Grover Beach mayor opposes APCD dust rule

July 8, 2013
Debbie Peterson

Debbie Peterson


Grover Beach Mayor Debbie Peterson is circulating a petition seeking to repeal the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District’s Oceano Dunes dust rule.

The dust rule requires the California Department of Parks to reduce the amount of particulate matter blowing from the Oceano Dunes to the Nipomo Mesa or pay fines of $1,000 a day to the APCD.

The APCD is an unusual form of government in that it primarily subsists on fees and fines that its board has the power to create.

In her petition, Peterson questions the rationale of one state agency utilizing a scientifically flawed study to fine another state agency.

The Friends of Oceano Dunes, local activist Kevin Rice and California Attorney General Kamala Harris have also argued that the APCD used flawed scientific practices and failed to prove that off-road vehicle activity on the dunes has caused an increase in pollution on the Nipomo Mesa. In April, San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Charles Crandall’s ruled against several suits aimed at repealing the APCD’s dust rule.

A month later, San Francisco attorney Thomas Roth filed an appeal on behalf of Friends of Oceano Dunes over Crandall’s ruling that the APCD has the authority to regulate off-road vehicle activity on the Oceano Dunes.

Debbie Peterson’s petition

“As part of the dune creation process on high wind days dust blows onto the Nipomo Mesa from the beach. The San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLO APCD) has tasked the landowner of the dunes, California State Parks’ Oceano Dunes State Vehicle Recreation Area (ODSVRA), with the job of determining and implementing the best way to mitigate the blowing sand.

“SLO APCD is doing so on the premise that their Phase II Study indicates that vehicles on the beach are causing the dust to blow onto the Mesa.

“The California Geological Survey, and other technical experts, including environmental and air quality professionals, extensively reviewed the Phase II Study and its appendices. From these reviews, as well as from subsequent analyses of available and acquired data, it was determined that the Phase II conclusion attributing elevated concentrations of particulate matter on the Mesa to off highway vehicle recreation at Oceano Dunes SVRA was not supported by the data presented in the Phase II document.

“The SLO APCD has created a rule (the dust rule) that fines State Parks $1,000 a day when the wind blows up excessive dust, $920 a year for a permit to operate, $4,080 a year to monitor each air monitor (22 have been installed) and $40,160 a year for an existing APCD monitor. The purpose of these charges is to fund the SLO APCD for monitoring the work of the ODSVRA.

If approved, the power to revoke the permit for vehicles on the beach lies solely in the hands of one individual, the SLO Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO). No other institution, including the APCD board has authority over the control officer’s decision to revoke the permit.

“No other Air Pollution Control District in California has a State Vehicle Recreation Area that is required to have APCD permits or is fined for the wind blowing or for monitoring, even though most other areas have worse air quality and larger SVRA acreage. The dust rule is not in keeping with standard practice.

“The net result is that one state agency is requiring another to carry out and fund work and mitigation and then charging them again to monitor their work and then fining them if they don’t get the desired result.

“Taxpayers are funding two state agencies and their lawyers, paying two to three times for the same work. These funds would be far better spent to actually research and solve the problem.

“What sense does it make to 1) Require that State Parks pay for and carry out the necessary research to mitigate the dust; 2) Require that State Parks pay for the necessary equipment, 3) Then fine them when the wind blows and 4) Charge them for the APCD to monitor their work when State Parks are WILLING and the MOST ABLE agency to actually address the problem and then 5) Charge them for a permit to operate their Park which is already permitted by the legislature?

“The majority of the board members who imposed the dust rule never even took a tour of the area before voting.

“Several members of the APCD Board promised to look at alternate points of view following the Phase II study and never did so.

“For these reasons, those signing below request that the APCD board repeal the dust rule.”




  1. Ben Daho says:

    I’m a Liberal and I want Whatever it takes to come to town and fix the roads. Have you been by even the city hall? I don’t care if a Cartwheeling televangelist comes through with spinners on his wagon wheels, whiskey in his jar and 4 day old underwear as long as they pay taxes and the city takes said taxes and fixes the roads. My neighbor works for the city. They don’t even pre-tax their benefits to save tax dollars like Pismo, so, Atascadero, Paso Robles, Santa Maria does. they could have saved THOUSANDS and I mean THOUSANDS of dollars just in the accounting of their benefits. Why doesn’t anyone look into this. Why do we have CONTINUOUS not occasional or Random but a PATH of potholes on each street. Why isn’t the city managing it’s money right?

    (-3) 7 Total Votes - 2 up - 5 down
  2. MaryMalone says:

    I think Mayor Peterson should be spending her time ensuring that the required stormwater reporting is getting done, and getting done correctly, and not taking on grand-stand projects, like circulation a petition to do away with the APCD’s dust rule.

    Because GB has failed (after numerous contacts from, and promises to the federal government) repeatedly to file the federally required stormwater reporting documents, GB is facing huge fines.

    Mayor Peterson needs to re-think her priorities. Otherwise, the voters may re-think their votes in the next election.

    (-1) 13 Total Votes - 6 up - 7 down
    • analyticone says:

      I expect the mayor can probably do more than one thing at a time and has tackled that one. For the City of Grover the problem isn’t with the spirit of the law…they have captured storm water on site since the 70’s, with the most progressive storm water ordinance in the County. The problem is that with new regulations requiring reams of paperwork, the City has not had the resources financial, or staffing to comply with the letter of the law. Despite numerous requests the Water Quality Control Board has not heeded their pleas for help.

      (3) 7 Total Votes - 5 up - 2 down
  3. Ben Daho says:

    it’s NOT a liberal issue. It’s someone that is close to the dunes and it’s so sandy that she can’t see the sand.. “Is there a fire? I don’t know, there’s too much smoke to tell’

    seriously, how can someone even THINK of spending a dime on a dust report on a windy beach?

    (-3) 17 Total Votes - 7 up - 10 down
  4. Maxfusion says:

    This has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with an elitist mentality. Admit it liberals, you don’t want those “Bakersfield types” (I first heard that term at a Cal Poly “professor’s” party) recreating on what you consider your private fiefdom. Next up, close the beautiful spots to the public, under the guise of a “protected area”, accessible only to bureaucrats and academics conducting their latest “study”.

    (-2) 26 Total Votes - 12 up - 14 down
    • MaryMalone says:

      You lost your point when you tried to categorize as “liberals” all people who believe–for whatever reason–that allowing ATVs, etc. to tear up the dunes is not in the best interest of the cities and districts in our area.

      (-1) 13 Total Votes - 6 up - 7 down

Comments are closed.