BILL ANALYSIS
SB 833
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 833 (Natural Resources and Water Committee)
As Amended August 17, 2009
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :36-0
NATURAL RESOURCES 9-0 LOCAL GOVERNMENT 7-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Skinner, Gilmore, |Ayes:|Caballero, Knight, |
| |Brownley, Chesbro, De | |Arambula, Davis, Duvall, |
| |Leon, Hill, Huffman, | |De La Torre, Skinner |
| |Knight, Logue | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|De Leon, Conway, Ammiano, | | |
| |Charles Calderon, Coto, | | |
| |Davis, Duvall, Fuentes, | | |
| |Hall, Harkey, Miller, | | |
| |John A. Perez, Skinner, | | |
| |Solorio, Audra | | |
| |Strickland, Torlakson, | | |
| |Hill | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Makes technical and non-substantive changes to the
Public Resources Code, Government Code, and uncodified statutes
relating to mining; conservation lands; Native American
historical sites; tidelands and submerged lands; fire
protection; and, certified port master plans. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Specifies the information that must be included in a "Notice
of Reclamation Plan Approval," including the name of the owner
of the mine, the name of the lead agency, and the signature of
the lead agency representative.
2)Makes technical changes to the requirements governing the
submittal of a land appraisal for charitable contribution
purposes.
SB 833
Page 2
3)Specifies the information a property owner must record with a
county recorder in order to protect sites of Native American
remains. This information includes a description of the
property, the property owner's name and the property owner's
signature.
4)Specifies the viewshed that must be protected by limiting
building heights on Yerba Buena Island.
5)Revises the diagram in the Treasure Island Public Trust
Exchange Act depicting the trust exchange to reflect a change
in the location of the proposed Treasure Island ferry terminal
and other clarifications and corrections.
6)Further specifies the location of "paper streets" in the City
and County of San Francisco to be freed of public trust
restrictions.
7)Adds a diagram to Chapter 660, Statutes of 2007 depicting the
location of designated seawall lots the City and County of San
Francisco is authorized to lease free of public trust use
restrictions.
8)Clarifies that a person who owns, leases, operates or
maintains an occupied structure in an area covered with
flammable materials must maintain defensible space of 100 feet
from each side, including the front and rear, of the
structure. Adds a definition of "fuel" contained in existing
statute.
9)Corrects a reference in the Coastal Commission's statute
regarding amendments to certified port master plans.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975,
prohibits a person from conducting surface mining operations
without a permit from a lead agency and an approved
reclamation plan. Upon approval of a reclamation plan, a lead
agency is required to record a "Notice of Reclamation Plan
Approval" with a county recorder.
2)Requires an owner of real property who claims as a charitable
SB 833
Page 3
contribution lands acquired using state funds valued above
$5,000 to submit an appraisal of the land with the owner's
income tax return.
3)Requires a landowner to record the location of Native American
human remains with a county recorder under certain
circumstances and to protect the site of the remains.
4)Pursuant to the Treasure Island Public Trust Exchange Act,
authorizes the State Lands Commission to approve an exchange
of public trust lands on Treasure Island deemed not useful for
public trust purposes for non-public trust lands deemed useful
for the public trust.
5)Authorizes the City and County of San Francisco to lease,
sell, or otherwise transfer certain tidelands and submerged
lands known as "paper streets" in the City and County to any
person free of the public trust.
6)Requires a person who owns, leases, operates or maintains an
occupied structure in an area covered with flammable materials
to maintain defensible space no greater than 100 feet from
each side of the structure.
7)Provides that an amendment to a certified port master plan
must not take effect until certified by the California Coastal
Commission. The Executive Director of the Coastal Commission
may determine that an amendment is de minimis but three
members of the Coastal Commission may object to this
determination.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : This bill mostly makes technical, clarifying or
non-substantive changes to existing law requested by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (sections
2 and 4 of the bill; CDF), County Recorders Association of
California (sections 3 and 6), Franchise Tax Board (section 5),
California Coastal Commission (section 7), and City and County
of San Francisco (sections 8-11; City), and. The changes worth
highlighting include:
1)Sections 2 and 4 : SB 1595 in 2008 revised defensible space
SB 833
Page 4
requirement by mandating an owner of a structure to maintain
such space no greater than (emphasis added) 100 feet from each
side of the structure. This italicized language was added in
response to concerns that some insurance companies were
requiring policyholders to maintain defensible space greater
than 100 feet, which in some instances extended beyond
property lines. According to fire scientists, there is little
evidence that supports the efficacy of defensible space beyond
a 100-foot perimeter though more research in this area is
necessary. CDF has reported that this language has caused
some confusion regarding the exact amount of defensible space
required. This bill clarifies the 100 foot requirement, which
was the original intent of SB 1595.
2)Section 8 : Pursuant to SB 1873 in 2004, the Legislature
authorized the State Lands Commission to approve an exchange
of public trust lands on Treasure Island that are no longer
useful for public trust purposes for non-trust lands useful
for public trust purposes on Yerba Buena Island in order to
facilitate economic redevelopment, primarily residential
units, on the former. State law generally authorizes
exchanges of public trust and non-trust lands of equal value
whenever it is in the best interest of the state in
furtherance of the public trust.
SB 1873 required State Lands Commission to make other findings
including that "[s]ufficient building height limitations are
in place to ensure that views from public areas at Yerba Buena
Island are not obstructed." This bill lowers this standard by
limiting the protection of views to two specific vantage
points at two proposed hilltop public park areas. While this
may make it easier for the Commission to make this finding,
the City and County of San Francisco has not justified the
need to lower the standard. Furthermore, these parks have yet
to be created so it may not be appropriate to pre-judge which
views the public may value. Other land use statutes may allow
views to be considered for protection but it may not be
prudent not to create a potential statutory conflict. A
recent amendment adopted by the Natural Resources Committee,
however, expressly states that the bill does not limit the
authority of a public agency to impose additional or more
stringent height limitations on development on Yerba Buena
Island.
SB 833
Page 5
3)Section 9 : This section contains revisions to a map of
Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island that reflects the
exchange of public trust lands discussed above. The most
significant change is the addition of approximately 40 acres
to lands that are proposed to be removed from the public
trust. The City proposes to develop this area as a sport
complex, including recreational fields. The State Lands
Commission has consistently held such facilities are not an
allowable use of public trust lands since they principally
serve local communities, will not appeal to broader
constituents, and are not visitor-serving. In order to avoid
a potential legal conflict, State Lands Commission staff
agreed to instead remove these lands from the public trust
altogether since it believes that on balance the lands
proposed to be added to the trust continue to have greater
value than the lands proposed to be taken out.
Analysis Prepared by : Dan Chia / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092
FN:
0002520