Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05041999 - SD4 Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ' �- ':+ : �`. Costa. FROM: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE County COMMITTEE Supervisor Donna Gerber, Chair Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier MATE= May 4, 1999 SUBJECT: REPORT FROM TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF POSITIONS ON WATER RELATED LEGISLATION SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION i .CC}MM NDATIQN,S: Consider adopting positions for the following legislation related to water supply and land use. 0 AB 1219 (Kuehl) OPPOSE Requires modification of the land use planning process and modification of the Subdivision Map Act to allow preparation time for and inclusion of water supply assessments for developments in General Plans, zoning and other land use decision processes, requiring land use decision consistency with water assessment findings. ® SB 1130 (Costa) WATCH/MONITOR Requires additional information to be included in a urban water management plan for areas using groundwater, and requires any city or county to include a water supply assessment in an environmental document prepared for a project. s AB 1277 (Thomson) NO POSITION Requires LAFCO to make determinations regarding water supply as part of their sphere of influence or other land use decisions. FISCAL IME!ACT - None .y z CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT. YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S): SUPERVISOR DONNA GERBER, CHAIR SUPERVISOR MARK DESAULNIER ACTION OF BOARD ON ._ OTHER s REF=ERRED back to the Transportation, Water and in-rastructure Committee, that Committee to provide the Board with recommendations when the Committee has reached a consensus. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRITE UNANIMOUS (ASSENT NONE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ASSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUP VISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Roberta Goulart (925-335-'1226) ATTE.STE � � cc: Community Development Department (CDD) HIL BATCHELOR, CLER O l County Administrator Office THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Adaption of Positions on Water Related Legislation —2 May 4, 1999 The three bills described above have been initiated by EBMUD, to orchestrate increased involvement of water suppliers in the land use planning process. As you may recall, after difficulties were encountered by EBMUD in the Dougherty Valley planning process, EBMUD initiated and Costa sponsored SB 901,which was passed by the legislature in 1995, requiring increased attention to water supply as part of the planning process. EBMUD is of the opinion that SB 901 has not been fully effective in establishing the "water supply and land use planning link". The three proposed bills use different methods to accomplish the increased interaction of land use and water supply. AB 1219 by Kuehl, revues the land use permitting (and Subdivision Map Act) processes, the environmental review process is the focus of the SB 1130, and AB 1277 revises the LAFCO annexation process. All bills have the common theme of requiring a water assessment in the absence of a current urban water management plan which includes the proposed development. The water supplier has 90 days to prepare the assessment, and if an assessment is not forthcoming, one must be prepared (again within a 90 day time frame) by the California Department of Water Resources. Decisions in any of the three scenarios must be made in accordance with prioritization of water categories; prioritization gives highest priority to existing customers, then future expected customers within the service area, future expected customers within the sphere of influence, and last, future customers outside the sphere of influence. Decisions by a planning agency or LAFCO would be required to be in accordance with the water supply availability findings contained in the assessment, under AB 1219 and AB 1277. AB 1219, sponsored by Kuehl, proposes significant change to land use planning agency activities, (and even some reporting requirements for real estate transactions). The bill would require incorporation of water supply assessments in city/county General Plans. Planning Commission recommendations for amendments to the zoning ordinance would be required to be consistent with findings contained within the water supply assessment. The Planning Commission must also include prioritized categories for water service. Cities and Counties within the Delta are specifically referenced, and would be required to incorporate a detailed report evaluating potential discharges of potential projects from which runoff could affect drinking water sources. In circumstances where tentative map applications are deemed complete, notice would be sent within 5 days to the water provider for a water supply assessment. In all circumstances, if a water supply assessment for the area is over three years old, a new assessment would be prepared by the water supplier within 90 days. If the water supplier does not provide the assessment, the Department of Water Resources must provide one, again within a 90 day time frame. This bill (AB 1219), would require denial at the tentative (or parcel) map stage, in circumstances where water supply is deemed insufficient, rather than the existing practice of conditioning the tentative map to provide adequate water supply prior to final map approval. The legislation states that decisions must be in accordance with prioritization of water categories, as described above. In those cases where it has been determined that insufficient supply exists, the city/county can work with the applicant and water supplier on alternative long-term sources. The legislation would amend the provision contained within the Subdivision Map Act which provides for automatic approval if no action is taken by the city/county legislative body within the prescribed time frame. The legislation also details components of a plan to be adopted (assumed to be provided by the water supplier), includingwater supply, demand, demand management, including water conservation requirements, conservation (tiered) pricing, and many other components, combined with land use and population data. 2 K"! �':sd Adoptions of Positions on wafer Related Legislation ,may 4, 1999 SB 1130, sponsored by Costa, requires additional information to be included in an urban water management plan for areas using groundwater, and would require the plan to be incorporated into the California Environmental Quality Act process. When a city or county has determined that CEQA applies to a project (as defined in this legislation), the water supplier is contacted and asked if projected water demand for the subject project has been assessed in the urban water management plan. As with the Bother bills, the water supplier has 90 days to provide the assessment, and if one is not forthcoming, a request is made to the Department of Water Resources, which in turn, has 90 days to provide it. The bill would require the city or county to include the water supply assessment in any environmental document prepared for the project. If water supply is determined to be insufficient, the water supplier would indicate how it intends to acquire additional supply, and provide detail on cost, permitting requirements, and time frame to acquire additional supplies. In this legislation, the city or county maintains the right to determine, based on the entire record, if sufficient water is available to serve the project. As with the other bills, this is a state-mandated local program and (theoretically) subject to costreimbursement. AB 1277, sponsored by Helen Thomson, requires LAFCO to make determinations regarding water supply for new areas before making their respective sphere of influence or other land use-related decisions. In circumstances where the local agency applicant is also a water supplier, the latest urban Water Management Plan is needed and a determination must be made as to whether the projected water supply was included in the region to be annexed. LAFCO would need to mare a determination as to whether the water supplies projected as part of the Plan are sufficient, before making a sphere (or other) determination. The local agency applicant would be required to submit a water supply assessment with the otherwise required resolution of application. The state Department of Water Resources would be asked to prepare the assessment if one was not forthcoming from the local agency/water supplier. The LAFCO Executive Officer would be required to prepare a report including the water supply assessment. If insufficient supply exists, the bill requires that instead of the current emphasis on planning for additional supply, the public water system is asked to prioritize categories of water service to customers, or potential customers, and LAFCO determinations would be consistent with these priorities. While it is understood that water supply considerations are an extremely important part of land use planning activities, significant unfavorable impacts to cities and counties would occur with passage of AB 1219, in terms of cost, permit streamlining considerations, and in impacting the ability of these agencies to do their respective mandated tasks. These bills make sweeping changes to existing regulations, with far reaching and largely unknown impacts. While water supply matters are important, and should be considered throughout California as a matter of course, this bill is not the vehicle by which to accomplish this, as it contradicts long-term efforts to streamline the permit process. Any changes to the Subdivision Map Act time frames should be considered in a comprehensive context, with simplification and expedition of the process as a priority. Water supply is but one of many components to be considered in the land use permitting process. The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee recommends OPPOSITION to AB 1219, and a WATCH position on SB 1130 Costa (while this bill appears to be a more reasonable approach to gain a higher level of coordination on water supply matters, a watch position is recommended in order to monitor amendments and consider revision of the 180-day time frame for provision of the assessment) at this time. NO POSITION is recommended on AB 1277 Thomson at this time in order to consider CAL LAFCO's position on this bill. i=3