Weights & Measures

SB 744 (Wyland) – Oppose
As Enrolled August 30, 2011

SB 744, by Senator Mark Wyland, is on its way to the Governor for signature. As you recall, this bill would remove the legal requirement that only licensed sealers of weights and measures, or licensed service agents can test and place into commercial service a weighing, measuring, or counting device, with particular reference to water sub-meters. The bill would allow any water sub-meter tested by a manufacturer to be deemed tested, sealed and approved for commercial use. In addition, the bill would require manufacturers to notify the county sealer of water sub-meters at the time a meter is installed or otherwise placed in service. If a manufacturer fails to provide notice, a civil penalty of not more than $1000 may be applied. CSAC remains opposed to the bill because we feel that allowing manufacturers to test and seal their own devices would allow for inaccurate and incorrect devices to be placed into commercial service. CSAC encourages counties that took an oppose position on the bill to send a veto request to the Governor. 

Flood Control

AB 1965 (Pan) – Support
As Enrolled on August 31, 2012

AB 1965, by Assembly Member Richard Pan, would make non-substantive/clean-up amendments to Senator Lois Wolk’s SB 1278 which was ordered to enrollment on August 23. SB 1278 addresses outstanding issues concerning the implementation of SB 5 (Machado, Chapter 364, Statutes of 2007) — one of a six-bill flood protection package signed into law in 2007. AB 1965 merely corrects a mistake in the drafting of the definition of “urban level of flood protection” that was included in SB 1278. This correction was agreed upon by CSAC, the League of Cities, RCRC, the American Planning Association and the Department of Water Resources.

Solid Waste

SB 568 (Lowenthal) – Concerns
Failed Passage

SB 568, by Senator Allan Lowenthal, failed passage last week. This bill would have placed a ban on polystyrene foam food containers after January 1, 2016, unless the local government or school district adopts a recycling program that can recycle at least 60% of its polystyrene foam food. CSAC had a concerns position on the bill based on the unintended consequences the bill might have had on local governments and our role in the ban process.

AB 1634 (Chesbro) – Concerns
Dead

AB 1634, by Assembly Member Wes Chesbro, failed passage last week. This bill would have mandated separate hauling and recycling for organic waste such as food waste or green material by businesses, mutli-family dwellings of five or more units and public entities. CSAC, along with the League of Cities had a concerns position on the bill. We felt that the bill would have usurped the AB 341 process, which established a new statewide policy goal of 75 percent diversion of solid waste. The AB 341 process also created a process that committed the Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (Cal Recycle) to working with stakeholders over an 18-month process to vet suggestions and ideas relative to increased diversion. 

SB 1118 (Hancock) – Support
Dead

SB 1118, by Senator Loni Hancock, failed passage last week. This bill would have created and extended producer responsibility program for mattresses sold in California. CSAC supported this bill because it would have addressed the illegal dumping of mattresses by requiring manufacturers of mattresses sold in California to develop a plan for recovering and recycling their products.

Solar Fee and Permitting

SB 1222 (Leno) – Oppose
As Enrolled on August 29, 2012

SB 1222, by Senator Mark Leno, is on its way to the Governor for signature. This bill would place a cap on building permit fees for solar residential and commercial systems as well as require local agencies to justify their “reasonable costs” in a finding and ordinance for any costs above $500 for residential and $1000 for commercial solar systems. CSAC, along with several other local government organizations, oppose this bill because it is duplicative given that a local government must already provide a mitigation fee study (including showing the nexus of the cost) when establishing the fee. We also do not believe it is the role of the state to undermine local decisions by setting the level of the fee in statute without regard to individual city or county costs. CSAC encourages counties that have taken an oppose position on this bill to send their request for veto letters to the Governor. 

Cap and Trade

AB 1532 (Perez) – Support
As Enrolled on August 31, 2012

AB 1532, by Assembly Speaker John A. Perez, is on its way to the Governor for signature. The bill was substantially amended on the last night of session and is a much paired down version of the previous iteration that included specific details on eligible uses for Cap and Trade funds and a specific local government funding component. The version that is on the way to the Governor’s desk directs the Department of Finance, in consultation with the California Air Resources Board to develop the investment plan for Cap and Trade funds and does still include public agencies as eligible recipients for Cap and Trade funds. The bill states that the expenditure of auction revenues may be available for funding of local government investments in a variety of different sectors, including local and regional sustainable infrastructure projects, including transportation and housing, land and natural resource management programs, water use and supply, forestry, and sustainable agriculture. As previously reported CSAC took a support position on the bill and had been negotiating with the author’s staff to include a local government funding component in the bill. 

SB 1572 (Pavley) – Support
Dead

SB 1572, by Senator Fran Pavley, failed passage last week. This bill would have allocated proceeds from auction of AB 32 emissions allowances collected in 2012-13 to numerous specified priority projects. This bill was a companion bill to AB 1532 in that it provided for the allocation of Cap and Trade revenues for the interim period before the Air Resource Board has developed their investment plan. CSAC took a support position on the bill and had been working with the author’s staff to include a similar local government funding component to the provision that was to be included in AB 1532.