Ventura v. City of San Jose

Citations: 151 Cal. App. 3d 1076; 199 Cal. Rptr. 216; 1984 Cal. App. LEXIS 1627Docket: Civ. 53708

Court: California Court of Appeal; February 16, 1984; California; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiffs, licensed sellers and a manufacturer of "safe and sane" fireworks, appeal the Santa Clara County Superior Court's decision affirming the legality of San Jose Municipal Code section 17.12.260 and Santa Clara County Ordinance Code section 12.102.5, which effectively ban the sale of fireworks. The trial court found no conflict between these local laws and the State Fireworks Law, concluding that the state has not preempted fireworks regulation, thereby allowing local ordinances to exist.

The Court of Appeals asserts that while local governments possess police power to enact ordinances for public safety, such power is limited if the state has fully occupied the legislative field. In examining the State Fireworks Law, it is revealed that the law provides comprehensive guidelines for the regulation of fireworks at the state level, allowing for some local regulations. Specific sections grant local authorities the power to issue or deny permits for fireworks-related activities, indicating a shared jurisdiction. However, the Court concludes that a local ordinance imposing a total ban on the sale of fireworks contradicts state law, as demonstrated by the legislative history and the specific disclaimers in the State Fireworks Law. In particular, Health and Safety Code section 12541 clarifies that local regulations cannot entirely prohibit activities that the state law allows under certain conditions. Thus, the local ordinances in question are deemed inconsistent with the state provisions.

Prior to the 1973 recodifications, several California cities had already prohibited the sale of fireworks. Even after the deletion of "manufacture" and "sale" language in 1976, the California Administrative Code noted that many local jurisdictions still banned all types of fireworks sales. The state Fire Marshal indicated that the recodification did not change local governments' authority to restrict fireworks sales. However, the absence of sales prohibitions in the current Administrative Code suggests a shift in the state Fire Marshal's stance regarding local power.

A significant piece of evidence regarding legislative intent is a 1978 Attorney General opinion addressing whether a fire protection district could ban the sale of safe and sane fireworks despite a county ordinance permitting it. The Attorney General analyzed the State Fireworks Law and concluded that the Legislature intended to fully occupy the fireworks regulation field, allowing local governments only to participate in the permit process and regulate fireworks use and discharge.

The Legislature is presumed to have acknowledged this five-year-old opinion without corrective action, suggesting agreement with its interpretation. Additionally, Assemblyman Mobley's failed attempt in 1974 to reinsert language affirming local authority to ban fireworks manufacturing and sales supports the conclusion that the Legislature did not intend to restore such powers. The deletion of specific provisions is interpreted as a substantive change in the law, strengthening the argument against local sales prohibition. Judicial precedent reinforces that when the Legislature omits a provision from a bill, it should not be interpreted as part of the enacted law, further supporting the notion of narrowed local authority in regulating fireworks. Evidence from the Mobley bill's legislative history indicates an intent to clarify and limit local government authority regarding fireworks.

AB 227 clarifies that state law does not preempt local jurisdictions from regulating the use and discharge of fireworks, while maintaining that the manufacture and sale of fireworks remains under state control. The bill was amended to focus exclusively on the regulation of use and discharge due to existing laws that allowed local governments to establish permit systems for fireworks. The legislative committee believed it was clear that local jurisdictions had authority over the use and discharge of fireworks, and the Office of Planning and Research confirmed that the bill would enable local ordinances to be more restrictive than state law in this regard, aiming to protect public health and safety.

The state Fire Marshal noted that previous recodifications of the State Fireworks Law omitted explicit local control over the use and discharge of safe and sane fireworks. Legal opinions suggested that without specific language allowing local regulation, the use and discharge were legal statewide, conflicting with local ordinances. The current measure aims to clarify local authority to regulate these aspects without affecting state laws governing the sale and manufacture of fireworks, which are preempted by state law. Local bans on the sale of safe and sane fireworks would contradict state regulations and be deemed invalid. The judgment of the superior court was reversed, upholding the Legislature's intent to allow local regulation of fireworks use and discharge while maintaining state control over sales.