Agenda Summary - Land Use and Environmental CommitteeSacramento Convention Center
Sacramento, California
Thursday, June 8, 2006
8:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m.Presiding:
James Irving, Chair,
Carol Banner, Vice Chair
Peter Morris, Vice chair
Irma Vargas, Committee Liaison
Susan Davis, Rural Forum ChairC.A.R. Staff:
Elizabeth Brode, Legislative AdvocateI.     Opening Comments: Chairman IrvingII.    "Private" Transfer Taxes IBPIII.   Infrastructure Ballot PropositionsIV.   Discussion/Information Items
A.  Final Report on C.A.R.’s Eminent Domain Task ForceB.  Report from Onsite Wastewater Disposal “Septic” Working Group: Current Status of SWRCB AB 885 Draft Statewide Regulations for Septic SystemsC.  Report from REALTOR® Committee on Air QualityD.  Green BuildingsE.  California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
1. SB 1191 (Hollingsworth) - CEQA    Position: Support
This bill revises the California Environmental Quality Act by establishing a short form environmental impact report that a lead agency would be required to prepare if a project satisfies specified criteria related to housing. C.A.R. supports this bill because it would make many long-overdue and necessary changes to the current lengthy and often cumbersome CEQA process.  This bill will result in reduced delays and improved clarityand certainty throughout the CEQA process.  In addition, the introduction of the short form for environmental impact reports for urban housing projects will reduce costs and improve the speed in which much-needed urban-infill housing is provided to communities throughout California. F.  Native American Sacred Sites
1. AB 2641 (Coto) – Native American Grave Sites    Position: Oppose
This bill would require landowners, upon the discovery of potential Native American remains of 6 or more graves, to ensure that a site is not damaged or disturbed by development until they have consulted with the most likely descendents to determine whether or not the site is a Native American burial ground. If the site is determined to be a burial ground, AB 2641 recommends preserving the remains in place. C.A.R. opposes this measure not only because it would unreasonably restrict the ability of a property owner to mitigate the unexpected finding of Native American remains in a waythat would allow the development of the property to continue, but it requires the landowner to initiate the potentially un-ending consultation process and address “every feasible option.”2. SB 1395 (Ducneny) – Environmental Quality: Native American sites    Position: Oppose
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency to evaluate whether or not an activity or a project is subject to CEQA. SB 1395 would require projects, even those exempt from CEQA, that could directly or indirectly affect a California Native American prehistoric, archeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place, to consult with a Native American tribe at least 45 days prior to acting on the project. C.A.R. opposes this measure because it is internally contradictory. The measure would cancel out the decision by the lead agency that the project is exempt from CEQA, create an open-ended consultation process that could string out the CEQA process indefinitely, and would contradict C.A.R.’s historic efforts to address these issues early in the general planning process.G.  Planning and Zoning
1. SB 1523 (Alarcon) – Development Projects: superstore retailers    Position: Oppose
Thisbill requires local governments, prior to approving or disapproving a proposed development project that would permit the construction of a superstore retailer, to cause an economic impact report to be prepared to be paid for by the project applicant, andthat includes specified assessments and projections including an assessment of the effect the construction and operation of the proposed superstore retailer will have on retail operations and employment in the area. C.A.R. is opposed to this bill becauseit would mandate a city or county to discriminate against superstore retailers by requiring retailers with a gross buildable area in excess of 75,000 feet to comply with reporting provisions which are otherwise not required for smaller-scale development applications.  In addition, SB 1523 constrains local governments by removing their authority to make their own local land use decisions. Instead of promoting business in California, this bill not only creates costly hurdles for businesses looking to expand in California it also attempts to dictate to Californian’s the type of shopping experience they should prefer. 2. SB 1818 (Alarcon) – Attorney’s Fees    Position: Oppose unless Amended
Existing law allows acourt to award attorney's fees to a successful private party against a public entity but does not allow a public entity to collect attorney’s fees should it prevail in a case against a private party. SB 1818 would amend current law to allow publicentities to collect attorney’s fees from private parties should they prevail in court if they can demonstrate that a significant benefit or an important principle has been established for the benefit of the public. C.A.R. opposes this because it encourages public entity litigation and discourages private litigants. Additionally, the measure would undo all of C.A.R.’s past sponsored legislation that was signed into law awarding attorney’s fees to the prevailing plaintiff in housing related issues pending before local government.H.  Eminent Domain
1.   AB 1162 (Mullin & Salinas) - Eminent Domain    Position: Support
This bill prohibits a community redevelopment agency, or community development commission or joint powers agency from exercising the power of eminent domain to acquire owner-occupied residential real property if ownership of the property will be transferred to a private party or private entity. C.A.R. supports this bill because it prohibits the use of eminent domain on single family property for any use other than public use.2.   AB 1990 (Walters) – Eminent Domain    Position: Not Favor
This bill would prohibit a city, county, special district, school district, community redevelopment agency, or community development commission or joint powers agency from exercising the power of eminent domain to acquire any real property if ownership of the property will be transferred to a private party or privateentity. C.A.R. does not favor this bill because it is too prohibitive in the use of eminent domain.3.   ACA 15 (Mullin & Nation) - Eminent Domain: Redevelopment    Position: Favor
This bill provides a Constitutional amendment relating to eminent domain that would set forth a constitutional provision prohibiting a redevelopment agency from acquiring property through the exercise of the power of eminent domain unless it first makes a written finding that the property contains conditions of both physical and economic blight. C.A.R. favors this bill because it would increase restrictions on the use of eminent domain.4.   ACA 22 (La Malfa) - Eminent Domain Condemnation Proceedings    Position: Oppose
This bill failed passage of the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee on May 10. The California Constitution authorizes governmental entities to take or damage private property for public use only when just compensation has been givento the owner. ACA 22 would have allowed the taking of private property through eminent domain for only a stated public use and restricts the use of eminent domain by requiring the consent of the owner if the property is being taken for economic development, to increase tax revenue, or any other private use. The measure would have also required that the property be owned and occupied by the condemnor and if the property ceases to be used for the stated public use, the former owner would have the right to reacquire the property for its fair market value. C.A.R. opposed this measure because it puts too many restrictions on the use of eminent domain.5.   SB 53 (Kehoe) – Redevelopment    Position: Support
This bill would require redevelopment plans to contain a description of the agency's program to acquire real property by eminent domain, including prohibitions, if any, on the use of eminent domain, and a time limit for the commencement of eminent domain proceedings. C.A.R.supports this bill because it requires redevelopment agencies to detail their plans to acquire properties by eminent domain and because it imposes a shorter time limit in which properties can be taken by eminent domain.6.   SB 1210 (Torlakson)- Eminent Domain    Position: Support
The Community Redevelopment Law establishes a time limit of 12 years from the adoption of the redevelopment plan to the commencement of eminent domain proceedings to acquire property within the project area, although the time limitation may be extended by an amendment to the redevelopment plan. This bill provides that this time limitation may only be extended if the redevelopment agency finds that substantial blight still exists in the area and that the blight cannot be eliminated without the use of eminent domain. C.A.R. supports this measure because this maintains the mandate on redevelopment agencies to provide housing in a timely manner and it shortens the time frame within which eminent domaincan be pursued.7.   SB 1650 (Kehoe) – Eminent Domain: Future Uses Position: Amend
Existing law requires the governing body of a public entity to adopt a resolution of necessity prior to commencing eminent domain proceedings on a parcel of privately owned property. This bill would prohibit a public entity from using property for any use other than the stated “public use” provided in the resolution of necessity. Further, this measure requires a public entity to sell property that is not used for the stated “public use” in the resolution within 10 years of the adopted resolution, unless the governing body adopts a new resolution authorizing a different use or reauthorizes the existing stated public use. Should anentity fail to adopt a new resolution, the original owner or owners of the property must be given the option to repurchase the property at “fair market value” for most owners with no further restrictions, or at an “affordable price” for low-and moderate-income owners, with the restriction that the house must remain affordable to low to moderate income buyers in perpetuity.  C.A.R. is currently seeking amendments that would limit the restrictions on length of time in which thehouse will have to remain affordable.8.   SB 1809 (Machado) – Real Property Disclosures: redevelopment: eminent domain
Position: Watch as Amended.
C.A.R. has obtained amendments to SB 1809 (Machado) Redevelopment Property Disclosures, which passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 25th. SB 1809 would create a new recorded disclosure notice notifying buyers of a residential real property that the property may be subject to eminent domain proceedings through a redevelopmentagency’s actions. C.A.R. opposed this measure until it is was amended to require a recorded notice that would be revealed in the title report.9.   SCA 15 (McClintock) – Eminent Domain: condemnation proceedings    Position: Oppose
Amends provisions of the Constitution authorizing governmental entities to take or damage private property for public use. Provides that private property may be taken or damaged only for a stated public use. Also requires the property tobe owned and occupied by the condemning government agency and used only for the stated purpose. Provides that if the property ceases to be used for the stated public use, the former owner has the right to reacquire the property. Requires a county assessorto appraise the reacquired property.  C.A.R. is opposed to this measure because it puts too many restrictions on the use of eminent domain.10. SCA 20 (McClintock) – Eminent Domain: condemnation proceedings   Position: Watch File
This bill provides that private property may be taken or damaged only for a stated public use and not without the consent of the owner for purposes of economic development, increasing tax revenue, or any other private use, nor for maintaining the present use by a different owner. Furthermore, this measure provides that if the property ceases to be used for the stated public use, the former owner would have the right to reacquire the property for its fair market value. C.A.R. is currently watching this bill.I.  Flood Control
1. AB 802 (Wolk) - General Plans: Flooding in Conservation Elements    Position: Oppose
Currently, the Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county general plan to include specified land use andconservation elements, and requires the city or county to use a water agency's water management plan as a source document upon the adoption or revision of its general plan. Existing law also provides that the conservation element may cover flood control.This bill would require the land use element of the general plan to also consider any urban water management plan prepared and adopted by an urban water supplier that affects the land covered by the general plan, and would require the conservation element of the general plan to cover flood management, and consider the possible means of using flood water to supplement that supply. Further, this measure would severely limit growth in California by restricting land use in areas characterized as being in a 200-year flood plain. C.A.R. opposes this measure because it will duplicate existing flood risk assessments impinging upon local control of land use planning, curtail the construction of housing in areas designated as flood zones, and would require the general plans to include flood-water management planning independent of input from water purveyors.

2. AB 1665 (Laird) - Creation of Central Valley Flood Control Board Position
Watch as Amended
Existing law establishes the 7-member Reclamation Board in the department and authorizes the Reclamation Board to engage in various flood control activities along the Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, their tributaries, and related areas. Existing law requires the Reclamation Board to establishand enforce standards for the maintenance and operation of, and to undertake other responsibilities with regard to, flood control works under its jurisdiction.  This bill would create provisions regarding streambed alteration, flood fighting, floodmapping, levee maintenance and define requirements for various flood hazard assessments.  This bill would also require the Department of Water Resources to prepare a schedule for mapping areas at risk of flooding in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers drainage and to update the schedule annually, require that a local agency responsible for the operation of a project levee prepare and submit a specified report for inclusion in periodic flood management reports prepared by the board and require thatthe Board or the local agency be responsible for providing notification to landowners that their property is subject to flooding and that flood insurance is available. C.A.R. is currently working as a stakeholder in the development of this bill and will continue to watch this bill as it is amended.3. AB 1899 (Wolk) – Land Use: flood protection    Position: Oppose
This measure would require local governments in the Central Valley, prior to development of projects in excess of 25 units and subject to greater than 3 feet of flooding, to certify that the property meets a 100-year flood protection standard.  In addition, this measure would require these developments to either immediately achieve 200-year flood protection either through architectural solutions or be able to achieve 200-year flood protection within 10 years of the subdivision map approval through levee and infrastructure improvements. C.A.R. opposes AB 1899 for numerous reasons including that the bill instantly imparts a three-year building moratorium, will impact/stop projects already approved for development, and because it creates a situation in which if 200-year flood protection is not met within 10 years the homes would lose their permits and would be subjectto demolition. Not only does this bill create the need for a new disclosure the building restrictions presented in this bill are sure to exacerbate California’s already critical housing shortage.4. SB 1796 (Florez) – Reclamation Board    Position: Oppose unless Amended
This measure would expand the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board to include land use decision making authority that will supersede local government decisions. SB 1796 transfers local land use planning to a regional agency, that is not elected, and that is being established to explicitly address flood control issues. C.A.R. opposes this measure because local land use decisions should be made at the local level and not be overruled by a regional agency unqualified to make land use decisions. C.A.R. is seeking amendments that would remove the land use planning powers of the Board and only allow them an advisory role in local floodplain management.J.  Water
1. SB 646 (Kuehl) - Water Discharge Requirements: waivers
Position: Oppose unless Amended
This bill would require the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to administer and enforce the distribution of permit waivers for waste discharge for waste discharge systems, including residential septic systems, on a regular and short-term basis. This program will require routine groundwater monitoring and the payment annual fee in order to acquire a waiver for a maximum term of five years before re-consideration of the waste discharge system is required. C.A.R. is opposed to SB 646 because it will require individual property owners with septic tanks to apply and pay for a waiver in order to continue to operate their systems. Further, property owners under this measure are only ensured the right to use their property for the duration of the waiver, and there is no guarantee of renewal. C.A.R. is seeking amendments to this bill that would exclude septic tanks from these requirements.K.  Eminent Domain Ballot InitiativesV.     OtherVI.    Adjournment