Sheraton Grand Hotel
Sacramento, California
Thursday, June 4, 2009
8:00 a.m.-9:35 a.m.

Presiding:
Lisa Muetterties, Chair,
Kim Boda, Vice Chair
Phyllis Carmichael, Vice Chair
Terry Wunderlich, Committee Liaison
Karen O'Brien, Rural Forum Chair

C.A.R. Staff:
Elizabeth Gavric, Legislative Advocate

I. Opening Comments (Chairwoman Muetterties)

II. Discussion/Information Items

A. General Legislation Update

1. AB 226 Ruskin (D) - Coastal Resources: Coastal Act of 1976: Enforcement - Oppose. Expands the Coastal Commission's enforcement authority by allowing them to impose civil penalties and retain these penalties as an augmentation to their budget. The CCC can already seek civil penalties up to $30K through the judicial system as they are represented by the Attorney General, but at present these penalties goe to the general fund. This new authority would create a "bounty hunter" atmosphere and would strip property owners of due process.

2. AB 291 Saldana (D) - Coastal Resources: Coastal Development Permits - Oppose. Would allow Coastal Commission staff to deny permit applications solely based on an assertion that a violation may exist. The property owner would be "guilty until proven innocent" until the CCC staff was satisfied that the alleged violation was appropriately cured - thus denying property owners due process. The author's staff says that the bill is necessary to reduce the workload on the CCC.

3. AB 333 Fuentes (D) - Land Use: Subdivisions Maps: Expiration Dates - Support. Extends for 60 months the life of active tentative subdivision maps and parcel maps. This measure is aimed at assisting new residential construction by allowing those projects to be kept alive during these difficult times.

4. AB 580 Huber (D) - Onsite Sewage Treatment Systems - Support. This bill amends the law requiring the development of statewide septic regulations to allow the State Water Board to develop exemption criteria for the application of the proposed regulations. In addition, this bill is being advanced to act as a vehicle to amend the scope and application of the proposed regulations should the next version (due to be released this summer) be less than desirable.

5. AB 1085 Mendoza (D) - State Air Resources Control Board: Regulations - Support. This bill requires the California State Air Resources Board (CARB) to make all of the methodologies, inputs, assumptions, and other information used in the development and cost analysis of a proposed regulation available to the public. Since the inception of AB 32 Nunez (2006), the regulated industry has called methodologies, inputs, assumptions, and other information used in the development and cost analysis of a proposed regulation into question with few results. C.A.R. supports AB 1085 because it will ensure open access to the public as CARB develops new air quality and greenhouse gas regulations.

6. SB 144 Pavley (D) - Forest Resources: Management - Oppose. The measure proposes placing duplicative mitigation measures and a fee on oak woodlands conversions. The bill applies to any “forest land” which is land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. The bill would require the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (DFFP), in consultation with the State Air Resources Control Board and the Department of Fish and Game to develop regulations that establish “a full mitigation requirement for the carbon stock and sequestration losses due to forest land conversions.” It also authorizes the DFFP to impose a fee on an applicant for conversion of any native forest species. This bill ignores the fact that oak woodlands conversions have separate mitigation requirements that were established within CEQA by SB 1334 (Kuehl, Chaptered 2004).

7. SB 310 Ducheny (D) - Water Quality: Stormwater and Other Runoff - Support. This bill will help facilitate coordination between local governments, agencies and districts to develop the necessary programs and plans to address stormwater drainage and watershed protection goals for an entire region by authorizing local jurisdictions to adopt cooperative watershed-based stormwater management programs. The current piecemeal approach to stormwater management does not address the comprehensive needs of an entire drainage area and may result in little or no impact on improving regional stormwater management and unfairly target new construction, adding significantly to the cost of a new home.

B. Green Legislation

1. AB 51 Blakeslee (R) - Electrical Corporation Energy Efficiency Programs - Support. This bill would require that at least 90% of energy efficiency program funds expended are used for outreach and direct implementation of energy efficiency programs. The bill is a straightforward approach to increasing energy efficiency for homes and businesses without adding one more dollar of cost to existing utility-operated demand reduction programs.

2. AB 210 Hayashi (D) - Green Building Standards - Support. Makes it clear that if local governments want to adopt green building standards that are more stringent than those adopted by the State, they must use the same procedure that any other change to building codes must use. That is, there must be a finding of fact that a local climatic, geologic or topographic condition exists that prompts the need for adoption of the local ordinance, and this finding must be filed with the California Building Standards Commission before adopting the ordinance.

3. AB 300 Caballero (D) - Subdivisions: Water Supply - Support. A re-introduction of AB 2219 (Parra) from 2008. Allows developers to meet water supply sufficiency requirements by allowing the demand forecasts for the project to be reduced by voluntary water demand reduction measures, i.e. the installation of water efficient measures in new construction.

4. AB 531 Saldana (D) - Energy Consumption Data: Disclosure - Support. Beginning January 1, 2009, AB 1103 (Saldana), which was signed into law in 2007, requires electric and gas utilities to provide the energy consumption data for non-residential customers in a format that is compatible with the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star Portfolio Manager (ESPM), and to upload information on consumption to the ESPM on behalf of the owner or operator upon their request. C.A.R. supports AB 531, which will delay the implementation date of the mandate and allow more time to develop the program by giving the State Energy Commission the authority to provide regulatory guidance and to set a schedule of compliance. AB 531 will also facilitate an electric or gas utilities ability to upload energy consumption data by streamlining and clarifying the process created by AB 1103 Saldana (2007).

5. AB 758 Skinner and Bass (D) - Energy Audit - Support. This bill is a reintroduction of AB 2678 (Nunez), the home energy audit and retrofit bill from 2008. This bill includes language that ensures the home energy audits or improvements are not required as a condition of sale. C.A.R. is continuing to work with the author and sponsors to identify alternative triggering events to point of sale that will create an effective and efficient statewide audit and retrofit program. C.A.R. supports AB 758 because it will create a comprehensive statewide campaign of flexible cost-effective energy efficiency improvements for existing buildings.

6. AB 920 Huffman (D) - Solar and Wind Distributed Generation - Support. Would allow owners of solar and wind renewable energy systems to receive compensation from their electric utility for any excess power generated at their home on an annual basis. Currently, customers participating in a net-metering program lose all excess power generated by their solar system receiving no compensation for it. California homeowners who invest in their own on-site renewable energy technologies, such as solar power, are limited to “zeroing out” their electric bills on an annual basis. If their solar or wind system generates more electricity than their home uses in a given year, that surplus power is given to the utility without compensation. As a result, many California consumers are either discouraged from investing in renewable energy technology or are given a perverse incentive to waste electricity so as not to “give anything away” to the utility. This is a sizable problem in California and one that may grow as more and more consumers invest in solar and other clean energy technologies.

7. AB 1105 Blakeslee (R) - Building Energy Retrofit Revolving Loan Program - Support. Establishes the Building Energy Retrofit Revolving Loan Program for nonresidential buildings from money received by the state via the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment act of 2009. We support AB 1105 because we need to incentivize all options to Point of Sale for energy retrofits in buildings throughout the state.

8. SB 488 Pavley (D) - Energy: energy Usage Information - Support. This bill establishes an energy efficiency financing program to allow building owners and occupants to finance energy efficiency improvements funded through cost avoidance of the energy saved due to the improvements. SB 488 gives CAR another opportunity to support measures that would promote energy efficiency retrofits that are not burdensome or at Point of Sale. This bill would also allow building owners and occupants cut down on energy usage and reduce their utility bills with no up-front costs.

9. SB 407 Padilla (D) - Point-of-Sale Plumbing Fixture Replacement - Oppose. This bill conditions the sale of real property on the completion of water efficiency upgrades and requires sellers to certify that the appropriate upgrades have been made prior to the close of escrow. The bill applies to any residential or commercial property transaction completed after January 1, 2014, and exempts properties when a licensed plumber certifies that the water efficiency upgrades are not feasible. The bill also places additional obligations on the seller's agent to disclose and certify the water-efficiency upgrades. C.A.R. will oppose SB 407 until it is amended to utilize an approach that does use point-of-sale as an enforcement tool and instead employs a comprehensive broad-based approach by either creating a mandatory compliance date for all homes or developing a partnership between state and local government with the appropriate utilities.

C. Regulatory Update

1. California Energy Commission (CEC), Home Energy Rating System (HERS) Program: The CEC is required to establish regulations and a consumer handbook for a standardized home energy rating program to certify homes in California including general home energy efficiency information. C.A.R. staff and a panel of REALTOR® members worked with the CEC to complete the consumer handbook, which will be available later this year.

2. California Energy Commission (CEC), AB 1103 (Saldana, 2007) Implementation meetings: C.A.R. continues to participate as a key stakeholder in the development of the Commercial Building EnergyStar Benchmarking program and serves as a voice for trying to allow for reasonable implementation.

3. California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Water Plan Update 2009: C.A.R. called on GADs and AEs to participate in a "Red Alert" to protest point-of-sale recommendations in the Draft Water Plan Update 2009. The "Red Alert" was quickly called off when the public hearings on the Draft Water Plan Update 2009 proved to be less than productive. Instead, REALTOR® GADs and AEs have been asked to fill out a form-letter of concern to submit to DWR.

4. State Water Board (SWB/SWRCB) Onsite Wastewater Disposal System Regulations (AB 885 Statewide Septic Regulations): On February 23, the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) closed the public comment period for draft regulations regarding onsite wastewater treatment systems (septic systems). During the comment period (Nov. 7, 2008 to Feb. 23, 2009), the Water Board received more than 2,500 e-mail comments and hundreds of comment letters, and recorded many hours of oral comments from 12 public workshops held throughout the state. The following is an update on what happens now in terms of the Water Board developing regulations for septic systems:

Is it likely that the next version of proposed regulations will be different from the
current version? Yes. Water Board Staff will be recommending substantial changes based on all of the input from the public.

What happens next, now that the current comment period is over and workshops
are concluded? The Water Board is compiling all of the many comments (transcribing all oral testimony and electronically scanning all comment letters) received from the public. Water Board staff expects to have this information available to the public this summer.

How will the Water Board proceed from here? Water Board staff will draft revised regulations based on the public comments received, will work with interested agencies and groups, and when a new set of draft regulations is written, will notice another public comment period so that all stakeholders have a chance to provide input. Depending on the extent of the recommended revisions to the proposed regulations, staff will also need to modify or redraft the environmental impact report.

What is the anticipated new timeline and when will the public be notified of the revised proposal? Redrafting these regulations to respond to the substantial comments received is a high priority for the Board. Board staff will be working with the interested agencies and groups to develop a new conceptual regulatory proposal within the next 4-6 months. The extent of revisions to the new regulatory proposal will be an important factor in how long it takes to modify or redraft the environmental impact report. Staff is hopeful that this work can be accomplished within 12 months.

How will changes be communicated? After Water Board staff has prepared a response to public comments and completed changes to the draft regulations, waiver, and EIR, a new public comment period will be scheduled and posted on this web site. Interested parties, including all those who commented on the previous draft and provided staff with contact information, will be notified by U.S. mail and e-mail.

Will there be more opportunities to comment? Yes. Significant changes will be made to the regulations and a new public comment period will be necessary to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the revised proposed regulations. The time and date for public comments will be posted on the Water Board web site and publicized statewide. The REALTOR Septic Working Group will review the changes and provide comments as necessary. Should the need exist, another REALTOR® Red Alert will be mobilized. Otherwise, AB 580 (Huber) is being held by the Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC) as a vehicle for potential legislation to change the scope and or application of the regulations.

D. Report from REALTOR® Committee on Air Quality – Carol Banner

E. Report from Rural Forum - Karen O'Brien

F. Land Use and Environmental Committee Open Forum - JOIN IN!
The Land Use and Environmental Committee Leadership invites and encourages you to bring forth any land use or environmental issues that are currently of issue for you and/or your community. We are interested in an open discussion with REALTORS® sharing their concerns, viewpoints and experiences dealing with land use and environmental issues and how these issues are affecting transactions and/or private property rights in your region.

III. Other

IV. Adjournment