HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - Legislative & Public Outreach Committee - 09/02/2016LEGISLATIVE AND PUBLIC OUTREACH COMMITTEE
September 2, 2016 - 3:00 PM
31111 Greenspot Road, Highland, CA 92346
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PUBLIC COMMENTS
NEW BUSINESS
1.Legislative Update
2.Cancel December 2, 2016 Legislative and Public Outreach Committee meeting
ADJOURN
P LEASE NOT E:
P ursuant to Go vernment Co d e Sectio n 54954.2(a), any reques t fo r a d is ability-related modific ation or
ac commod ation, inc luding auxiliary aid s o r s ervices , that is s o ught in ord er to participate in the ab o ve-
agendized pub lic meeting s hould be d irected to the Dis tric t Clerk at (909) 885-4900 at leas t 72 ho urs prior
to said meeting.
STAFF REPORT
Agend a Item #1.
Meeting Date: Sep temb er 2, 2016
Dis cus s io n Item
To: LEGISLATIVE AND P UBLIC OUTR EACH COMMITTEE
From: P ublic Affairs Manager
Subject: Legis lative Update
RECOMMENDATION:
T his item is for info rmatio n o nly.
BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS:
During the 2016 Legis lative Ses s io n, the Dis tric t has b een an active partic ip ant o n a number of items cons istent
with the adopted Legis lative Platform. To gether with legis lative advo cates from the Onate Gro up and Gonzales,
Quintana, Hunter & C ruz, the Dis trict help ed to guid e policy and legis latio n b eginning in early s tages of the
p roc es s .
T he s es s io n began with an emphas is o n the drought, and evo lved to fo c us o n long-term sus tainability and
effic ienc y. Dis tric t rep resentatives p articipated in work gro up d is c ussions through ACWA and CS DA relating to
water us e c harges, c o ns ervation, and metering amo ng o ther topic s. Area of invo lvement inc luded :
AB 779: Lo cal go vernment financ ial dis clos ures
o P o s itio n: No t Favor
AB 1520: Pub lic Record s
o P o s itio n: O ppos e
AB 1928: Water Efficient Lands caping
o P o s itio n: Support
AB 2087: Regional C ons ervation F ramewo rk
o P o s itio n: O ppos e unles s amend ed
S B 1069: Land use, zoning
o P o s itio n: Watch
S B 1298: Loc al government fees and charges
o P o s itio n: O riginally o p p o sed, but removed o nce amend ed
Drinking Water Fees
Minimum Wage Increas e
2016-17 State Bud get- Rec yc led Water P ro p ositio n 1 F und ing
Both ho us es will ad journ for final rec es s on Augus t 31, 2016 and res ume ses s io n in January 2017. The General
Electio n o n No vemb er 8, 2016 inc ludes elec tions fo r 40th Assembly Distric t, 23rd Senate Dis tric t, and the
neighb o ring 47th Dis tric t.
Recommended by:
Kelly Malloy
Public Affairs /Cons ervation Manager
AGENCY IDEALS AND ENDEAVORS:
Ideals and Endeavor III - Demons trate Vis io nary Lead ers hip To Enhanc e Dis trict Identity
(E) - Develop a Proac tive Legislative Pres ence
FISCAL IMPACT :
T here is no fis c al imp ac t as s o c iated with this item.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
AB77 9 Backup Material
AB15 20 Backup Material
AB19 28 Backup Material
AB20 87 Backup Material
SB1069 Backup Material
SB1298 Backup Material
AB 779
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 779 (Cristina Garcia)
As Amended August 3, 2016
Majority vote
ASSEMBLY: (June 3, 2015) SENATE: 30-8 (August 15, 2016)
(vote not relevant)
Original Committee Reference: TRANS.
SUMMARY: Requires cities, counties and special districts to compile compensation
information about their elected officials and post it on their Web sites (websites).
The Senate amendments delete the prior contents of the bill and add the current language.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate
Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS:
1) Bill Summary. This bill requires cities, counties and special districts , on or before April 30
of each year, to post compensation information in a conspicuous location on their Internet
websites. The compensation information must contain the names, positions, and total
compensation, including a breakdown of the types of compensation provided, of each elected
official within that entity for the previous calendar year. If a city or special district does not
have an Internet website, it shall compile this information and make that information readily
available upon request.
This bill defines "total compensation" to include payments for salaries, overtime, unused
vacation time, stipends, pension contributions, retirement contributions, health premium
contributions, automobile allowances, phone allowances, and technology allowances. Any
other type of compensation that a city, county, or special district provides shall also be
included and specified. "Total compensation" does not include reimbursements or payments
for work-related travel expenses. The bill does not apply to school districts.
This bill is sponsored by the author.
2) Author's Statement. According to the author, "People have a right to know how much their
elected officials are paid. By featuring the compensation information on local websites,
residents will have better access to this information. AB 779 requires the breakdown of all
types of compensation to be posted. This full reporting will add needed transparency. For
example, a recent newspaper investigation reported the city of Maywood was paying officials
and some employees $250 monthly mileage stipends. It's unclear how such a payment could
be justified, as the city is just larger than one square mile.
"Unfortunately, abuses like those that occurred in the city of Bell and other local
governments are still occurring. Currently, the SCO [State Controller's Office] posts local
entity's salary information by position, but does not include names. While the SCO posts
break down some compensation, they also include an 'other' category. Something like a
mileage stipend, mentioned above, would fall in this 'other' category."
AB 779
Page 2
3) Background. The State Controller must compile and publish reports of the financial
transactions of local governments, including counties, cities, special districts, and joint
powers authorities. These reports must also state the annual compensation of a loc al agency's
elected officials, officers, and employees in accordance with reporting instructions developed
by the Controller. The Controller must make these reports, including compensation data,
available on its website in a form that can be printed and d ownloaded. Local agencies that
maintain a website must post the report and the compensation information, or a link to the
report on the Controller's website, in a conspicuous location.
The Controller's instructions define compensation to include salaries, overtime pay, lump
sum pay, pension contributions, health/vision/dental benefits, deferred compensation
contributions, and any other compensation (such as automobile allowances). Local agencies
must compile this information for each employee, who is identified by their classification,
including whether the employee held multiple positions. Local agencies must submit this
information for the previous calendar year no later than April 30th.
In recent years, several small cities in Los Angeles County have c ome under scrutiny for
their compensation practices. In particular, beginning in July 2010, a series of news reports
revealed that City of Bell officials received some of the highest salaries in the nation, topping
$700,000 annually. These revelations led to further inquiries into financial irregularities that
culminated with convictions for the former mayor, four former city councilmembers, the city
administrator, and the assistant city administrator. More recently, City of Maywood officials
drew criticism in May 2016 for receiving automobile stipends of $250/month, even though
the city is the second smallest in the county and covers approximately one square mile.
4) Previous Legislation. AB 2040 (Garcia), Chapter 894, Statutes of 2014, required local
agency financial transaction reports to include information about the annual compensation of
the local agency's elected officials, o fficers, and employees, required local agencies to post
this information on their websites, and required the Controller to compile, publish, and make
this information publicly available on the Controller's website .
5) Support Arguments. The California League of Conservation Voters and Sierra Club
California, in support, state, "We are pleased to support AB 779, which inc reases local
government transparency and helps residents easily find information about their local
officials' compensation. Scandals in Bell and Vernon concerning pay for elected officials
highlight the need for more transparency about who is paid what, in order to prevent the
misuse of taxpayer dollars. …This information will allow residents to better understand the
amounts and types of compensation that these officials receive. Some local government
entities already post this information prominently on their websites. Also, some California
news organizations and interest groups currently request, compile, and post local government
compensation on their websites. However, the amount of information varies by entity and
region, and what is available can be difficult to find."
6) Opposition Arguments. The League of California Cities, in opposition, writes, "Current
law already requires local agencies to report the compensation of their government boards as
well as all employees to the California State Contro ller. These reports include the following
items requested in AB 779 in the compilation of total compensation: stipends, automobile
allowance, technology allowance, phone allowance, pension contributions, retirement
contributions, health premiums, and any other type of compensation. AB 779 differs only in
AB 779
Page 3
specifically requesting that unused vacation time be reported and that the different
compensation categories be broken out.
"This measure requires a new duplicative report to be posted on agencies ' websites although
current law (Government Code Section 53901) already requires compensation reports to be
posted in a conspicuous location on agencies' websites. We believe that existing forms and
instructions are sufficient to accommodate the intent of this me asure without requiring
duplicative reporting and posting."
7) Gut and Amend. The subject matter of this bill has not been heard in any Assembly policy
committee this legislative session.
Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0003925
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
AB 1520
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1520
Author: Mark Stone D, Chau (D), Chiu (D), Cristina Garcia (D), and Holden (D)
Amended : 8/4/16 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 6/14/16
AYES: Jackson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski
NOES: Moorlach, Anderson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 53-21, 4/16/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Public Records
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill clarifies that the exemption from public disclosure, under the
California Public Records Act, for specified personal information does not apply to
industrial, commercial, and institutional water use data.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/4/16 strike the word “residential” from the bill and
instead creates an exception to the exemption for industrial, commercial, and
institutional water use data.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Declares , pursuant to the California Constitution, the people’s right to
transparency in government. (Cal. Const., Art. I, Sec. 3.)
2) Governs the public disclosure of information collected and maintained by
public agencies pursuant to the Califo rnia Public Records Act (CPRA) (Gov.
Code Sec. 6250 et seq.) Generally, all public records are accessible to the
AB 1520
Page 2
public upon request, unless the record requested is exempt from public
disclosure. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254.) There are 30 general categories of
documents or information that are exempt from disclosure, essentially due to
the character of the information, and unless it is shown that the public’s interest
in disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in non-disclosure of the
information, the exempt information may be withheld by the public agency with
custody of the information. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254 et seq.)
3) Defines state agency, for purposes of the CPRA, to include every state office,
department, division, bureau, board, and commission or other st ate body or
agency, except for the Legislature and the Judiciary. (Gov. Code Sec. 6252.)
4) Exempts from public disclosure records that are the residence address of any
person contained in the Department of Housing and Community Development,
if the person has requested confidentiality of that information, as specified, and
the residence or mailing address of any person in any record of the Department
of Motor Vehicles. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254.1.)
5) Exempts from public disclosure the name, credit history, utility usage data,
home address, and telephone number of utility customers of local agencies,
except that disclosure of name, utility usage data, and the home address of
utility customers of local agencies shall be made available upon request, as
specified. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254.16.)
6) Exempts from public disclosure corporate financial records and corporate
proprietary information, including trade secrets (Gov. Code Secs. 6254,
6254(k), 6254.15, 6276.44), employee personal information (Gov. Code Secs.
6254(c), 6254.3, 6276.34, 6276.36), and information affecting public safety or
security (Gov. Code Secs. 6253.9, 6254(aa), (ab), 6254.19, 6254.23).
7) Provides that information held by the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC), which is deemed confidential under Pub lic Utilities Code Section 583,
is not required to be disclosed. (Gov. Code Secs. 6276, 6276.36.)
8) Provides that any person may institute proceedings for injunctive or declarative
relief or writ of mandate in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce his or
her right to inspect or to receive a copy of any public record or class of public
records, and authorizes an award of court costs and reasonable attorney fees to
the plaintiff should the plaintiff prevail in litigation, and those costs and fees are
required to be paid by the public agency, as specified (Gov. Code Secs. 6258,
6259(d)). The test for determining whether a record may be withheld from
public access is whether the public’s interest in disclosure is outweighed by the
AB 1520
Page 3
public’s interest in withholding disclosure of the record. (Gov. Code Sec.
6255.)
This bill:
1) Clarifies that the public disclosure exemption for the name, credit history,
utility usage data, home address, and telephone number of utility customers of
local agencies does not apply to industrial, commercial, and institutional water
use data.
2) Provides legislative findings and declarations that this bill furthers the purposes
of the California Constitution as it relates to the right of public access to the
meetings of lo cal public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local
agencies, it is in the public’s interest to know the usage rates of industrial,
institutional, and commercial water and energy users, and, unlike residential
utility users, the privacy interests of industrial, institutional, and commercial
users are not sufficient to justify granting an exemption from the public
disclosure requirements, in this context.
3) Makes other technical and conforming changes.
Background
The CPRA requires state and local agencies to make public records available for
inspection by the public, with specified exceptions. The CPRA provides for the
confidentiality and non-disclosure of numerous classes of information, including
the residential address of an individual in a record maintained by the Department
of Housing and Community Development, the residence or mailing address of any
person in any record of the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the name, credit
history, utility usage data, home address, or telephone number of utility customers
of local agencies. These confidentiality provisions were enacted to protect
individual privacy in the wake of several instances of criminal activity against
individuals whose residential information was disclosed by public agencies. (AB
1779 (Roos, Chapter 1213, Statutes of 1989); SB 448 (Sher, Chapter 276, Statutes
of 1997).)
However, recent news articles charge that SB 448 was actually a measure to
weaken the CPRA. According to one article:
In the mid st of a historic drought, Californians have no way of knowing who’s
guzzling the most water. For the source of this legislation, look no further than
Silicon Valley, where the [C]ity of Palo Alto decided it needed to do more to
protect the privacy of the tech elite. “Palo Alto, even then, was home to a
AB 1520
Page 4
number of very high-profile tech-related residents,” said Ariel Calonne, who
was the city attorney at the time. “We had fairly extensive databases that
covered a lot of sensitive information for a lot of noteworthy people, and that
became a concern for our utility managers.” (K. Mieszkowski, L. Williams, To
Shield Tech Executives, California’s Biggest Water Users are Secret (Apr. 16,
2015) <https://www.revealnews.org/article/californias -biggest-water-users -are-
secret-to -shield -tech-executives/ [as of June 28, 2015].)
A Sacramento Bee article also noted that “[s]ome cities and water agencies used to
make usage data public, including the Desert Water Agency and Coachella Valley
Water District in Southern California, which have some of the state’s highest per -
capita water use. But after The Desert Sun newspaper in March 2014 published
who was pumping the most groundwater, both agencies stopped. The First
Amendment Coalition sued the agencies to obtain usage d ata for major businesses.
Desert Water settled and agreed to make the numbers available; they show that
golf resorts and country clubs are among the biggest users. Coachella Valley,
however, refused – and won in court last month.” (Editorial Board, California
Water Use Numbers Should Flow Freely (Apr. 28, 2015) The Sacramento Bee
<http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article19426455.html [as of June 28,
2015].)
This bill seeks to expand disclosure by clarifying that the confidentiality provisions
under the CPRA for utility customers pertain to residential customers of a local
agency.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/10/16)
Califo rnia Coastal Protection Network
California League of Conservation Voters
California Newspaper Publishers Association
Californians Aware
Clean Water Action
Community Water Center
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water
Environmental Working Group
First Amendment Coalition
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club California
TreePeople
AB 1520
Page 5
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/10/16)
African American Farmers of California
Agricultural Council of California
American Coatings Association
American Pistachio Growers
American Planning Association
Association of California Egg Farmers
Automotive Specialty Products Alliance
Building Owners and Managers Association of California
California Asphalt Pavement Association
California Association o f Nurseries and Garden Centers
California Business Properties Association; California Chamber of Commerce
California Citrus Mutual
California Construction and Industrial Materials Association
California Cotton Ginners Association
California Cotton Growers Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Fresh Fruit Association
California Grain and Feed Association
California Large Energy Consumers Association
Califo rnia League of Food Processors
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Municipal Utilities Association
California Paint Council
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
California Seed Association
California Special Districts Association
California Tomato Growers Association
California Warehouse Association
Chemical Industry Council of California
Consumer Specialty Products Association
Family Winemakers of California
Grocery Manufacturers of America
Independent Energy Producers
International Council of Shopping Centers
NAIOP – Commercial Real Estate Development Association
National Federation of Independent Business
National Hmong American Farmers
Nisei Farmers League
AB 1520
Page 6
Northern California Power Agency
Pacific Coast Rendering Association
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
UnitedAG
Western Carwash Association
Western Plant Health Association
Western States Petroleum Association
Wine Institute
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The First Amendment Coalition, in support,
argues that “[t]he public is entitled to know – indeed, the public has a need to know
– water usage data of commercial and other institutional users. Access to this
information is the only way for the public to assess the effectiveness of
government water conservation policies. The severe [d rought] afflicting California
only underscores the importance of this access.” Further, the California
Newspaper Publishers Association, in support, asserts that this bill “would provide
the public with a better understanding of whether the policies of local agencies are
effective in achieving state mandated cut-backs and whether enforcement is
selective or is fairly applied.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Municipal Utilities
Association, in opposition, states that “[u]nder existing law, priv ate utilities are not
required to share their utility customer information upon public request. Under SB
448 (Sher, Chp. 276, Statutes 1997), public safety concerns and the issue of
‘parity’ between privacy rights that apply only to private utility customers versus
no such protections for utility customers of a public agency prompted the
Legislature to ensure privacy protections are equal for all utility customers. The
current law provides essential limited protections on the public’s right to access
individual customer information, striking a balance between the right to public
information and the right for both residential and commercial customer’s usage
information to be withheld. In lieu of the six exceptions [under the CPRA], it is
unclear why ‘names , credit histories, usage data, home addresses, or telephone
numbers’ should only apply to residential customers when such protections benefit
all customers.”
The opposition further asserts that “current law also levels the playing field
between customers of private investor owned utilities and utility customers of local
agencies. In 1997, SB 448 (Sher) determined that utility usage information from
local agencies was not public information. Yet, this bill is deliberately trying to
overturn that, picking and choosing which information should remain private.
Most large commercial, industrial, and institutional users of water and energy pay
AB 1520
Page 7
based on volume they use. Under existing regulations, local water districts, for
example, are able to determine if co nservation goals have been met. If the
conservation goal is not met, the local agency can impose fines of up to $10,000
per violation, and $500 per day thereafter for every day the violation continues to
enforce compliance.” The opposition states that it is also unclear how this bill, by
making commercial utility usage information public, would help reduce water
usage or energy consumption.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 53-21, 4/16/15
AYES: Alejo, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos,
Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier,
Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon,
Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones -Sawyer, Levine, Lopez, Low, McCarty,
Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Patterson, Perea, Rendon, Ridley-
Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Waldron,
Weber, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Chávez, Dahle, Beth Gaines,
Gallagher, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Jones, Lackey, Maienschein, Mathis,
Mayes, Obernolte, Olsen, Wagner, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Chang, Kim, Linder, Melendez, Quirk, Steinorth
Prepared by: Nichole Rapier / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
8/10/16 15:35:00
**** END ****
AB 1928
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1928 (Campos)
As Introduced August 15, 2016
Majority vote
ASSEMBLY: 56-22 (June 1, 2016) SENATE: 27-12 (August 17, 2016)
Original Committee Reference: W., P., & W.
SUMMARY: Extends the date from January 1, 2010, to January 1, 2019, by which the
California Energy Commission (CEC) is required to adopt landscape irrigation equipment
performance standards and labeling requirements. Additionally, prohibits the sale of new
irrigation equipment on or after an effective date established by the CEC . Requires the CEC to
consider recent advancements in landscape irrigation efficiency when developing the standards
and requirements.
The Senate amendments extend the date to adopt irrigation equipment standards by one year.
Conform the adoption of irrigation equipment standard regulation with existing procedures for
energy and water efficiency new building regulations. Prohibit the sale of noncompliant
irrigation equipment on or after the effective date established by the CEC.
EXISITING LAW: Requires, to the extent funds are available, the CEC in consultation with
the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to adopt regulations by January 1, 2010, on
landscape irrigation performance standards and labeling. Prohibits the sale of a landscape
irrigation controller or moisture sensor by January 1, 2012, unless performance standards and
labeling requirements are met.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill increases
staff costs of $100,000 and contract costs of approximately $200,000 for the CEC to establish
performance standards and labeling requirements. These funds could come from the General
Fund or special funds.
As with the existing timelines, the provisions in this bill are required only to the extent funds are
available.
COMMENTS: To date, the CEC has not adopted regulations on landscape irrigation
performance standards or labeling requirements because funds have not been made available.
The 2016-2017 budget contained $30 million for the CEC to implement the Water Energy
Technology program. The Water Energy Technology program provides funding for innovative
technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Funds in that program could be put toward
adopting regulations on landscape irrigation performance standards and labeling.
According to the DWR, over 45% of residential water use takes place outdoors . More water
efficient irrigation equipment will likely create significant water savings. According to the
author, this bill will help California take the next and long overdue steps in recommitting
ourselves to improving outdoor water efficiency.
Executive Order B-29-15 from April of 2015 directed the CEC to fund emerging water saving
technologies, the State Water Resources Control Board to impose a 25% reduction in urban
AB 1928
Page 2
water use over 2013 levels, and the DWR to update the state model water efficient landscape
ordinance to specifically increase water efficiency through more efficient irrigation standards.
Technology in landscape irrigation has advanced in recent years with numero us new efficient
irrigation controls and moisture sensing devices coming to the market. The cost of water has
increased significantly in the past decade and is projected to increase annually at a rate of 4% or
higher. Consumers appear to be responding to these conditions as it has been reported that one
of the largest areas of sales growth at home improvement stores has been efficient landscape
irrigation equipment.
If funded, this bill will ensure efficiency standards and labeling requirements are established to
help the consumer conserve water.
Analysis Prepared by: Ryan Ojakian / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0004229
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
AB 2087
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2087
Author: Levine (D)
Amended : 8/19/16 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 6-2, 6/28/16
AYES: Pavley, Allen, Hertzberg, Hueso, Jackson, Monning
NOES: Stone, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wolk
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/11/16
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 52-20, 6/2/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Regional conservation investment strategies
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill establishes a pilot project for a regional conservation
investment strategy (RCIS) program that would identify and prioritize regional
conservation through a science-based public process while also encouraging
investments in conservation through advance mitigation. No more than 15 regional
strategies could be approved prior to 1/1/20 and the program sunsets on that same
date.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/19/16 respond to numerous stakeholder meetings
and are intended to reshape many provisions to focus on the voluntary and non-
regulatory nature of its provisions, to ensure that other laws (such as the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are neither strengthened nor weakened by this
bill, to improve communications with affected local jurisd ictions, to beef up public
participation, and perhaps to reduce opposition especially from Delta counties who
AB 2087
Page 2
were suspicious that the bill would somehow boost a new Delta water conveyance
system.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Establishes the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) in the Natural
Resources Agency. The DFW has jurisdiction over the conservation,
protection, and management of fish and wildlife, native plants, and habitat
necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species.
2) Prohibits, under the state Endangered Species Act, the taking of an endangered
or threatened species, except as specified. The DFW may permit the take of
listed species if the take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and the
impacts are minimized and fully mitigated.
3) Establishes that it is the policy of the State to conserve, protect, restore and
enhance natural communities. State law further declares that it is the policy of
the state to encourage, wherever feasible and practicable, voluntary steps to
protect the functioning of wildlife corridors through various means.
4) Recognizes the need for broad -based planning to provide for effective
protection and conservation of the state's wildlife heritage while continuing to
allow for appropriate development and growth. State law also authorizes the
development of Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCP ) to provide
comprehensive management and conservation of wildlife, pursuant to specified
requirements.
This bill:
1) States legislative findings and declarations regarding the benefits of identifying
habitat conservation initiatives on a regional scale, including actions to address
climate change, protect wildlife corridors, and guide voluntary investments in
conservation, infrastructure, sustainable community strategies, and
compensatory mitigation for impacts to species. The bill contains additional
findings that state that the purpose of this bill is to promote conservation of
natural resources, biodiversity and ecological processes, and to identify
conservation actions that promote resiliency to the impacts of climate change
and other stressors. The bill contains additional findings regarding the
importance of voluntary, non-regulatory approaches to regional conservation
that have no effect on local land -use decisions. It also has a finding declaring
AB 2087
Page 3
legislative intent that the an approved RCIS is not binding on an independent
public agency action within the geographic scope of the RCIS.
2) Contains many definitions to terms such as “areas of conservation emphasis,”
compensatory mitigation,” “conservation action,” “focal species,” and others.
3) Defines an RCIS as the information and analysis prepared pursuant to this bill
that provides nonbind ing, voluntary guidance for the identification of wildlife
and habitat conservation priorities. An RCIS is voluntary and does not create,
modify, or impose regulatory requirements or standards, regulate land use,
establish land use designations, or affect the land use authority of any public
agency. The preparation and use of RCISs is also voluntary.
4) Authorizes the DFW to approve an RCIS proposed by DFW or any other
public agency, developed in consultation with local agencies with land use
authority, and s pecifies that the purpose of an RCIS is to provide voluntary,
nonbinding guidance for one or more of the following, as specified:
a) Identification of wildlife and habitat conservation priorities, including
actions to address impacts of climate change and other stressors;
b) Investments in natural resource conservation;
c) Infrastructure;
d) Identification of priority locations for compensato ry mitigation.
5) Identifies the elements that must be included in an RC IS to be approved by
DFW that provides context at an ecoregional scale for development of the
RCIS, as specified. Generally, the RCIS must identify focal species, important
resource conservation elements within the region, historic, current and
projected future stressors, major water, transportation, and transmission
infrastructure facilities, conservation actions that would achieve the
conservation goals of the RCIS, demonstrated consis tency with existing or
draft natural community conservation plans (NCCPs), among others.
6) Requires the RCIS to also identify mitigation banks within the RCIS
boundaries, account for climate change on the focal species and conservation
goals of the RCIS, rely on the best available scientific information, be prepared
in way that can be uploaded and searched through interactive use on the
internet, incorporate considerations of preserving working lands, reasonably
foreseeable development of infrastructure, aff ordable housing, and renewable
energy projects.
AB 2087
Page 4
7) Authorizes, but does not require, a separate regional conservation assessment
that covers an even larger ecosystem than an RCIF that contains many of the
same topics in an RCIF. The bill contains provisions for the two documents to
be submitted together or separately, and an regional conservation assessment is
not a precondition for an RCIS. An RCIS would be valid for 10 years, and the
department could extend the RCIS for additional 10 year periods after updating
the strategy for new scientific information,
8) Requires a public agency preparing a RCIS, prior to submitting the draft RCIS
to DFW, to publicly notice and hold a public meeting. Information on the draft
RCIS must be posted on the internet, shared wit h each local government, and
provided to every entity and individual who has requested notices for all RCIS
public meetings.
9) Requires, within 60 days of submitting a final RCIS, that the board of
supervisors and city councils in each county within the geo graphical scope of
the RCIS be notified and given a 30-day opportunity to comment.
10) Provides DFW 30 days to consider whether a draft RCIS is complete, and if
not, it must explain to the public agency submitting the draft what is needed to
complete the RCIS.
11) Requires DFW to make all RCISs and any updates available to the public on
its Internet Web site for public review and comment for at least 30 days, and to
make all approved RCISs and any updates available on its Internet Web site.
12) Adds a series of s tatutory statements that the RCIS does not increase or
decrease the authority of DFW, modify the standards for issuing take permits,
streambed alternation agreements, or other provisions of the the Fish and
Game Code.
13) Adds a provision that the bill does not require a lead agency or responsible
agency to determine that there is substantial evidence under CEQA in
connection with any determination whether a proposed project may or may not
result in significant environmental effects or in any way limit a lead age ncy’s
or responsible agency’s discretion to determine whether a proposed project
may or may not result in significant environmental effects.
14) Adds a provision that the bill does not prohibit or authorize ay project or
project impacts, create a presumption that any proposed project will be
authorized or prohibited, alter any local general plan, constitute a plan, policy
or ordinance under CEQA, or constitute a local policy or ordinance.
AB 2087
Page 5
15) Adds a provision that the department shall not reject biologically app ropriate
and adequate compensatory mitigation proposed by a project proponent on the
basis that the compensatory mitigation is not a conservation action or habitat
enhancement identified in an RCIS.
16) Adds a provision that project proponent seeking to provide compensatory
mitigation is not required to mitigate with conservation actions that are
identified in an RCIS. A project proponent may voluntary propose to do so.
17) Prohibits mitigation credits autho rized by this bill to fund or offset the costs of
the design, construction, or mitigation of new Delta conveyance facilities.
18) Authorizes conservation actions or habitat enhancements that measurably
advance the conservation objectives of an approved RCIS to be used to create
mitigation credits that can be used to compensate for impacts to species,
habitat, or other natural resources, if the conservation action or habitat
enhancement is implemented successfully in advance of the impacts. In order
to be used to create mitigation credits, a RCIS must include an adaptive
management and monitoring strategy, a process for updating scientific
information and evaluating the effectiveness of identified conservation actions
and habitat enhancements at least every ten years, and identification of an
entity who will be responsible for those updates and evaluations. The adequacy
of mitigation credit is determined by the applicable local, state, or federal
regulatory agency.
19) Authorizes mitigation credits to be used to compensate for take of endangered
species, to reduce adverse impacts to fish or wildlife resources, or to mitigate
other environmental effects pursuant to CEQA.
20) Requires DFW to ensure the long-term durability of a habitat enhancement
action, including mitigation credits, which shall remain in effect at least until
the site of the environmental impact is returned to preimpact ecological
conditions.
21) Provides the procedural provisions to create mitigation credits and the
application criteria for mitigation cred its. Many of the same extensive
conservation criteria that are required for mitigation banks would be required
for mitigation credits issued pursuant to this bill. These include maps, a natural
resources evaluation, a conservation easement to permanently p rotect the site,
consistency with any NCCPs, a description of how habitat values will be
improved, the metrics that will be used to measure how the goals are to be
achieved, a description of the net ecological gain compared to baseline
AB 2087
Page 6
conditions, a long-term funding mechanism, and provisions for enforcement of
the terms of the mitigation credit transaction.
22) Prohibits the release of credits without the approval of the department, and all
such releases must be tied to performance-based milestones and achievement
of ecological performance standards.
23) Clarifies that nothing in this bill is intended to limit or impose additional
conditions on the creation or sale of mitigation credits by a conservation bank
or mitigation bank approved under existing law. Clarifies that creation of
mitigation credits under an RCIS shall not duplicate or replace mitigation
requirements set forth in a natural community conservation plan.
24) Authorizes the DFW to collect fees from an entity that proposes to enter into a
mitigation credit agreement or that proposes a RCIS , to pay for all or a portion
of DFW's costs.
25) Requires a report to the Legislature by the Department regarding the
implementation of this bill on or before 1/1/20.
26) Allows DFW to partner with the California Infrastructure and Economic
Development Bank to finance the development of advance mitigation credits if
needed.
27) States that this bill does not affect the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta Reform
Act of 2009.
28) Prohibits DFW from approving more than 15 RCIS before 1/1/20 and entering
into mitigation credit agreements on or after that same date.
29) Contains other technical amendments.
Background
To demonstrate the approach that is represented by this bill, three pilot projects are
underway. Each demonstrates a different application of the conservation strategy
proposed in this bill. However, in the absence of a statutory change, the concepts
of advance mitigation and RCIS would not be available.
In Yolo County, a pilot regional conservation framework will serve as a
complement to the Yolo County habitat plans, and, if approved, will have a
steering committee that includes the California Natural Resources Agency and
AB 2087
Page 7
Yolo County representatives. It is designed to assist a multi-agency flood
control and habitat restoration effort in the Yolo Bypass.
In Antelope Valley, a regional conservation plan would build on the work of the
Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan to facilitate siting and advance
mitigation for renewable energy facilities. This pilot has been convened by the
Desert and Mountains Conservation Authority.
In the Bay Area, a nine-county Regional Conservation Assessment and two
regional conservation planning efforts were begun earlier this year, building on
a commitment from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the State
Coastal Conservancy to work with local agencies and nonprofits as well as the
Department of Transportation to facilitate possible advance mitigation for
transportation projects.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, approximately $675,000 in
year one, and $987,000 annually (special fund) to develop guidelines and
administer the program, some or all of which may be recovered through fees plus
unknown, potentially significant savings to state agencies using the framework for
conservation efforts, infrastructure planning, or mitigation.
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/22/16)
Audubon California
Big Sur Land Trust
Bolsa Chica Land Trust
California Trout
Defenders of Wildlife
East Bay Regional Park District
Greenbelt Alliance
Hills for Everyone
Laguna Greenbelt, Inc.
Land Trust of Santa Cruz County
Local Government Commission
Marin Agricultural Land Trust
Mojave Desert Land Trust
Open Space Authority of Santa Clara Valley
Pacific Forest Trust
Pathways for Wildlife
Placer Land Trust
AB 2087
Page 8
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Business Council
Sierra Foothill Conservancy
Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District
The Nature Conservancy
Transition Habitat Conservancy
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
Truckee Donner Land Trust
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/22/16)
California Apartment Association
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Construction Industry Materials Association
San Diego Regional Chamber
Large Scale Solar Association
Sierra Club California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, AB 2087 establishes a
new conservation planning tool that will identify wildlife and habitat conservation
needs and priorities in a region, help guide infras tructure planning and
development, and improve the effectiveness of public expenditures for wildlife
conservation. This process will also help to identify potential advance mitigation
solutions for large-scale pub lic infrastructure projects. RCIS s will identify wildlife,
fisheries, and habitat conservation needs, including actions to address climate
change and other stressors in order to guide public investments in conservation,
infrastructure planning, compensatory mitigation for threatened and endangered
species, and wildlife and fisheries recovery strategies.
The author also stresses the importance of allowing conservation actions to be
implemented in accordance with an approved RCIS , and in advance of project
impacts, to be used to obtain mitigation credits to fulfill, in whole or in part,
mitigation requirements for a project, if the permitting agency determines that the
conservation action provides suitable mitigation and complies with other
provisions of state law.
Other supporters welcome the new planning tool not only to map natural resources
across the region, but also to identify actions that will promote regional
conservation. Many supporters also welcome the ability to undertake advance
AB 2087
Page 9
mitigation for projects although that is not a requirement of the bill which remains
a voluntary, non-regulatory tool.
Most supporters pointed to the fact that the bill could help guide development
away from sensitive habitat while also adopting a more comprehensive approach to
mitigation.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Building Industry
Association is concerned that the bill could undermine NCCP, Habitat
Conservation Plan, and mitigation banking provisions. It, along with a coalition,
objects to what it calls the possibility that DFW could unilat erally adopt plans that
call for conservation of vast tracks of public and private land even if these lands
are already in general plans and zoned for development. The coalition believes the
state has comprehensive conservation and mitigation banking statutes, and that this
bill prioritizes conservation over housing, agriculture, manufacturing, and
transportation.
Large Scale Solar Association argues the bill provides “unprecedented” new
authority to create RCISs and has inadequate criteria for what lands warrant
conservation so that the bill could adversely affect renewable energy siting or other
important infrastructure. It questions the adequacy of the scientific thresholds, the
public process, and wants the bill limited to public projects, not those ad vocated by
the private sector.
Sierra Club California opposed the previous version of the bill, and instead would
support strengthening existing conservation programs including NCCPs and
mitigation banks. It believes the bill is weaker than NCCPs and it also believes that
reliance on mitigation is misplaced because developers should first try to avoid
impacts. It would prefer a public process regarding the appropriateness of
mitigation credits for a given project. It is not clear if the Sierra Club is an active
opponent.
Although not in formal opposition, the California Farm Bureau has expressed
concerns about impacts of the bill on private landowners.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 52-20, 6/2/16
AYES: Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon,
Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray,
Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones -Sawyer, Levine, Lopez, Low,
Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Ridley-
AB 2087
Page 10
Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber,
Williams, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Brough, Chang, Chávez, Dahle, Grove,
Harper, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson,
Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bigelow, Cooper, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher,
Linder, Olsen, Steinorth
Prepared by: William Craven / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116
8/22/16 22:41:45
**** END ****
SB 1069
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1069 (Wieckowski)
As Amended August 25, 2016
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 29-3
Committee Votes Ayes Noes
Housing 6-0 Chiu, Steinorth, Burke, Chau,
Lopez, Mullin
Local Government 6-2 Eggman, Alejo, Bonilla, Chiu,
Cooley, Linder
Waldron, Beth Gaines
Appropriations 15-3 Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonilla,
Bonta, Calderon, Daly, Eggman,
Eduardo Garcia, Holden, Quirk,
Santiago, Wagner, Weber,
Wood, Chu
Bigelow, Jones, Obernolte
SUMMARY: Makes a number of changes to state law regarding second units. Specifically,
this bill:
1) Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding the importance of Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs) as an essential element of the state's housing supply.
2) Replaces "second units" with "ADUs" throughout the chapter.
3) Requires a local agency, in its ADU ordinance, to do the following:
a) Designate areas within the jurisdiction where ADUs may be permitted, which may be
based upon criteria including but not limited to the adequacy of water and sewer services
and the impact of ADUs on traffic flow and public safety.
b) Impose standards on ADUs including but not limited to parking, height, setback, lot
coverage, architectural review, and maximum size of the unit.
c) Provide that ADUs do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the second
unit is located, and that the ADU is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning
designation for the lot.
4) Requires a local agency with an ADU ordinance to c onsider permits within 120 days of
submittal of a complete building permit application.
5) Requires a local agency that has not adopted an ADU ordinance to ministerially approve the
creation of an ADU if the ADU meets the following requirements:
a) The unit is not intended for sale separate from the primary residence and may be rented.
b) The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use.
SB 1069
Page 2
c) The lot contains an existing single -family dwelling.
d) The ADU is either attached to the existing dwelling and located within the living area of
the existing dwelling or detached and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling.
e) The increased floor area of an attached ADU shall not exceed 50% of the existing living
area, with a maximum increase in floor area of 1,200 square feet.
f) The total area floor space of the ADU shall not exceed 1,200 square feet.
g) Requirements relating to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, site plan
review, fees, charges, and other zoning requirements generally applicable to residential
construction in the zone in which the property is located.
h) Local building code requirements, that apply to detached dwellings as appropriate.
i) Approved by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being
used.
6) Removes the exemption for a local agency to adopt an ADU ordinance upon findings that the
ordinance may limit housing opportunities of the region, and further contains findings that
specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare would result.
7) Provides that a local agency may establish maximum and minimum unit size requirements
for both attached and detached ADUs, however no maximum or minimum size for an ADU,
or size based upon a percentage of the existing dwelling unit, shall be established by
ordinance for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an efficiency
unit to be constructed in compliance with local development standards.
8) Provides that no additional standards, other than those in this section, shall be utilized or
imposed to evaluate proposed ADUs, except that a local agency may require an applicant for
a permit to be an owner-occupant or that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than
30 days.
9) Removes the provision permitting additional parking upon a findin g that additional parking is
required related to the use of the ADU and consistent with existing neighborhood standards.
10) States that parking requirements may be provided as tandem parking in an existing driveway.
11) Provides that offstreet parking must be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by
the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in
setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon fire and life safety conditions.
12) Prohibits a local agency from imposing parking standards for an ADU in any of the
following instances:
i) The ADU is located within ½ mile of public transit;
ii) The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic
district;
SB 1069
Page 3
iii) The ADU is part of an existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure;
iv) When on-street parking permits are required, but not offered to the occupant of the
ADU; or
v) When there is a car-share vehicle located within one block of the ADU.
13) Provides that ADUs shall not be considered new residential uses for the purposes of
calculating local agency connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and
sewer service.
14) Requires ministerial approval by a local agency for a building permit to create an ADU if t he
ADU is contained within an existing single -family home, has independent exterior access
from the existing residence, and the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety.
ADUs shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not re quired for the primary
residence.
a) For above-described ADUs contained within an existing single-family home, a local
agency shall not require the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection
directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility or impose a related
connection fee or capacity charge
15) Allows, for ADUs not described in 15) above, a local agency to require a new or separate
utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility. Consistent
with Government Code Section 66013, the connection may be subject to a connection fee or
capacity charge that shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed ADU, based upon
either its size or the number of its plumbing fixtures, upon the water or sewer system. This
fee or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.
16) Provides that no reimbursement is required because a local agency or school district has the
authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
level of service mandated by this act.
17) Incorporates amendments to avoid chaptering conflicts with AB 2299 (Bloom) of the current
legislative session.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate
Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS:
Background: ADUs, which are referred to in existing law as "second units", are additional living
quarters on single-family lots that are independent of the primary dwelling unit. Also known as
accessory apartments, accessory dwellings, mother-in -law units, or granny flats, ADUs are either
attached or detached to the primary dwelling unit, and provide complete independent living
facilities for one or more person. This includes permanent provisions for living, sleep ing, eating,
cooking, and sanitation.
In 2002, AB 1866 (Wright), Chapter 1062, required local governments to use a ministerial
process for approving ADUs, notwithstanding other laws that regulate the issuance of variances
SB 1069
Page 4
or special use permits. A local government may provide for the construction of ADUs by
ordinance, and may designate areas where ADUs are allowed, as well as require standards for
parking, setback, lot coverage, and maximum size. If a local government has not adopted an
ordinance governing ADUs, it must grant a variance or special use permit for the creation of
ADUs if the unit complies with requirements specified in statute, including size and zoning
restrictions.
University of California (UC) Berkeley ADU study : According to a UC Berkeley study, Yes in
My Backyard: Mobilizing the Market for Secondary Units by Karen Chapple, second units are a
means to accommodate future growth and encourage infill development in developed
neighborhoods. The study, which evaluated five adjacent cities in the East Bay, concluded that
there is substantial market of interested homeowners; cities could reduce parking requirements
without contributing to parking issues; second units could accommodate future growth and
affordable housing; and that scaling up second unit strategy could mean economic and fiscal
benefits for cities.
Despite existing state law, which requires each city in the state to have a ministerial process for
approving second units, the study found that local regulations often impede development.
Easing these burdens to permit more ADUs could permit a family to rent out the unit (about 49%
of the units) or provide housing for a family member (about 51% of the units). In fact, the study
found that the average second unit was advertised at a rental rate that makes it affordable to a
household earning 62% of the area median income.
This bill implements several policy recommendations from this study by easing the most
significant barriers to the construction and permitting of ADUs. These cha nges include:
a) Provides alternatives and exceptions to parking requirements, such as the case of an ADU
located near public transit or if the ADU is part of an existing dwelling.
b) Requires a local agency with an ADU ordinance to consider permits within 120 days of
submittal of a complete building permit application.
c) Increases the size of an ADU from 30% of the existing dwelling to 50%, with a
maximum increase in floor area of 1,200 square feet.
d) Removes the ability of a local agency to adopt an ordinance that completely precludes the
construction of ADUs.
e) Requires ministerial approval of an ADU contained within an existing single -family
home that has independent access from the existing residence and has rear and side
setbacks sufficient for fire safety, and removes the requirement for an ADU to have fire
sprinklers if they were not required for the primary residence.
f) Allows a local agency to require an applicant for a permit to be an owner -occupant or that
the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days.
Need for this bill: According to the author,
"In a 2015 Legislative Analyst's Office report, the Legislature was advised to facilitate the
development of significantly more private homes and apartments in California. The lack of
SB 1069
Page 5
housing in California has caused a crisis harming communities and families throughout the state.
The average California home currently costs about two and half times the national average home
price. A person earning minimum wage must work three full-time jobs in order to afford a two-
bedroom unit. In California's more heavily populated metropolitan areas, a minimum wage
worker would have to pick up a fourth and fifth job to afford the same two -bedroom unit.
Throughout the state, the bottom 25% of income earners spends 67% of their income on housing.
The high cost of housing is one of the biggest drivers of institutional and generational poverty
cycles and will not be resolved until more housing can be developed, especially close to jobs and
schools which is consistent with State SB 375 [(Steinberg), Chapter 728, Statutes o f 2008]
Climate Change Planning Goals. The Legislative Analyst's Office has advised that it is
imperative the Legislature facilitate the development of significantly more housing to address the
affordability crisis.
"Accessory dwellings provide part of the solution to the housing crisis. They are the only source
of housing that can be added within a year at an affordable price, in existing developed
communities served by infrastructure consistent with SB 375, without public subsidy, and action
by the State on a few issues will make this possible for tens of thousands of owners to
immediately benefit and help their communities. The importance of ADUs as a critical source of
infill housing and the barriers preventing them have been documented in studies from UC
Berkeley and UCLA [University of California, Los Angeles] including Yes in My Backyard by
Karen Chapple.
"SB 1069 proposes a common-sense, cost-effective approach that will allow homeowners to
share empty rooms in their homes and property, add incomes to meet family budgets, improve
the safety of accessory dwellings, and make good use of existing infill property across California
while easing the housing crisis. The Governor supported the bill on page 52 of the May Revision
of the 2016 Budget, stating that this bill will increase the state's housing supply without creating
a state reimbursable mandate."
Administration Support : According to the Governor's 2016 -17 May Revision:
"The Administration is also supportive of other initiatives to increase housing supply where such
initiatives do not create a state reimbursable mandate. This includes using inventory such as
accessory dwelling units (additional living quarters on single -family lots that are independent of
the primary dwelling unit). …Policies can increase the availability of accessory dwelling units
with expanded ministerial approval, shortened permitting timelines, reduced duplicative fees,
and relaxed parking requirements, consistent with the principles identified by SB 1069 (2016).
The state can further increase supply by eliminating overly burdensome requirements for
accessory dwelling units identified by AB 2299 (2016), such as passageways to public streets
and setbacks of five feet from lot lines."
Re lated legislation:
AB 2299 (Bloom) of the current legislative session: Would require, rather than permit, a local
government to adopt an ordinance for the creation of second units in single -family and
multifamily residential zones. Would restrict the sta ndards local governments may impose on
second units by prohibiting imposition of parking requirements on second units within a half-
mile of transit, shopping, or within a historic district, constraining the setbacks that local
governments may require, and repealing ability to prohibit second units. The bill is pending on
the Senate Floor.
SB 1069
Page 6
AB 2406 (Thurmond) of the current legislative session: Would allow local agencies to adopt an
ordinance that authorizes the construction of "junior accessory dwelling units" of 500 square feet
or less and includes standards that local agencies may adopt regarding those units. The bill is
pending a concurrence vote on the Assembly Floor.
Analysis Prepared by: Rebecca Rabovsky / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0004935
SB 1298
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1298 (Hertzberg)
As Amended August 11, 2016
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 39-0
Committee Votes Ayes Noes
Local Government 5-3 Eggman, Bonilla, Chiu, Cooley,
Gordon
Waldron, Beth Gaines,
Linder
SUMMARY: Makes changes to the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act.
Specifically, this bill:
1) Adds a definition for "sewer" to the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act, to mean
"services and systems provided by all real estate, fixtures, and personal property owned,
controlled, operated, or managed in connection with or to facilitate sewage c ollection,
treatment, or disposition for sanitary or drainage purposes, including lateral and connecting
sewers, interceptors, trunk and outfall lines, sanitary sewage treatment or disposal plants or
works, drains, conduits, outlets for surface water or storm waters, and any and all other
works, property, or structures necessary or convenient for the collection or disposal of
sewage, industrial waste, or surface water or storm waters." Prohibits "sewer system" from
including a sewer system that merely collects sewage on the property of a single owner.
2) Makes findings and declarations pertaining to Proposition 218 and storm water and drainage
runoff.
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS:
1) Financing Water Infrastructure . Local governments in California provide most water
related services in the state which include water service, sewer service, flood control, and
stormwater management. A Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) report, Paying for
Water in California, outlines four sources of funding currently used for water in California:
a) Fees, which include water and waste water bills, property assessments or fees, developer
or connection fees, and permitting fees; b) Taxes, which include both general and special
taxes, including parcel taxes; c) Fines and penalties, which include excessive pumping on
groundwater or directly to customers in violation of rationing restrictions during drought
emergencies; and, d) Bonds, which include general obligation and revenue bonds. Local
agencies frequently point to the series of constitutional reforms, Proposition 13 (1978),
Proposition 218 (1996), and Proposition 26 (2010), that have made it increasingly more
difficult to generate the necessary revenue to fund the costs of providing water and other
essential services.
On January 17, 2014, the Governor declared a state of emergency in California due to severe
drought conditions. In addition to challenges presented by the drought, local governments
face several barriers to funding for stormwater and dry weather runoff projects due to the
constitutional requirements for special taxes, benefit assessments, and property-related fees.
SB 1298
Page 2
Many of the local governments that operate MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm System)
systems differ from water and wastewater utilities that existed prior to the passage of
Proposition 218, which have in place service fees. On the other hand, many stormwater
programs in cities and counties are funded by the general fund, primarily through property
and local sales taxes. As regulatory burdens continue to increase, financially strapped local
governments are forced to examine alternative funding mechanisms and regional strategies to
address MS4 costs, which some cities in Los Angeles County are citing to be in the millions
of dollars.
2) Proposition 218. Proposition 218 distinguishes among taxes, assessments and fees for
property-related revenues, and requires certain actions before such revenues may be
collected. Counties and other local agencies with police powers may impose any one of
these options on property owners, after completing the Proposition 218 process. Special
districts created by statute, however, must have specific authority for each of these revenue
sources.
The Constitution defines a fee (or charge) as any levy other than an ad valorem tax, special
tax, or assessment that is imposed by a local government on a parcel or on a person as an
incident of property ownership, including a user fee for a property-related service. The fee
imposed on any parcel or person cannot exceed the proportional cost of the service that is
attributable to the parcel. Prior to imposing or increasing a property-related fee, the local
government is required to identify the parcels, mail a written notice to all the property owners
subject to the fee detailing the amount of the fee, the reason for the fee, and the date, time,
and location of a public hearing on the proposed fee. No sooner than 45 days after mailing
the notice to property owners, the agency must conduct a public hearing on the proposed fee.
If a majority of owners of the identified parcels provide written protests against the fee, it
cannot be imposed or increased by the agency.
Additionally, the California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6, subdivision (c) provides
election requirements, "Except for fees or charges for sewer, water, and refuse collection
services, no property-related fee or charge shall be imposed or increased unless and until that
fee or charge is submitted and approved by a majority vote of the property owners o f the
property subject to the fee or charge or, at the option of the agency, by a two -thirds vote of
the electorate residing in the affected area." The election for the fee is required to be
conducted no less than 45 days following the public hearing.
The definition of "water" and "sewer" under the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation
Act are significant because the election requirements are on fees for services other than
water, sewer, and trash services.
3) Bill Summary. This bill adds a definition for "sewer" to the Proposition 218 Omnibus
Implementation Act. The definition of "water" and "sewer" under the Proposition 218
Omnibus Implementation Act is significant because the election requirements are on fees for
services other than water, sewer, and trash services. This bill provides a definition of
"sewer" in the Act using the definition of sewer from the Public Utilities Code. This bill is
sponsored by the Water Foundation.
4) Author's Statement. According to the author, "Proposition 218, approved in 1996, was
meant to improve transparency and accountability of local government fees. Some court
interpretations of the law have constrained important tools we need to manage water supplies
SB 1298
Page 3
and address water pollution... These tools are needed now more than ever because California
remains in an historic five-year drought.
"Stormwater is a key source of local water supply, and careful management is necessary to
reduce pollution. Currently, stormwater and flood control programs must meet a higher
standard than other services to raise capital, thus preventing many important projects from
being built. SB 1298 addresses these issues by adding missing definitions and direction on
the interpretation of Proposition 218 while ma intaining transparency and accountability. SB
1298 defines "sewer service" to include stormwater so local governments can build and
finance those projects."
5) Prior Legislation and Ballot Measures . AB 1362 (Gordon) of 2015, would have provided
a definition for "stormwater" to mean "any system of public improvements, or service
intended to provide for the quality, conservation, control, or conveyance of waters that land
on or drain across the natural or man-made landscape" in the Proposition 218 Omnibus
Implementation Act. AB 1362 would have only become operative if a constitutional
amendment was approved by the voters. The introduced version of AB 1362 was
subsequently amended into a different issue area to address mosquito and vector control
districts.
AB 2403 (Rendon), Chapter 78, Statutes of 2014, expanded the definition of "water" in the
Proposition 218 of 1996 Omnibus Implementation Act.
The League of California Cities, California Association of Counties and Association of
California Water Agencies filed a ballot initiative, California Water Conservation, Flood
Control and Stormwater Management Act of 2016. The proposed constitutional amendment
addressed the same three issues and this bill seeks to address with a majority vote bill. The
proponents of the initiative declined to move forward after doing polling research.
6) Arguments in Support. The Water Foundation argues, "While hundreds of California's cities,
counties, and stormwater districts face federal mandates to reduce stromwatr pollution and
are under pressure to seek new sources of local water supply, only a handful of them have
been able to collect funds to meet these needs. Drinking water and sanitary sewer services,
however, have not suffered such problems. SB 1298 simply clarifies t hat stormwater is an
integral part of both sewer and water systems and that its management should be held to the
same high standards of transparency and accountability."
7) Arguments in Opposition. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association argues, "SB 1298 will
only lead to unnecessary litigation against municipalities. Should SB 1298 be signed into
law and adopted by local agencies, a precedent setting victory invalidating this clearly
unconstitutional bill would be followed by copycat lawsuits that impose retroactive refunds
and attorney fees on public treasuries all across California."
Analysis Prepared by: Misa Lennox / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0004200