2 - Agenda Summary - Land Use and Environmental Committee
Agenda Summary - Land Use and Environmental CommitteeAnaheim Marriott
Marquis Ballroom Northeast
Anaheim, California
Thursday, October 11, 2007
8:00 a.m.-9:50 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. Opening Comments: Chairwoman BannerII. Discussion/Information ItemsA. Report from Onsite Wastewater Disposal “Septic” Working Group: Current Status of SWRCB AB 885 Draft Statewide Regulations for Septic SystemsB. Report from REALTOR Committee on Air QualityC. Report from Troubled Mortgage/ForeclosureTask ForceD. Summary of Big Wins for 2007(* denotes wins profiled at the June meeting)1. AB 5 Wolk (D): Flood Protection - As introduced, AB 5 required developers to provide a notice explaining the property’s risk of flooding to the Department of Real Estate, as well as obtain flood insurance on the property and the buyer’s acknowledgement that they had received a copy of the local flood preparedness and evacuation plan within their sales contract. C.A.R. obtained amendments to add the levee flood hazard zone disclosure to the Natural Hazard Disclosure (NHD) reports, relieving homeowners and agents from additional disclosure requirements. In September 2007 the bill was completely re-written and, as amended, AB 5 renames the State Reclamation Board as the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, and sets new standards and directives for the board. The bill requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to prepare a status report on the state flood control plan and to post levee flood protection zone maps on the internet. DWR must also provide homeowners with a notice of flood risk and information on the availability of floodinsurance. Finally, AB 5 conditions state funding for levee upgrades, which will allow for new development, on the adoption of a local government’s flood safety and emergency response plans. (See also, SB 5). Location: On the Governor’s desk.2. AB 156 Laird (D): Flood Control - AB 156 requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to prepare and maintain maps for levee flood protection zones in the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River drainage areas by December 31, 2008, and to provide written notice to each landowner whose property is located within a levee flood protection zone. This bill also requires DWR to prepare a flood control system status report and to inspect project levees annually beginning in 2010. Additionally, AB 156 requires the local agency responsible for the operation and maintenance of a project levee to submit a report to DWR that will be included in the flood management reports. The bill requires each local agency responsible for the operation and maintenance of a project levee, which protects an urban area where more than 1,000 people reside, to enter into an agreement to adopt a safety plan within 2 years of the effective date of the statute. C.A.R. achieved amendments to make the Levee Flood Protection Zone maps available to the public by posting on the internet. Amendments taken in September exempt Propositions 84 and 1E bond funds from Public Works Board approval for emergency repairs to levees. Location: On the Governor’s desk.3. AB 665 DeSaulnier (D): Growth Management*- As introduced, this bill would have required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to producean annual “Smart Growth” 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 “smart growth” because it is not a formally defined concept. C.A.R. recently achieved amendments that strike the use of the term “smart growth” from the report, thus removing C.A.R.’s opposition to the bill. Location: On the Governor’s desk.4. AB 739 Laird (D): Stormwater Discharge - AB 739 requires the Department of Water Resources to develop project guidelines for implementing a stormwater flood management grant program financed by Propositions 84 and 1E that were authorized by the voters in 2006. The measure also requires the State Water Resources Control Board (state board), by July 1, 2009, to develop a comprehensive framework for evaluating and measuring the effectiveness of municipalstormwater management programs and to promote the use of low impact development, also know as “green” techniques, as an alternative to conventional stormwater management for new development and redevelopment on public and private lands. The bill requires the state board to give preference for funding to projects that either support sustained, long-term water quality improvements or that are consistent with any applicable integrated regional water management plan. C.A.R. achieved amendments todefine “low-impact development” which satisfied C.A.R.’s concerns. Location: On the Governor’s desk.5. AB 828 Ruskin (D): Wildlife Conservation- Existing law establishes theWildlife 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 requires the board to identify essential wildlife corridors located near pending infrastructure projects that may be funded by state bonds. C.A.R. opposed AB 828 because it appeared to be an attempt to stop infrastructure repairs and improvements by deeming these areas sensitive wildlife corridors. Due to C.A.R.’s opposition, the author amended AB 828 to ensure that private landowners would be able to participate in the identification process. The amendments also restrict the use any of the study findings for regulatory actions. With these amendments, C.A.R. removed its opposition. Location:On the Governor’s desk.6. AB 1103 Saldana (D): Commercial Building Energy- Beginning January 1, 2009, AB 1103 would require electric and gas utilities to provide the energy consumption data for non-residential buildings in a format that is compatible with the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star Portfolio Manager (ESPM), and to upload information consumptionto the ESPM on behalf of the owner or operator upon their request. Additionally, the bill would require that a non-residential building owner or operator disclose to a prospective buyer, lessee, or lender the ESPM’s benchmarking data and scores forthe building that is being sold, leased, financed, or refinanced. This provision would become effective January 1, 2010. C.A.R. obtained amendments to the bill that provide a safe harbor provision for property owners and real estate licensees regarding the disclosure of this information. Location: On the Governor’s desk.7. AB 1234 Wolk (D): Real Property: Furnaces*- As introduced, AB 1234 would have required homeowners to replace their “old” 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. Location: Assembly Appropriations Committee.8. AB 1613 Blakeslee (R): Carbon Emissions*- This bill would enact the Waste Heat and Carbon Emissions Reduction Act to promote the conversion of waste heat to electricity orother useful energy applications. AB 1613 requires 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 requires the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) tostreamline 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., home owners) 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. Location: On the Governor’s desk.9. SB 6 Oropeza (D): Flood Control*- SB 6 would require all local governments to consider the effects of global warming on ocean levels when developingthe 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 ofthe subdivision is likely to cause flooding on site or on neighboring 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 sixresources 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 authorand 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. Location: Senate Local Government Committee10. SB 68 Kuehl (D): Mining*- This bill would have prohibited any parcel of land that was included in a city’s or county’s general plan or resource managementplan 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 “no growth” principles. At C.A.R.’s request, the author and the sponsor amended SB 68 to satisfy its concerns. Location:Assembly Natural Resources Committee.11. SB167 Negrete-McCloud (D): General Plans- SB 167 would have required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to administer multiple programs to award loans to cities and counties to prepare and adopt city and county general plans, including habitat conservation plans, zoning ordinances, and design standards. The bill would have awarded grants to cities to prepare collaborative strategic growth plans that carried out policies for housing needs, and protected resources and agricultural lands, with special considerations given to rural planning. C.A.R. sought amendments to remove the undefined term of “smart growth” from the scope of the bill. In June of 2007, SB 732 was amended to encompass a majority of the language from this bill, and SB 167 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Location: Senate Appropriations Committee12. SB 240 Florez (D): San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District- 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 have authorized the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District to increase this fee to a maximum of $30 per motor vehicle, and added an additional surcharge of $300 per year on all “large” housing developments. C.A.R. opposed SB 240 because it was another indirect source fee that would not have directly served to improve air quality in the district. As recently amended, the author removed the additional $300 surcharge on housing developments, but maintained the maximum fee increase of $30 per motor vehicle. The bill also requires the district, by January 1, 2009, to submit a report to the Legislature on how fees could be imposed on vehicles traveling through the district. With these amendments, C.A.R. has removed its opposition. Location: Assembly Appropriations Committee13. SB 634 Wiggins (D): Land Use: Williamson Act: Contracts - 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. opposed SB 634 because it contained a vague requirement for counties to impose “reasonable and necessary” restrictions on any residential use of Williamson Act lands. C.A.R. sought amendments to alleviate its concerns but the measure was amended in September 2006 to address an unrelated topic. Location: Died in the Assembly Agriculture Committee Due to Amendment14. SB 732 Steinberg (D): Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2007 - Proposition 84, passed in 2006, makes $5.4 billion in bond funds available for safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, natural resource protection, and park improvements. SB 732 would create the Sustainable Communities Council that would be responsible for the bond funds allocated for urban greening and planning grants and incentives for the development of regional andlocal land use plans including a grant program for the development of parks associated with housing. C.A.R. dids not favor SB 732 because the establishment of a new and ongoing state-level council is unnecessary to achieve what should be a relatively simple task of distributing the Proposition 84 funds. The bill would have made the process of distributing funds more complex and complicated by the establishment of this council. The amendments taken in September 2007 assure that the new council would not impinge on local governments' land use authority, and has satisfied C.A.R.’s concerns. Location: Assembly Floor Inactive File.15. SB 884 Lowenthal (D): Coastal Commission Communications*- A re-introductionof SB 929 from last session, SB 884 would have required anyone who earned $2,000 in a calendar month representing more than one client 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 thismeasure, 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 wouldhave hindered the commission’s 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 opposition. Location: On the Governor’s desk.E. Active Positions1. Flood Control a. SB 5 Machado (D): Flood Protection – Support - SB 5 requires each parcel of land that is located in a flood hazard area be identified and that the local government annually notify owners of their level of flood protection as well as providing them with information regarding flood insurance. In addition, SB 5 requires local governments to amend their general plans and zoning ordinances to reflect flood hazard zones and to condition the approval of subdivisions on one of three provisions: (1) the subdivision will have a 200-year level of flood protection from levees or other structures; (2) the construction standards used in the development will achieve the increased level of flood protection (such as raised foundation construction),or (3) the local agency has made progress in identifying the scope, schedule and cost of the project in conjunction with having spent 10 percent of the appropriated funds to begin construction of critical features necessary to reach 200-year flood protection. C.A.R supports SB 5 because it requires increased protection from the current minimum standard of 100-year flood protection to 200-year flood protection in communities in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River drainage areas without creating a building moratorium. Location: On the Governor’s desk.2. Water Quality and Supply a. AB 938 Calderon C (D): Water Districts: Urban Runoff - Support - AB 938 would broaden the 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 and treatment 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 ofa new home, exacerbating California’s housing affordability problem. Location: Senate Environmental Quality Committee b. AB 1338 Huffman (D): Public Resources: Local Coastal Programs – Oppose - Current law authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRGB) and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) to regulate stormwater runoff through the issuance of permits. AB 1338 would expand the land use authority of theCalifornia Coastal Commission (CCC) 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 wouldexpand the regulatory authority of the commission into an area that the California Coastal Act has expressly identified as the regulatory jurisdiction of the SWRCB and RWQCBs. Location: Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee3. Planning and Zoning a. AB 20 Eng (D): Transit Oriented Plan Amendments - Oppose Unless Amended -For a split second this bill was considered being heard in Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee. It was pulled by the author to make it a 2-year bill, but I let Eng’s staff know that if at any time they bring it back up for consideration, that we would beopposed to it based on the use of “smart growth”. I also let them know that we would otherwise like the bill, which would create incentives for redevelopment plan amendments if those amendments were for increasing transit-oriented housing. Location: Never Heard In Committee. b. SB 375 Steinberg (D): Transportation Planning: Travel Models: Reviews – Oppose - As introduced, C.A.R. supported SB 375 which would have broadened the applicability of the existing CEQA exemption for urban infill developments and could have generated desperately needed housing. As amended, SB 375 maintains the CEQA exemption, but would also provide $20 million from Proposition 1C, passed by thevoters in 2006, for “smart growth” planning and incentives. While C.A.R. achieved amendments that removed the non-substantive term “smart growth” to describe the goals of the proposition, C.A.R. continues to oppose SB 375 because it impedes future suburban residential, commercial and retail development by creating restrictive urban growth limitations, the sole purpose of which is to reduce greenhouse gases, without any guarantee that regional housing goals will be met. Location: Assembly Appropriations Committee.4. Eminent Domain a. AB 1322 Duvall (R): Eminent Domain – Watch as Amended - Existing law authorizes the Departmentof Transportation to acquire property through eminent domain. AB 1322 would require the Department of Transportation to provide a copy of all appraisals performed or obtained by the department to the property owner when acquiring property through eminentdomain. C.A.R. supported AB 1322 because it provided for greater transparency in the valuation of private property subject to eminent domain. As amended, the bill now includes a provision that requires property owners to provide the department a copy of those appraisals if they are first provided to the property owner instead of the department. C.A.R. removed its support due to the burdens this new requirement would place upon property owners. Location: On the Governor’s desk. b. ACA 2 Walters (R): Eminent Domain – Oppose - The California Constitution authorizes private property to be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation has been paid to the owner of the property. ACA 2 would instead permit private property to be taken or damaged only for a stated public use. The measure would also prohibit, with respect to both new and pending eminent domain projects, a community redevelopment agency, community development commission, or joint powers agency that has the power of eminent domain from exercising that power to acquire any real property if ownership of the property will be transferred to a private party or private entity, unless the real property will be transferred to a public utility. The restrictions in this bill would not apply to real property in the County of San Bernardino redevelopment project area if the real property is in proximity to a military facility or installation closed by the Base Closureand Realignment Act. C.A.R. opposes ACA 2 because it is too narrow in scope and would inhibit the ability to exercise eminent domain in redevelopment areas for housing. Location: Assembly Judiciary Committee . c. ACA 8 De La Torre (D): Eminent Domain – Oppose Unless Amended - The California Constitution authorizes private property to be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation has been paid to the property owner. ACA 8 would require, prior to the commencement of eminent domain proceedings, that the public use for which the private property is being taken be stated in writing. State and local governments would be prohibited from using eminent domain on an owner-occupied residence for a private use, but only if the property has been the principal residence of the owner for at least one year. Finally, the bill would give the former owner the right to reacquire the property at the current market value if that property ceased to be used for the stated public use. C.A.R. will oppose ACA 8 until it is amended to provide protection from eminent domain to all owner-occupied single family residences, regardless of tenure. Location: Assembly Floor d. SB 698 Torlakson (D): Eminent Domain – 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 defendant's right to oppose the motion. Furthermore, plaintiffs are also required to serve the property owner with a copy of that motion, and the property owneris then permitted to oppose the motion and seek a separate hearing. SB 698 requires plaintiffs exercising eminent domain to provide a property owner with an informational pamphlet outlining the property owner's rights, as well as a description of the eminent domain process. C.A.R. supported SB 698 because it provides a new resource to property owners that will better inform them of their rights with regard to eminent domain. Location: Enrolled to the Governor for his Signature5. Land Use and Conservation a. AB 838 Blakeslee (R): Parks and Recreation Easements – Amend - AB 838 authorizes the Department of Parks and Recreation to acquire conservationeasements on real property if it determines that the conservation easement is necessary to protect, preserve and enhance the state park system. Furthermore, the bill authorizes state and local government agencies or nonprofit land trust organizations holding the easements to amend the easement or any of its terms upon approval by the department. C.A.R. is working with the author to secure amendments that will ensure that these easements can not be altered without first obtaining landowner consent. Location: Senate Appropriations Committee. b. SB 466 Steinberg (D): Forest Resources – Oppose - The Z'berg-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 paying a fee equaling two times the amount being converted to non-forestry uses. Location: Senate Appropriations Committee6. Boards, Departments and SpecialDistricts a. AB 38 Nava (D): Department of Emergency Services – Amend - This bill would delete the provisions of law governing the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) establishing the Office of Emergency Services (OES). AB 38 would instead establish the Department of Emergency Services and Homeland Security, which would be vested with the duties, powers, purposes, responsibilities, and jurisdiction formally held by the OHS and the OES. The original act required the OES to develop and complete, by January 2002, a guidance document to the state emergency plan with respect to agriculture-related disasters. This bill would require the document to be updated by January 2009. C.A.R. is seeking amendments to make dam inundation maps, and any other OES maps, available via an internet website. Location: Senate Public Safety Committee. b. SB 430 Machado (D): California Earthquake Authority – Support - SB 430 was introduced to improve the financial condition of the California Earthquake Authority (CEA) for earthquake events that occur due to the pending December 1, 2008, sunset of CEA’s authorization to use one ofthe two "insurer assessment layers" for financing. This bill creates a new assessment for CEA by authorizing a new insurance assessment layer to last for 10 years beginning December 1, 2008, that will equate to a $1.3 billion industry assessment that could be utilized to pay earthquake claims and expenses. This new assessment would be reduced by five percent per year after the first year, but the 10-year term and reduction could be extended for up two additional years if the CEA pays at least $500 millionin claims as a result of a single earthquake event. This bill will become effective on July 1, 2008. C.A.R. supports SB 430 because the viability of the CEA is necessary to the availability of homeowners insurance in California. Location: On the Governor’s desk. c. SB 838 Cogdill (R): Fire Prevention and Protection – Support - The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is required to assist local governments in preventing wildland fire andvegetation management problems within the department's budgetary limitations. SB 838 would authorize the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to award grants to the California Fire Safe Council to implement community-based wildfire threat reductionand prevention programs. C.A.R. supports this bill because it will fund programs to serve communities that could potentially be threatened by wildfires. Status: Senate Floor.III. OtherIV. Adjournment
