pollution control
measure, designed to protect public health, and issued from a
local air district with sole responsibility for comprehensive
air pollution control within the basin, until the Coastal
Commission, with no jurisdiction, authority or expertise over
air quality or public health, reviews and issues a coastal
development permit?
Although the emphasis and preservation of access to low-cost
recreation is an important and laudable mission, it is not
clear that this serves as justification to preempt measures
that reduce air pollution and protect public health.
Instead of harmonizing air quality and coastal recreational
policies, AB 1102 codifies a policy that elevates access to
low-cost recreation above air pollution and public health
concerns.
In the Coastal Commission's March Hearing considering the
Commission's position on this bill, an amendment was
discussed and agreed upon that the bill should specify that
both the Coastal Act and the SCAQMD rule are to be complied
with so to prevent a situation where an action by one agency
overrides the other.
An amendment is needed to remove language allowing the
Coastal Commission to suspend an SCAQMD air quality rule and
replace it with language stating that if the SCAQMD adopts an
open burning rule that restricts the use or location of a
beach fire ring, then the public agency with jurisdiction
over the area shall comply with both the rule and the Coastal
AB 1102
Page 15
Act.
10)Nuisances and the Coastal Act . Current law states that
nothing in the Coastal Act limits the power of a city or
county to declare, prohibit, and abate nuisances (PRC
�30005). This provision clearly recognizes the need to
delineate nuisances from the Coastal Act and preserves local
governments' authority to act in the best interest of their
communities.
AB 1102 severely restricts the ability of local jurisdictions
to abate nuisances due to wood smoke from beach fire rings,
by requiring that any abatement of a nuisance by removing or
restricting use of beach fire rings be subject the Coastal
Act. This provision of AB 1102 appears to be in direct
conflict with existing law that explicitly provides local
governments with the authority to declare, prohibit, and
abate nuisances, uninhibited by the Coastal Act.
AB 1102 only restricts the ability to declare and abate beach
fire ring related nuisances, and in so doing, makes a curious
distinction between nuisances that could arise from beach
fire rings (wood smoke and toxic air emissions from treated
wood and furniture) and any other type of nuisance in the
coastal zone that a jurisdiction could declare and abate
(loud noises, odors, water quality issues, etc.).
According to Coastal Commission staff at their hearing on
March 12, 2014, the nuisance provision in the Coastal Act
"allows local governments to essentially act without getting
a permit if something has been declared a nuisance. We've
had some experience over the years with local governments
using that section in ways that are simply intended to
accomplish their goals without meeting Coastal Commission
review, typically having to do with public access. There has
been litigation on the application of that section and twice,
the two times there has been litigation, the Coastal
Commission has prevailed and the courts have found that the
local governments used that section improperly, that there
wasn't actually a nuisance as typically known to be
understood and that the local governments in question did
require a coastal development permit from the commission.
That was the blueprint that was in Rule 444 which suggested
AB 1102
Page 16
that local governments might be able to use that route to get
rid of their fire rings immediately. That was in the AQMD's
action. So this bill responds to that to say that is not an
allowable application of that section with respect to
removing fire rings from the beach."
Is it appropriate to highlight two past cases where local
governments used the provision inappropriately to severely
restrict a local jurisdiction's authority to use that
provision to declare and abate a nuisance in the form of a
real public health concern created by wood burning from beach
fire rings?
In fact, the judicial rulings in these cases indicated that
the statute clearly recognizes the Coastal Commission's
authority and provided clear definition of the appropriate
use of this provision of law.
There is no public policy reason to severely restrict local
government's ability to declare a nuisance arising from a
fire ring but maintain this municipal authority to prohibit
and abate nuisances without limitation by the Coastal Act,
for all other nuisances. If anything, mitigating a nuisance
contributing to a public health threat should be expedited by
a local government, not slowed down by further review.
Notwithstanding any other law . AB 1102 also provides that
notwithstanding any other regulation or law, removing or
restricting the use of beach fire rings is subject to all
requirements of the Coastal Act. In addition to any other
regulation or law, AB 1102 also specifically subordinates two
sections of law: 1) the section of the Coastal Act that
states nothing in the Act limits the ability of cities or
counties to declare, prohibit and abate a nuisance (described
above, PRC �30005) and 2) a provision of the Act that
prohibits the Coastal Commission from establishing or
modifying any air quality standard or program set by ARB or a
local air district (PRC �30414).
This language restricts the ability for local governments to
protect their citizens from nuisances from fire rings, no
matter how valid, and prevents any circumstance, no matter
AB 1102
Page 17
how dire or critical to public health, from allowing for the
removal or restriction of a beach fire ring, without first
going through an extended process to receive a coastal
development permit.
An amendment is needed to strike the provision specifying
that, notwithstanding any regulation or law, including
Sections 30005 and 30414 of the Coastal Act, removing or
restricting the use of a beach fire ring shall be subject to
the requirements of the Coastal Act.
11)CDP in two years . AB 1102 requires that a coastal
development permit be obtained and implemented no more than
two years after the enactment of the open burning rule
adopted by the SCAQMD. It is unclear who is held
responsible, the local agency or the Coastal Commission, if
that timeline is not met, and what repercussions exist for
not meeting the mandated deadline. Would the SCAQMD rule be
operable if a CDP was not obtained by a public agency within
two years because of rejection by the Coastal Commission, or
would the SCAQMD be suspended indefinitely?
12)Is there currently a problem at the local level ? As
described above in the section titled "Sequence of events,"
the City has implemented a charcoal-only fuel ordinance for
all 60 of their fire rings. This action was taken to ensure
compliance with the SCAQMD rule to avoid fines beginning
March 12, 2014 for noncompliance with Rule 444, and to avoid
any removal or spacing of the fire rings.
As was noted above, the Coastal Commission staff believes
that the switch from wood to charcoal in the fire pits
constitutes a "change of use" of the fire pits, and therefore
requires a coastal development permit.
The City researched various brands of charcoal and found
three easily available brands of "lump" charcoal, with a
comparable cost to firewood, that offer similar overall
experience, food cooking, warmth and flame, and therefore
does not believe the switch constitutes a "change of use."
The Coastal Commission has not provided justification for how
charcoal constitutes a "change of use."
AB 1102
Page 18
It is unclear how specifying the fuel allowed in the fire
rings constitutes a "change of use" under the Coastal Act.
Access to all of the fire rings has been maintained for the
same types of recreational activities. The definition of
"use" applies to the activity not the fuel used for the
activity. As long as the opportunity for the activity is
maintained then the use has not changed.
According to a letter from the City to the Committee, in
documenting their switch from wood to charcoal, they have
observed that generally the same numbers of people are using
the fire rings as before the charcoal-only ordinance; if not
more people due to the warmer weather in 2014 and that the
smoke levels at the beach have significantly decreased. The
City also notes in their letter that they have met onsite
with SCAQMD staff as well as vendors for the prototype
natural gas rings or ring inserts, should those prototypes
materialize later. They also note that they intend to seek a
coastal development permit for any such installation of such
natural gas fire ring prototypes that may occur in the
future.
13)Double Referral to Senate Natural Resources and Water
Committee . If this measure is approved by the Senate
Environmental Quality Committee, the do pass motion must
include the action to re-refer the bill to the Senate Natural
Resources and Water Committee.
SOURCE : Author
SUPPORT : Azul
Banning Ranch Conservancy
California Association of RV Parks and
Campgrounds/Camp-
California Marketing
California Coastal Commission
California Coastal Protection Network
California State Conference of the National
Association for
the Advancement of Colored People
Coastwalk California
County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors
AB 1102
Page 19
County of Orange Board of Supervisors
Friends of the Fire Rings
Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks
State Board of Equalization Member Michelle Steel
North County Watch
Still Protecting Our Newport
Surfrider Foundation
OPPOSITION : American Lung Association in California
Breakers Drive Association
Breathe California
California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association
Coalition for Clean Air
Families for Clean Air
Sierra Club California
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Utah Physicians for Social Responsibility
9 individuals