Agenda - Land Use and Environmental CommitteeSheraton Grand Hotel
Grand Nave Ballroom, Magnolia
Sacramento, California
Thursday, June 7, 2007
8:00 a.m. - 9:35 a.m.Presiding:
Carol Banner, Chair,
Richard Tegley, Vice Chair
Lenny Sciacca, Vice Chair
Frank Nelson, Committee Liaison
Bradley Garbutt, Rural Forum ChairC.A.R. Staff:
Elizabeth Gavric, Legislative AdvocateI.áááá Opening Comments: Chairman BannerII.ááá ActionItemA. Floodplain Management: Housing DevelopmentIII.ááá Discussion/Information ItemsA.á Report from Onsite Wastewater Disposal ôSepticö Working Group: Current Status of SWRCB AB 885 Draft Statewide Regulations for Septic SystemsB.á Report from REALTOR Committee on Air QualityC.á Early Big Wins
1.á AB 665 (DeSaulnier) Growth Management. As introduced, this bill would have required the GovernorÆs Office of Planning and Research to produce an annual ôSmart Growthö Management Information Report. C.A.R.opposed the bill because while C.A.R. does not oppose growth management programs, C.A.R. does oppose the use of the term ôsmart growthö because it is not a formally defined concept. C.A.R. recently achieved amendments that strike the use of the term ôsmart growthö from the report, thus removing C.A.R.Æs opposition to the bill.
2.á AB 1234 (Wolk) Real property: furnaces. As introduced, AB 1234 would have required homeowners to replace their ôoldö gas floor furnace when they sold their property. C.A.R. opposition to this bill was due to this point-of-sale mechanism for upgrading older floor heaters because the requirement should be placed on all homeowners, not just those involved in a sale. C.A.R achieved amendments removing the point-of-sale requirement for the heater upgrades. As amended, AB 1234 requires all floor heaters to be upgraded by January 1, 2014.
3.á AB 1613 (Blakeslee) Carbon Emissions. This bill would enact the Waste Heat and Carbon Emissions Reduction Act to promote the conversion of waste heat to electricity or other useful energy applications. AB 1613 would require the Energy Commission to adopt regulations for combined heat and power systems by January 1, 2010, in order to reduce waste energy. Additionally, AB 1613 would require the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to streamline and simplify interconnection rules and tariffs to reduce impediments to the installation and use of combined heat and power systems by small users (i.e., homes) with systems that have a peak generating capacity of one megawatt or less. Finally, this measure requires the PUC to report to the Legislature by December 31, 2008, on a proposed self-generation incentive program funding formula. C.A.R. achieved amendments that removed a point-of-sale disclosure requirement with regard to these systems.
4.á SB 6 (Oropeza) Flood Control. SB 6 would require all local governments to consider the effects of global warming on ocean levels when developing the land use, open-space, safety and conservation elements of their general plan. Additionally, this measure would require a city or county to deny approval of a tentative subdivision map or parcel map if it determines that the design and improvement of the subdivision is likely to cause flooding on site or onneighboring properties based upon global warming climate predictions. C.A.R. opposed the bill based on the lack of data available to make the required determinations. Recent amendments provided six resources for obtaining the data required by the measure. With a little research, C.A.R. was able to determine that the stated resources were in fact incapable of providing the level detail required in the measure, and conveyed this concern to the author and committee consultants. The author has acknowledged the data deficiency and has withdrawn the bill from committee consideration, therefore making it a two year bill. C.A.R. will continue to oppose the bill as it is currently written.
5.á SB 68 (Kuehl) Mining. This bill would have prohibited any parcelof land that was included in a cityÆs or countyÆs general plan or resource management plan that has been identified by the State Geologist or State Mining and Geology Board as a significant resource of minerals or gravel from being developed for any purpose until the mineral excavation or commercial production of that area was completed. SB 68 required owners to exhaust all minerals or aggregate resources before they could reclaim the land for residential or commercial development. C.A.R. opposed SB 68 because it not only impinged upon the rights of the property owner to go out of the mining business and sell to developers, but would have also given local governments another tool to promote ôno growthö principles. At C.A.R.Æs request, the author and the sponsor amended SB 68 to satisfy its concerns.
6.á SB 884 (Lowenthal) Coastal Commission Communications. A re-introduction of SB 929 from last session, SB 884 would have required anyone who earned $2,000 in a calendar month representing more than oneclient per year, who communicated with the Coastal Commissioners, to conform to the lobbyist registration requirements of the Political Reform Act of 1974. Architects, general contractors, civil engineers, biologists, permit expediters and others periodically accompany applicants and their representatives to meetings with the commissioners to explain technical reports. Under this measure, those experts would have been required to register as a lobbyist and pay additional fees that are required by the FPPC. C.A.R. opposed SB 884 because it discouraged applicants for coastal development permits from hiring representation by creating burdensome paperwork, imposing strict reporting requirements, and levying additional fees on applicants and their technical consultants. SB 884 discouraged the Coastal Commission and their staff from interacting with experts and professionals, and would have hindered the commissionÆs ability to make well-informed decisions. This bill was recently amended to prohibit a Coastal Commission member from accepting a gift or gratuity from an applicant applying for approval of a coastal development permit. As amended, C.A.R. has removed its oppositionD.á Flood Control
1.á AB 5 (Wolk) Flood Protection û This bill would require, as to any subdivision located in a flood hazard zone, the notice of intention to include a specified statement related to the risk of flooding but for the protection provided by a levee. The bill would require every sales contract relating to the initial purchase of a new residential unit that is located in a flood hazard zone to include specified provisions, including a provision indicating that the buyer has received a copy of a local flood preparedness and evacuation plan and a condition that the builder or the builderÆs agent shall obtain a policy sold pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Program or a similar policy, as specified. The bill also creates the Local Flood Protection Planning Act which will require local agencies in the Central Valley to prepare flood plans, and will define minimum flood protection standards for urban, rural, and small communities. This bill requires that these plans identify necessary improvements to the existing flood protection facilities in an order to assure that newhousing developments will be sufficiently protected. Additionally, AB 5 requires that local agencies provide an annual notification to homeowners identifying their current level of flood protection, and authorizes local agencies to approve ordinances to require that every homeowner in the levee failure flood hazard zone purchase flood insurance. Finally, AB 5 creates the Local Flood Protection Plan Assistance Fund, which will be administered by the Department of Water Resources, and gives priority for state grants to those local agencies that have adopted a local flood protection plan. C.A.R. is currently working with the author, and seeking amendments, to add levee flood hazard zone disclosure to existing natural hazard reporting requirements and to define the proposed flood-planning program to assure that the bill does not have a negative impact on community development and housing.E.á Water Quality and Supply
1.á AB 938 Calderon C (D): Water Districts: Urban Runoff û Support. AB 938 would broadenthe authority of local water districts to provide a comprehensive stormwater management service. This measure would authorize a local water district to construct and maintain facilities to manage and treat stormwater by creating a stormwater diversion andtreatment system to deal with urban runoff. C.A.R. supports this bill because it will facilitate coordination between local governments, agencies and districts when developing necessary programs and plans to address stormwater drainage and watershed protection goals for an entire region. Furthermore, the current piecemeal approach to stormwater management produces little or no improvement to stormwater diversion, unfairly targets new construction, and can add significantly to the cost of a new home, exacerbating CaliforniaÆs already dismal housing affordability.
2.á AB 1338 Huffman (D): Public Resources: Local Coastal Programs û Oppose. Current law authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to regulate stormwater runoff through the issuance of permits. AB 1338 would expand the California Coastal CommissionÆs (CCC) land use authority to include regulatory oversight of stormwater runoff permits for non-point source pollution, and would grant the CCC the last word on water quality issues rather than the RWQCBs. C.A.R. opposes AB 1338 because it will only add greater confusion for local governments, landowners and businesses in the coastal zone by creating a duplicative and overlapping regulatoryprogram that creates two separate standards for achieving the same objective, with no clear indication as to which government agency has the authority to regulate non-point source discharge. Furthermore, by granting this new authority to the CCC, this measure creates a new costly requirement that will delay and frustrate local coastal planning.ááF. áPlanning and Zoning
1.á AB 20 Eng (D): Transit Oriented Plan Amendmentsá - Amend/Oppose ~ Existing law requires a redevelopment agency, not later than 45 days prior to the public hearing on a proposed plan amendment to (1) change the limitation on the number of dollars of taxes that may be divided and allocated to the agency, (2) change the limit on the amount of bonded indebtedness that can be outstanding at one time, or (3) change the time limit on the establishing of loans, advances, and indebtedness to be paid with the proceeds of property taxes received pursuant to existing tax increment allocations, and to prepare and deliver a specified report tothe Department of Finance and the Department of Housing and Community Development that includes, among other things, specified projections of the tax revenues that will be generated as a result of the proposed plan amendment and a description and map of the project area that remains blighted. This bill would exempt transit-oriented plan amendments from this requirement and would instead require that the redevelopment agency submit a specified written information statement to the Department of Finance andthe Department of Housing and Community Development. The bill would also require that the proposed plan amendment contain specified provisions relating to the indebtedness incurred for redevelopment activities within the transit village development district or for the improvement of affordable housing within the community. C.A.R. opposes the use of ôsmart growthö in this bill and has expressed our opposition to the use of an undefined principle to the author. C.A.R. has requested the removal of the term ôsmart growthö from the bill. The author has acknowledged our concerns but has pulled the bill from committee consideration and has thus made the bill into a two year bill. C.A.R will continue to oppose the bill as it is currently written.
2.á AB 828Ruskin (D): Wildlife Conservation û Oppose. Existing law establishes the Wildlife Conservation Board, and requires the board to investigate, study, and determine what areas within the state are most essential and suitable for wildlife production and preservation. AB 828 would require the board to identify essential wildlife corridors located near pending infrastructure projects that may be funded from state bonds. C.A.R. opposes AB 828 because it appears to be an attempt to stop infrastructure repairs andimprovements by deeming these areas as sensitive wildlife corridors.
3.á SB 375 Steinberg (D): Transportation Planning: Travel Models: Reviews û Watch File. As introduced, SB 375 would have broadened the applicability of the existing CEQA exemptionfor urban infill developments. C.A.R. supported the bill because it strived to accommodate desperately needed housing. As amended, SB 375 maintains this CEQA exemption, but would provide $20 million from The Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of2006 for ôsmart growthö planning and incentives. C.A.R. achieved amendments to SB 375 that remove the non-substantive term ôsmart growthö to describe the goals of Propositions 84 and 1E, and has removed its opposition to the bill but will continue to watch the bill as it is amended for potential impacts on development..G.á Eminent Domain
1.á SB 698 Torlakson (D): Eminent Domain û Support. The Eminent Domain Law outlines a specific procedure that plaintiffs must complete in order to take possession of property through the use of eminent domain. Plaintiffs are required to file court documents and to include a statement describing the defendantÆs right to oppose the motion. Furthermore, plaintiffs are also required to serve the property owner with a copy of that motion, and the property owner is then permitted to oppose the motion and seek a separate hearing. SB 698 will require plaintiffs exercising eminent domain to provide a property owner with an informational pamphlet outlining the property ownerÆs rights, as well as a description of the eminent domain process. C.A.R. supports SB 698 because it will provide a new resource to property owners that will better inform them of their rights with regard to eminent domain.H.á Land Use and Conservation
1.á SB 466 Steinberg (D): Forest Resources û Oppose. The ZÆberg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 regulates the conversion of timberland to uses other than the growing of timber. SB 466 would specify the manner by which the environmental effects of forestland and timberland conversions may be mitigated. The bill would authorize the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to adopt implementing regulations. C.A.R. opposes this bill because it would require landowners with any type of forest (e.g., pine, oak, etc.), consisting of a canopy cover that spans a minimum of 10% of the property, to mitigate land use changes either by putting the forest or timberlands into a permanent conservation by easement or by a fee equaling two times the amount being converted to non-forestry uses.
2.á SB 634 Wiggins (D): Land Use: Williamson Act: Contracts û Oppose The Williamson Act authorizes any city or county to enter into a contract with a property owner for the purpose of preserving agricultural land. C.A.R. originally opposed this bill because it required local Williamson Act agency approval of any residential development on a Williamson Act parcel during the term of the contract or any successive contract. Prior to the construction of any housing or roads, land owners would have been required to provide notice to the local Williamson Act agency that is a party to the contract, and then receive an approval from that agency for the construction. Amendments accepted in Senate Local Government Committee substantially amended the bill and C.A.R. is currently evaluating the amended language to determine the impact of the bill.I.á Green House Gases and Air Quality
1.á SB 240 Florez (D): San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District û Oppose. Existing law authorizes air pollution control districts and air quality management districts to levy a fee of up to $2 on motor vehicles, and authorizes the districts to increase this fee up to $6. SB 240 would authorize the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air PollutionControl District to increase this fee to a maximum of $30 per motor vehicle, and adds an additional surcharge of $300 per year on all ôlargeö housing developments. C.A.R. opposes SB 240 because it is another indirect source fee that will not directly serve to improve air quality in the district.J.á Boards and Special Districts
1.á SB 838 Cogdill (R): Fire Prevention and Protection û Support. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is required to assist local governments in preventing wildlandfire and vegetation management problems within the departmentÆs budgetary limitations. SB 838 authorizes the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to award grants to the California Fire Safe Council to implement community-based wildfire threat reduction and prevention programs. C.A.R. supports this bill because it will fund programs to serve communities that could potentially be threatened by wildfires.
IV.ááá OtherV.ááá Adjournmentá