BILL ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER | | Senator Fran Pavley, Chair | | 2009-2010 Regular Session | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- BILL NO: AB 300 HEARING DATE: July 6, 2009 AUTHOR: Caballero URGENCY: No VERSION: June 30, 2009 CONSULTANT: Dennis O'Connor DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes SUBJECT: Subdivisions: water supply. BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW In 2001, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed Senator Kuehl's SB 221 (Stats. 2001, c. 642) and Senator Costa's SB 610 (Stats. 2001, c. 643). SB 221 amended the Subdivision Map Act to require, as a condition of approval of a tentative map for subdivisions exceeding 500 residential units, written verification from the applicable public water system that a sufficient water supply will be available to serve the subdivision. SB 610, among other things, amended the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Part 2.10 of the Water Code (Water Supply Planning to Support Existing and Planned Future Uses) to require any city or county that determines a project is subject to CEQA, to require a water supply assessment. PROPOSED LAW This bill would: 1.Require that the water supply assessments mandated by SB 221 and SB 610 be based on the anticipated water demand for the project, given planned water demand reduction actions contained in an adopted urban water management plan and current statutory, regulatory, and local ordinance requirements, reduced by the amount of voluntary demand management measures. 2.Define voluntary water demand management measures as water use efficiency measures that are permanently fixed to residential, commercial, industrial, or other real property that will 1 reduce the subdivision's water demand below the applicable statutory, regulatory, and local ordinance requirements for water conservation. 3.Allow voluntary mitigation measures to include water conservation offsets that minimize a percentage of a project's impact on the public water system, as determined by the applicant and agreed upon by the public water system. The applicant would be allowed to enter into a mutual agreement with the public water system to mitigate water demand associated with a proposed subdivision by depositing funds into a Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund. 4.Require that the water savings projection attributable to voluntary demand management measures be contained in the written verification and be verified for accuracy by the public water system, or, if there is no public water system, the local agency. 5.Require the projected water savings to be calculated using either water efficiency program data compiled or maintained by the public water system or water savings projections adopted by the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC). If a project applicant proposes to use a new voluntary water demand management measure for which neither the CUWCC nor the public water system has adopted an estimate or method to calculate the projected water savings of the proposed voluntary water demand management measure, the projected water savings would be made based on documented methodologies or calculations submitted in the record. 6.Require, if the written verification of a sufficient water supply relies on the use of voluntary demand management measures: The written verification to be conditioned on the maintenance and operation of the voluntary demand management measures, or measures that are at least as water efficient, as agreed to by the applicant and the public water system, and the recordation as a covenant running with the land. The recorded covenant to include a notice of the existence of the maintenance manual and the obligation of the purchaser to obtain the maintenance manual from the seller. Each purchaser, by acceptance of a deed to a lot, acknowledge the obligation to comply with the voluntary demand management measures for the lot as described in the 2 covenant. The covenant and its obligations to be in effect for the time period used by the public water system for determining the water savings attributable to the demand management measures but not exceeding 20 years. The requirements under these provisions to be included with the original sales documentation and shall acknowledged by the purchaser. The seller shall instruct the original purchaser to provide the maintenance manual to any subsequent purchaser. A builder, prior to the close of escrow, to give to a purchaser information that shall be included in a maintenance manual that informs the purchaser of the existence of the home's unique water saving devices, including information regarding their benefits, maintenance requirements, and proper use. The public water system would be allowed to enforce the covenant pursuant to its existing authority. 1.Deem that a water supply assessment, completed pursuant to the requirements of SB 610, satisfies the requirement for a water supply assessment under SB 221 unless the public water system receives significant new information that becomes available and that was not known and could not be known at the time when the assessment was prepared. 2.Require the public water system, five years after the project has been fully developed, to include in its next urban water management plan a report on the monitoring and compliance of voluntary water demand management measures and determine whether they have resulted in the water savings necessary to achieve the agreed upon water demand offsets. 3.Sunset these provisions in 2017. 4.Make numerous findings and declarations regarding the importance of encouraging permanent water conservation practices beyond those required under current law. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT According to a coalition of building and business interests, "For years, homebuilders have employed systems and technologies to reduce water demand in new homes, including installation of ultra-low flow toilets and showerheads, weather-based landscape irrigation controllers, drought tolerant plants, recycled water systems, rainwater capture and reuse systems along with low 3 impact development strategies and other sustainable features. However, local agencies do not always take into consideration the existence and use of voluntary water savings devices. Instead, current water demand projections may rely on out-dated consumption models that do not reflect actual water use in proposed subdivisions". "AB 300 ensures that homebuilders and commercial developers who employ voluntary water demand measures, receive reasonable credit for their savings in connection with water-demand assessments and verifications done during the entitlement process. The public water agency would maintain control of the water assessment and would simply be required to consider an applicant's use of voluntary conservation measures in a new housing or mixed use development. AB 300 requires the voluntary water demand measures employed by the builder to be permanently affixed to the property." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION Opponents support the intent of AB 300 to encourage water efficient development by allowing water-savings resulting from "voluntary" water conservation measures to be credited in a water supply assessment and water supply verification for that development. However, they have serious concerns about specific aspects of the bill. A coalition of environmental organizations is concerned that, "In its current version, AB 300 would thwart the effective enforcement of these promised extraordinary water savings. Relying on a deed restriction that only requires the homeowner to read a maintenance manual about in-home conservation measures and the homeowner's knowledge of this deed restriction is not an effective tool for achieving compliance with these promises. Relying on the water utility to police neighborhoods, looking for landscaping on individual homes that may exceed the allotted water demand is not at all realistic, results in government intrusion into the home, and is extremely expensive to the utility. This approach would also adversely impact all the other ratepayers who would share in paying for the additional enforcement staff required to police the new subdivisions." East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) asserts, "The most effective compliance strategy for ensuring that promised water savings will be maintained over the course of changes in property ownership is through the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). CC&Rs establish the "rules of conduct" in the development, and enforcement of the CC&Rs by the [Homeowner 4 Association (HOA)] is established practice. Since most new 500-unit residential subdivisions include an HOA, the use of CC&Rs provides a reliable and efficient means for enforcement. HOAs are locally managed by the homeowners within the new subdivision. They are located in the neighborhood, closest to the properties, and are in the best position to verify that homeowners are abiding by their promises concerning property landscaping and water usage. Homeowners within a common interest development already understand their obligation to conform to the CC&Rs, and have a reasonable expectation that the HOA will enforce the rules for the collective benefit of the subdivision." COMMENTS Designing for Conservation. Many water conservation technologies are relatively inexpensive to install when a structure is being constructed, but are expensive to install as a retrofit. If builders get credit for voluntarily installing water conservation devices, they're more likely to design their projects to include them. Ensuring Permanent is Permanent. All parties agree that it is critical that the voluntary water demand measures employed by the builder be permanent. The key issue in dispute is what is the best way to ensure that actually occurs? The author and sponsors assert the best method is to record a covenant that runs with the title that would prevent any future owner from removing or disabling the water conservation features. The opponents counter that the best way is to incorporate the restrictions in the CC&Rs and to use HOAs as the first line of enforcement. HOAs. Homeowner Associations have their fans and their critics. Fans note that HOAs provide people with shared neighborhood values an opportunity to enforce regulations to achieve a community reflecting those values. While an HOA inherently restricts the rights that would otherwise exist for its members based on city and county statutes, those very restrictions are often the reason people decide to move into such neighborhoods. Critics counter that many HOAs have excessively restrictive rules and regulations on how homeowners are allowed to conduct themselves and use their property. Due to their nature as a 5 non-governmental entity, HOA boards of directors are not bound by constitutional restrictions on governments, meetings are not open to the general public, etc, even though in many cases they are a de-facto level of government. Commitment In Local Government Committee. This bill was heard in the Senate Local Government Committee on 6/17/09. At that hearing, the author presented a number of author's amendments. The author also stated that while she agreed in concept to amending the bill to include "CC&R/Enforcement" language, final details were still being negotiated. Upon questioning by members of the Committee, the author clarified that she was not taking any CC&R enforcement language in our Committee, but was committing to do so in the next policy committee. The expectation of the Chair of the Local Government Committee is that the author would amend the bill in the Senate Natural Resources to enforce compliance with AB 300 through CC&Rs. According to the Chair, the only possible exception to taking amendments that include the use of enforceable CC&Rs would be if all of the parties involved in negotiating the language agree to some other enforcement provisions to amend into the bill. While the author has amended the bill after the bill left the Local Government Committee, the amendments do not enforce compliance with the provisions of the bill through CC&Rs. Moreover, many of the parties involved in negotiating the language disagree with the enforcement provisions amended into the bill. SUGGESTED AMENDMENT: Direct staff, in collaboration with staff of the Local Government Committee, to draft and process amendments to delete recent amendments that required the maintenance and operation of the voluntary demand management measures as a covenant running with the land and replace with language to enforce compliance with AB 300 through CC&Rs. SUPPORT California Building Industry Association California Chamber of Commerce California Business Properties Association California Alliance for Jobs California Apartment Association California Association of Realtors California Manufacturing and Technology Association American Council of Engineering Companies California 6 Associated General Contractors Western Electrical Contractors Association, Inc. OPPOSITION Clean Water Action Defenders of Wildlife East Bay Municipal Utility District Environment California Executive Council of Homeowners Food and Water Watch Heal the Bay Planning and Conservation League Sierra Club Urban Semillas California Association of Realtors (if amended to include HOA enforcement provisions) Executive Council of Homeowners (if amended to include HOA enforcement provisions) 7