Fire Safety/General Plans

SB 1241 (Kehoe) – Neutral
As Proposed to be Amended

SB 1241, by Senator Christine Kehoe, would require cities and counties to review and update their General Plan’s Safety Element to address fire risks on land classified as State Responsibility Area (SRA) and very high fire hazard severity zones. The bill would also require counties to make specified findings before approving a tentative map for an area located in a SRA or a very high fire hazard severity zone.

As reported in the April 13 Legislative Bulletin, CSAC and the Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC) opposed SB 1241 because of the costs associated with its implementation, linkage with the housing element update, and redundancy of its requirements. This week, during the bill’s hearing before the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, Senator Kehoe agreed to amend SB 1241 to address CSAC and RCRC’s concerns. Specifically, the proposed amendments would delete the provision requiring the safety element to be updated upon “each” revision of the housing element, and would instead specify that the new fire safety requirements be included in the safety element upon the next revision of the housing element or after January 1, 2013, and updated as necessary. In addition, the proposed amendments would allow cities and counties to include historical data on wildfires by reference as opposed to including actual maps displaying such areas; deletes requirements that are currently addressed in building codes; and recognizes city and counties’ existing fire safety plans as a form of compliance provided these plans fulfill the new fire safety content requirements of SB 1241. 

Given these proposed amendments, CSAC and RCRC have agreed to remove their opposition. SB 1241 will next be heard before the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Flood Protection/Land Use

SB 1278 (Wolk) – Support if Amended
As Amended April 19, 2012

As reported in the April 9, Legislative Bulletin, SB 1278, by Senator Lois Wolk, is the legislative vehicle for proposed changes to SB 5 (Machado, Chapter 364, Statutes of 2007), one of a six-bill flood protection package signed into law in 2007. 

Existing law, as enacted by SB 5, requires the State to adopt a Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP) by 2012. The law also requires each city and county in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley (33 counties), upon completion of the CVFPP, to incorporate the flood plan’s data, policies and implementation measures into its general plans within 24 months. It also requires each city and county in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley to amend its zoning ordinance consistent with the CVFPP, within 36 months of the flood plan’s adoption and 12 months of its amendment of the general plan. The law further prohibits, after the CVFPP takes effect, a city or county in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley from entering into a development agreement, approving any permit, entitlement or subdivision map in a flood zone unless the city or county makes specified findings.

Since the enactment of SB 5, significant implementation challenges for cities and counties within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley have been identified. Specifically, affected jurisdictions are concerned that detailed maps and technical data will not be available in time to meet the SB 5 planning requirements and permitting and building restrictions. In addition, the law as written can be interpreted to trigger 200-year protection for discretionary permits including those involving changes in use and other actions that are not associated with new construction. Also of concern is the interpretation by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) that all areas, including those not protected by levees, will have to demonstrate 200-year protection. 

The April 29th amendments to SB 1278 move in the direction of addressing some of the SB 5 implementation challenges. CSAC, the Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC), the League of California Cities (League) and the American Planning Association, California Chapter are seeking additional amendments to address the discretionary permit issue and the application of the 200-year level of flood protection to internal drainage and infill development.

SB 1278 is scheduled to be heard before the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on April 25th.

Stormwater

AB 2063 (Alejo) – Support
As Amended March 29, 2012 

AB 2063, by Assembly Member Luis Alejo, would allow for ex parte communications to occur between State Water Resources Control Board members (and Regional Board Members) and interested parties as long as the communication is disclosed at the following board meeting. CSAC supports AB 2063 because it is essential to removing a formidable obstacle that prevents the effective exchange of information between the Boards and our member agencies. This bill is substantially similar to SB 965, which CSAC is also supporting. The author’s staff has indicated that they are working with Senator Wright’s staff and the first step is for all of the bills to get out of their respective committees. This bill will be heard in the Assembly Water, Parks & Wildlife Committee on April 24th. 

AB 2117 (Gorell) – Support
As Amended April 11, 2012

AB 2117, by Assembly Member Jeff Gorell, would require the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board), in consultation with affected stakeholders, to prepare a comprehensive statewide stormwater plan and submit it to the Legislature by January 1, 2016. This bill would also limit the expansion of the stormwater waste discharge requirements program beyond current federal requirements while the State Board and stakeholders consider holistic changes necessary for long-term solutions to water quality issues in our state. CSAC supports this bill because it would allow the time needed to focus on the ever broadening issues of stormwater quality and would allow stakeholders to work collectively to develop a more comprehensive approach, much like what has been done to address California’s air quality concerns. This bill will be heard in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee on April 24, 2012.

Drinking Water/Waste Water Services

AB 2238 (Perea) – Request for Comments
As Amended April 11, 2012

AB 2238, by Assembly Member Henry Perea and sponsored by the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, would impose new requirements on local agency formation commissions (LAFCOs) in their municipal service reviews, to assess alternatives for improving efficiency and affordability of infrastructure and service delivery for drinking water and wastewater services, and adds new requirements to the Department of Public Health for programs related to small community water systems. AB 2238 is scheduled to be heard before the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee on Tuesday, April 24.

Invasive Species

AB 2443 (Williams) – Request for Comments
As Amended April 16, 2012

AB 2443, by Assembly Member Das Williams, would impose a fee of not more than $10 on boater registration for the purposes of funding a Quagga and Zebra Mussel Infestation Prevention Program. Specifically, the bill would require the Department of Fish and Game, in determining the specific amount of the fee, to consult with a technical advisory group, which would be established by the department. The bill would require funds from the fee to be used to implement and administer a dreissenid mussel monitoring, inspection, and eradication program and would require the department to adopt an emergency regulation to prescribe procedures for the collection and use of the fee. The specific percentage of funds that would go to cities and counties has yet to be determined. CSAC has been engaged in a working group process on the bill. Participants include Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey County, and Sonoma County Water Agency, among others. The purpose of the bill is to provide a funding mechanism for local governments to prevent a Quagga and Zebra mussel Infestation in our local waterways. These mussels are highly invasive species that reproduce rapidly and in large numbers, and can severely hinder water delivery systems due to their capacity to clog pipes, pumps and other water intake structures. These mussels were first discovered in California in January of 2007, and have quickly spread to reach several California reservoirs. These invasive species threaten California’s irrigation and drinking water facilities and have the potential to cause billions of dollars in damages. We request your input on this bill. This bill will be heard in the Assembly Water, Parks & Wildlife Committee on April 24th. 

Proposition 218

SB 1120 (Berryhill) – Request for Comments
As Amended April 9, 2012

SB 1120, by Senator Tom Berryhill would provide that a public entity shall not be liable for an injury related to a decrease or cessation of any water, sewer, or refuse collection service in connection with a fee or charge imposed or increased pursuant to Proposition 218, if the public entity fully complies with those provisions of the California Constitution (Prop 218), and the affected property owners have refused to allow the imposition, extension, or increase of property-related fees and charges for the service. This bill would help resolve unintentional consequences of Proposition 218 that leave no mechanism for counties to recover costs involved in maintaining sewer, water and refuse collection services through Special Districts and Maintenance Districts in the event of a majority protest of the ratepayers. According to Madera County, the sponsor of this bill, when funds are taken from the General Fund to cover costs of maintaining districts, it is a reverse violation of Proposition 218 because the dollars used for these districts are taken from money received from all County residents, and these residents have no direct benefit from their tax dollars being used to offset costs in these Special Districts. This bill would protect local entities in the event an entity is forced to reduce or eliminate services due to lack of funds. This bill will be heard in the Senate Local Government and Finance Committee on May 2, 2010.

Emergency Management

AB 1650 (Portantino) – Request for Comment
As Amended April 16, 2012

AB 1650, by Assembly Member Anthony Portantino, would require an electrical corporation to develop, adopt, and update an emergency and disaster preparedness plans and to require every county and city within the electrical corporation’s service area to designate a point of contact for the electrical corporation to consult with on emergency and disaster preparedness plans. The bill would declare county and city participation in the preparation of electrical corporations’ emergency and disaster preparedness plans is critical to a statewide emergency response and, thus, is an issue of statewide concern. The bill would impose a state-mandated local program by requiring an electrical corporation, in developing, adopting, and updating its emergency and disaster preparedness plan, to meet with, and consult, cities and counties within that corporation’s service area. This bill has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Energy

AB 2075 (Fong) – Support
As Amended March 29, 2012

AB 2075, by Assembly Member Paul Fong, would repeal the authorization in existing law that allows a person proposing to construct a facility excluded from the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) jurisdiction to waive the exclusion by submitting to the commission a notice of intent to file an application for certification. This “grandfathering” language was placed into law originally, per CEC staff, to allow “pipeline” projects excluded by Public Resources Code Sections 25501 and 25501.5 to “opt-in” to the CEC’s licensing process. This authorization is no long applicable to any facilities.

CSAC has joined with RCRC and the League in supporting the repeal of this outdated language as doing so will help eliminate confusion relative to the jurisdiction of the California Energy Commission and the jurisdiction of local governments over specific types of energy facilities. CSAC encourages counties that have taken a support position on this bill to get their letters in, with a copy to the Governor. AB 2075 will be heard in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on May 7, 2012. 

SB 1222 (Leno) – Oppose
As Amended April 9, 2012

SB 1222 by Senator Mark Leno, would prohibit cities and counties with a population of over 10,000 residents from charging permit fees for rooftop solar energy systems that exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, which shall not exceed three hundred dollars ($300). The bill further requires cities and counties to prepare a report regarding various aspects of the cities’ or counties’ process and procedure for permitting rooftop solar energy systems. The reports must be submitted to the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission no later than December 1, 2013. Cities and counties may impose fees that exceed the $300 cap provided their report includes a calculation related to the administrative costs to issue such permits. CSAC has submitted a joint opposition letter with the League of California Cities, the Regional Council of Rural Counties, Urban Counties Caucus, and the American Planning Association, California Chapter. We do not believe it is the role of the state to undermine local decisions by setting the level of the fee in statute without regard to individual city or county costs. In addition, we oppose having to do a report to justify the fee to an arbitrary state agency.

SB 1222 is scheduled to be heard before the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on Wednesday, April 25.