The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Statement 1974/02/26 Item 08~. .. ~. , .~ ; ,4+F ,..,,. rt ; ,:.. ~ ..: . ~. _..,•w~Kry431;~ .. ,~..~•....2•"~.. ...: .r.~.. ~""MM1" a *~c~",5s. ~ -~a.... r.,qp "e~~r .., r - ., ~~ + ~ ~ AGENDA ITEM NO. [ 8 ] CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL hiEET?idC OF: February 26, 1974 ITEi~1 TITL"c: Resolution -Supporting the efforts of the Board of Supervisors and the Air Quality Control in enforcing the vapor control laws INITIATED nY, City Council . EAi,~GRGIIP~D At the meeting of February 14, 1974, the Council noted the. letter received from Supervisor Dick Brown concerning the vapor control problem on gasoline. The Council agreed that it should support a resolution encouraging implementation and adherence to the vapor control law. ", •i.riCi:I}: R~~O~Lli::lCli ~ ~ u'_"?•y,~~"'l~.n l ! ;.~~~ ~ 1 .. l .l T! ~'; T ~. i n 1 //~ 7~r A. ~:~.zwr_c7a~. ~:~`ener~~. N.A. ~C~'":1'! S.Sa.!?"!-~0,:?"~ k~CC;11?!? '.? a4 Qn: j't~t19'"i;u~':lt ~iFa:~ ~!~CQI~~?fi!('i1~:~.~~T?: ~ ) ~ i a ~ ;~ r r.., ^.,r -~ N.A. N.A. N.A. ~1 %~' i '~ r r~- ~. ^o~ DICK BROWN SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS • 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92 f 01 (714) 236-2260 f C ~,., , i January 31, 1974 Mr. Frank A. Scott Councilman, City of Chula Vista Post Office Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 92012 Dear Frank: 8 ,.,~ Sj 1 ! ~~ The Chairman of the County Board of Supervisors has scheduled yet another public conference to consider further easing of the County's Air Pollution Control District (APCD) This constant reconsideration has been going on for some two years, with the usual result that another six month's extension is granted before implementation is required. The February 14th confer- ence, however, is specifically scheduled to consider allowing a system that APCD staff has testified cannot meet the 90$ efficiency requirement. Thus, the ability of the program to reduce hydrocarbon emissions into the atmosphere would be sub- stantially diminished. What concerns me is that to date we have had almost no input on this subject from the general business community, cities or other local government agencies, or community groups that would be most heavily impacted by very severe alternative measures already under consideration by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While these entities quickly recognized the severe economic impact inherent in the recently proposed $637 annual parking surcharge for commercial parking spaces, they apparently have not recognized the value of gasoline vapor control as a much better and permanent answer. In short, the gasoline vapor control program is part of a large EPA required pro- gram which EPA has said we must use to reduce hydrocarbon emissions in San Diego's air basin by 63~ or lose control of our local Air Quality Program. Gasoline vapor control accomplishes more than a third of that requirement. In order to achieve the remainder, vapor from oil based paints, dry cleaning and degreasing operations must also be controlled, catalytic converters and NOX kits will be required on automobiles, motorcycle emission controls will be required, some gas rationing is planned, and vehicle miles traveled will be "voluntarily" reduced by llo through mandatory car pooling and controlling access to freeways and certain city streets. While these may be irritating, they shouldn't cause unreasonable burdens. 4`p -_ _~, ; f, _ , Page two If the Board of Supervisors fails to stand firm on these easy steps, such as, control of gasoline vapor loss between the bulk plant, truck tank,trs, service stations and private automobiles, which would cause very little disruption, we will be knocking out a very cost-effective method of achieving a large part of the air quality improvement required by law. That loss, too, would then have to be made up through very severe measures that would almost certainly, severely disrupt our county's economics. These have already been suggested and include elimination of non-pool cars from commercial centers, very severe gasoline tax- ation and rationing, and even the banning of commercial land development that would contribute to air contamination. Compared to these proposals, the pro- jected impact from the parking surcharge would have been minor. Finally and contrary to many of the rumors circulating, my research shows that: (1) gasoline vapor control equipment approved for construction is available from at lease nine separate firms, for applications ranging from small agricultural tanks to bulk distribution facilities; (2) prices range from approximately $500 for small tanks to $10,000 for larger service stations, and from one firm, by lease without any capital outlay; (3) neither Underwriters Laboratory, the State Division of Industrial Safety, the State Fire Marshall, local fire departments, the Insurance Services Offices, or local building inspection agencies find these vapor control systems to be "unsafe"; and (4) while major oil companies have ver- bally acknowledged to me the need to clean up the air, to date they have resisted installation of these proven systems, with the notable exception of Shell Oil Company. I would strongly urge you to carefully consider the alternatives available to the Board of Supervisors, in their capacity as Directors of the County Air Pollution Control District, and their relative impact on government and business, and strongly support implementation of gasoline vapor cor-trol as the infinitely pre- ferable approach. I hopefully look forward to your input prior to February 14, 1974. Sincerely, ~~ DICK BROWN Supervisor, Second District ~ .