Placer County Grand Jury • 2000-2001

Placer County Air Pollution Control District Background/Summary Placer County Air Pollution Control District (apcd) is

Published: July 02, 2001 4 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 6 findings

F1
The Grand Jury noted that the District is studying the feasibility of joining with an APCD similar in size and demographics.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Grand Jury recommends that Placer County continue efforts to join neighboring counties to form a regional district in order to enforce California air pollution control laws.
F2
The California Health and Safety Code § 40701.5 provides that expenses of a district not met by grants, subventions, permit fees, penalties, or a surcharge of registered motor vehicles, shall be provided by an annual per capita assessment of those cities which have agreed to have a member on the District board and of the County included in the District.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The County and participating cities should share a per capita fee equally among each of the jurisdictions.
F3
The California Health and Safety Code authorizes the District to adopt fees in conjunction with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to stay current with the cost of administering programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Structure fees to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index.
F4
The APCD by law can charge a $4 per vehicle registration fee. Placer County is one of three counties charging $2. All the other counties charge $4.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Take the necessary steps to raise the per vehicle fee to $4.
F5
The APCD does not have the resources to respond, in a timely fashion, to citizen complaints related to monitoring pollution releases from stationary industrial sources, nor does it have an adequate system in place for daily monitoring of potential or actual pollution releases. There are sites within Placer County which have had repeated releases of organic compounds. As it is now, the District must rely on self-reporting by the polluter, or a report of suspicion by nearby residents. By the time a report is investigated, the pollution may have dissipated.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Develop plans to follow up aggressively on complaints from citizens related to discharges from industrial sites on a 24-hour basis. In addition, monitor, on a full time basis, repeat violators as well as sites which may release toxic substances known to cause long term or acute health problems. The legislature has authorized Districts to require stationary sources of potential air pollution to install monitoring devices and to reimburse Districts for costs related to collecting and evaluating data from such devices (See Health and Safety Codes § 42700(b) and 41511).
F6
Due to the rapid growth in Placer County, the Grand Jury recognizes the challenges faced by the Air Pollution Control District.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
The 2001-2002 Grand Jury should continue to monitor the Air Pollution Control District issues. Respondents: City of Auburn City of Colfax City of Lincoln City of Rocklin City of Roseville Placer County Air Pollution Control Board Placer County Board of Supervisors Placer County Chief Executive Officer Township of Loomis RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: The Honorable James D. Garbolino Presiding Judge Superior Court County of Placer Historic Courthouse 101 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603

No Responses Found 8

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Auburn City
Colfax City
Lincoln City
Placer County Air Pollution Control District Agency
Placer County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office
Rocklin City
Roseville City
Town of Loomis Town