Land Use

AB 52 (Gatto) – Oppose 
As amended on June 16, 2014

AB 52, by Assembly Member Mike Gatto, would provide for a significant expansion of CEQA by, among other things, including potential substantial adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources as a significant effect necessitating full environmental review. Counties appreciate and understand the desire of Native American tribes to be consulted on projects that could impact culturally-significant lands and resources. Indeed, in some cases, counties have instituted processes that extend beyond what is required by law to consult with tribes on proposed projects. Unfortunately, CSAC feels strongly that the legitimate need for consultation between county and tribal governments on a project-by-project basis belongs in the Government Code, where it could expand upon existing General Plan consultation requirements, rather than within the CEQA process. CSAC’s survey of our members last fall indicated that counties have generally considered consultation with tribes for the purposes of General Plan updates and amendments under the SB 18 process to have been successful. We encourage the author to build on the successes of this program to include project-level consultations, upon requests from tribes, rather than expanding CEQA.

To that end, CSAC has been working with the author’s office to find a compromise solution that would provide tribes an elevated status and access to meaningful early consultation in project development above and beyond what is afforded to other interested parties. We appreciate the most recent amendments as they addressed a number of our technical concerns with the measure. Regrettably, we still have larger policy concerns with expanding CEQA, how the measure defines tribal cultural resources in an open ended manner, and disclosure provisions which will undoubtedly lead to increased litigation, costs, and strain local budgets.

AB 52 is set for hearing in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on June 25.

SB 944 (Torres) – No position
As amended on June 11, 2014

SB 944, by Senator Norma Torres, would have imposed an unprecedented interference with local land use authority by preventing local governments from pre-zoning, re-zoning or zoning surplus state property located within the local jurisdiction unless a change in zoning is requested or approved by the Department of General Services. CSAC opposed the bill because it would have given unelected state officials veto power over the land use decisions made by duly-elected local representatives. The author has agreed to accept amendments that would limit the bill specifically to the Lanterman Developmental Center in Pomona, so CSAC has removed its opposition.

SB 944 will be heard in the Assembly Local Government Committee on June 25.

Public Works Administration

AB 2471 (Frazier) – Oppose Unless Amended
As amended on May 23, 2014

AB 2471, by Assembly Member Jim Frazier, as currently drafted, would impose arbitrary and burdensome timelines on the negotiation of a change order for a public works project. CSAC has serious concerns with the bill in print because it would expose counties to liability and prejudgment interest if its timeframe for negotiating a change order and making payments due pursuant the bill’s provisions are not met.

CSAC has made good progress this week in negotiating amendments to AB 2471 with the author and sponsor and has moved to an oppose unless amended position. CSAC asked for the following amendments this week and understand the author intends to take a number of our requests, including most importantly, that the 60-day clocks starts after the local agency and contractor have had sufficient time to negotiate the specifics of the change order. We plan to meet with the author/sponsor again in July to try to reach agreement on any remaining issues and get to a neutral position.

1. Start the clock after agreement on merit, conditions, cost and time.

The submission of information by a contractor in support of a request for a change order is merely the beginning of the change order process, which allows the contracted parties to jointly determine the value of the work. The contractor’s initial submittal is rarely the final determinant of the true value of the work, in the same way that a public agency’s initial estimate of the value of the work is rarely the final determinant.

1. Specify what documentation is required for a change order in the contract.

The sponsors have conveyed concerns that public agencies could manipulate the law by requesting additional and limitless documentation to support a change order and thereby drag out the negotiating process. CSAC suggests language that requires the documentation and process for a change order to be included in the original contract. This way, each party knows going into the project what is expected within the change order process.

1. Require contractors to respond to public agencies for additional information within 60-days.

As previously mentioned, the change order process requires both contracted parties to do their part. Contractors should be held to a similar standard as public agencies in terms of executing the necessary steps to complete a timely change order process.

1. Remove the term “reasonable” from the bill.

The term “reasonable” is undefined, ambiguous and will lead to even more disputes over what constitutes reasonableness from both public agencies and contractors. CSAC favors language that makes it explicitly clear what both public agencies and contractors can expect from a timely change order process within the original public works contract.

1. Eliminate the writ of mandate provision.

As evidenced by the examples provided by the sponsors, contractors already have the ability to take public agencies to court over public contracts and issues with extra work. Specifically, Government Code §900 et seq. provides for claims against public agencies. CSAC is also supportive of alternative dispute resolution methods and welcomes further conversations on language to that end in place of the writ of mandate.

1. Clarifying language for public entity purposes.

The amendments also insert and define the term “duly authorized representative of the public entity”. This technical clarification is necessary to preserve a Board of Supervisors’ authority to determine what work is actually necessary, or to delegate that authority to a representative. The amendments also preserve a public agency’s existing rights to prohibit extra work until a change order has been issued.

AB 2471 will be heard in the Senate Committee on Governmental Organization on June 24.

Housing

AB 1537 (Levine) – Support
As amended on April 21, 2014

AB 1537, by Assembly Member Marc Levine, would create a pilot project allowing Marin County and certain cities within the County, to move to a suburban default density to demonstrate that they have zoned an adequate amount of land to accommodate their respective shares of lower-income housing under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation Process. The pilot would last through 2023 require the jurisdictions to report to the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Legislature regarding the development of affordable housing under the suburban default density.

AB 1537 will be heard in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on June 24.

AB 1690 (Gordon) – Support 
As amended on February 13, 2014

AB 1690, by Assembly Member Rich Gordon, would allow local governments that are subject to a rezoning program under housing element law to accommodate more than half of its low- and very low-income housing need on lands zoned for residential or mixed uses. CSAC supports the bill because it provides counties the opportunity to use the rezoning program process to complement other smart growth policies.

AB 1690 will be heard in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on June 24.

Transportation

SB 1183 (DeSaulnier) – Support
As amended on May 27, 2014

SB 1183, by Senator Mark DeSaulnier, would allow a city, county, or regional parks district to propose to the voters the imposition of a surcharge of up to five dollars on each vehicle registration to fund the construction or maintenance of paved or natural surface bikeways or trails, as well as bicycle parking infrastructure. The bill would provide a new tool to fund off-road bike paths, which currently lack a stable funding source. The author took CSAC’s recommended amendments, which allow agencies to use funding raised by a voter-approved surcharge for a broader array of bicycle infrastructure.

CSAC supports this bill as it provides a potential funding source for several types of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure that are vital to creating a complete multi-modal network, but which occasionally have proven difficult to fund and maintain under existing revenue sources.

SB 1183 will be heard on June 23 in the Assembly Transportation Committee.